"And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them." Acts 16:10
I really appreciated this article and the facts that you presented here, as I have been following this issue for several years, and have consulted with several experts on the subject, far more knowledgeable than myself, seeking for clarification on this very cloudy issue. I consider it a vital subject to grasp, as the United States of America is experiencing an incredible surge in the Spanish-speaking population, and the need for Spanish ministry continues to compound. Unfortunately, however, clarification on this subject is extremely elusive.
Perhaps most shocking of all to me is the idea that recent Spanish versions such as the Gomez version would be pased upon the 1909. I have always rejected the 1909 version, and my pursuit has always been for a pure version in the Spanish language based on the Textus Receptus and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text. Early on, I recommended the 1865 revision of the 1602. Then I heard that linguistic changes in the Spanish language resulted in doctrinal deviations on the subject of salvation, because modern Spanish words no longer meant what they originally meant. I was excited to hear about the Gomez version, because my understanding has always been that it updates the 1865, NOT the 1909. Then I heard about the 1602 Purified, which was considered better than the Gomez version. These versions come highly recommended by men that I know personally, whose fidelity to the Word of God is of the highest character. So my question now is, are these versions revisions of the 1865 or the 1909? I would like to have this clarified. Could you please supply me with some information that will clarify and document whether they are based on the 1865 or the 1909? It seems preposterous to believe that so many zealous Bible defenders would overlook a 1909 heritage behind these versions, but then again, men are men, and men make mistakes.
Thanks for your feedback. It has been somewhat of a long process for me to come to the position I take on the Spanish Bible. I began using the 1960 when I came here knowing it has a number of differences with the KJB, but I just thought to myself that all Spanish Bibles were more or less the same and there was nothing I could do about it. All the other missionaries and national pastors use the 1960 so I just went with the flow (I think a lot of others are doing the same). To make a long story short, before coming to Cofradia I decided to really study the issue. I came across the 1865, bought a copy, and began to read it and to compare it to other Spanish versions.
I didn't like the Gomez because 1) it is a revision of a CT Bible, and they will never fully eradicate the CT, no matter what they claim. 2) If the Spanish people already have a TR/MT based Bible, why do we need to do another revision? What are his real motives? 3) Gomez is NOT qualified in any sense to revise the Spanish Bible. 4) Most people seem to back it just because of "party politics", in other words, this big name man (like D.A. Waite) supports it, so it must be ok. Or, pastors in this camp use it, so I'll use it too. I don't buy into that, and I don't think that will float at the Judgement Seat of Christ.
So, in my opinion, the 1865 is the closest to the KJB because it is based on the TR and the same Hebrew MT. I also like the fact that it is not a product of this current Bible debate where politics, money, and influence could affect the translation.
As far as archaic words in the 1865 affecting doctrine, that is a slander and a smoke screen put forth by men who just want to promote their own projects. I also find it to be incredibly hypocritical that people who would claim to defend the archaic words in the English Bible would turn around and stab the Spanish Bible in the back. Would they be so daring as to claim that the archaic words in the KJB lead to false teaching? No, that would put them at odds with their "camp".
One word that is usually attacked is the old Castilian word "salud". They say that now it means "health" and not "salvation" like it did in 1602, 1865, and even up until 1909. The Royal Spanish Academy Dictionary still has "salvation" as a definition though, even though it is not the most common use of the word. In cases like this we should apply the same thinking to the Spanish Bible as we do to the KJB. The solution is not another in an endless series of revisions, it is to gain a proper understanding of the language and to teach our people what these words mean. Here is a link to an article answering criticisms of the 1865. You can read the whole thing, but first scroll down to the section on the word "salud":
The 1602 purified claims to be a revision of the original Valera 1602, but it has problems too and again, the motive is politics, IMO.
Something that is VERY important to understand when you look at the Reina-Valera and its revisions is that there are really two lines of RV Bibles. The true, TR based line began in 1602 and ended in 1865. I believe that in 1865 God closed the door on revision of the Spanish Bible like he did in 1769 with the English. In 1862 an Anglican priest did a revision to the RV based on Tisendorf's recently discovered manuscripts. This is where the non-TR line begins. The 1909 was NOT based on the 1865 (TR Bible) but on the 1862 and the Version Moderna (Modern Version) of 1893. So now we have a critical text line of Spanish Bibles falsely carrying the Reina Valera name, of which the 1960 and the Gomez are a part. That Gomez based his Bible on the 1909 is easy to figure out, as he proudly claims it.
Well, I could probably go on, but I hope this helps.
Here is our July - September Prayer Letter.
Bro Veasey,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated this article and the facts that you presented here, as I have been following this issue for several years, and have consulted with several experts on the subject, far more knowledgeable than myself, seeking for clarification on this very cloudy issue. I consider it a vital subject to grasp, as the United States of America is experiencing an incredible surge in the Spanish-speaking population, and the need for Spanish ministry continues to compound. Unfortunately, however, clarification on this subject is extremely elusive.
Perhaps most shocking of all to me is the idea that recent Spanish versions such as the Gomez version would be pased upon the 1909. I have always rejected the 1909 version, and my pursuit has always been for a pure version in the Spanish language based on the Textus Receptus and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text. Early on, I recommended the 1865 revision of the 1602. Then I heard that linguistic changes in the Spanish language resulted in doctrinal deviations on the subject of salvation, because modern Spanish words no longer meant what they originally meant. I was excited to hear about the Gomez version, because my understanding has always been that it updates the 1865, NOT the 1909. Then I heard about the 1602 Purified, which was considered better than the Gomez version. These versions come highly recommended by men that I know personally, whose fidelity to the Word of God is of the highest character. So my question now is, are these versions revisions of the 1865 or the 1909? I would like to have this clarified. Could you please supply me with some information that will clarify and document whether they are based on the 1865 or the 1909? It seems preposterous to believe that so many zealous Bible defenders would overlook a 1909 heritage behind these versions, but then again, men are men, and men make mistakes.
Your Friend in Christ,
Bro Baugh
Bro. Baugh,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback. It has been somewhat of a long process for me to come to the position I take on the Spanish Bible. I began using the 1960 when I came here knowing it has a number of differences with the KJB, but I just thought to myself that all Spanish Bibles were more or less the same and there was nothing I could do about it. All the other missionaries and national pastors use the 1960 so I just went with the flow (I think a lot of others are doing the same). To make a long story short, before coming to Cofradia I decided to really study the issue. I came across the 1865, bought a copy, and began to read it and to compare it to other Spanish versions.
I didn't like the Gomez because 1) it is a revision of a CT Bible, and they will never fully eradicate the CT, no matter what they claim. 2) If the Spanish people already have a TR/MT based Bible, why do we need to do another revision? What are his real motives? 3) Gomez is NOT qualified in any sense to revise the Spanish Bible. 4) Most people seem to back it just because of "party politics", in other words, this big name man (like D.A. Waite) supports it, so it must be ok. Or, pastors in this camp use it, so I'll use it too. I don't buy into that, and I don't think that will float at the Judgement Seat of Christ.
So, in my opinion, the 1865 is the closest to the KJB because it is based on the TR and the same Hebrew MT. I also like the fact that it is not a product of this current Bible debate where politics, money, and influence could affect the translation.
As far as archaic words in the 1865 affecting doctrine, that is a slander and a smoke screen put forth by men who just want to promote their own projects. I also find it to be incredibly hypocritical that people who would claim to defend the archaic words in the English Bible would turn around and stab the Spanish Bible in the back. Would they be so daring as to claim that the archaic words in the KJB lead to false teaching? No, that would put them at odds with their "camp".
One word that is usually attacked is the old Castilian word "salud". They say that now it means "health" and not "salvation" like it did in 1602, 1865, and even up until 1909. The Royal Spanish Academy Dictionary still has "salvation" as a definition though, even though it is not the most common use of the word. In cases like this we should apply the same thinking to the Spanish Bible as we do to the KJB. The solution is not another in an endless series of revisions, it is to gain a proper understanding of the language and to teach our people what these words mean. Here is a link to an article answering criticisms of the 1865. You can read the whole thing, but first scroll down to the section on the word "salud":
http://www.valera1865.org/en/articles/articles/response-to-muller.html
Here is an article about the 1602 P :
http://www.valera1865.org/en/articles/articles/removing-jehova.html
The 1602 purified claims to be a revision of the original Valera 1602, but it has problems too and again, the motive is politics, IMO.
Something that is VERY important to understand when you look at the Reina-Valera and its revisions is that there are really two lines of RV Bibles. The true, TR based line began in 1602 and ended in 1865. I believe that in 1865 God closed the door on revision of the Spanish Bible like he did in 1769 with the English. In 1862 an Anglican priest did a revision to the RV based on Tisendorf's recently discovered manuscripts. This is where the non-TR line begins. The 1909 was NOT based on the 1865 (TR Bible) but on the 1862 and the Version Moderna (Modern Version) of 1893. So now we have a critical text line of Spanish Bibles falsely carrying the Reina Valera name, of which the 1960 and the Gomez are a part. That Gomez based his Bible on the 1909 is easy to figure out, as he proudly claims it.
Well, I could probably go on, but I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Mike Veasey