That the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera Spanish Bible (hereafter RV1960) contains Critical Text corruption in it is an undeniable and irrefutable fact. Eugene Nida, the man who led the revision team of the RV1960 said so:
"Nevertheless in some instances where a critical text is so much preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus the committee did make some slight changes..." The Bible Translator, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1961, p. 113
Nida and the 1960 revisers didn’t deny this. Why would they? They believed in the Critical Text. They considered it superior to the Textus Receptus. Their school of thought was opposite to ours.
Dr. Jose Flores, who was one of the 1960 revisers, revealed:
"One principle added to the first list of the RV 1960 revision committee was that wherever the RV (1909) Version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text we did not return to the Receptus. Point 12 of the working principles states: in cases where there is a doubt over the correct translation of the original, we consulted preferentially The English Revised Version of 1885, The American Standard Version of 1901, The Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the International Critical Commentary." El Texto del Nuevo Testamento, by Jose Flores, p. 323
Even one of the most extreme proponents of the RV1960 named Calvin George is forced to admit that the Critical Text was incorporated in it:
"I believe Westcott & Hort texts can be consulted in the process of translating (such was the case in the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960)” The Battle for the Spanish Bible, by Calvin George, p.115
“There are a few translations in the 1909 and 1960 that may not be able to be traced to differences in TR editions, or semantics. A few departures come from a critical text.” The Battle for the Spanish Bible, by Calvin George, p. 42
“There were some departures from the Textus Receptus in the 1960, as Eugene Nida testifies” The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible, by Calvin George, p. 120
Despite knowing, however, that Textus Receptus readings in the RV1960 have been deliberately replaced with Critical Text ones (which is what we call “corruption”), Calvin George is so desperate to convince Bible-believing Christians to use it anyways instead of using a Spanish Bible that is 100% in conformity to the Received Texts, like the Reina Valera Gomez Bible (hereafter RVG). Out of desperation to create a false narrative that the RV 1960 is still not that bad despite the Critical Text, he has developed a strange way to defend the indefensible.
What Calvin George does throughout his books and many articles is point out flaws in other TR-based Bibles in times past which are identical to the flaws that we have pointed out in the RV1960. Then he insists that since such flaws existed in other Bible texts, which were for the most part TR-based, such flaws are not actually flaws at all. In other words, he insists that their location in another imperfect but TR-based Bible makes the Critical Text reading actually a Textus Receptus reading due to its location discovered in another imperfect TR-based text.
1st Peter 2:2
For example, in 1 Peter 2:2 the KJV says "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby".
The RV1960 edition does the same thing that the NIV, ASV, RSV, ESV, TEV, and the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses do by adding to the end of this verse the words "unto salvation" (para salvación), thus it reads "that ye may grow unto salvation". This Critical Text addition causes the passage to teach that salvation is a process, which makes salvation based in works rather than solely by grace through faith in Christ. This contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches in passages like Rom. 10:10-13 and Acts 16:31 and many others that state that salvation is instantaneous as soon a person calls upon the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. The words “unto salvation” is what textual critics call an “interpolation” and from a TR standpoint it is a terrible error which affects doctrine. What could be more important than the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in the LORD Jesus Christ, minus works?
Calvin George says that this erroneous addition to the word of God is OK because it can also be found in italics in the 1539 Great Bible and the 1568 Bishops Bible. Therefore, since this blatant Critical Text reading can be found in other TR-based English Bibles in the past, its presence in the Spanish Bible is justified and “vindicated” (that’s the word he likes to use).
To all of my true KJV Bible-believing friends reading this, Calvin George’s manipulative abuse of information here is obvious to us. He is simply justifying error with more error.
While it is true that the 1539 Great Bible and the 1568 Bishops Bible were for the most part Textus Receptus based English Bibles, there is a reason why no Bible-believer today uses them. There is a reason why these noble attempts to produce God’s words into English were replaced with the King James Version in 1611.
The KJV is the perfect word of God. Calvin George doesn’t believe that the KJV is perfect (just ask him). On the other hand, while the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, as well as the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles were all noble attempts to translate the Received Texts into English, none of them were perfect. The KJV translators stated in their preface that their attempt was to “make a good thing better”. Little did they realize that what they would produce in the KJV would not only be “better” but would become the standard for Bible purity and perfection. Therefore, we appreciate the role that pre-1611 TR-based Bibles played in contributing to what would later be the perfect word of God in English: the KJV.
The flaws found in pre-1611 TR-based Bibles were later corrected and refined in the KJV. To go back to those flaws and use them to justify flaws in the Spanish Bible today is going backwards. That’s not good scholarship at all. In fact, its dishonest.
However, over and over again, in Calvin George’s writings, he perpetuates this intellectual dishonesty. How anyone who claims to be a proponent of the TR and KJV can fall for Calvin George’s desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable is mind-blowing.
We won’t take the time in this article to address every single time that Calvin George appeals to mistakes in other TR-friendly Bible texts to justify mistakes in the RV1960. In addition to what we just showed just one more example should suffice. Be aware, however, that he does this a lot in his writings. It's his ace up his sleeve. It's the best he has to offer to defend the RV1960. It's his top go-to argument, which I'm glad it is because it is extremely easy to refute. Others fall for it, however, because they don't take the time to think it through.
Luke 2:22
Here is another example of when Calvin George appeals to a flaw found in older editions of the Textus Receptus. In Luke 2:22 the KJV says “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord”
The RVG reads exactly like the KJV when it says “la purificación de ella”. The Spanish Bible that Calvin George defends, the RV1960, instead says “their purification”, which in Spanish is “la purificación de ellos”. This is the same way most modern English versions read as well because this is the way it is rendered in the corrupt Critical Texts.
For it to say “their purification” is a bad doctrinal error because first of all the purification ritual was only for the mother, not for the son, according to Leviticus chapter 12. Secondly, such a reading insists that the sin offering given was also for the purification of Mary’s child Jesus. As we all know, however, Jesus was perfect. He was sinless. He did not need a sin offering. Sin offerings were for sinners. Jesus needed no purification. So what you have in these Bibles which read “their purification” are Bibles that make Jesus an impure sinner. Thus, this is not only erroneous, it is a blasphemous reading!
Calvin George defends this blasphemy, however, by appealing to a time that this same error appears in editions of the Textus Receptus put out by Erasmus and Stephanus, which caused it to also read this way in a couple of pre-1611 TR-based English Bibles. Again, however, Calvin George applies a backwards approach of defending error by appealing to the errors found in past texts.
We all recognize how valuable the contributions of Erasmus and Stephanus were to the development of the Textus Receptus. To go, however, to earlier TR editions, which were works in progress at the time of their publication, to defend Critical Text error today is… ok, I’m just going to say it, it’s stupid. This is stupid “scholarship”! This is inexcusable. It’s time to quit beating around the bush and simply call it what it is.
There are reasons why Erasmus put out 5 editions of his TR text. Stephanus put out 3. Beza put out 9. Others put out more. There were many editions of the TR.
Why do people put out second, third, and fourth editions and so on? The purpose behind making a new edition is to CORRECT the flaws of prior editions! Let me repeat this. THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A NEW EDITION IS TO CORRECT THE FLAWS OF PRIOR EDITIONS. This is not rocket science.
Students of the TR know that in Erasmus's first couple of editions he omitted 1st John 5:7. Manuscript evidence later demonstrated, however, that this important verse on the Trinity belongs in the text, so it was later inserted in its rightful place in Erasmus's later editions and Bibles based upon them. Likewise, the superior scholars that were the KJV translators also rightfully included 1st John 5:7.
Here's the point. Dear proponent of the KJV, would you agree with us omitting 1st John 5:7 from your King James Bible today due to the fact that it is missing in Erasmus's first edition? If I pointed out to you the fact that 1st John 5:7 was missing in Erasmus's first couple of editions but included in his latter editions, would you consider that a scholarly approach to defend omitting 1st John 5:7 from our Bible today (as it is in so many modern versions)? If your answer is no, please be aware that this is EXACTLY how Calvin George is suggesting to Spanish-speakers to approach the RV1960, and misguided American pastors are supporting this nonsense. Also, folks like myself are somehow bad guys for pointing out the plain and obvious.
Matters like that of 1st John 5:7 and Luke 2:22 was why Dr. Edward Hills, a Harvard and Yale graduate who defended the KJV, called the many editions of the TR “texts in transition”. The TR was in development. Each newer edition was meant to be an IMPROVEMENT upon the prior ones. No one in their right mind goes back to a rough draft to recollect proven errors and reproduce them in the final draft. No one except Calvin George and his misinformed, misguided supporters who fail to scrutinize his writings with what ought to be common sense (Luke 6:39).
Dr. Hills referred to the KJV as “an independent variety of the Textus Receptus”. In other words, the KJV is the crowning work of the TR. It is the end game. The be all, end all (for English Bibles). What Erasmus started in Greek, the KJV translators finished in English. That’s why most publications of the TR today are that of Scrivener’s 1894 edition, which was the last edition of the TR produced for the purpose of combining all prior editions of the TR into one final edition which would most precisely reflect the wording of the KJV.
Luke 2:22 was corrected in later editions of the TR. It was corrected by later TR Bibles and ultimately the KJV. Thank God for the RVG which agrees with the KJV in Luke 2:22 and everywhere else.
Here’s a fun fact. The original revision of Casiodoro de Reina’s 1569 text, published by Cipriano de Valera in 1602, had Luke 2:22 right to begin with. It read “la purificación de Maria”. In English that’s “the purification of Mary”, which leaves no doubt as to who was being purified. The 1960 revisers changed what was correct to begin with to conform a TR-based Spanish Bible to the Critical Texts. We stand against this. So should you! So should Calvin George, who wants everyone to believe that he is pro-TR and pro-KJV while he works so hard to justify the presence of the Critical Text in the RV1960.
Conclusion
People think we are just being mean to Calvin George. You know, the whole victim mentality that folks resort to nowadays when they have no real argument. Today, speaking candidly is considered persecution.
The truth is that Calvin George is leading Hispanic fundamentalists astray. Bible purity should be just as important to Hispanic fundamentalists as it is to English-speaking fundamentalists who defend the KJV. What is wrong in English is wrong in Spanish. Plain and simple. God is not double-minded and double-standard. He doesn't have one standard for the English-speaking world and a whole different one for the Spanish-speaking world.
The truth is the truth. The truth is that there is undeniable Critical Text corruption in the RV1960. Calvin George knows it. We know it. It’s time for everyone to stop ignoring this fact. It is definitely time for folks to stop trying to justify error. Stop trying to defend what is indefensible.
God promised to preserve His pure words in every generation (Psalm 12:6-7). In so doing, God has given us ways and resources to identify error and fix them. The solution to error is not trying to defend it with more error. The solution to error is to correct it. This is not hard to figure out. Identify the Critical Text error and replace it with TR-based renderings which will inevitably agree with the KJV. That's consistent. That’s what was done in the Reina Valera Gomez Spanish Bible. Praise the LORD!
Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. When we fix them, we grow and mature. I don't hate Calvin George. Our doors are open to him. I wish Calvin George would develop the backbone to admit his mistakes, adjust his views to conform to what is plain and obvious, and join us in the cause of getting God's pure words to the world. How much you want to bet that if everyone would unify around a pure Spanish Bible that we would see God work in the Spanish-speaking world like never before?! This will never happen, however, so long as folks continue to allow intellectual dishonesty to divide us.
Regardless, we're going forward, with or without Calvin George. We're not going to stop.
Komentarze