Is the 1960 Reina Valera “Not That Bad”?

By Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez

No matter how much we present irrefutable documented evidence of the very real Received Text departures and other issues in the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera Bible (hereafter RV1960), there are those who refuse to set their emotions aside long enough to think rationally and be intellectually honest enough to recognize the very real Critical Text corruption in their Bible.

No amount of denying the truth, however, will change reality.  No amount of deflecting the truth will make the problem disappear. 

The Cold Hard Facts

Someone said one time that “facts don’t care about your feelings”. 

The fact is that changes were made in modern editions of the Reina Valera Bible which were based upon the Critical Texts such as the 1960 edition by Eugene Nida’s revision committee commissioned by the American Bible Society.  The fact is that the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera Spanish Bible was a Critical Text revision.  Eugene Nida 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

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Bible societies such as the American Bible Society (today known as the United Bible Society).  They have NEVER been known for producing Textus Receptus based Bibles.  That was never their focus. They have always been of the Critical Text school of thought.  They have always been known for producing Bibles based upon the Greek New Testament editions of Eberhard Nestle, who revised the works of Tishendorf, Westcott and Hort, and other editions of the Critical Text line of Greek New Testaments. 

It is documented that Eugene Nida pushed for an updating of the Critical Text since back in the 1950s.  He later participated in that evolution with the release of the United Bible Society editions of the Greek New Testament which are essentially the same as that of the Nestle-Aland editions. 

These Critical Texts served as the basis for the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and pretty much every other corrupt English Bible that most Fundamentalist preachers wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole yet for some reason are OK with the 1960 Reina Valera.  Why can’t they see the inconsistency and double-standard here?  Dr. Peter Putney wrote an excellent article summarizing different reasons (Why the RV1960 Continues to Be Popular by Dr. Peter Putney).

It’s hard to swallow our pride and admit when we are wrong.  But to remain honest and consistent we must learn to practice humility. No amount of deluding ourselves will magically make Bible corruption right. Pretending that real problems do not exist is not what God called preachers to do.

The 1960 Reina Valera was an experiment which was part of the modern-day Critical Text evolution perpetuated by Eugene Nida.  I plan to write more about this and elaborate on this soon.  Until then, a good book to get on this would be Why They Changed The Bible by David Daniels.

The fact is that there are serious departures from the Received Texts in the 1960 Reina Valera.  Dr. Jose Flores, who was involved in the revision, 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 the most outspoken defenders of the Critical Text corruption in the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera are forced to admit it.  For example, Calvin George wrote:

"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

A Little Leaven is not that Bad?

The Bible warned us in Galatians 5:9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Yet no matter how much the reality of Critical Text corruption is proven, those who have been led astray by the intellectually dishonest efforts of Calvin George to justify all this insist on turning a blind eye.  Why?  Some have argued, “Well the issues in the 1960 Reina Valera that you guys complain about are not that bad?” "The RV1960 is not that bad."

Not that bad?  Question.  How bad is “bad”?  What would be bad enough for you to admit there is a problem?  How bad does corruption have to be for you to desire something more pure?

Our response to the TR departures in Spanish Bibles was not to ignore them, or defend them, or justify them, as Calvin George and others do.  We responded by replacing the Critical Text based renderings with Received Text based ones, consequently bringing the Reina Valera in agreement in substance with the inerrant King James Version.  Our response has been to purify the Spanish Bible since the Bible itself reveals that “every word of God is pure” in Proverbs 30:5 and that we need “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” according to the Lord Himself in Matthew 4:4. The result of our efforts is the Reina Valera Gómez Spanish Bible (hereafter RVG).  

Ironically, people who claim to be in favor of the Received Texts and the KJV are complaining that correcting the Critical Text based readings for TR based ones is a bad thing.  Talk about a strange plot twist!  A Critical Text based revision, namely the RV1960, is being described by what are supposed to be TR and KJV advocates as “not that bad”.  But a Spanish Bible like the RVG that is 100% based upon the Received Texts is bad.  A Spanish Bible that is more in agreement with the KJV than any other is bad.  Somehow Eugene Nida and the Critical Text crowd became the good guys, and we became the bad guys. This is so weird.  It doesn’t make sense.

I am reminded of one of the characteristics of apostate Israel when Isaiah revealed the following.

Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

"No It's Your Attitude That Is the Real Problem!"

Our opponents will argue, “No it is your attitude that we have a problem with”. 

“Your tone of voice is bad.” 

"You're too aggressive in your approach."

“The way you present your case (no matter how right it is) is bad”. 

Is it really?  If an RVG advocate who has manifested a bad attitude before repented and sincerely devoted himself to do better and display a better attitude, would that be the deciding factor to convince you to choose a good text over a bad one? 

I agree that we should all be clothed with humility and display the fruit of the Spirit as Christians.  But is it really "a bad attitude" that is stopping folks from recognizing what is plain and obvious?  Is that the way decision-making is supposed to work for the Christian?  Should we base our decisions on the attitude of others?  Or should we base our decisions on truth?

In my opinion, I think that what some are interpreting as a "bad attitude" is really just passion and zeal for the word of God. In this age of softness, filled with so many that are thin-skinned and easily offended about everything, I think candidness and frankness is now seen as a bad attitude.

Even if it is so, however, that some who have stood for the RVG have manifested a bad attitude, does that invalidate the purity of the actual text itself?  What about the text?  KJV advocates who have a bad attitude don’t seem to prevent other KJV advocates from appreciating and benefitting from the purity of the KJV. Why should it be any different for the Spanish Bible?

I think what is actually bad are the arguments of those who dismiss the RVG, especially the ones that KNOW that it is a more pure Bible than the RV1960.  I believe trying to defend the indefensible is bad.  I believe intellectual dishonesty is bad.  I believe refusing to acknowledge, use, print, and distribute a more pure Bible, and choosing a corrupted one over it, is what is really bad in the eyes of a pure and holy God. 

What does God think about Bible purity?  Does He think Bible corruption is bad?  I wonder what offends God more.  Is He more offended about some who might be aggressive in their call for Bible purity?  Or is He more offended about man tampering with the words He inspired and producing corrupt Bibles?

Is Stealing the Glory that Belongs to God Bad?

Is it bad enough that Daniel 3:25 in the RV1960 gives the credit that belongs to the Lord to the devil instead when it translates it as “a son of the gods” rather than “the Son of God” like in the RVG and KJV?  A son of the gods would be a reference to some pagan deity.  Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1^st Corinthians 10:20 tells us that the gods that the pagans worshipped were devils.  It was the preincarnate Son of God who delivered the 3 Hebrew men from Nebuchanezzar’s fiery furnace, not some pagan deity which is really a devil. 

I understand that this is not an issue of a Critical Text based reading. This is simply a bad translation. There is a huge difference between "a son of the gods" and "the Son of God". Both cannot be right. The context demands for it to be translated as "the Son of God" just as the KJV translators did and I go more in-depth as to why in the following article: A Look At Daniel 3:25.

The RV 1960, and all other Bibles that say “a son of the gods”, rob the glory that belongs to the Lord and instead gives it to a false pagan deity in Daniel 3:25.  I believe that giving the credit that belongs to the Lord to the Devil instead is pretty bad.

Is Making Jesus an Angry Sinner Bad?

Is it bad enough that the RV1960 makes Jesus a sinner in Matthew 5:22 when it omits the important words “without a cause” which the Lord said to clarify when anger is sinful?  The RVG reads similar to the KJV when it represents the Textus Receptus word “eike” with the words “sin razon”.  This clarifies when anger is a sin because the Bible makes it clear that not all anger is sinful in Ephesians 4:26 (Ephesians 4:26  "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath"). 

Psalm 7:11 tells us that God is angry with the wicked every day.  Surely God is not sinning.  There are times when anger is justified.  But if you omit the Lord’s clarification, as the RV1960 and the Critical Texts do, you make all anger sinful, which also makes Jesus a sinner since he got angry in Mark 3:5.  If you omit the Lord’s clarification you are forced to logically come to this conclusion.  The Bible clarifies itself, unless you start taking out words which Jesus said to clarify things.

I believe making Jesus an angry sinner is pretty bad.

Is it Bad to Imply that Jesus was Not Pure?

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 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 terrible 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 as part of the purification process for Mary was also given on behalf 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!  It attacks the deity of Christ.

Even the original revision of Reina’s Bible, done by Cipriano de Valera, avoided this blasphemous corruption by rendering it “la purificación de Maria” (the purification of Mary), leaving no doubt as to who the purification ritual was for.  With all due respect, I believe Valera went overboard since Maria’s name is not what is in the Greek text.  Simply translating it as it is in the Greek, like the KJV translators did, is sufficient.  But I can appreciate Valera’s effort to make sure that Luke 2:22 didn’t word things in a way that would be downright blasphemous.

I believe blasphemy is bad.  I believe making Jesus a sinner who needed purification is pretty bad.

Is Watering Down Hell Bad?

The King James Bible says the word “hell” 54 times.  The RVG also says the word for “hell”, which is “infierno”, in all 54 of the same places where its said in the KJV.

The RV1960 only says the word for “hell” 13 times.  In the other 41 times where the word “hell” belongs, the RV1960 leaves it untranslated with the Hebrew word “sheol” or the Greek word “hades”. 

In fact, the word “hell” does not appear at all in the entire Old Testament of the RV1960.  Guess what other Bibles entirely omit the word “hell” from the O.T. and only presents it 13 times in the N.T?  The American Standard Bible of 1901, based in Westcott and Hort’s perverted Greek N.T.  And the Revised Standard Version which is a modernistic, ecumenical update of the 1881 Revised Version based in Westcott and Hort’s text.  You should know that this is not a coincidence when you remember Dr. Jose Flores’s statement mentioned earlier which revealed that Nida’s revision committee used these corrupt English Bibles in their work on the Reina Valera.

For many years Fundamentalist preachers have lifted up their voices like a trumpet against what they called a watering down of hell in modern Bibles.  They deduced that the watering down of hell in the Bible was done to appease the modernists, which fundamentalists stood against.  But all of a sudden, today we are supposed to pretend that what is watered down in English Bibles is OK for Spanish Bibles.  Again, inconsistency.

Calvin George's weak argument for this watering down of hell in the RV1960 is that the context makes it clear whether or not “hades” or “sheol” is referring to hell in the passage.  My response to that is that if it is so clear from the context that it is talking about hell, than what in the world is so hard about translating it as hell if its so plain and obvious?  The KJV translators did.  What was Westcott and Hort’s problem?  What was Eugene Nida and his team’s problem? What is Calvin George's problem?

I think the watering down of hell in modern Bibles is pretty bad.

Is Deleting Evidence for the Deity of Christ Bad?

In Ephesians 3:9 we have one of the strongest demonstrations of the deity of Christ in the word of God.

Ephesians 3:9  “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ”

The RV, RSV, ASV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and every other Critical Text Bible that I know of omit the words “by Jesus Christ”.  Modern Bibles are infamous for omitting key words and phrases which delete important information and evidence that demonstrate the deity of Christ.  The RV1960 is no different.  It also deletes the words “by Jesus Christ”. 

I believe omitting God's words that exalt the deity of Christ is really bad.

Thank God for a Christ honoring Spanish Bible like the RVG which include the words “por Jesucristo” just like the KJV, faithfully reflecting the Received Texts.

IN CONCLUSION

Time would fail me to elaborate on just how bad the many different Critical Text readings in the RV1960 are and how badly they affect doctrine.  For sake of brevity I chose to only discuss the 5 examples given in this article.  We have elaborated on many more in the over 300 articles and charts we have presented on our website.  I encourage the reader to consider the documented evidence all throughout our website, especially here.

In Ezekiel’s day God was offended with preachers who refused to identify that which was actually bad.

Ezekiel 22:26  “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.”

Men of God have a responsibility to make a difference between the holy and the profane, the clean and the unclean. 

My stand for the KJV and the Received Text is a matter of conviction. I truly believe that the Critical Texts are bad.  I believe the heretics who mutilated manuscripts, such as the Gnostics, were bad.  I believe the Alexandrian manuscripts are bad.  I believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are bad.  I believe the Westcott and Hort school of thought, which referred to the Textus Receptus as “villainus” and “vile”, is bad.  I believe Westcott and Hort’s text, which kicked off a series of even worse Greek New Testaments, was bad.  I believe that TR departures are bad.  I believe that ignoring TR departures is bad.  I believe that pretending that they are not there is bad. I believe that defending TR departures in Spanish is bad, just as it is in English.  I believe that the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, LSB, and every other Critical Text based Bible in English are bad. 

Therefore, I believe the exact same Critical Text corruptions in Spanish Bibles, or any other language, ARE JUST AS BAD.  Why do I, and many others like me, believe this?  Because we believe in CONSISTENCY.  We want to be intellectually honest.

God’s word taught us that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.  I don’t prefer a Bible that contains the leaven of the corrupt Critical Texts.  Intellectual honesty demands that in order to remain consistent to what I say is a conviction, I must desire a Bible that is 100% pure, which I believe is one that is 100% based in the Received Texts, and will inevitably be in agreement in substance with my 100% pure King James Bible.  I thank God that in Spanish we have such a Bible called the Reina Valera Gómez Bible. 

Consistency demands that if it is true that the issues in the 1960 Reina Valera are “not that bad” then the preachers who want to believe that delusion need to stop complaining about the very same issues in the Critical Text English Bibles that they stand against.  Their stand is not intellectually honest.  If you justify in Spanish what you condemn in English, your position is no longer credible. You cannot be intellectually honest and tell your church members that the Westcott and Hort corruptions in Bibles like the NIV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, etc. are bad but somehow those exact same issues “are not that bad” in Spanish.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

Like Dr. Humberto Gómez said one time, “The advantage we have over our critics is that we make more sense than them.”

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”