Reina Valera Gomez

[Logos1560]

This was a step backwards, not forwards.

By conforming the RV back to the TR, Bro. Gomez and his collaborators have produced a Spanish Bible that is more true to it's original form - the 1602 - than the 1909 and 1960.

I am currently working on an article documenting many instances where the RVG has been brought back to read like the original 1602
Everyone complains that Bro. Gomez is just trying to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV. But really and truthfull, he has brought it back in line with what Reina and Valera originally rendered, which were right to begin with.

The point or issue is not whether they may be some places where the RVG was brought back in agreement with the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles. The point being raised is whether or not there are any places in the RVG where it was conformed to the KJV. The example of 2 Timothy 2:15 seems to be evidence of at least one place where the Spanish Bible was conformed to the KJV and was not brought back in line or back in agreement to or kept in agreement with the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles. There was nothing in the Textus Receptus at 2 Timothy 2:15 that demanded that the rendering of the 1602 Spanish Bible at the verse be changed. The main reason for the change seems to be to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV. The RVG is not more true to its original form at 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

The point or issue is not whether they may be some places where the RVG was brought back in agreement with the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles. The point being raised is whether or not there are any places in the RVG where it was conformed to the KJV. The example of 2 Timothy 2:15 seems to be evidence of at least one place where the Spanish Bible was conformed to the KJV and was not brought back in line or back in agreement to or kept in agreement with the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles. There was nothing in the Textus Receptus at 2 Timothy 2:15 that demanded that the rendering of the 1602 Spanish Bible at the verse be changed. The main reason for the change seems to be to conform the Spanish Bible to the KJV. The RVG is not more true to its original form at 2 Timothy 2:15.

I have no quarrel about the way II Tim. 2:15 reads in any edition of the Reina Valera. It is interesting that you guys will complain and have a fit about places in the RVG that may read similar to the KJV, yet you are absolutely silent about places in the 1960 RVR that reads exactly like the ASV, RSV, and NIV such as Mat. 5:22, Mat. 15:8, Mat. 16:18, Mark 1:2, Luke 2:22, Luke 23:42, Eph. 3:9, I Pet. 2:2, & Rev.22:14 (I can list many more).

Again it's simple. You can either choose a revised Spanish Bible that has been brought into conformity to the Critical Texts in key places to read like the ASV and RSV, or you can choose a revised Spanish Bible that has been brought into conformity to the Received Texts and consequently reads like the KJV in those same key places. Because I believe the Critical Texts are corrupt and that the Received Text represents the true preserved words of God, I will go with the RVG.

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

This quote from one of the consultants of the 1960 RVR bears repeating:

"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

 

[Rippon]

Because I believe the Critical Texts are corrupt and that the Received Text represents the true preserved words of God, I will go with the RVG.

Define "corrupt".

 

[Askjo]

Again it's simple. You can either choose a revised Spanish Bible that has been brought into conformity to the Critical Texts in key places to read like the ASV and RSV, or you can choose a revised Spanish Bible that has been brought into conformity to the Received Texts and consequently reads like the KJV in those same key places. Because I believe the Critical Texts are corrupt and that the Received Text represents the true preserved words of God, I will go with the RVG.

Amen! That is why I highly recommend RVG. :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I truly appreciate the Spanish speakers input on this topic, and they have both been gentlemen.

 

[Logos1560]

It seems that all KJV-only advocates do not accept the Gomez revision of the Spanish Bible. There is an article critical of it by KJV-only advocate Jeff McArdle in the English section of the valera1865.org web site.

Here is the first part of that article:

"WHAT ABOUT THE GOMEZ BIBLE?
By Jeff McArdle​

... let me start off this article by pointing out just one (among the dozens of them) extremely dangerous and erroneous change that our eminent Dr. Gomez has made in his Laodicean refabrication of the time honored Valera text.
. . .

you would think that a missionary to Mexico would have better sense than to change the Spanish Bible and thereby destroy the doctrine of Jesus Christ’ efficacious "purging" of our sins at Calvario. But, no way José. Bro. Gomez’ sloppy revision of the Valera text twists Heb. 1:3, where for four hundred years it read exactly as the King James with these words: "…habiendo hecho la purgación de nuestros pecados por sí mismo…" Note the Spanish word purgación which does NOT appear in the Gomez Bible.

Now, we know exactly what Bro. Gomez is going to do once he reads this article. He has already revised the Spanish Bible 4 times in 4 years. And every time we have pointed out to him an error in his Bible, he went back and changed it (see for example his alteration of Matt. 25:1 in regards to the words "esposo" and "desposado")."

 

[Mexdeaf]

There is an article critical of it by KJV-only advocate Jeff McArdle in the English section of the valera1865.org web site.

"Now, we know exactly what Bro. Gomez is going to do once he reads this article. He has already revised the Spanish Bible 4 times in 4 years. And every time we have pointed out to him an error in his Bible, he went back and changed it (see for example his alteration of Matt. 25:1 in regards to the words "esposo" and "desposado")."

So... which of those four versions is the uncorrupted, perfect Spanish equivalent of the TR (or rather, the KJV)?

To his credit, he has edited his text to remove the errors. To his discredit, he has (IMHO) wasted his time and money to fix something that ain't broken except in his mind and in the minds of the hardcore KJVO crowd.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SNIP
To his credit, he has edited his text to remove the errors. SNIP

Isn't this what the original 1611 translation committes did back in the day?

 

[Logos1560]

Gomez on 2 Tim. 2:15

The following is quoted from an article about some criticisms of the Reina Valera Gomez Spanish Bible that is posted at the Dean Burgon Society web site. Evidently this article was written before Gomez changed his Spanish Bible to "estudia" at 2 Tim. 2:15. Does making this change seem to conflict with the very statements quoted from Gomez himself? [bold added by this poster]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In II Tim. 2:15, the KJV says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God…" In the Reina Valera, it reads, "Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado…" which is translated as "Strive with diligence to present thyself approved unto God". Some have suggested to Dr. Gomez that he should change "procura con diligencia" to "estudia" which is the Spanish word for "study".
At the DBS meeting in Chicago that I met Dr. Gomez in, they had a panel of speakers that represented the Dean Burgon Society. This panel was formed for the purpose of a question and answer session concerning many different topics of the Bible. On the panel was Dr. Gomez along with Dr. Rex Cobb, Dr. Steven Zeinner, Dr. H.D.Williams, a few others, and of course Dr. Waite. In the audience were many Pastors and Fundamentalist churches from all over the US represented. Also, several well known Fundamentalist Bible colleges and institutions were also represented. During the Q & A session, a Hispanic Pastor directed a question towards Bro. Gomez. This man publicly urged Bro. Gomez to consider changing the passage in II Tim. 2:15 to read like the KJV by replacing "procura con diligencia" with the word "estudia". Dr. Gomez replied that he had already considered such a change at the suggestion of others in the past but decided to retain the reading as it already stood in the Spanish Bible. He reminded everyone that this was not a project to produce a KJV in Spanish. He explained that the words "procura con diligencia" were not in conflict with the Textus Receptus. He then further explained that in the Spanish language the reading had more impact and meaning than the change suggested and that he was not about to sacrifice the beauty of his language for the sake of English speakers who don’t quite understand the impact and expression of certain renderings in the Spanish language. Dr. Gomez explained that in Spanish, this rendering carries the expression to "give it all you got" or to "put your heart into it", a strong expression in Spanish.
Afterwards, Dr. Waite also supported Bro. Gomez’s answers by further elaborating that not only was the rendering in Spanish not in conflict with the Textus Receptus, but that in the 1600s the English term "study" also carried the same type of expression as the Spanish does. So there really wasn’t any conflict between the Spanish Bible and the KJV in this passage at all."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[4His_glory]

Interesting info. I would like to know what the date of this quote takes place in relation to that of the quote by brother Gomez: "The King James is our standard..."

The thing that troubles me is that there seems to be a level of inconsistency concerning this project. Brother Gomez says one thing that seems completely contradictory to other things he has said. Is he just trying to placate different groups of KJVOs?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Interesting info. I would like to know what the date of this quote takes place in relation to that of the quote by brother Gomez: "The King James is our standard..."

The thing that troubles me is that there seems to be a level of inconsistency concerning this project. Brother Gomez says one thing that seems completely contradictory to other things he has said. Is he just trying to placate different groups of KJVOs?

Of course! They are his bread and butter.

 

[Logos1560]

Mandy, since you indicated that you had worked with Gomez, I wonder if you could explain why he made a change in his Spanish Bible that he earlier indicated that he would not make.
In a statement posted at the Dean Burgon web site, Gomez is quoted or reported as follows:
"He [Gomez] explained that the words "procura con diligencia" were not in conflict with the Textus Receptus. He then further explained that in the Spanish language the reading had more impact and meaning than the change suggested and that he was not about to sacrifice the beauty of his language for the sake of English speakers who don’t quite understand the impact and expression of certain renderings in the Spanish language."

More of the context for this quote is found in post #70 on page 7 of this thread. The impression may be that Gomez likely gave in to the presssure from English-speaking KJV-only advocates to make the change "estudia" at 2 Timothy 2:15 when he had earlier stated that he would not make that change.

 

[Manny Rodriguez]

Mandy, since you indicated that you had worked with Gomez, I wonder if you could explain why he made a change in his Spanish Bible that he earlier indicated that he would not make.
In a statement posted at the Dean Burgon web site, Gomez is quoted or reported as follows:
"He [Gomez] explained that the words "procura con diligencia" were not in conflict with the Textus Receptus. He then further explained that in the Spanish language the reading had more impact and meaning than the change suggested and that he was not about to sacrifice the beauty of his language for the sake of English speakers who don’t quite understand the impact and expression of certain renderings in the Spanish language."

More of the context for this quote is found in post #70 on page 7 of this thread. The impression may be that Gomez likely gave in to the presssure from English-speaking KJV-only advocates to make the change "estudia" at 2 Timothy 2:15 when he had earlier stated that he would not make that change.

Since I am the one who wrote the article that you are quoting I'll be glad to answer your question. I was there at the Dean Burgon Society meeting when it was publicly suggested to Bro. Gomez to change II Tim. 2:15 from 'procura con diligencia' to 'estudia'. The individual that asked for this changed was a full-blooded Puerto Rican Hispanic who Pastors a totally Hispanic congregation in Indiana. As I said in the article, Bro. Gomez explained that to replace the 3 words 'procura con diligencia' for the 1 word 'estudia' would be to take away from the impact of its expression in Spanish to put your heart into it or to give it all you got. Bro. Gomez explained that the key words to this expression were the words 'con diligencia'. Bro. Gomez said that although he considered the KJV to be a great Bible, his revision was not an effort to conform every single word in the Spanish Bible to mirror the wording in the KJV if the word in the Spanish Bible is already accurate. He further explained that the words 'procura con diligencia' was an accurate translation of the TR and not really in conflict with the wording in the KJV. Dr. D.A.Waite then supported Bro. Gomez's explanation by furthor adding that in the 1600s the word 'study' used to carry the same expression as 'procura con diligencia' does in Spanish.

But Bro. Gomez finished his response to the Hispanic Pastor by promising to further consider this recommended change. He explained that he did not want to make a change just for the sake of changing words to mirror the English of the KJV. Bro. Gomez did further consider this change and this is what he did according to his personal explanation to me.

He consulted several collaborators around the world, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic (all Spanish speakers), to gather their opinions about this change. Bro. Gomez sent me the e-mails to show me the people who he collaborated with. Together they all decided that the word 'estudia' could still be used in replacement of 'procura' as long as the words 'con diligencia' were also maintained for the sake of preserving the expression in spanish. Dr. Waite, Dr. Cobb, Bro. Carlos, and other Greek consultants all agreed that the words 'estudia con diligencia' would be an accurate translation of the greek 'spoudazo'. The hispanic collaborators felt that this was a beautiful expression. So they decided to make the change to 'estudia con diligencia' in II Tim. 2:15.

And for those who would want to invent a conspiracy theory that some imaginary "Ruckmanite KJV-only crowd" pressured Bro. Gomez into making this change (LOL), which I happen to know is totally untrue, keep in mind that "estudia con diligencia/study with diligence" still does not mirror the KJV word-for-word. But yes they are in agreement.

Personally, if it would have remained 'procura con diligencia' I would have be fine with it. But I do prefer 'estudia con diligencia' better. I think this is an even stronger expression. I believe I can now teach and preach II Tim. 2:15 more clearly and with more potency than before. But that's me.

Anyways, I hope this answers your question.

BTW, I was not one of Bro. Gomez's consultants. I only assisted Bro. Gomez in formatting the parallel Spanish/English (RVG/KJV) Bible on the computer (which is soon to be printed).

 

[Logos1560]

A KJV-only Spanish missionary named Robert Breaker III reported to have the following conversation with Mr. Gomez. His conversation suggests that changes were made in the Spanish Bible to make it agree with the KJV and not the original language texts. This is from his posted information entitled "History and Truth of the Reina-Valera-Gomez Spanish Bible" that is at his www.rrb3.com/ web site.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Eventually, a mutual friend told me that Mr. Gomez had heard of me, and wanted to speak with me about his bible. So, I called him on the phone with interest and asked him details about his version.
When I asked him who did the revision, he told me, "I was the final authority on the project, making all the changes myself." (I didn't like this, as this isn't what Valera desired in his preface). Although, he confessed he had help from others who emailed him suggestions for changes.
When I asked him if he knew Hebrew or Greek, he replied, "No."
Mr. Gomez further continued, by telling me he wished to have a pure Bible in Spanish, and if his wasn't pure enough, and others desired to turn to a purer Bible in Spanish, then he would change as well, even going to the 1602 Purified if others thought it was the best.
He seemed humble and nice, and I enjoyed speaking with him. But I was anything but impressed with his translating methods. How could he translate the Bible if he didn't know Hebrew or Greek? (Isn't that what Valera wanted)? And how was he doing it? And how could one man, as the final authority on the work, qualify as pious MEN?
Before hanging up, I asked Mr. Gomez to tell me if his translation was perfect. He wouldn't answer. But on his website, I read his following words about his version: "...What I am presenting to you, in my opinion, is the perfect word of God."
Is the RVG the perfect word of God in Spanish? Does it contain error? Did it go verse by verse with the Greek TR?
With all this in mind, I obtained a copy of the first edition of the Gomez Bible, and began studying it, to see if it did indeed read along with the King James, and if it followed the right texts. What I found was astonishing, if not shocking!

LOOKING AT THE FIRST EDITION OF THE GOMEZ BIBLE​

As I read the first edition of the RVG, I found a plethora of errors, mistakes, and problems. Because it was only a work of two years, I chalked up many of the spelling mistakes as the rush to get it to the printer.
But there were many things in the first edition of the Gomez Spanish Bible that I could not accept, much less believe, that are far worse than just spelling mistakes. I'll let you be the judge, as I give just a few examples below:

DID JESUS GO TO A DRINKING PARTY?​

In John 2:10, I found what I think is the most ridiculous Bible reading I've ever seen in any Bible. I can't believe this was even printed in the Gomez Bible. For in the Gomez we read:
"Y le dice: Todo hombre sirve primero el buen vino, y cuando ya est�n borrachos, entonces el que es inferior mas t� has guardado el buen vino hasta ahora."
This verse says that those at this marriage party were DRUNK, and not with new wine. This verse literally says they were wasted, inebriated, smashed, soaring, two sheets into the wind, liquored up, boozed, full of alcohol, etc.!
The verse in English is: "And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."
In KJV here uses the word DRUNK, but this means they were full, or satisfied with what they drank. This verse is not saying that that the men of the party were drinking liquor! But in the Gomez, they used the word for being intoxicated!
No Spanish Bible makes this mistake! (Except the Enzinas, which reads embriagados. I know as I checked them all!)
The original 1602 says: "Y dizele, Todo hombre pone primero el buen vino: y quando ya eftan hartos, entonces lo que es peor: mas tu has guardado el buen vino hafta ahora.
Notice it says they were hartos, which means full or satisfied. And in the margin of the original 1602 we read, "Han bien bebido" (They had drunken well), showing that even Valera didn't think the men were intoxicated!
(Note: The 2nd Edition of the Gomez fixes this. But the question needs be asked, How could this have ever gotten printed in the Gomez Bible to begin with???)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ​