Why I Use the Reina Valera Gómez Spanish Bible

by Nathan Saint

Missionary to Chile

Several people have asked me, "Why do you use the Reina Valera Gómez (RVG) instead of another Bible like the Reina Valera 1960?" I'd like to take a moment to answer that question as briefly and concisely as I am able. I'd like to share my convictions about what we should consider when choosing a Bible translation, and I'm going to share indisputable facts about several versions, especially the RVG and the RV1960. You may not share my convictions. That’s OK. You might not change your convictions based on what I'm about to share now. But, if you share my convictions, I believe the evidence will lead you to also using the RVG in Spanish.

When people ask me why I use the Reina Valera Gómez in my personal ministry, I always give the same answer. I use the Reina Valera Gómez for the same reason I use the King James Version in English: because it's the most precise translation of the preserved texts, translated by qualified translators using appropriate methods. In any language, we should choose the Bible we use based on those four factors, and only those four factors.

There are other factors that some people tend to give greater importance than those four, but I submit to you that those four are the most important. In fact, all the other factors don't even compare to those four in importance. Some prefer to use the most popular translation, the one they've always used, or the one someone used to win them to Christ. Others value the translation that has the most beautiful language, the one that is most readily available, or the one that the largest churches use. Some have even said they have rejected a certain version because of its name or because of certain individuals who chose to use it. The list of other factors is long, but they are circumstantial. They are factors that vary and really have nothing to do with the product itself or the text of the Bible you use. The four factors I identified, on the other hand, do not vary and are based entirely on the text.

Precise

First, the translation must be precise. This may be a subtle issue, but it is an important one. Some people prefer a translation that uses easy-to-understand words. I am convinced that we need precise words that correctly communicate what God said, even if we have to pull out a dictionary to understand some of those words. Let me offer an example from Romans 5:8.

• RV1960: Mas Dios muestra su amor para con nosotros, en que siendo aún pecadores, Cristo murió por nosotros.

• RVG: Mas Dios encarece su amor para con nosotros, en que siendo aún pecadores, Cristo murió por nosotros.

• KJV: But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

The Spanish word “muestra,” is the common word for “shows”. The Spanish word “encarece”, according to the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), means “to increase or raise the price of something, to make it expensive.” In other words, to demonstrate the high value of something. The Greek word is συνίστησιν and means “to recommend” or “to present favorably.” The RV1960 translation is not incorrect, but it is imprecise. God not only showed the fact that He loves us when He sent Jesus to die on the cross. He showed how much He loves us. He showed the high value of His love. He commended His love for toward us.

Both the Bear Bible (1569) and the Reina Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera 1909 all have "encarece" (commendeth). The RV1960, perhaps focusing on readability, used an imprecise word, and part of the original meaning was lost in the translation.

Consider the many times the RV1960 (along with many other translations) did not translate the Hebrew word "Sheol," but instead transliterated it to "Seol." Transliteration is when one takes a word in the original language (in this case, Hebrew) and, instead of translating it into the new language (in this case, Spanish), represents that word using the phonetic alphabet of the new language. This method is appropriate when there is no suitable word in the new language. This is what happened when tacos arrived in the United States. There was no English word to describe tacos, so they transliterated the word by writing and pronouncing it in English as it is in Spanish. The same is true for pizza and sushi.

When we consider the word Sheol, there are equivalent words in Spanish. Therefore, there is no justification for transliterating rather than translating the word. The confusion arises because it can mean "hell" or "grave." It seems that some translators refused to translate "Sheol" to let the reader determine whether we are talking about "hell" or "grave."

The problem with this reasoning is that if the translators, being experts in Hebrew and having the time to study the context thoroughly, cannot decipher its meaning, how can a lay reader? In the end, the lay reader will not understand what it means because the translation work was imprecise. An imprecise translation may not be wrong. If it's the best available, it might be acceptable. But when there is a more precise translation, I prefer to use that one because it helps me understand what God has said in His Word.

Preserved Texts

Let’s consider, for a moment, the importance of the preserved texts. I don’t have enough space in this article to adequately stress the importance of using the preserved texts, much less to explain why I am convinced that the Received Text is the preserved text of the New Testament. However, I will do my best to summarize the main points.

Today, we no longer have the original autographs (the original letters that the Apostle Paul wrote, for example). We have manuscripts, which are old, hand written copies of those autographs. In the Old Testament, there is little controversy that God preserved His Word through the faithfulness of the scribes. The preserved text of the Old Testament is known as the Masoretic Text.

In the New Testament, there are two families of manuscripts: the Received Text (also known as the Traditional Text) and the Critical Text (also known as the Alexandrian Text). To summarize very briefly, the Received Text is the text that believers have always used. There are many manuscripts that make up this "family" of texts. They have slight variations among themselves, but by comparing and compiling the manuscripts, we can arrive at an understanding of what the original said. The Critical Text is composed of a few manuscripts that are generally older than those of the Received Text. There are also many variations among them, which makes the process of compiling a single copy of the New Testament based on the Critical Text difficult.

Those who prefer to use the Critical Text would tell you that the Bible has been lost. They would say that God inspired His Word, that perhaps He preserved it for a time, but today we cannot know precisely what God actually said. If you are convinced that God inspired His Word and preserved it, you must reject the Critical Text. If you are not convinced of this, I encourage you to investigate the topic in more detail. But, if we can agree that the Received Text is the preserved text, we can then evaluate whether the Bible we use has been translated based on the preserved texts or not.

It is no great secret that the RV1960, along with many other more modern Bibles, uses the Critical Text at least on some occasions. It may be that the RV1960 uses it less than most modern translations, but it clearly uses the Critical Text. José Flores, one of the revisers of the 1960 Reina-Valera (RV1960), said, “One principle added to the first list of the Reina-Valera Revision Committee was that: Wherever the Reina-Valera version has departed from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) to follow another, better text, we will not return to the Receptus.” The United Bible Societies, which produced the RV1960 and maintains its copyright, said, “However, in some cases, where it is preferable to have a critical text rather than the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee made slight changes, particularly if such changes were in verses not widely known where they would not be too disruptive to the Bible community.” One of the translators and the organization that spearheaded the revision say that the RV1960 has not been faithful to the Received Text. Perhaps it is primarily translated from the Received Text, but it clearly contains parts based on the Critical Text. This means that they changed the Word of God by using incorrect (adulterated) texts on some occasions.

The list of errors that result from Critical Text is too extensive for this article, but I will share three examples. First, consider 1 Peter 2:2:

• RV1960: desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche espiritual no adulterada, para que por ella crezcáis para salvación,

• RVG: desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche no adulterada de la palabra, para que por ella crezcáis;

• KJV: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 

There are several differences between the two translations, but we'll focus only on the latter. The RV1960 says that one must grow for salvation (to be saved), while the RVG says that we must grow. The KJV likewise speaks of growing through the Word of God. This was the first verse that drew my attention to the errors in the RV1960 because it's a very serious mistake. It seems to teach that salvation is obtained through works, after a process of growth. But we shouldn't choose a Bible based on which one best suits our doctrine. We should choose our doctrine based on what the Bible says, and that's why we have to make sure that the Bible we use is translated from the Received Text. Would it surprise you if I told you that the word "Salvation" doesn't appear in the Received Text, but it does appear in the Critical Text? I must reject the RV1960’s translation of this verse, not because it conflicts with what I believe (that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works) but because it is a translation of a corrupt text; it isn’t God’s word.

Consider Matthew 5:22:

• RV1960: Pero yo os digo que cualquiera que se enoje contra su hermano, será culpable de juicio …

• RVG: Pero yo os digo que cualquiera que sin razón se enojare contra su hermano, estará en peligro del juicio …

• KJV: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment …

The differences between the two Bibles are again based on the differences between the Critical Text and the Received Text. The RVG translated from the Received Text, where we find the word eikē, which means “in vain” or “without cause.” The 1960, on the other hand, omitted this word because it does not appear in the Critical Text. Therefore, they are condemning Jesus himself because he also became angry when he cleansed the temple. But we know that Jesus did not sin at that moment (or at any other time) because he did not become angry without a cause. Again, the difference might seem small, but it is very significant. From what I could verify, all Reina Valera Bible revisions prior to the RV1960 included a variation of the phrase “without reason.” The RV1960 was the first to remove it because they chose to follow the Critical Text in that verse. The RVG is a translation of the preserved texts, while the RV1960 is not.

Finally, consider Luke 23:42:

• RV1960: Y dijo a Jesús: Acuérdate de mí cuando vengas en tu reino.

• RVG: Y dijo a Jesús: Señor, acuérdate de mí cuando vengas en tu reino.

• KJV: And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 

Again, it shouldn't surprise you when I tell you that the Received Text includes the word “Lord,” while the Critical Text does not. If you still have any doubts, please investigate this topic in more detail because the evidence is undeniable: the RV1960 is not a translation of the Received Text. It is also undeniable that God preserved His Word through the Received Text. And it is indisputable that there are very important differences between the two texts. I use the RVG because it has been translated exclusively from the Received Text.

Qualified Translators

I'm not going to spend much time talking about qualified translators because, nowadays, you don't have to be an expert in Greek or Hebrew to be qualified to review a Bible translation. There are so many digital tools that can help anyone understand the meaning of a word that almost anyone can study a verse, compare it to a text in Greek and Hebrew, and recognize whether that verse is translated correctly or not.

It would be beneficial to have a good grasp of Greek and Hebrew, especially if you're going to translate the Bible from scratch, but neither the 1960 Reina-Valera (RV1960) nor the Reina-Valera (RVG) were translated from scratch. Reina-Valera Bibles already existed before both revisions, so they were based on the work of the translators who came before them. They merely had to check to see if a verse correctly translated the words in the Greek or Hebrew text and modify the corresponding passages as needed. In the case of the RVG, it is a revision of the Reina Valera 1909 version that focused on correcting poorly translated passages or even passages based on other corrupt texts. They wanted a Bible that is faithful to the Received Text, and that's what we have in our hands today. In the case of the RV1960, I suppose the process was similar, with the difference that they wanted to incorporate the Critical Text where they saw fit. Instead of wanting a purer Bible, they wanted one that was less pure.

Today, what matters more than being very knowledgeable about the original languages ​​is being a native speaker of the language we are translating into. When I speak in Spanish, I am told that I am easy to understand and even speak with a native accent, since I grew up in Mexico. None-the-less, I am not a native speaker and, every now and then, I use the wrong word or say something in an unnatural word order that makes comprehension of what I said a challenge. Something similar happened with the RV1865. This revision was translated by Ángel Herreros de Mora and Henry Barrington Pratt. While Ángel Mora was a native Spanish speaker, Henry Pratt was not, and it shows in the final product. Many passages in the RV1865 are difficult to understand, and I can't use it for practical reasons. This translation also has several serious errors that appear to be the result of carelessness in the translation process, but that's a separate issue.

Consider Genesis 2:18, where the RV1865 says, “Y dijo Jehová Dios: No es bueno que el hombre esté solo: hacerle he ayuda que esté delante de él.” I really don't understand what that last sentence is trying to say. Or consider the 187 times the RV1865 says “Jesu Cristo” instead of “Jesucristo.” The list of confusing passages is long, but I think you get the point. A well-translated Bible has to be translated by native speakers of the language. When you read the RVG, you'll notice that it was translated by native speakers and experts in the language. It uses precise language this also proper and understandable.

Appropriate Methods

The last point I must emphasize is that a Bible must be translated using appropriate methods. In translation, there are three main methods I’d like to highlight: literal translation, formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence. Each has its proper use.

A literal translation is where one takes a passage and translates it into the second language word for word, without changing anything, not even the word order. The result would be difficult to read, but one could know the exact words and their order in the original text. A Bible translated using this method would not be very practical for reading, much less for preaching. But it could be a tool that helps us understand the original meaning of a verse or a specific word when we are studying the Bible in depth.

A translation done by formal equivalence is preferable when translating a Bible. It seeks to translate each word and adapt it to the second language while maintaining maximum fidelity to the original text. It’s similar to a literal translation in that it does not seek to eliminate or change words, but it differs in that it recognizes that the second language usually has different rules for language, and the translation must adapt to these. In English, for example, the adjective always precedes the noun, while in Spanish it usually comes after the noun. A literal translation of “The boy picked up the blue truck” would be “El niño agarra arriba el azul camioneta,” which is unintelligible in Spanish. A formal equivalent translation, on the other hand, would result in “El niño recogió la camioneta azul.” Google Translate seeks to generate a formal equivalent translation because it is the most correct method in most cases.

Several Bibles translated using formal equivalence detail the times they have to add words that are not in the original text so that the final product is understandable in the second language. When one translates from one language to another, one often has to add articles, pronouns, adjectives, etc. If they are not added, the passage would be difficult to understand or grammatically incorrect. The RVG, like the KJV, highlights these added words by putting them in italics. This way, the reader can recognize that certain words are not in the original text, but are included so that the final product is understandable.

A translation done by dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, only seeks to translate God's ideas rather than God's actual words. Translators aim to understand the main idea of ​​each passage, sentence, or phrase and express that idea in the target language in a beautiful and understandable way. This method is appropriate when translating a hymn. If we were to translate a hymn using formal equivalence, the rhythm wouldn't match the words, and the rhyme would also be lacking. Therefore, translators must change the words to maintain the rhythm and rhyme without losing the main idea. Take any hymn in another language, translate it with Google Translate, and you'll see that the result, even if it's an accurate translation of what the hymn says, doesn't fit the musical requirements of the hymn in the new language.

It's appropriate to translate hymns using dynamic equivalence, but it's not appropriate to translate the Bible using that same method. The first problem with translating the Bible using dynamic equivalence is that everything depends on the translators' understanding of the original text. Their understanding is the final authority, not the original text, the one God inspired and preserved for us. Secondly, God did not inspire and preserve His ideas, but His words. Proverbs 30:5 says that every word of God is pure, not that every idea is pure. Psalm 119:89 says that the word of the Lord (not the idea of ​​the Lord) is established in heaven. Matthew 24:35 says that it is the words, not the ideas, of Jesus that will not pass away. All of God's promises regarding inspiration and preservation apply to the words, not the ideas. In order to employ dynamic equivalence in translating the Bible, you would first have to deny these doctrines and believe that God did not preserve His words as He promised.

Upon examining the evidence, dynamic equivalence has resulted in Bibles like the RV1960 removing phrases that do not appear necessary to communicate the meaning of the passage. Consider, for example, how the RV1960 removes the mention of eyes in Matthew 11:26. In Acts 22:13, it adds the phrase “recobré la vista”. In Luke 4:21, it omits the mention of hearing. In Colossians 2:15, it changes “in it” to “on the cross.” In each of these cases, the Reina Valera Bibles that preceded the RV1960 did not make the same mistake. This is because the RV1960 is the first to use this erroneous method of translating the Word of God.

Conclusion

I began writing this article to explain why I use the RVG. I don’t like to attack other translations in the process, but it's difficult to explain why I use the RVG without explaining why I can't use other translations like the RV1960. These same four points could be applied to other translations such as the RV1865, the RV1909, the 1602P, and the RV-SBT to explain why I don't use them in my personal ministry. However, I made most of the comparisons to the RV1960 because it remains the most popular translation in the Spanish-speaking world.

I also want to emphasize that many of the people I consider my friends and brothers and sisters in Christ use a different translation than I do. They’re still my friends, and my brothers and sisters, even though they haven't reached the same conclusion as me.

If you are one of those who hasn't reached the same conclusion as me, I encourage you to examine the evidence. To begin, do you believe that God inspired and preserved His word? Do you believe He did so through the Received Text? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then keep studying and examining the evidence, and I believe that sooner or later you will have to reach the same conclusion as I have: The RVG is the most accurate translation of the preserved texts, translated by qualified translators using appropriate methods. If you would like a more detailed explanation of either of these points, I would be glad to be able to answer your questions at a future opportunity.