Was There a Need for the Reina Valera Gomez Revision?

by Pastor Jonathan Everhart

Well, maybe there’s not a need if you don’t have a problem with Critical Text, bad readings, and inaccuracies in your Bible.

Missionaries Don Rich and Darren Townsend distributing RVG Bibles in Peru.

It is important to understand that the Textus Receptus is singular and not plural. God gave us one Bible. If you do not understand this you may think that the motive is simply to make the Spanish Bible like the King James Version, because that is the English Bible we use. Understand this, it’s not about the English. It’s about purity, doctrine, and the correct underlying text.

There are many editions of the Textus Receptus. There is Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and others. Each had multiple editions. Beza’s fifth edition was almost the entire basis for the King James Version. We need to understand that the Textus Receptus editions were a process of improvement over time, collating and confirming the correct manuscripts and readings. God has given us Scripture over the course of time, and it was always by a process. It was almost complete with Beza’s fifth edition. It was the translators of the King James Version who completed this collation of all the right readings. And so, what Erasmus began in Greek, the King James Version translators finished in English. The King James translation is more than just a translation. It is a fulfillment. It is a completion of a divine process, fulfilled by the providence of God.

The words "providence" and "miracle" are synonymous in many ways. They are both supernatural. The only difference is time. A miracle happens in a moment. Providence is often just a miracle that happens over the course of time. It is the hand of God.

Dr. Edward Hills stated:

"The King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus."

Some don’t understand this, and they try to pick and choose between different editions of the Textus Receptus for the basis of their translation. They are simply ignoring the process and playing with history. This leads to problems with translations.

I’ll give you an example. Erasmus’ first two editions of the Textus Receptus were missing 1 John 5:7, the most powerful verse about the doctrine of the Trinity. We need that verse in our Bibles. This is why translations such as Trinitarian Bible Society’s new Spanish revision fall short. They don’t follow the underlying text of the King James Version. Some readings of the editions of Textus Receptus read like critical text Bibles, because it’s the same reading found in some corrupt manuscripts. The later editions of the Textus Receptus purged these readings out. When man begins to judge which words of Scripture belong and which do not, he places human reason above divine revelation. That is not scholarship; that is rebellion against the Author. We should only use the final edition of the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Version. Anything less than this will have errors.

If I were to write a book, how wrong would it be to print my rough draft or translate from it? We should use the final copy.

For brevity, I am just going to give you this one quote here. It stands alone and is enough, but there is a mountain of evidence to further confirm this. This is a smoking gun. Jose Flores, a consultant for the translation of the RV1960 wrote:

"One principle added to the first list of the Reina-Valera 1960 Revision Committee was that wherever the RV (1909) version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text [Critical Text], we did not return to the Receptus… 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 the 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the International Critical Commentary."

We see clearly that both the 1909 and 1960 translations contain Critical Text and the 1960 also has the influence of English translations that are based on the Critical Text. So, there are places where it has the correct underlying text, but the translation follows bad translations. The result is just as bad. That’s why we see the word “buffalo” appear in the Spanish Bible at this time, because the Revised Standard Version says “buffalo”. The 1909 Spanish Bible that they revised, read “unicorn”.

I have never heard anyone say that 1960 is a perfect translation. The argument is “It isn’t that bad.”  or “It’s adequate”. Why would you not want a better Bible?

Imagine saying that about the Word of God, which He magnifies above His name.

“It isn’t that bad.”

I’m not attacking the RV-1960 or the 1909 Spanish Bibles when I say this, and I say this from a place of love. There was clearly a need for revision. This is not my opinion. This is knowledge.