I must give credit to Bro. Shane Rice, Missionary
in Peru, who brought this quote to my attention through his website
www.reinavaleragomez.com.
Dr. Waite has aided Bro. Gomez not only by making
recommendations for changes where passages in the 1909 and 1960 did
not line up with the Received Texts, but by also examining the RVG
text itself in these same places to make sure that they were in line
with the original languages as they stand in the Received Texts.
Dr. Waite has written a public endorsement
of the RVG that can be found in it's entirety on the Dean Burgon
Society's website www.deanburgonsociety.org. Here is a portion of
that endorsement:
"I am pleased to recommend the Spanish
Bible of Dr. Humberto Gomez. I have found him to be a
kind, careful, humble, and able student who has spent
hundreds of hours in carrying out his burden to get the
Spanish Bible of 1909 (by which he was led to the Lord
Jesus Christ as his Saviour) in line with the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying the King James Bible.
He has done this. He has spoken with me about
several questions he had in certain places of his
translation in an effort to be both clear and correct.
He did an excellent job when he spoke at our Dean Burgon
Society in 2005 concerning the need for an accurate Spanish
Bible. He has sought to correct the various errors of
translation in the Old Testament as well as those in the New
Testament. His Spanish New Testament has followed the
Greek Received or Traditional Text on which the King James
Bible was based." (emphasis mine)
Furthermore, Dr. Waite states:
"There are over 8,000 documented
differences between the Received Greek Text and the Revised
Critical Greek Text. Included in these 8,000
differences are at least 356 doctrinal passages where the
Revised Greek Text is in doctrinal error. I have
listed 158 of the more important of these 356 doctrinal
passages in Chapter V of my book, DEFENDING THE KING JAMES
BIBLE. 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."
If the credentials, involvement, and endorsement
of Dr. Waite were not good enough for you, consider another of Bro.
Gomez's consultants, Dr. Rex Cobb. Dr. Cobb is a former veteran
Missionary to Mexico. He is now the Director of the Baptist Bible
Translators Institute in Bowie, TX. His institute trains
Missionaries. He instructs them in Greek Grammar, Advanced
Linguistic studies, and the proper techniques to be able to
translate the scriptures into obscure languages throughout the
world. I had the privilege to meet this man in the same DBS meeting
that I met Dr. Gomez. He informed me that there are over 3000
different languages and dialects without one verse of scripture
translated. His mission is to reach as many of these 3000 languages
as possible with an accurate translation of the scriptures based
upon the Received Texts.
Dr. Cobb is not just a teacher, but he has
practical experience in what he teaches. While serving as a
Missionary in Mexico, Dr. Cobb became burdened for the Zapotecas
Indians in Oaxaca. These people had no Bible. Dr. Cobb took it upon
himself to translate the entire New Testament into their language.
This man has firsthand experience in Bible translation and now
trains other Missionaries to do the same. Dr. Gomez has had this man
as one of his main consultants and collaborators. In fact, Rex Cobb
fell in love with Dr. Gomez's revision so much that he now uses the
RVG for his daily morning devotions.
There are others with a working knowledge of the
original languages that aided in the RVG project, some of whom I
have had the privilege to personally meet and discuss these issues
with. But time would fail me to mention them all.
I don't mean to be offensive. But I perceive that
Dr. Gomez could probably run circles around most if not all of his
critics in regards to the technical issues of the Bible. The bottom
line is that anyone who wants to believe that the RVG is the product
of shabby scholarship is ignorant, or misled, or so biased that they
are deliberately blind.
CRITICISM #3 - Dr. Gomez did this revision to
please the gringos.
The critics accuse that Bro. Gomez was pushed by
the gringos to "anglicize" the Spanish Bible by forcing it to read
like the King James Version. But this accusation can be easily
refuted.
First of all, the objective of the RVG project
has not been to conform it to all the wording of the KJV. That would
be impossible anyways. Although the proper method of translating is
Formal Equivalence, word for word translating, it is understood that
languages are different. Some words and expressions cannot be
translated exactly the same from one language to another. Bro.
Gomez, being bilingual, understands this. His goal has not been to
produce a KJV in Spanish. Nor has the goal been to replace the Reina
Valera Bible. The goal has simply been to eradicate the Critical
text errors from the 1909 Reina Valera and to bring it more in line
with the Received Texts. It had nothing to do with "anglicizing"
the Spanish Bible in order to please a group of gringos.
This conspiracy can be easily proven false in
many, many passages in the RVG. But for sake of time I will only
give 1 example that I feel should be sufficient to put to rest this
whole argument.
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.
May I emphasize that Dr. Gomez made such
statements defending the Spanish language to a congregation full of
gringos! But don't expect the critics to ever give Bro. Gomez
any credit for the many times that he has defended and upheld the
beauty of the Spanish language and the Reina Valera Bible. People
with an agenda to only criticize will never be objective enough to
see what is really going on.
Dr. Phil Stringer makes an excellent point in his
article Why I Support The Reina Valera Gomez Bible (see
www.reinavaleragomez.com). It is interesting to note that the
critics complain if a change in the RVG was made that happens to
match the KJV. (How can it not read the same on occasion when the
underlying base is the same?) Yet they have absolutely no problem
with the critical text passages in their 1960 RV that reads exactly
like corrupt English bibles such as the RSV, NASV, NIV, the Good
News For Modern Man, and in some cases even the New World
Translation! (see Dan. 3:25, Mat. 5:22, Mat. 9:13, Mat. 16:18, Mark
1:2, Luke 2:22, Luke 23:42, Eph. 3:9, I Pet. 2:2, & Rev.22:14 for
starters)
This fact should come as no surprise to anyone
who knows that the revision committee of the 1960 was formed by
Eugene Nida and the apostate United Bible Society. (The UBS are
official members of the World Council of Churches. Go to
www.oikoumene.org for a list of WCC members.) These are
opponents of the Received Text and staunch proponents of the corrupt
Critical Texts. Consider the words of one of the consultants of the
1960 committee, Dr. Jose Flores, who reveals:
"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 Internaional
Critical Commentary." (El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento,
1977, pg. 323).
The 1960 revisers not only consulted these
corrupt, critical text based English Bibles, but they also
implemented them. This is no mystery to anyone. The critical text
variants that match these corrupt English Bibles are right there in
black and white in the 1960 RV for anyone to see. I just gave a
small list above. I can give many, many more references.
Why do you never hear the RVG critics complain
about the passages in the 1960 where the corrupt English Bibles
(such as the American Standard Version) were
incorporated? In fact, it is interesting to me that instead of
expressing concern over such "anglicizing", these critics will
actually try to do the impossible by striving to justify and defend
these critical text passages that are identical to perverted Anglo
bibles! Some even have whole articles in Spanish on the Internet
trying to do this very thing and accusing us of "attacking" the
Spanish Bible for expressing our concern about the Critical Text
being incorporated into the Reina Valera. Yet isn't it strange that
these same Preachers will magically turn into
"King-James-Bible-users-only" in English whenever they walk through
the doors of an American church as they seek financial support for
their ministries? Isn't it a double-standard to claim to be a KJV
advocate in English but then out of the other side of your mouth
vehemently defend in Spanish the very same verses that conflict
doctrinally with the KJV, exist in the corrupt English bibles,
and are based upon the Critical Text? As Dr. Stringer says in his
article, "This tells me everything I need to know about these men
and everything I need to know about the RVG."
At any rate, the accusation that Bro. Gomez
produced his revision to please gringos is a conspiracy that could
never be proven simply because it is a lie. Who were the 1960
revisers trying to please when they incorporated "The English
Revised Version of 1885, The American Standard Version of
1901, [and] The Revised Standard Version of 1946" into the
Spanish Bible?
CRITICISM #4 - Dr. Gomez secretly smuggled in
readings from the RV 1960.
Now on the other hand, there are a few critics
that are actually complaining about readings in the RVG that read
more like the RV 1960 than the KJV. With the critics, Dr. Gomez
cannot win. If he produces a rendering that matches the KJV he is
accused of anglicizing the Spanish Bible to please gringos, but if
he produces a rendering that matches the 1960 RV, he is again
criticized. He is condemned if he does, and condemned if he doesn't.
I will not go into any lengths to elaborate upon
the passages in the RVG that match the 1960 other than saying this.
The passages in the RVG that read like the 1960 are places that
are not based upon the Critical Text. Please keep in mind that
the Reina Valera was originally, for the most part, a Textus
Receptus based Bible. To be fair, not every change in the 1960 RV
was bad. For example, the 1960 RV uses the word "salvación" for the
word "salvation". The older versions, such as the 1909 and 1865, use
the word "salud". The word "salud" is not necessarily an error. This
is just a technical matter of which the word "salud" is not used for
"salvation" anymore. Today the word "salud" means "health" and the
word for "salvation" is "salvación". Again, this is not a matter of
correcting error, but rather it is a matter of clarifying
language issues.
In fact, many Fundamentalists who use the 1960
will tell you that this is one of the biggest reasons, if not the
biggest, that they choose the 1960 over the 1909. Our complaint
against the modern revision committees is not in regards to the
places where they clarified language issues that were in the 1909
Antigua. Our complaint is against the Critical Text variants that
they deliberately inserted into our Textus Receptus based Bibles.
As a reviser, Bro. Gomez should be allowed the
same liberty to make changes that help to enrich and clarify the
language in the text so long as the renderings do not conflict
with the underlying Greek or Hebrew Received texts.
CRITICISM #5 - Dr. Gomez should not have named
the revision after himself.
There is already an excellent response to this
complaint written by Dr. Phil Stringer. The article is entitled
Should The Reina Valera Gomez Bible be called the Reina Valera
Gomez? It can be found at
www.reinavaleragomez.com and
I highly recommend that you read it.
I will not elaborate much on this one either
since a better response has already been provided. But I will say
this much. As Dr. Stringer points out in his article, good Received
Text based Bibles have always borne the name of the head translator
or reviser, with few exceptions. It is a Received Text tradition.
This is not a matter of egotism or arrogance. It is a matter of
identity. By knowing who the translation is associated with, you can
almost immediately identify what type of Bible you are dealing with.
I know where Dr. Gomez stands. So when I think of a Bible that bears
his name on it, I think of a Bible that is the product of the
Received Text position in regards to Verbal and Plenary Inspiration,
Providential Preservation, and the Formal Equivalence method of
translating the scriptures. I do not think of a Bible that is the
product of the Critical Text position, Concept Inspiration,
Modernism, Gnosticism, Catholicism, Apostasy, Ecumenism, and the
Dynamic Equivalence method of translating.
At any rate, the bottom line is that the RVG is a
Spanish Bible of which bears no trace of the corrupt Critical Text.
It is in conformity to the Received Texts. And consequently it is in
harmony with the KJV as well as other accurate Received Text based
translations. No matter what you call this edition of the Reina
Valera, these facts will never change.
CRITICISM #6 - Dr. Gomez cannot be a reviser
because he is not living in the right time period.
The line of reasoning here is that because it was
the Philadelphian church period of Church History of which God's
people "kept his word" (Rev. 3:8) and we are living in the Laodicean
church period, God cannot possibly use anyone today to revise the
Spanish Bible. (It is generally agreed that the Philadelphian church
period lasted from somewhere around the 1500s to the late 1800s.) If
the logic here is accurate, then one must conclude that the only
Bibles God can sanction must have been produced during "the
Philadelphian church period."
There are several things wrong with this
perspective. First off, what exactly is the Biblical basis for this
line of reasoning? Isn't this nothing but speculation and
conjecture? That's EXACTLY what this is. It is an opinion. Nothing
more. Nothing less. I am always leery of those who impose their
speculations and opinions as absolute truth.
The Bible does not support the idea that God
cannot use someone in the "Laodicean church period" for the work of
Bible translation or revision. I agree with my Pastor, Bro. Karl
Baker, who preaches that although we live in the Laodicean church
period, we can be Philadelphian Christians. In other words, we don't
HAVE to be Laodicean Christians in the sense of being "lukewarm,
poor, blind, and naked"spiritually. Besides, isn't all this a
spiritual application anyways? Let's not impose speculation based on
spiritual applications as rules and regulations, especially in
regards to the word of God.
What about all of the people in the world today
that do not have God's words in their language? What about Dr. Rex
Cobb and the Missionaries he is training at the Bible Baptists
Translators Institute in Texas to translate God's word today into
the obscure languages of the world. Is this ministry futile? Will
these critics write articles to try and stop these God-called
missionaries since they are not living in the Philadelphian church
period? You mean to say that God cannot use today's Missionary to
provide these people God's words in their tongue? Nonsense!
I'll never believe that God ceased from providing his word for those
who may want it in their language simply because we are not in the
"right" time period. This is ridiculous! It is faithless and
unfounded. We have no right to limit God with our opinions. God can
do whatever he wants to, in any period of time. He did not
cease from being God when the Philadelphian church period ended.
CRITICISM #7 - Dr. Gomez claimed his revision
was perfect yet he contradicted himself by continuing to make more
changes.
The critics try to make a case against Bro. Gomez
by insinuating that he contradicted himself for stating that his
Bible was perfect yet he later made more changes in it. But here are
the exact words of Bro. Gomez himself from the article they are
referring to (found at www.reinavaleragomez.com):
"In our opinion, our Bible
is perfect and ready to be preached from. However, we have
an open heart and mind: If a godly person has an opinion
regarding the text or grammar, we will take it into serious
consideration because we want the best for our people."
(emphasis mine)
Again Gomez states:
"What I am presenting to you, in my
opinion, is the perfect word of God. But here it is
for you to read and examine; if you can find anything in it
that is not in agreement with the Textus Receptus, or if you
can find anything that is not written in good and perfect
Spanish, we will immediately correct it, for the good of our
people and for the glory of the Lord." (emphasis mine)
Notice 2 times, Bro. Gomez said that it was his
opinion that his revision was perfect when the first edition came
out in 2004, but he also said that he was open-minded enough
and willing to stand corrected. I think that is about as honest as a
man can be. Don't you?
Besides, if the KJV went through a purifying
process, and did between 1611 and 1769, why shouldn't the RVG or any
other Bible? But why in the world do the critics ignore Bro. Gomez's
statement that it was "his opinion" that the work was perfect but
if not he was willing to make the corrections? Was it an
accident or did they ignore it on purpose?
Some people will see only what they want to see
when they are obsessed with formulating an argument.
CRITICISM #8 - Dr. Gomez's work was
unnecessary since God is already using the 1960 and 1909.
This is the biggest argument given by those who
use the 1960. According to them, there is no need for a new revision
because the Lord is using the 1960. Though I perceive that from some
this is a sincere line of reasoning, they fail to realize something.
Some people have been led to the Lord from Catholic bibles. But this
does not justify the corruption that can be found in those Catholic
bibles. Look at how corrupt we are as sinners, yet the Lord in his
great mercy and power still uses us for his glory. Does the fact
that God uses us justify the wrong that is in our lives?
I have said it before and I will say it again. I
harbor no animosity towards those who use the 1960 or 1909 (or the
1865). I realize that for many years, the 1909 and 1960 were the
only options available for the Fundamentalist minister. I have a
world of respect for these faithful men of God who have toiled for
many years, ministering to their people with what was available.
They are worthy of double honor and should be esteemed highly in
love for their work's sake. Many of these men fell in love with the
versions that they have ministered with for so long (as did Bro.
Gomez with the 1909). Many have been saved through the preaching of
these versions (as did Bro. Gomez with the 1909). So I understand
that there is an emotional attachment to the 1909 and 1960.
I believe that some of these good men feel
threatened that we will begin to treat them as enemies. But I will
never seek to start or join a campaign to castigate these brethren.
In fact, this article is not meant as a rebuke to them. This article
is meant to give another side of the story for the sake of those who
are undecided and truly investigating the Spanish Bible issue.
I have good friends who use the 1960. I refuse to
count them as enemies. We must treat one another with respect and
brotherly kindness while remaining firm in our convictions. We must
not let contention cause us to lose focus on the Great Commission to
win souls for Christ. Blessed is the man who finds the balance in
these things.
Nevertheless, I truly believe with all my heart
that God has now provided for us something better. Many of us have
been praying for years that the RV would be revised and brought in
line to the Received Texts. We see the RVG as the answer to our
prayers. Many are recognizing this. And I am encouraged to know that
many are switching from the 1909 & 1960 to the RVG.
In Conclusion
There were several other items I could have dealt
with in this article, but I feel the aforementioned will suffice for
now. Perhaps I will consider writing a second part to this article
should any new complaints surface that call for a response.
Again I want to emphasize that the vast majority
of these complaints are coming from people who were never going to
give this revision a chance to begin with. Some of them are OK with
the Critical Texts. So trying to convince them otherwise would be a
waste of time. Others claim that they are Received Text and KJV
advocates, but their articles and actions speak otherwise. And no
matter what Dr. Humberto Gomez does, the critics are going to find
something to complain about it.
I thank God for a man like Dr. Gomez who chooses
not to respond to his critics. Instead, he stays focused on the work
that God has called him to do. He has behaved himself wisely, and
for this reason I believe God will continue to bless his life and
ministry.
Besides, sometimes criticism works in your favor.
I have met several Missionaries that have testified to me personally
that had it not been for some of the articles on the Internet that
criticized the RVG, they would have never even known about Dr. Gomez
or his work. They are now using the RVG in their ministries as they
win souls, train preachers, and build churches. I know two of these
individuals in particular who not only adopted the RVG, but became
personally involved in the work of the final edition.
My purpose for this article is not to convince
the critics, but rather to provide an answer for others who are
sincere in their investigation of these matters. They deserve to
hear both sides.
THIS BIBLE IS NOT FOR THE CRITICS!
This Bible is for those who have been praying for
years that God would raise someone up to revise the RV, bringing it
back to where it started in the days of Cipriano de Valera who
worked hard at trying to purify the work of Cassiodoro de Reina.
When the 1909 and 1960 revision committees inserted more Critical
Text variants into the Spanish Bible, this was not a step forwards,
but backwards. Something needed to be done about it!
Again, here are the facts:
1. The RVG is a Spanish Bible of which the
Alexandrian Critical Text has been completely eradicated.
2. The RVG is in total conformity to the Received
Texts.
3. The RVG is in harmony with the KJV and other
faithful Received Text-based translations.
4. The RVG is endorsed by Fundamentalist
linguistic experts such as Dr. Rex Cobb, Dr. D.A.Waite, and the Dean
Burgon Society.
5. The RVG is endorsed by Spanish-speaking
brethren all over the world as it is being used of God to win souls
and edify saints in Spain, Peru, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Costa
Rica, Paraguay, Belize, the Dominican Republic, all over Mexico, and
many Spanish ministries in the US.
6. Support for the RVG all around the
Spanish-speaking world is growing daily. Fundamentalists from all
types of different backgrounds and positions are unifying in support
of this Bible.
7. God is placing his stamp of approval upon the
RVG. And there is nothing the critics can do to stop it.
"But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;
lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Acts 5:39
I predict revival like never before to break out
in the Spanish-speaking world as a result of this revision.
If you hold to the Received Text and translations
based upon it such as the KJV, than the Reina Valera Gomez Bible is
for YOU! May God bless you with the knowledge, wisdom, and
understanding needed to discern the truth of these matters. And may
God also bless you with the spiritual fortitude needed to withstand
criticism as we endeavor to please God and not man with our lives.
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek
to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant
of Christ." Gal. 1:10
"The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso
putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe." Pro. 29:25
Manny Rodriguez
Missionary to Puerto Rico
