Reina Valera Gomez

[4His_glory]

To accomplish this work we have put parallel the Textus Receptus, the 1909 Spanish Bible, and King James. We have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV. Every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV we immediately corrected.

Case and point. He should have never used the KJV just the originals.

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

Easy enough. Here you go.

The usage of caridad en place of amor is just one example.

Bro. George also states:

I do not object to the use of caridad in the Spanish Bible; although the word amor in my opinion is better, because it does not carry with it any Catholic connotation. I personally did not approve of the use of caridad in the RVG only because during the rough draft stage the reviser stated to me in correspondence that he would not use the term caridad because even though it wasn’t wrong, in Spanish he felt it was closely related to Catholicism. He also added that this was evidence that he was not making a Spanish translation “taylor-made for the Americans.” If he had not said this I would not have objected to it, just as I have not objected to caridad being used going back to Reina and Valera, although I believe amor is simply better. http://en.literaturabautista.com/node/41

He never says "caridad" is a problem in the RVG. He only tries to use that as an attempt to somehow create a conspiracy theory that Bro. Gomez was intimidated into applying that word by some imaginary Ruckmanite crowd that is supposedly pulling his strings behind the scenes, of which I blew that theory out of the water in this article: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/idx_foreign_bibles.htm

 

[4His_glory]

Had a hard time hearing it. Did he really say that standard for comparison must be the King James?

Yes he did. Here is an unofficial transcript by me. He said:
"But the standard to follow has to be the King James. I say that in public and I am not ashamed of it. 100%"

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

Case and point. He should have never used the KJV just the originals.

Well then you should have been around to rebuke the 1960 revisers for using and incorporating the ASV and RSV in their revision. They didn't "just use the originals". Here's a quote from Dr. Jose Flores, one of the RV 1960 consultants to the revision committee:

"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, CLIE 1977,by Dr. Jose Flores pg. 323

Why are you against Humberto Gomez using the KJV for his revision but you are not against the 1960 revisers for using the RSV and ASV? Isn't that a double-standard?

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

The RV 1960 does not incorporate the ASV and RSV and yes I would have a problem because and english translation should never be used in the revision of a translation in another language or a new translation in another language. You should only, only use the originals. As to which originals to use depends on your textual preference. But Gomez openly admits to being influenced by the KJV and that disqualifies him to do this project since if he really wanted to do a revision he should have just used the Greek and Hebrew.

Again here is a quote from Dr. Jose Flores, consultant to the 1960 revision committee:

"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, CLIE 1977,by Dr. Jose Flores pg. 323

Care to retract your statement or adjust your view on translation work?

 

[4His_glory]

Well then you should have been around to rebuke the 1960 revisers for using and incorporating the ASV and RSV in their revision. They didn't "just use the originals". Here's a quote from Dr. Jose Flores, one of the RV 1960 consultants to the revision committee:



Why are you against Humberto Gomez using the KJV for his revision but you are not against the 1960 revisers for using the RSV and ASV? Isn't that a double-standard?

If that is true the I have a the same problem with it that I have with Gomez. Fact is that there is no such thing as a perfect Spanish translation just as there is no such thing as perfect English translation. IMO. The RVR 1960 is a good translation. For one their was a panel of revisers which is much better than just one man. And furthermore those men were far more learned in the originals than Gomez.

I need to go. I have things to prepare for our prayer meeting tonight. I may address your other posts latter.

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

If that is true the I have a the same problem with it that I have with Gomez. Fact is that there is no such thing as a perfect Spanish translation just as there is no such thing as perfect English translation. IMO. The RVR 1960 is a good translation. For one their was a panel of revisers which is much better than just one man. And furthermore those men were far more learned in the originals than Gomez.

I need to go. I have things to prepare for our prayer meeting tonight. I may address your other posts latter.

I must go also. And there is much more that I would love to address with you, but time would fail me. At any rate, it is a pleasure to talk to you on this subject. Dios le bendiga.

 

[John of Japan]

The RV 1960 does not incorporate the ASV and RSV and yes I would have a problem because and english translation should never be used in the revision of a translation in another language or a new translation in another language. You should only, only use the originals. As to which originals to use depends on your textual preference. But Gomez openly admits to being influenced by the KJV and that disqualifies him to do this project since if he really wanted to do a revision he should have just used the Greek and Hebrew.

Gentlemen, forgive me for butting in here into a discussion about the Spanish versions, which I know little about. (Boy, am I glad none of my supporting pastors speaks Japanese or knows anything about the Japanese versions! :laugh

I have to disagree with you here, 4His_Glory. I believe you are being too dogmatic. A translator should use every resource possible. Sometimes we can get help in nuances and meanings by referring to how something has been translated into another language. In translating from the TR to Japanese, I have consulted other Japanese versions, several English versions (especially for my Japanese partner, who knows English well but doesn't know Greek), several Greek versions, the Chinese Bible, and up to ten different lexicons (including two Greek-Japanese ones). By looking at the English versions, my Japanese pastor has often caught mistakes I have made in translating from the Greek--leaving out a word, getting a nuance wrong, having a clause in the wrong place, etc.

 

[Rippon]

This is for 4HG . What do you think of the Reina Valera 1995 ?Have you paged through it ?

What do you think of the NVI/NIV bilingual Bible? It first came out in 1999. I've been thinking of buying one of these .

 

[Logos1560]

I have already explained that the RVG was not an attempt to only conform it to the KJV. (And I can demonstrate this with over 50 examples if you had the time and stamina later on.)

Consulting another language translation may be acceptable, but attempting to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV as the standard instead of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages would be a very different matter. You indicated that conforming the Spanish Bible to the KJV was not the "only" purpose or goal of the RVG, but was conforming it to the KJV in effect one of the goals or aims of the RVG?

The claimed statement from Gomez himself saying that "the KJV was the standard to follow" would suggest that it was one of his aims.

 

[Mexdeaf]

In the past 8 years that I have been involved in this issue, this has not been my experience. And believe me, I am in a lot of English-speaking churches these days as I am on the deputation trail.

I was in a Bible conference in Matamoros, Mexico in November of 2007. There was roughly 120 preachers at this meeting. Only 5 of them were English-speaking only. The rest were Spanish-speakers, and probably 98% of them were nationals. The majority of them could ONLY speak Spanish. Most of them have never stepped foot outside of their native land. The overwelming majority of these Spanish-speaking Preachers use the RVG for their ministries.

I beg to differ with your observations. There was never a question of the reliability of the RV1960 until it was brought up by North American, non-Spanish speaking pastors (Mickey Carter, etal). I have never heard a Mexican pastor claim that the RV1960 was a 'corrupt translation' unless they were under the influence of a pastor or missionary from the USA who was KJVO.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but God has blessed the RV1960 and will continue to do so as it is His inspired, inerrant Word.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Gentlemen, forgive me for butting in here into a discussion about the Spanish versions, which I know little about. (Boy, am I glad none of my supporting pastors speaks Japanese or knows anything about the Japanese versions! :laugh

I have to disagree with you here, 4His_Glory. I believe you are being too dogmatic. A translator should use every resource possible. Sometimes we can get help in nuances and meanings by referring to how something has been translated into another language. In translating from the TR to Japanese, I have consulted other Japanese versions, several English versions (especially for my Japanese partner, who knows English well but doesn't know Greek), several Greek versions, the Chinese Bible, and up to ten different lexicons (including two Greek-Japanese ones). By looking at the English versions, my Japanese pastor has often caught mistakes I have made in translating from the Greek--leaving out a word, getting a nuance wrong, having a clause in the wrong place, etc.

John, I agree with you, but I think that the problem with the RV-G is the 'conforming the Spanish to the KJV' statement. There have been numerous attempts to do this and every one has flamed out due to the inherent flaw of trying to make one language conform to another. Some are upset because they see that the RV1960 says something completely different than the KJV in certain places (NONE of which affect doctrine or Biblical Fundamentals) - and in certain circles, if it does not agree with the KJV 100% then it just isn't inerrant or infallible.

 

[4His_glory]

This is for 4HG . What do you think of the Reina Valera 1995 ?Have you paged through it ?

What do you think of the NVI/NIV bilingual Bible? It first came out in 1999. I've been thinking of buying one of these .

I have never personally even seen a 1995. They are just not popular. So I really can not comment.

As the the NVI. I personally am not a fan of the translation method behind it, however I would never find fault with some one if they prefer to use it. From what I have observed it seems to be decent translation in the dynamic equivalence method.

There is also La Nueva Bibla de Las Americas done by the Lockman foundation. These is a good literal translation from the critical text if that is ones preference. I use a Latin american revision of this in my study (along with the original language and RVR 1960). The difference is that it does not use "vosotros" which is not used in South America.

 

[4His_glory]

I suppose I did sound rather dogmatic, but I can not emphasis enough that the biases and standard for a revision or translation must be the originals. I would agree that one could use other resources for consultation but never the standard to which the work must conform as the RVG does by the revisers own admission.

 

[4His_glory]

I beg to differ with your observations. There was never a question of the reliability of the RV1960 until it was brought up by North American, non-Spanish speaking pastors (Mickey Carter, etal). I have never heard a Mexican pastor claim that the RV1960 was a 'corrupt translation' unless they were under the influence of a pastor or missionary from the USA who was KJVO.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but God has blessed the RV1960 and will continue to do so as it is His inspired, inerrant Word.

Exactly and amen. This has been my experience (though admittedly limited) as well.

 

[IFB Mole]

I have some questions fro thos ethat know this stuff:

When someone says they are trying to translate from the Texus Receptus, which edition would that be and by whom?

Wasn't there MANY editions of the TR?

Furthermore wasn't the TR the "critical text" of its day?

Didn't Erasmus, Stephanus et, al. gather ALL the known manuscipt copies and compile ONE "version" from all known copies of the day?

Wasn't it a sort of compilation of all known texts?

Doesn't the best critical text of today incorporate in it the TR text?

We have SO MANY more copies and partial copies than did the translators 500+ years ago so isn't that a better "base" to compile an accuate Greek text from?

Just wondering

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

Gentlemen, forgive me for butting in here into a discussion about the Spanish versions, which I know little about. (Boy, am I glad none of my supporting pastors speaks Japanese or knows anything about the Japanese versions! :laugh

I have to disagree with you here, 4His_Glory. I believe you are being too dogmatic. A translator should use every resource possible. Sometimes we can get help in nuances and meanings by referring to how something has been translated into another language. In translating from the TR to Japanese, I have consulted other Japanese versions, several English versions (especially for my Japanese partner, who knows English well but doesn't know Greek), several Greek versions, the Chinese Bible, and up to ten different lexicons (including two Greek-Japanese ones). By looking at the English versions, my Japanese pastor has often caught mistakes I have made in translating from the Greek--leaving out a word, getting a nuance wrong, having a clause in the wrong place, etc.

Thank you for your input because you raise some good points. The truth is that ALL translations are based on more than just the Original Languages. In fact, even Erasmus' Greek text, which became the basis for all subsequent Greek texts, was not solely based on Greek manuscripts. Much of the Latin manuscripts were considered and implemented as well. The same could be said for other Greek texts.

For someone to make a standard that a translation cannot implement any other manuscript evidence outside of the Original Language texts is to reject EVERY Bible translation in existence!

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

Consulting another language translation may be acceptable, but attempting to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV as the standard instead of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages would be a very different matter. You indicated that conforming the Spanish Bible to the KJV was not the "only" purpose or goal of the RVG, but was conforming it to the KJV in effect one of the goals or aims of the RVG?

The claimed statement from Gomez himself saying that "the KJV was the standard to follow" would suggest that it was one of his aims.

The purpose was for an accurate Spanish Bible. We believe the standard for accuracy is the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words that underlie the KJV rather than that of the Critical Texts. Therefore, considering that we believe that the KJV is a completely accurate translation based on the Traditional Texts, we see no problem in using the KJV alongside the original language texts as a guide for revision of foreign language translations. Just as the 1960 revisers saw fit to implement the RSV and ASV in their revision.

But again, you guys are not giving Humberto Gomez any credit at all for his statements explaining that the Original Language texts were indeed used for his revision. (I watched him implement the Greek TR with my own eyes.) It's as if you are ignoring that fact. Again, here are some quotes from the horse's mouth:

HOW WE HAVE DONE OUR REVISION

To accomplish this work we have put parallel the Textus Receptus, the 1909 Spanish Bible, and King James. We have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV. Every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV we immediately corrected. Because not all the words mean the same in every language we have used the best words available in our Spanish language, the words that have the most meaning, never contradicting the TR or the KJV.
http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/en/articles.html

THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR REVISION
1. First and foremost 100% Loyalty to the Pure Text, Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and to the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.
http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/en/articles.html

We have attempted to correct every verse that was not in line with the TR and the KJV.
http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/en/articles.html

But here it is for you to read and examine; if you can find anything in it, that is not Textus Receptus , or if you can find anything that is not written in a good and perfect Spanish, we will immediately correct it, for the good of our people and for the glory of the Lord.
http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/en/articles.html

Also consider the words of an expert in the Original Languages, Dr. D.A.Waite, who also examined the RVG with the TR:

I have personally looked up in Dr. Humberto Gomez's Spanish Bible each one of those 158 passages in my book I found every one of them to be in conformity to the Received Greek Text and have been made doctrinally correct. This cannot be said of the 1960 and even the 1909 in each of these places.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ForeignBibles/spanish_bible.asp

At the same link just given, you can also find a chart by Dr. Rex Cobb. This man is the Director of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute, a former veteran Missionary to Mexico, a translator of the Bible into an Indian dialect, and an instructer in advanced linguistic studies. He is fluent in Spanish and is one of Humberto Gomez's collaborators in the RVG project. His chart shows that he went through the entire NT comparing the different editions of the Reina Valera such as the 1909, 1865, 1960, and the RVG. He documents each time there was a departure from the TR. His results were the following. The 1865 departed 28 times. The 1909 departed 122 times. The 1960 departed 191 times. The RVG departed 0 times.

The fact is that the Received Texts have indeed been implemented in the Bro. Gomez's revision. Those accusing him of not implementing the Greek and Hebrew but only implementing the KJV are either willfully lying or ignorantly repeating false information without doing thorough research. Again, as an eyewitness, I know these things to be so.

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

I beg to differ with your observations. There was never a question of the reliability of the RV1960 until it was brought up by North American, non-Spanish speaking pastors (Mickey Carter, etal). I have never heard a Mexican pastor claim that the RV1960 was a 'corrupt translation' unless they were under the influence of a pastor or missionary from the USA who was KJVO.

First off, many Spanish speaking churches are the product of an American missionary or an Hispanic minister who is the product of an American missionary's ministry. So I do not deny the influence that Americans have had upon much of Hispanic Fundamentalism in general. But as I said earlier, what if they are right concerning the Bible issue. They were right when they exposed Catholicism. What if they are right concerning Alexandrian Westcott & Hort Critical Text corruption? I think they are. Not because an American gringo said so. But simply because it's the truth!

Now if you are OK with the Critical Texts and with the ASV and RSV being incorporated in the revision of the Spanish Bible, than never mind. I will rejoice that you are using the RV 1960, which is still for the most part TR based, despite the several key places that have been corrupted with the Critical Texts. I will rejoice because the RV 1960 is way better than the Spanish NIV or the Version Popular or the 1977 or 1995 editions.

However, some of us are sincere in our convictions that the Received Texts are the true and accurate representation of the Original Autographs. So it is only natural for those of our persuasion to want a Spanish Bible that reflects such rather than the Critical Texts. And in the RVG, we have such a Spanish Bible. The RVG is 100% free of Critical Text corruption.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but God has blessed the RV1960 and will continue to do so as it is His inspired, inerrant Word.

My father-in-law, who only speaks Spanish, was led to the Lord through a Catholic bible. Does that mean that I should be silent about the corruption contained in that bible? Or does purity of God's words really matter?

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

John, I agree with you, but I think that the problem with the RV-G is the 'conforming the Spanish to the KJV' statement. There have been numerous attempts to do this and every one has flamed out due to the inherent flaw of trying to make one language conform to another. Some are upset because they see that the RV1960 says something completely different than the KJV in certain places (NONE of which affect doctrine or Biblical Fundamentals) - and in certain circles, if it does not agree with the KJV 100% then it just isn't inerrant or infallible.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the RVG project was not merely an attempt to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV. The truth is that the KJV was used as a guide in the revision to conform the Spanish Bible to the Received Texts.

And again, let's not forget that the RSV and ASV was used in the RVR 1960.

It's just this simple to me. On one hand I have a Spanish Bible - RV 1960 - that incorporated the RSV and ASV to bring it more in line with the Critical Texts (according to their own admission). On the other hand I have a Spanish Bible - RVG - that incorporated the KJV to bring it more in line with the Received Texts. Which do you think that I and those of my persuasion are going to use?