A LOOK AT SOME OF THE CRITICISM
 AGAINST THE REINA VALERA GOMEZ BIBLE

No matter who you are and what you do in the ministry, once your endeavors reach the public stage, you have just set yourself up for a world of criticism. You can try to get along with folks as much as possible, but criticism will always come with the territory. It is to be expected.

This is why it is so important to be sure that we are not self-willed in what we do in the name of Jesus Christ. We must be careful to be certain that it is God that is leading us and not ourselves. For only by the strength of God will we be able to withstand the pressures of criticism.

"He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall" Isa. 40:29-30

It was because David was "a man after God’s own heart" that he was able to withstand the criticism of his elder brother, Eliab, who questioned David’s motives when David manifested his desire to see the giant Goliath defeated. David could have returned the criticism upon his brother, but instead opted to stay focused on the real battle at hand when he proclaimed, "Is there not a cause?" It was because David stayed focused upon the Lord that he was able to withstand the criticism of the King when Saul complained, "Thou art but a youth". David was led of God and not himself. The proof of it was victory over the giant despite the criticism of the brethren.

Dr. Humberto Gomez is a native Mexican who has served as a Missionary in Mexico and to the Aztec Indians for over 30 years. Several years ago, he embarked upon an effort to revise the 1909 Antigua edition of the Reina Valera Spanish Bible. He was saved from this Bible and used it for the majority of his time in the ministry. But during the course of his studies in the ministry, he discovered that there were some Critical Text errors laced within his Bible. After several years of prayer, he finally decided to do something about it. Many other Missionaries and laymen who also knew about this need have also prayed and hoped that God would raise someone up to do something about it.

After several years of toil and sacrifice, in 2004 the first edition of what has now become known as the Reina Valera Gomez Bible (hereafter RVG) was submitted to the presses. This new revision is essentially the 1909 Antigua edition of the Reina Valera, minus the Critical Text. It also has some of the antiquated Castilian updated. It was distributed all around the Spanish-speaking world. This Bible has been accepted by Spanish-speaking brethren in Spain, Peru, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Belize, the Dominican Republic, all over Mexico, and many Spanish ministries in the US. Ministers and laymen all over the world rejoiced to finally have a Spanish Bible in their hand that was much more accurate and in accordance to the Received Texts.

But a few did not rejoice.

Some took offence to this new edition of the Reina Valera Bible. As a result, there are a few articles floating around on the Internet that criticize Dr. Gomez and the RVG. Most of the criticism has come from those who use the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera. Surprisingly, some criticism has even arisen from those who are also against the Critical Text errors in the 1960 and 1909 RV, but disagree with Bro. Gomez’s work.

In this article, we will look at some of the criticism against the RVG. I will offer my perspective. But let me preface my commentary by saying that I am not offering my perspective because I feel that I am an authority on this subject. I am offering my perspective because as a Missionary to a Spanish-speaking people, I must choose a Spanish Bible to use. This is a very important decision! Whatever decision I make, I will give account of it at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Therefore, I must seek God’s will in the matter. I must pray fervently over this issue. Not only must I pray, I must "study to shew myself approved unto God" in order to be a "workman that needeth not to be ashamed". I must examine all of the issues involved with the Spanish Bible. And in so doing, I must seriously consider the criticism from the opposite viewpoint in order to be objective and thorough in my research.

I do not have the option of ignoring or side-stepping this issue. If you are a Fundamentalist Missionary or Minister to a Spanish-speaking people, or in the Bible printing ministry, neither do you have the luxury of side-stepping this issue.

After 8 years of prayer and study on this matter, I want to share with you the conclusions I have drawn in regards to the criticism for the Bible I have chosen. Then I challenge you, dear reader, to also prayerfully consider the validity, or the lack thereof, of the arguments given from both sides of the fence.

As we analyze the criticism against the RVG, you will find that the majority of the criticism is not so much against the RVG as much as it is against the man behind the RVG. In textbooks on Logic, these are known as ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man". In other words, an ad hominem argument is an attempt to discredit a man’s argument or work by discrediting the man himself. In the rules of logic, this is considered an error. Just because a man has a personal flaw does not necessarily prove his argument or work to be flawed. The same applies to Humberto Gomez and his revision. Even if Bro. Gomez has a deficiency in his personal or spiritual life, I am more concerned with the revision of the Bible he has produced. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". I am not interested in whether or not I can find a flaw in Bro. Gomez. Although I consider Bro. Gomez a personal friend and a great Missionary, he is a sinner like anyone else. If it was my desire to do so, it wouldn’t be hard at all to find a flaw in him just like it wouldn’t be hard to find a flaw in me or anyone else. But that’s not the issue. The exception to this would be if the Reviser was found to be in such gross immorality or wickedness that one would be forced to judge whether this man is truly led of God. And thus far, I have not perceived such in Bro. Humberto Gomez. At any rate, the main issue is the text. The word of God. That’s what I’m interested in.

Please bear in mind that the vast majority of these complaints are coming from people who were never going to give this revision a chance to begin with. They had their minds made up from the start. Nevertheless, let us examine the criticism. Even the ad-hominems.

CRITICISM #1 – Dr. Gomez did not have the authority to do a Bible revision.

I find this criticism odd. Where does one get this type of authorization? Who gives it? How do you get it? Think about it. What is the standard for this line of reasoning? We all declare that the Bible is the authority in all matters of faith and practice. But can we find this type of demand anywhere in God’s word, in any translation and edition? If not, then we must conclude that this argument is only a preference based upon opinion.

Some have insisted that Dr. Gomez should have received the approval of the Hispanic Fundamentalist leaders. But first of all, I repeat that this is only an OPINION of man and not a God-given rule. Secondly, I agree with the assessment of Dr. Edward Hills, Th.D. in Textual Criticism from Harvard. On pg. 103 of his book The King James Version Defended, Dr. Hill says:

Dr. Hills further explains:

Dr. Hills is correct. We are God’s spiritual priesthood. Just as God appointed the Priesthood to be custodians of his word in the OT, God has entrusted the care of his word to us in the NT. If a copy of God’s word has been corrupted with the error of man, who else is God going to use to fix it? If there is truly a need, and God lays it upon a man of God’s heart to take on such a work, that is all the authorization that Christian needs to carry out God’s will. Either God called Bro. Gomez to do this work or not. Don’t worry. If this work is not of God, it will fail. But if it is a work of God, there is nothing the critics can do to stop it no matter how loud they protest.

CRITICISM #2 - Dr. Gomez did not have the proper credentials to do a Bible revision.

Ac 4:13 "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

Peter and John may have been "unlearned and ignorant men" in the eyes of the rulers and elders of Jerusalem, but they were men of God who were mighty in the scriptures and in the power of God. In fact, it was these "unlearned and ignorant men" that God used to collectively write 7 books in the Bible. The moral of the story is that God can use whoever he wants. God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. So in regards to Bro. Gomez, the main issue is whether or not God led him to do this revision.

As far as Bro. Gomez’s credentials are concerned, I find his 36 years of experience in studying God’s word over the course of the ministry itself to be much more valuable than any 3 or 4 year program that any Bible college has to offer. I took 3 years of classroom Greek as well as courses in Manuscript Evidence, and many other related subjects of the Bible in the Beaufort Bible Institute that I graduated from in 1999. But I have learned much more in my personal studies since then compared to the full-time 3 year program I completed. This is not meant to frown upon education. I am for a good education, especially for those pursuing the Ministry. But let’s not exalt education from a man-made institution above the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that can be obtained from God only.

Now for those who demand Greek and Hebrew credentials, I challenge them to meet Dr. Gomez personally. I dare them to sit down with the man and to bring forth "their strong reasons". (Isa. 41:21) Why speculate or take anyone’s word for it? Bro. Gomez is an open man. Meet him. And see for yourself if he is not a learned man in the most technical issues involved.

That is exactly what I did. When I first started examining the RVG, I looked for Bro. Gomez’s phone number and called him. But although I enjoyed meeting him over the phone, that wasn’t good enough. I wanted the time to sit down with him face to face to question him concerning his revision for I had my own skepticisms and concerns. Bro. Gomez gave me that opportunity by inviting me to meet him in Chicago, IL at a Dean Burgon Society meeting that he was one of the speakers in. Despite the lack of finances, I stepped out on faith and drove 18 hours in one day with my wife and 2 little daughters just to meet this man and to discuss these issues with him. That is how important this issue was and is to me.

When I finally met him, Bro. Gomez saw to it that he set aside time just to talk with me and answer my questions. We sat down across each other in the auditorium of the Ravenswood Baptist Church for 3 hours discussing the Bible. I asked him question after question. By the time it was over with, I was at least convinced that Bro. Gomez was a learned man and indeed understood the technical issues concerning the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

I asked my Pastor, Bro. Karl Baker, if we could have him visit our church in Beaufort, SC, just so that he and the church can also meet him personally. My Pastor is not a Spanish-speaker. But my Pastor is a very learned man in regards to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. He has a working knowledge of Hebrew, nearly 10 years of experience in teaching Greek, and over 30 years of experience in researching and teaching Manuscript Evidence. He has trained Pastors and Missionaries all over the world in these areas. Anyone who knows Bro. Baker considers him to be well studied and a capable teacher in these matters. In fact, Bro. Baker has been offered an Honorary Doctorate on 2 different occasions as well as the headship of a Bible College, and each time he turned them down because he has a personal conviction of not wanting to exalt the titles of man above his God-given title of Pastor.

I sat at Bro. Baker’s kitchen table with him and Bro. Gomez as we both drilled Bro. Gomez with many questions. At the end of the discussion I could easily tell that my Pastor was more than satisfied with Bro. Gomez’s knowledge in the most technical issues involving the underlying Greek and Hebrew words and texts. Bro. Gomez presented his work on the Bible to our church the following Sunday. Our church, which is filled with many men who were trained in Bro. Baker’s institute with a working knowledge of the original languages, was also satisfied. My Pastor and our home church now support Dr. Gomez and the RVG. If Bro. Gomez is as ignorant as his critics try to suggest he is, than he did a fantastic job fooling my Pastor and our church. Not only that, he also did a great job fooling Dr. D.A.Waite, Dr. Rex Cobb, and the entire Dean Burgon Society.

You would be hard-pressed to find a greater expert in our day in regards to the underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words of the Bible than Dr. D.A.Waite, the Founder and President of the Dean Burgon Society. Dr. Waite has been researching and teaching the original languages since 1945. His ministry through the Dean Burgon Society has been to defend the Received Texts of the scriptures and the translations based upon them. It is also important to note that Dr. Waite has a working knowledge of the Spanish language. It is this man that has been Dr. Gomez’s primary consultant and collaborator in regards to Greek and Hebrew. If Bro. Gomez’s credentials are not good enough for you, consider Dr. Waite’s:

• "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)

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?

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.

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.

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.