Address: Jeff McArdle, c/o La Sociedad Biblica Valera, 558 Hialeah Drive, Box 1, Hialeah,
Website: www.Valera1865.org Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Click here for a comparison study of the KJV, the Spanish 1909 & 1960, and the Spanish 1865
Where is the word of God in the Spanish language? The movement to defend the true word of God in English is in full swing now. These days there are many Bible-believing Christians in the fundamentalist world who wonder if there is not also a perfect Bible in the Spanish language. This is the logical outcome of the King James movement in America because, after all, the United States is the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. So now the battle is raging in Baptist and fundamental circles over which Spanish Bible is correct. Twenty years ago most Baptists didn't even care whether there was a perfect English Bible let alone a perfect Spanish one. Now they claim to be able to tell us where the perfect Spanish Bible is.
Of course the most popular Spanish Bible on the market today is the Reina-Valera of 1960 (RV1960). It is erroneously assumed by the defenders of the RV1960 that it is popular for much of the same reasons the King James Bible is the greatest seller of all time in English. This type of reasoning is laughable. The King James Bible was the best seller long before the 1881 revision committee did its dirty work. But the RV1960 was produced at a time when the need for Spanish Bibles was at its height. That is, it was produced during the Laodicean age, by Laodicean Christians who followed the Westcott and Hort Philosophy of textual criticism. So the need was filled by Alexandrians because the body of Christ had already given up on the true text and surrendered the truth over to Laodicean bastions of higher criticism. Truth be known, the need for Spanish Bibles was actually created by Bible believing missionaries who went into Latin America over the past 100 years while believing only one Book. These facts notwithstanding, the RV1960 Bible is currently acknowledged by almost all Bible believers as being the corrupt Alexandrian revision that it truly is. The need was filled by a corrupt Bible! This is not conjecture, it is documented fact. Later in this article we will list just 10 out of hundreds of corruptions found in the RV1960.
Because the RV1960 is so corrupt, many are attempting to find a solution to this question: Which Spanish Bible is correct? Before we can answer this question there are some other questions that need to be asked first. Some may be surprised at the answers:
1. Question: Why do modern Spanish Bibles, including the RV1909, RV1960, and the 1602R (Monterey revision of 2001) have to have the word Valera on them in order to sell?
Answer: Because almost everyone even remotely familiar with this issue acknowledges that the original 1602 Valera is the standard text in Spanish.
2. Question: If the original 1602 Valera is the standard text then why has it never been published for mass distribution?
Answer: The Spanish Inquisition did not end until 1813. There were no missionaries to Latin America or Spain, no Valera Bible societies, no Spanish Bible publishers and it was forbidden by Spanish law to even possess a copy of the Valera Bible in Spain and Latin America.
3. Question: If the original 1602 Valera is the standard text then why the willingness on the part of Laodicean-age Christians to constantly revise it?
Answer: When the need became greatest, the people in charge of most Bible societies had already bought into the false theories of textual criticism and Bible translating advocated by men like Westcott, Hort, and Nida (Nida was the translation secretary and later the president of the American Bible Society).
4. Question: Why does the RV1960 depart from the original 1602 Valera in 100's of documented places?
Answer: Because men like Nida purposely revised it in order to line it up with the Egyptian "family" of manuscripts. Nida himself has said, "Nevertheless, in some instances where a critical text is so much to be preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee did make some slight changes" (see Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960, Nida, Eugene, ABS, NY, 1998, p. 3). These slight changes amounted to hundreds of corrupt readings found in the RV1960.
5. Question: Why do men who profess to be "Bible-believers" defend the RV1960 when they know that it omits 100's of words found in and supported by the TR and The AV1611?
Answer: Birds of a feather flock together. (El Diablo los cría y ellos se juntan!)
6. Question: What part did the "Father of Dynamic Equivalency," Eugene Nida, play in the formation and function of the RV1960.
Answer: The whole thing (RV1960) is documented to be Nida's brainchild. He organized the Latin American committee that did the revision and he fed them the corrupt readings from the Alexandrian manuscripts that are still found in the RV1960 to this day.
7. Question: How did we get the original 1602 Valera and what is it's outstanding representative today?
Answer: The original 1602 Valera was produced in Europe during the Protestant reformation by a Spanish street-preaching Protestant named Cipriano de Valera in the year 1602. Its outstanding representative today is the Valera1865, which was also produced primarily in Spain by a Spaniard named Angel de Mora. The two Bibles are essentially the same Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Changes were made in the New Testament to line the Valera up with the King James Bible in regards to some readings and some translation problems. But of all modern Bibles with the name Valera on it, the Valera1865 is by far the closest to the original 1602 Valera. And it is not really modern, having been produced before 1881 and before Tischendorf's discoveries could have any influence over its production.
So now we come back to the original question posed to the reader at the beginning of this article: Which Spanish Bible is the correct Spanish Bible? Answer: The original 1602 Valera is the standard Spanish text, just as the AV1611 is the standard English text. The outstanding representative of the original 1602 Valera is the Valera1865, just as the 1769 Cambridge is the outstanding representative of the AV1611. Every attempt should be made to defend every word found in the Valera1865. The Valera1865 is the correct Spanish text!
Below the reader will find just a taste of the corruption that one can find in the RV1960. Listed are 10 verses that prove that the RV1960 is nothing but an Alexandrian revision of a Bible that was produced more than 400 years ago (the original 1602 Valera). We have documented the fact that each verse we list was changed in order to line up the original 1602 Valera and its outstanding representative, the Valera1865, with the "oldest and best" manuscripts kept under lock and key by the pope.
We already asked the reader some serious questions concerning the Spanish Bible debate currently be "duked" out among Bible believer and fundamentalist. We’ve already stated emphatically that we believe the Valera1865 to be the outstanding representative of the original 1602 Valera. We have also stated that the original 1602 Valera is the standard text for the Spanish-speaking people. The Valera1865 Spanish Bible is now back in print after being ignored by the current crop of Bible correctors in charge of the majority of Bible publishers and Bible societies.
And as already stated, the original 1602 Valera and its outstanding representative, the Valera1865, are Philadelphia Bibles produced during the Protestant reformation and should not be revised or corrected. If Laodiceans want to produce a new Spanish Bible they are welcome to do so. It's a free country. But they should not lie about their Bibles being Valera Bibles when they are intent on departing from the original 1602 Valera whenever possible. This is as disingenuous as the NKJV committee calling their Bible the "New" King James Bible after admitting that certain "variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text" (see preface to the NKJV). The RV1960 is an Alexandrian corruption and the documentation can be found in our book The Bible Believer's Guide to Elephant Hunting. The Valera1865 and the original 1602 Valera are the correct Spanish text and we'll defend them for as long as the Lord will allow or until He comes back to rapture us out. Here are just a few examples of the corruptions found in the RV1960. Each of these verses is absolutely correct in the Valera1865:
1) Matthew 5:22 The Greek word translated "without a cause" in the AV1611, and translated as sin razon in the Valera1865, is left out in the RV1960, thereby making Jesus Christ a sinner for getting angry at His Jewish brethren in the temple when He overthrew the money changers. The Greek word eikh is the word that should have been translated. The RV1960 revisers refused to translate it because the Vatican manuscript and the Codex Sinaiticus took the word out. This is after Eugene Nida and his Bible revisers had told us that they would change only "a limited number of passages, especially those which prove inconsistent with the other biblical truth." How is making Jesus a sinner consistent with ANY Biblical truth?
2) Mark 1:2 The words los profetas (the prophets) are changed to "Isaías el profeta" when it is plain that part of the OT quote is from Malachi. This is a prophetic passage dealing with the 2nd advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. Once again we have an attack on Jesus Christ carried out by the revisers of the Valera Bible who purposely changed the text to bring it in line with Westcott and Hort's favorite manuscripts, a and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Here the RV1960 revision departed from the TR and the basis for the departure was the manuscripts made popular by Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, Greisbach, Tragelles, Lachmann, Nestle, Metzger, Alford, etc.
3) Luke 2:22 The Roman Catholic versions tell us that everyone besides Mary needed purification. In the KJV Mary is given credit for what she is, a woman who was a sinner in need of a Savior (Luke 1:47). Here the RV1960 aligns itself with the Roman Catholic critical text. The amazing thing is that the original 1602 Valera along with its outstanding representative in print today, the Valera1865, is so strongly anti-Roman Catholic that the word "Maria" is inserted to make sure that the reader is certain to get the idea that Mary needed purification.
4) John 18:36 The word ahora (now) is removed destroying the doctrinal truth that Jesus Christ's kingdom, although not present "now," will certainly be present at the 2nd advent. This is one of the classic Alexandrian "bloopers" and removing this word lines the RV1960 up with the NRSV in English. This was done even though the word "ahora" is found in a Spanish Bible produced well over 400 years ago (Valera 1602). The Greek word is nun and the manuscripts that contain it are so many that Nestles didn't even bother to give the manuscript evidence for or against the reading. This means that Jesus Christ's 2nd advent is attacked in the RV1960, in the face of every Greek manuscript available, the KJV, the RV1909, the Valera1865, the original 1602 Valera, and dozens of other TR based Bibles in various languages.
5) Acts 15:17 The words "saith the Lord, who doeth all these things" (dice el Señor, que hace todas estas cosas) are removed even though it is found in the original 1602 Valera. Once again we have an example where Nida and his fellow Bible revisers decided to change the Bible because "…in some instances…a critical text is so much to be preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus, [therefore] the committee did make some slight changes…." These slight changes amount to hundreds of corruptions forced onto the fledgling Latin churches found throughout Latin America. Of course the reason we are given this corrupt reading has everything to do with the corrupt pair of manuscripts (B and a), one of which the pope has squirreled away in his library in Rome. It has nothing to do with the original 1602 Valera, which had the reading correct 400 years ago.
6) Acts 20:28 The word "God" (Dios) is changed to "Lord" (Señor) destroying the truth that the blood that Jesus Christ had flowing through His veins was God's blood. Once again we have an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ because if Jesus had "God's blood" coursing through his body then it must be that Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh." This type of blunder doesn't seem to bother Calvin George because he does not address this verse in his book The Battle for the Spanish Bible (along with about 200 others he remains silent about). He should have entitled his book The Battle AGAINST the Spanish Bible because in this verse he chose to be on the side of Codex Alexandrinus (as in Alexandria, Egypt; as in "love not the world [Egypt], neither the things of the world") instead of the TR, the KJV and the original 1602 Valera translated more than 400 years ago.
7) Romans 10:15 The word "gospel" (evangelio) is removed thereby making the pope's message legitimate. The "vicar of hell" (see Martin Luther) is always preaching "peace," but has never once preached the "gospel of peace." By now the reader should be convinced that there was a conspiracy in 1960 to reinvent the Valera and make it a Roman Catholic Bible. All roads lead back to Rome. The pope never really did like the Valera Bible and the RV1960 is definitely not a Valera Bible. The RV1960 is a faithful representation of B and a (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), the 2 manuscripts which are controlled by the Vatican and which both remove the word "gospel" in this verse. Along with B and a, is Codex Alexandrinus and we don't suppose any of our readers would have a hard time guessing where that manuscript comes from. By now we grow weary with hearing RV1960 defenders make statements like, "I can raise my Santa Biblia before the people in my Spanish-speaking church and boldly declare, 'This is the Word of God!'" (See Calvin George, The Battle for the Spanish Bible, p. 6). No Christian in this age is EVER commanded to preach "peace." Peace is preached by one-worlders in I Thessalonians 5:3 and the only thing that can bring a man in Mexico real "peace" is the "gospel" of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As a preacher once said, "the only pill a man ever needs is the gos-pill." As usual the Roman Catholic RV1960 has the verse dead WRONG!
8) II Thessalonians 2:2 Is it the "day of Christ" or the "day of the Lord." Is it the rapture or the 2nd advent? This verse, as corrupted in the RV1960, is a failure to rightly divide "the word of truth." Using Philippians 2:16 as the logical cross-reference, it is clear that the "day of Christ" is the rapture and NOT the 2nd advent of Jesus Christ. Following the lead of the Alexandrian movement, the RV1960 removes the word "Christ" and replaces it with word "Lord," thereby confusing a passage that is already misinterpreted by 99% of the "Bible scholars." Now how can such a juggling act be accounted for when deceivers such as Eugene Nida (who was the driving force behind the RV1960) tell us "the committee did make some slight changes particularly if such changes were not in well-known verses where an alteration would be unduly upsetting to the constituency"? The eminent "scholar" just told you that he was changing the Bible, not based on truth, but on the whims of the "constituency." Nida is nothing more than a politician, with a "constituency," using double speak to keep the masses happy, while at the same time corrupting the words of God and destroying the Christian's "blessed hope" that the rapture is at hand! All constituents to whom this verse is well known should be duly upset about this verse being changed!
9) I Peter 2:2 The words de la palabra (of the word) are removed. This is the verse where Calvin George said that he had "not found the word logo" (word) in any Greek text of I Peter 2:2" (George, p. 25). To get around the Greek word logikon he quotes one of the final authorities that he looks too when he doesn't like the word the King James Translators used, Thayer's Lexicon. Thayer was a Bible corrector who helped out Phillip Schaaf on the 1901 ASV committee. So of course the ASV of 1901 also removes the words "of the word" from the text. Thayer is the authority quoted by the JW's in regards to John 1:1 where the JW's add the indefinite article "a" thereby attacking the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Birds of a feather flock together!
10) Revelation 11:1 The word "angel" is removed. The KJV, the TR, and every Valera Bible up until 1960 contain the words. The angel here is undoubtedly a reference to Jesus Christ because he is referred to in Revelation 10:1 as a "mighty angel" with a "rainbow" coming "out of heaven." The rainbow in Rev. 10:1 refers to the rainbow that surrounds "whoever" it is that may be sitting on the throne in Rev 4:3 (some of us do know who it is sitting on the throne, even if others don't). If the "angel" is Jesus Christ as "the angel of the Lord" found throughout Scripture, then removing the word is a direct attack upon the Lord Jesus Christ, besides being a perversion of the Scriptures.
Back to Biblebelievers.com