MY VIEWS ON THE SPANISH BIBLE ISSUE
By Missionary Carlos Donate
Revised, May of 2008
Why I endorse, support, and use the Reina-Valera Gomez Revision
(RVG)
1. Because the RVG is based on the Antigua Reina-Valera 1909, which is the time-honored version of many fundamental, Bible-believing Hispanics. It was this, and not the 1960, which laid the foundation for fundamentalism in the Spanish world. In honor of its legacy, the RVG faithfully honors the Bible-believing conservative and fundamental Spanish Christian world by maintaining much of its flavor and style.
2. Because the RVG is the product of serious biblical collation done by Dr. Humberto Gomez, a Mexican national, and many other fundamental Baptist pastors and missionaries. Dr. Gomez is a man of God that has dedicated the best years of his life winning souls and planting churches in Mexico, his homeland. He has also been a blessing to many other Hispanic churches throughout Latin America and the USA preaching revivals, missions conferences, and camp meetings. His leadership role has been used of God to be a blessing to untold hundreds of Spanish-speaking pastors and missionaries. He has a definite dominion of his own native language, and a working knowledge of the biblical ones. However, what qualifies him to undertake this ministry more than anything else is his fear of God, and his absolute love for His holy words.
3. Because the RVG is a faithful, and accurate revision which honors the Traditional Received Text which underlies the KJV. Accuracy, faithfulness and purity are the goals of the revision. The RVG is a ministry of a local, independent, fundamental Baptist church, and therefore is not subject to modern textual criticism.
4. Because the RVG is an answer to prayer to those of us who reject the ecumenical United Bible Societies philosophies of translation. Years ago, I came to realize how the UBS has influenced modern textual scholarship, even in the Spanish world, with their publications. Dr. José Flores, a member of the Reina-Valera revision committee of 1960 himself said that the 1960 introduced over 10,000 textual changes following the 1946 Revised Standard, the 1901 American Revised Standard, the English Revised Version of 1885, and the International Critical Commentary’s liberal exegesis of the Scriptures. According to Dr. Flores, their working principle plan was to do away with the Textus Receptus as much as possible and introduce more “contemporary” renderings of verses, as recommended by the Translations Secretary, Mr. Eugene Nida. (See Dr. José Flores´ book, “El Texto del Nuevo Testamento”, by CLIE, 1977, page 232.) Originally, their intention was to update the language and introduce some good changes, but what they ended up with was a Valera Bible that was farther departed textually from the Traditional Received Text.
5. Because the RVG allows me to teach and preach with more authority on such vital issues as eternal retribution by properly translating the word “hades”, “gehenna” and “sheol”. Modern scholarship simply transliterates these words.
6. Because the RVG allows me to teach and preach with a clearer, and more authoritative text on the issue of inspiration and preservation as taught in Psalms 12:6 and 7. The RVG translates the verses in such a way that the object of preservation are God´s holy words, and not the Jewish nation.
7. Because the RVG renders Isaiah 9:3 without contradicting the KJB. The same reason applies to Isaiah 64:5, an important verse in the Old Testament which teaches security of the believer. Beginning in 1960, these and many other verses in the OT were revised following modern textual scholarship.
8. Because the RVG renders 1 Peter 3:21 properly, in agreement with the Traditional Received Text underlying the KJB, as “the like figure”, speaking of baptism, whereas modern textual scholars omit this important phrase.
9. Because the RVG, in agreement to the KJB, renders Revelation 19:8 as “the righteousness of saints” (“la justicia de los santos”) whereas modern textual scholarship, and the 1960 alludes to the works concept by rendering that phrase as “the just works of the saints” (las acciones justas de los santos). Compare RV, ASV, RSV and the Latin Vulgate. They will agree with the 1960. The difference is that the RVG presents the word “justificaciones” as a noun, just like KJB´s “righteousness”, but the 1960 presents it as a verb, “acciones justas”. Big difference!
10. Because in Exodus 12:5 the RVG properly translates the Hebrew word “seh” as lamb, leaving no doubt in the reader’s mind that it is a reference to Christ, our sacrificial Lamb, while the 1960 calls it “the animal” in the first part of that verse. This is typical of Eugene Nida´s method of dynamic equivalence.
11. Because the RVG follows the Traditional Received Text by properly translating Luke 2:22. The verse is calling Mary unto purification, whereas modern textual scholarship, including the 1960 calls both Joseph and Mary unto purification.
12. Because the RVG agrees with the KJB in 1 Thessalonians 4:4 by correctly translating the Greek word “skeous” as “vessel”, which is one’s body, not one’s wife, otherwise the Holy Spirit would have said “guneh”.
13. Because the RVG renders the Roman’s Road to salvation right in Romans 10:9 just like the KJB as “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” whereas the 1960 renders it as the Westcott & Hort “Lordshipsalvation” crowd does: “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord”.
14. Because the RVG doesn’t have the word “aspiration” added in 1 Peter 3:21 like the 1960 does. Aspiring to be baptized is a pagan concept. See New Age Bible Versions by Dr Gail Riplinger of AV Publications.
15. Because the RVG follows the Traditional Received Text and the KJB closest in Revelation 22:14 by stating that “blessed is the man that doeth his commandments” whereas the 1960 has it just like the Westcott & Hort bibles, “blessed are they that wash their robes”.
16. Because the RVG follows the KJB properly in Luke 21:5 by using the word “gift”, but the 1960 adds the Roman Catholic expression “votive” to “gifts”. Votive gifts and votive prayers is popery!
17. Because the RVG properly renders Psalms 2:12 as “Kiss the Son”, whereas the 1960 changes it to “honor the son”. This change weakens a vital cross-reference in Luke 7:45 where our Lord says about Simon’s halfhearted devotion, “Thou gavest me no kiss”. The kiss was the ultimate expression of love. There is union in a kiss. There is affection. Though “honor” would seem to be a proper equivalent, the truth is that the Holy Spirit said “nashak”, which is literally to kiss. Dynamic equivalencies often alter the original word of a Hebrew or Greek word by taking into consideration the cultural significance. Perhaps Mr. Nida and the revision committee thought that kissing the Son was something illogical, or impossible to do. One might ask himself, “How then, does one kiss the Son?” The answer is very simple: you simply pucker up and place a big juicy one on your Bible! Better yet, blow a kiss towards Jesus in Heaven!
All joking aside, when will we start receiving and believing what the Author of Scripture said in the first place?
18. Because the RVG is correct like the KJB in Matthew 5:22 by rendering the phrase “without a cause” as “sin razón”, whereas the 1960 omits it altogether, following the Alexandrian Westcott & Hort. Was our Lord Jesus guilty of sin when becoming angry in the Temple as he overthrew the thieves tables? According to the 1960, the ASV, RSV, RV, New World, etc, he was!
19. Because the RVG has the endorsement of America´s premier fundamentalist scholar, Dr D.A. Waite, and the Dean Burgon Society. For decades Dr. Waite has championed the cause of the defense of the Bible in English, the KJV, and those faithfully translated and revised with the proper texts and methodology.
20. Because the RVG is being printed by fundamental Bible-printing ministries such as Victory Baptist Press of Milton, Florida; It was also printed by Bearing Precious Seed of Milford, Ohio. It will be printed in Spain by a famous and well known Christian publisher. It has been distributed by reputable ministries such as BEAMS (Baptist Evangelistic and Missionary Service), and Chick Publications, and ICCC (International Conference of Christian Churches) representatives in Central and South America. These and many others are thanking God that we finally have a Bible in Spanish which lines-up with the Traditional Received Text and the KJB in key passages. Previous revisions of the Reina-Valera have only attempted to do this, including the 1831, the 1865, and the 1909 without ever revising it completely. Alas! the RVG fulfills the long awaited dream of providing an accurate revision of the Reina-Valera by the fundamentalist world.