-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions on Spanish Translations
- Thread starter Greektim
- Start date
stilllearning
Active Member
I am also anxiously waiting, for the answers to these questions.
I'm not sure who might know this. I know Tim (tinytim) has been working with the Spanish in his area and Mexdeaf had worked with the deaf in the south but they might yet have a different Bible for the deaf Spanish. Not sure who else works with the Spanish.
I always used the RV1960 but if I were to work with the deaf in Mexico again I would likely use the NVI (Spanish equivalent of the NIV). I think it is a better translation in English than it is in Spanish.
For learning Spanish either one would be fine. I wouldn't use the RVR 1869 as there are too many words that are not used colloquially in today's Spanish.
Another version I would NOT use is the Gomez version. (If you have to ask, just forget that I mentioned it and get an RVR1960 or an NVI.)
For learning Spanish either one would be fine. I wouldn't use the RVR 1869 as there are too many words that are not used colloquially in today's Spanish.
Another version I would NOT use is the Gomez version. (If you have to ask, just forget that I mentioned it and get an RVR1960 or an NVI.)
Yasu Greektim, for those questions you will need to research spanish bible history for yourself to come up with your own conclusions...
I use the the old RV's and a few new ones that where translated using the TR & KJV for textual accuracy. Been reading the McVey translation here latley and it is good for a more transliteration of the KJV. The only time I use modern corrupt versions is when Im looking for translation errors.
When I learned spanish I did not use much of the bible because there was no consistency so I mainly learned through exposure and and spanish books at store. My wife is learning english using rosetta stone software it seems to work very well I like it because it focuses on pronunciation and sounds in native languae.
I use the the old RV's and a few new ones that where translated using the TR & KJV for textual accuracy. Been reading the McVey translation here latley and it is good for a more transliteration of the KJV. The only time I use modern corrupt versions is when Im looking for translation errors.
When I learned spanish I did not use much of the bible because there was no consistency so I mainly learned through exposure and and spanish books at store. My wife is learning english using rosetta stone software it seems to work very well I like it because it focuses on pronunciation and sounds in native languae.
Last edited by a moderator:
My answer to you would be based on the English version that you use. Personally, I am a firm believer in the KJV as the only version suitable for use in the English language, because it is based 100% on the Textus Receptus. It was influenced by translations in other languages, that were also based on the TR.
For this reason, I highly recommend the RVG, also known as the Gomez. A through study of the history of the Spanish Bible and comparing the RVG to the TR will prove that this is the most accurate and reliable version in the Spanish language. I have compared several (although not all) and I have little doubt in my mind about this conclusion. Some people have complained about comments or actions made by Huberto Gomez, the pastor who headed up the translation of this Bible, but I have not once heard a single argument worth its weight in salt against the final product. Ad homenin attacks (attacks against the person and not the facts) aren't going to disuade me. If you really don't like the RVG, you might try the 1602P, but I have my doubts about this one because if its relationship to Ruckman. If you reject both of these modern efforts to purify the Reina Valeras, go for the Reina Valera 1865.
However, as a KJV supporter, I adamently reject the NVI, because it is very much like the English NIV, meaning it uses Critical Texts (in my opinion, nothing more than man's words or opinions) in many places instead of the Textus Receptus. This is also why I reject the Reina Valera 1960 (possibly the most popular Spanish Bible among modern evangelicals).
For this reason, I highly recommend the RVG, also known as the Gomez. A through study of the history of the Spanish Bible and comparing the RVG to the TR will prove that this is the most accurate and reliable version in the Spanish language. I have compared several (although not all) and I have little doubt in my mind about this conclusion. Some people have complained about comments or actions made by Huberto Gomez, the pastor who headed up the translation of this Bible, but I have not once heard a single argument worth its weight in salt against the final product. Ad homenin attacks (attacks against the person and not the facts) aren't going to disuade me. If you really don't like the RVG, you might try the 1602P, but I have my doubts about this one because if its relationship to Ruckman. If you reject both of these modern efforts to purify the Reina Valeras, go for the Reina Valera 1865.
However, as a KJV supporter, I adamently reject the NVI, because it is very much like the English NIV, meaning it uses Critical Texts (in my opinion, nothing more than man's words or opinions) in many places instead of the Textus Receptus. This is also why I reject the Reina Valera 1960 (possibly the most popular Spanish Bible among modern evangelicals).
To get back to answering the OP, here is an excellent site which should answer some of your questions.
http://en.literaturabautista.com/taxonomy/term/5
Uh—what was that you were saying about "ad homenin"? :laugh:
Greektim, Here is a brief artical on Reformation Spanish Bible History Here is the Spanish Bible Translation History
Of course it doesn't go into depth of their base text or translational philosophy but it is a starting point for your research.
Of course it doesn't go into depth of their base text or translational philosophy but it is a starting point for your research.
Attacking a translation of God's Word (words like corrupt, errors) just because it is not to your liking, is not allowed
The KJV is most accurate translation for English-speaking people available today. Let's celebrate the KJV for 400 years!
I agree with that because I highly recommend it, too. RVG is growing. Praise the Lord!
Amen to that! What can I say more?
Last edited by a moderator:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Hopefully... very little
Greektim, been doing some research myself on bibles for learning spanish and found the new "Reina Valera Contemporanea". If you where learning spanish of Latin America this bible uses words like "ustedes son" instead of "vosotros sois" like the majority of spanish bibles uses. Now as far as textual accuracy goes I have not studied it to see how close it lines up to the KJV & TR...So I dont advice using for base text translation only for latin grammer.
Lev. 23:40 in the old Spanish Bibles
Most of the translations on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles differ from the KJV at Leviticus 23:40. Wycliffe’s has “fruits of the fairest tree” while the 1535 Coverdale’s has “goodly fruitful trees.” Tyndale’s, 1537 Matthew’s, and 1540 Great Bibles have “the fruits of goodly trees” while the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “the fruit of goodly trees.” On the other hand, the 1611 KJV has “the boughs of goodly trees” with a marginal note for boughs: “Heb. fruit.” The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has frucht (“fruit”) in agreement with the pre-1611 English Bibles. Likewise, the 1569 Spanish Reina and 1602 Spanish Valera have fruto [“fruit”] at this verse.
Most of the translations on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles differ from the KJV at Leviticus 23:40. Wycliffe’s has “fruits of the fairest tree” while the 1535 Coverdale’s has “goodly fruitful trees.” Tyndale’s, 1537 Matthew’s, and 1540 Great Bibles have “the fruits of goodly trees” while the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “the fruit of goodly trees.” On the other hand, the 1611 KJV has “the boughs of goodly trees” with a marginal note for boughs: “Heb. fruit.” The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has frucht (“fruit”) in agreement with the pre-1611 English Bibles. Likewise, the 1569 Spanish Reina and 1602 Spanish Valera have fruto [“fruit”] at this verse.
old Spanish Bibles at Lev. 11:30
Good translations on the KJV-only view's line disagree concerning how to translate most accurately a Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:30. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops’ Bibles rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther‘s Bible or both. The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has “Igel” [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther’s at this verse as can be seen in Haak’s rendering “hedgehog.” The 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine]. In addition, the 1853 Leeser's Old Testament also has "hedgehog." Aryeh Kaplan translated it “hedgehog” [“Anakah in Hebrew; yala in Aramaic (Targum; Bava Bathra)‘ herison in French (Rashi; Chizzkuni) erizo in Spanish (Ralbag)“ (Living Torah, p. 321).
Good translations on the KJV-only view's line disagree concerning how to translate most accurately a Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:30. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops’ Bibles rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther‘s Bible or both. The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has “Igel” [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther’s at this verse as can be seen in Haak’s rendering “hedgehog.” The 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine]. In addition, the 1853 Leeser's Old Testament also has "hedgehog." Aryeh Kaplan translated it “hedgehog” [“Anakah in Hebrew; yala in Aramaic (Targum; Bava Bathra)‘ herison in French (Rashi; Chizzkuni) erizo in Spanish (Ralbag)“ (Living Torah, p. 321).
In response to your vosotros or ustedes argument, I support using the vosotros even though I, as a Spanish Speaker (I grew up in Mexico and went to public school in Mexico, even though my blood is 100% American), don't use the vosotros. I support the use of vosotros for the same reason I support use of the "thee" and "thou" in the KJV. First, everyone understands it, and second, it carries meaning. In Spanish, vosotros is the informal form of ustedes, or the plural of "tu". There is no substitute. Does this change doctrines? Probably not, but having the extra layer of meaning (distinction between formal third person plural and informal third person plural) can only help our understanding of the text.
Good point. I shouldn't have used the two in the same line. I don't think I am using a double standard, however, as Ruckman represents a very corrupt and dangerous view of inspiration as it relates to the Bible. I guess, instead of saying I don't like the 1602P because of Ruckman's involvement, I should have said I don't like the 1602P because it uses the KJV to correct the Spanish, since its translators seem to believe the KJV is capable of "correcting" the textus receptus.
It is based on the TR (in its many incarnations)but departs from it in several hundred places.