Refutation of 38 objections to the common Spanish Bible from a proponent of the new Gomez Spanish Bible

By Calvin George

The following is a review of the article 38 Reasons I cannot use the 1960 Reina Valera by Tim Urling.

Within the article, the writer mentioned that he was providing “Scriptural” reasons. However, some of the things he objects to apply to the 1909, the version he used before the RVG 2004, and in some cases also apply to the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bible. If we consistently applied the logic of the writer, before 2004 he would have had some “Scriptural” reasons for not using any Spanish Bible!

In the second paragraph the author makes the following statement:

“There has been a considerable amount of misleading, if not false information disseminated by those parties in favor of, as well as by those against this revision.”

The author states that among others, some who are against the Reina-Valera 1960 (as he is) have spread considerable misleading and false information. Why does the author not specify what this false and misleading information is, whether it be by the ones favoring it, or those against it? He stated that it was a considerable amount. If this is the case, why overlook it and not warn others about this considerable amount of false and misleading information out there? Does he not care if others continue to be misled by a considerable amount of false information that he won’t identify?

The writer considers the KJV to be the “most exact translation that has ever been produced in the history of Bible translation.” Although he is entitled to his opinion, he did not identify his statement as an opinion. Although I agree that it could be true, it is a statement that can never be proven, because it involves too much subjective opinion, not to mention that there has been Bibles translated into hundreds of languages. We cannot know exactly how accurate (or inaccurate) translations are in many other languages, especially when in some cases little has been written in English regarding many foreign Bible translations, and there is disagreement as to the criteria for what constitutes exactness.

He may not realize it, but there are several times that the author reflects a view that is similar to some of the peculiar views that Peter Ruckman teaches. About two months ago, I sent an e-mail to the author asking him what his position was on Ruckmanism. He chose not to reply (if he received my e-mail). Please understand that I am not declaring the author to be a “Ruckmanite.” But the similarities were something that stood out to me, therefore with the above disclaimer, I will provide some comparable quotes from Ruckman’s writings throughout this review.

As to the writer considering the KJV to be the “most exact translation that has ever been produced in the history of Bible translation,” compare it with Ruckman: “…the superiority of the AV text over any other text in any other language.” (Ruckman, Peter. Pastoral Epistles: The Bible Believer’s Commentary Series. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1989, p. 314)

The writer continues with the following statement:

“The most unbelievable (if not miraculous) part of the King James translation is that there had to be unanimous agreement between the translators as to each text, reading, passage, and translation.”

I challenge the writer to document the above from a credible source. Later in his article the author denied that the KJV translators were inspired, but I submit that they would have had to be inspired for this “most unbelievable (if not miraculous)” event to take place, in which around 50 translators supposedly had unanimous agreement as to each text, considering the Bible has around 750,000 words. Why then the thousands of marginal notes in the original 1611, some of them suggesting alternative readings?

In the following statement, the author implies that the KJV should be the final authority for a foreign translation. Notice how he omits mention of the original languages:

“I believe any foreign language Bible can and should line up as closely as linguistically possible to the King James since there is no disagreement as to its textual base or to the accuracy of its translation.”

In the following paragraph, the writer tries to make the case that in spite of his views, he is being reasonable:

“Do I believe English is superior to Spanish? No. Do I believe the King James can correct the Greek or Hebrew? No. Were the translators inspired? No. Could they have erred? Possibly.”

After trying to come across as if he was not being extreme, the author then states within the very next paragraph:

“In my opinion, it would be a foolish waste of time and resources to return to the original languages to have a Bible translation (or revision) that is faithful to the TR. This work has already been done by true experts.”

That this writer who believes it is foolish to return to the original languages would endorse the Gomez Spanish Bible speaks volumes. As I documented in “Reina-Valera-Gómez? Over 20 reasons why I cannot endorse the new Gómez Bible” Gomez went to great lengths to please those who believe the KJV should correct the Spanish, even deciding to put caridad (charity) in his translation after all, even though he is on record stating in 2005 that caridad represented “Catholic culture.”

The author then makes a statement which a number of KJV defenders would disagree with:

“The King James is the only translation in English that is 100% faithful to the TR.”

All of us who are in favor of the KJV would state that the KJV is based on the TR, but the writer went a step further and declared it to be 100% faithful to the TR. Technically speaking, that would not be correct. I will present a couple statements from KJV defenders who acknowledge this. More could be included:

“Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate.” Hills, Edward. The King James Version Defended, 2000 reprint, p. 221

“The KJV is not based in every single instance upon the majority reading, nor on the Textus Receptus.” Streeter, Lloyd. Seventy-Five Problems with Central Baptist Seminary’s book The Bible Version Debate, 2001, p. 145

The author starts off the following paragraph sounding reasonable again, but then he does not follow his own criteria:

“Some may argue that this belief makes the King James the benchmark. It does not. The bench mark is the Textus Receptus. Which Edition? The King James doesn’t align 100% with any edition, so we would be sure not to err in the text if we accepted the expert opinion of the King James translators.”

In the previous paragraph, the author just got done saying that it would be a foolish waste of time and resources to return to the original languages. Why then deny that he is making the KJV the benchmark? What was his criteria to ensure we wouldn’t err when choosing between readings of the TR? You guessed it—the expert opinion of the KJV translators—which in practice is made the benchmark in spite of the author’s denials.

Reread the statement in which the writer states (regarding foreign translations) that we would not err if we stuck to the KJV. What is the difference between that paragraph and what Ruckman teaches as follows?

“Any translation on the mission field can be safely judged by a King James Authorized Version, and where it refuses to stick to the text the text can be altered safely to match the King James’ reading.” (Ruckman, Peter. The Monarch of the Books, 1973, p. 29.)

“…to present to the World (not just the English speaking people) the final and fixed volume of the scriptures; and the He so guided and led the men who translated this work…”

(Ruckman, Peter. Bible Belivers’ Bulletin, Aug. 1980 p. 8)

The author probably rejects many teachings of Ruckmanism, but in the crucial matter of foreign Bible translations, they seem to hold similar views.

The author then continues with an admission that I have long believed, but I have never heard it from someone wanting the Spanish Bible revised to conform with the KJV:

“Some may argue that this issue didn’t originate with the Spanish speaking church. This is true;”

In other words, it’s an American movement. To make matters worse, many who do not even speak Spanish have been very vocal and opinionated in their condemnation of Spanish Bibles. In the shameful book (I say so because it alleged the common Spanish Bible taught evolution and cannibalism) The Elephant in the Living Room, for example, 5 of the 7 authors did not know Spanish. I grew up on the mission field in South America in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and there was no noticeable controversy as to the TR-based Spanish Bibles being used. Now Americans who have gone overboard in their views on the KJV (at least in relation to foreign languages) are trying to tell Spanish-speaking preachers that the Bibles they used all along were not the true Word of God. One missionary went as far as to declare from a pulpit that the Reina-Valera 1960 emerged from the sewers of hell (I have the recording). The Spanish speakers didn’t ask for this controversy.

What follows are a refutation of the 38 reasons the writer gave for rejecting the Reina-Valera 1960. I would like to state that he is welcome to reject the Reina-Valera 1960. I have written something in Spanish on my website recently affirming that I’m against anything resembling a “Reina-Valera 1960 only” movement. I do not consider the Reina-Valera to be infallible or inerrant. I do not believe in assigning terms to a translation that should only be reserved for the original autographs (such as inspired, perfect, inerrant, infallible). I believe we should use different (although confidence-building) terms such as reliable, and trustworthy for faithful translations.

It could be mentioned that at times the reading being objected to is present also in the Reina-Valera 1909, although the author does not mention it when that is the case.

One concern I have is that in every single passage, the writer compared the Spanish Bible with the KJV instead of the original languages, even though he stated earlier that he does not make the KJV the benchmark. Also, the writer does not seem to have made any effort to determine why the Spanish translators did what they did. It appears that he merely compared the Spanish Bible to the KJV, and if they didn’t match, he jumped to the conclusion that the Spanish reading is automatically wrong.

In my defense of the Reina-Valera, I resort to the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, or sources that are considered to be Textus Receptus-based (such as reformation English Bibles like Tyndale, Bishops and Geneva). I also make mention of the Syriac Peshitta at times, because it is used frequently by KJV defenders in defense of the Authorized Version. For example, D.A. Waite, who has endorsed the Spanish Gomez Bible, lists the Peshitta under “Historical Evidences for the Received Text during the Early Church Period (100-312 A.D)” Under this category, Waite says the following about the Peshitta:

“(4) The Peshitta Syriac Version, (150 A.D., the second century.) This was based on the Received Text.” (Defending the King James Bible, 1995, pp. 45-46). Others who defend the KJV with the Peshitta could be mentioned. My point is that if the KJV can be defended with the Peshitta, so can the Spanish Bible. To not allow that would constitute a double standard.

At times I also referred to the Spanish Bible put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 2001, as it based on the TR. The TBS only prints the KJV in English.


1) it says man became a living “being” instead of a living “soul” in Gen 2:7

See Strong’s definition for the Hebrew word in question:





From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): – any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

2) it contains a false and contradictory statement about who killed Goliath in II Samuel 21:19.

The brother of is in italics in the KJV, as it is not in the Hebrew and was optionally added for clarification. Are the italics in the KJV inspired? Most Spanish translations did not add what was not in the Hebrew, nor did the Geneva nor Bishops Bible. If the Spanish Bible had included the phrase the brother of, and not the KJV, would not these same brethren be saying that the Spanish Bible was in violation of Rev. 22:19?

3) it has a phrase that is the exact opposite of the King James and previous Spanish Bibles in Isaiah 9:3 where it says “..and increased the joy”

Respected commentator Albert Barnes commentary weighs in as follows regarding the Masoretic Text reading in question:

“The Masoretes here read in the margin לו lô ‘to it,’ instead of לא lo’ ‘not.’ Eleven manuscripts, two of them ancient, have this reading. This reading is followed by the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Syriac, and the Arabic. The Septuagint seems also to have so understood it. So also it is in the margin, and so the connection demands; and it is unquestionably the correct reading. It would then read, ‘thou hast increased for it (the nation) the joy.’”

The marginal reading of the Masoretic text is called keri. Edward Hills of The King James Version Defended, (p. 223) states that the KJV followed the keri reading 16 times (according to Scrivener).

I don’t declare the KJV reading in Isa. 9:3 to be an error. There are simply two different ways to translate the verse. The translator is forced to interpret.

4) in Daniel 3:25 Nebuchadnezzar declares that the form of the fourth man he saw in the fire was like “a son of the gods.”

As for Dan. 3:25, the very same Hebrew Chaldee word “ellah” underlying “God” in that verse was translated “gods” in Dan. 2:11 (plus 11 other places in Daniel) in the KJV according to Strong’s Concordance.

The Hebrew word in question which is #426 in Strong’s, is used interchangeably for the God of heaven as well as for heathen gods. Throughout the ages some have thought that the fourth man in the fire was an angel. Since the Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous in this verse, the Spanish revisers decided to leave it ambiguous so everyone could interpret for himself, instead of the revisers doing the interpretation for you in an arbitrary manner. This is probably what happened with the non-specific word “baptize” in both the Valeras and in the KJV. It could have been translated “immerse” or “dip,” but they chose a vague transliteration so everybody could interpret for himself.

In Daniel 3:25 the 1909 and 1960 translate this Hebrew word literally, while the KJV simply interprets it (although accurately). Of course when it’s the other way around, when the 1960 interprets but the KJV translates literally, the 1960 is denounced for taking too many liberties. That’s a double standard.

5) in Matthew chapter one the word “begat” is omitted 22 times in violation of Rev. 22:19.

The Reina-Valera translators could have used the Spanish word for begat more than once in a verse, but it was clearly implied, making the translation optional. The KJV translators did similar things, although to a lesser extent. Lk. 21:6 mentions stone twice in Greek, yet the KJV translators chose to translate it as stone upon another. The Reina-Valera 1960 revisors translated it more literally as piedra sobre piedra.

6) in Matthew 5:22 the words “without a cause” have been omitted making Christ a sinner when he became angry.

The common complaint against Mat. 5:22 is the lack of the phrase “without a cause” which in Greek is one single 4-letter word. I have noticed that there is precedent in at least one TR-based New Testament (Tyndale 1534) for the reading of the 1960. That the lack of one word in this verse would make Jesus a sinner as some allege because he got angry at the moneychangers seems highly absurd. The Bible states that it’s possible to be angry and not sin (Eph. 4:26).

7) in Matthew 6:1 the word “alms” has been substituted with “Justice”.

Vindication: 2001 Spanish Bible by Trinitarian Bible Society

8) “Draweth nigh to me with their mouths” has been removed from Matthew 15:8.

Vindication: Peshitta

9) “yet they found none” has been left out of Matthew 26:60.

Vindication: Peshitta

10) in Mark 1:2 “in the prophets” was changed to “in Isaiah the prophet”.

Vindication: Peshitta

Mark 1:2-3 is not an exact word-for-word quote of any Scripture anywhere. It is similar to something Malachi wrote, but not exact. Why not give the Spanish Bible the benefit of the doubt? There is another instance recorded by the apostles where a merged citation of two different Old Testament prophets is placed under the name of the more important or major prophet. Compare Matthew 27:9 where, in both the English and Spanish Bible, Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a quotation that is primarily drawn from Zechariah 11:12.

11) the words “to repentance” were omitted at the end of Mark 2:17.

Vindication: Peshitta

12) in Mark 11:10 the words “in the name of our Lord” have been left out.

Vindication: Peshitta

13) the word “the” is left out in front of the phrase where the centurion declared “Truly this man was the Son of God” in Mark 15:39.

The is not in the Greek. Sometimes the KJV translators did not italicize words that were not in the original languages, but may be viewed as necessary in English to constitute proper grammar.

14) Luke 2:22 says that when the days of “their” (Mary and Jesus) cleansing we accomplished. According to the Old Testament law Jesus did not need to be purified.

Edward F. Hills pointed out that “their purification” is the rendering of “Erasmus, Stephanus, [and the] majority of the Greek manuscripts” (KJV Defended, p. 221).

Gill’s Commentary: “…though Mary was not polluted by the conception, bearing, and bringing forth of Jesus, that holy thing born of her; yet inasmuch as she was in the account of the law clean; and though Jesus had no impurity in his nature, yet seeing he was made sin for his people, both came under this law of purification, which was for the sake of the son or daughter, as well as for the mother; though our reading, and which is according to the Complutensian edition, best agrees with the Hebrew phrase, ימי טחרה, the days of her purifying or purification, in Lev. 12:4.”

15) the words “in spirit” have been omitted in Luke 2:40.

Vindication: Spanish Valera 1862 – An accepted rendering of the verse before W&H/Nestle/UBS Greek texts

16) the word “hades” has been substituted for “hell” in Luke 16:23 and in others verses. The word “hell” appears 54 times in the King James and only 13 times in the Reina-Valera 1960.

Hades is a direct transliteration of the underlying Greek word. It has several different meanings, depending upon the context. It was translated grave in 1 Corinthians 15:55 in the KJV. Although hades is not a commonly used term, I have examined numerous Spanish dictionaries that did define it, and in every instance it included “hell” among the possible definitions. Some of the hottest sermons I ever heard on hell were preached from the 1960. Hades appears 10 times and infierno 13 times in the 1960. Those 13 times are for the Greek word ghennah and tartaroo. The KJV also transliterated some words, i.e., raca.

It’s not the word for hell (which comes from the Greek) that counts as much as its description. The Reina-Valera 1960 in Luke 16 still has torments, and flame. No matter what it’s called, nobody in their right mind wants to go to a place of torments and flame, begging for just a drop of water. See also Why the word hell appears less often in the common Spanish Bible compared to the KJV.

17) the repentant thief does not recognize Jesus as “Lord” in Luke 23:42.

Vindication: Spanish Valera 1862 – An accepted rendering of the verse before W&H/Nestle/UBS Greek texts

18) in John 6:22 the words “save that one whereinto his disciples were entered” were not included.

Vindication: Spanish Valera 1862 – An accepted rendering of the verse before W&H/Nestle/UBS Greek texts

19) the word “keep” has replaced the word “believe” in John 12:47.

Vindication: Peshitta

20) in Acts 6:8 the word “faith” has been changed to “grace”.

Vindication: 2001 Spanish Bible by Trinitarian Bible Society

21) “of the Lord” was left out when Stephen was describing the angel of the burning bush incident in Acts 7:30.

Vindication: Spanish Valera 1862 – An accepted rendering of the verse before W&H/Nestle/UBS Greek texts

22) the words “and the Lord said” were omitted in Acts 9:5

Vindication: 2001 Spanish Bible by Trinitarian Bible Society

Also context does not require it, because Señor is already there once, and it is impossible to misinterpret the verse by leaving out the second instance of Señor.

23) “Known unto God are all his works” has been completely changed to read: “Says the Lord, make known all of this” in Acts 15:18

Vindication: The 1960 combines the end of verse 17 with the beginning of 18, changing from “makes” (v. 17) and “knows” (v. 18) (the traditional reading) to “makes known” in verse 18 in the 1960. “Todas estas cosas” is translated as “todo esto” in the combined reading in verse 18.

24) in Acts 18:5 “Paul was pressed in the spirit” was changed to read “Paul was completely surrendered to the preaching of the word.”

Vindication: 2001 Spanish Bible by Trinitarian Bible Society

25) Romans 1:16 leaves out the words “of Christ” when speaking “of the gospel of Christ.”

The RV 1960 matches the historical reading of this verse in the 1569, 1602, 1858, and 1909 Valera Spanish Bibles. The 1602 has especially been regarded as being based on the Textus Receptus, and there have been those who have talked about reprinting it because of how closely it follows the Textus Receptus. The Peshitta also vindicates this reading.

26) Romans 10:9 says “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Lord…” instead of saying “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus…” This is a contradiction of Matthew 7:22. Biblical salvation is not just saying “Jesus is the Lord”.

The RV 1960 reading matches Tyndale’s New Testament, which is considered to be based on the Textus Receptus.

27) the words “believed, unbelief, and not believed” were changed to “disobedient and disobedience” in Romans 11: 30 – 32.

Notice Strong’s definition for the Greek word in question:





From G545; disbelief (obstinate and rebellious): – disobedience, unbelief.

28) in I Corinthians 7:3 it substitutes the word “conjugal” instead of “benevolence”.

Notice Strong’s definition for the Greek word in question:





From the same as G2132; kindness; euphemistically conjugal duty: – benevolence, good will.

See also 1 Cor. 7:3 in The Defined King James Bible by The Bible For Today (D.A. Waite, general editor, who is very pro King James) where it defines the word in question with “required ‘kindness’ i.e. conjugal duty.”

29) in I Corinthians 7:5 it leaves out the words “to fasting” where talking about prayer and fasting.

Vindication: Spanish Valera 1862 – An accepted rendering of the verse before W&H/Nestle/UBS Greek texts

30) the words “by Jesus Christ” were not included in Ephesians 3:9.

Vindication: Peshitta

31) in I Thessalonians 4:4 the translators changed the word “vessel” to “wife”.

Notice Strong’s definition for the Greek word in question:





Of uncertain affinity; a vessel, implement, equipment or apparatus (literally or figuratively [specifically a wife as contributing to the usefulness of the husband]): – goods, sail, stuff, vessel.

32) “But unto the Son was changed to “but of the Son” in Hebrews 1:8.

Notice Strong’s definition for the Greek word in question:





A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): – about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.

33) I Peter 2:2 is changed to read “that by it you’ll grow for* salvation.” (*or to be saved, or in order to be saved). This passage also makes no mention of the “word”.

As to the accusation of some that process salvation is taught in this verse in the Reina-Valera, by the same criteria it would have to be acknowledged that the KJV teaches process salvation in 2 Tim. 3:15: “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation [para la salvación in RVG] through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

The latter part of the 1 Peter 2:2 reading in the Reina-Valera 1960 has precedent in other Textus Receptus-based Bibles, such as the Great Bible 1539 (italics) and Bishops 1568 (italics). Tyndale (1594) does not make mention of word.

34) Jude 22 has been completely changed to read: “to some that doubt, convince” instead of saying correctly “And of some have compassion, making a difference:”

As for “And of some have compassion, it is in the next verse: de otros tened misericordia. The Peshitta does not have “making a difference:”

35) “that had his name” was added in Revelation 14:1.

Great Bible 1539 has it (in italics)

36) a comma was added between “holy apostles” creating a new group “saints” in Revelation 18:20

Vindication: 2001 Spanish Bible by Trinitarian Bible Society

37) in Revelation 22:8 “the Lord God of the holy prophets…” was changed to read “the God of the spirits of the prophets…”.

Typo. It is actually Rev. 22:6

Vindication: Peshitta

38) Revelation 22:14 was changed to read “Blessed are those that wash their clothes (or robes)” instead of “Blessed are they that do his commandments”.

Manuscript support for either reading is fairly evenly divided. Using the codes scholars use to differentiate the evidence of varying manuscripts, here is the breakdown:

For Spanish reading: A, 1006, 2020, 2053,, it.c, it.dem, it.div, it.haf, vg,, eth, Athanasius, Fulgentius, Apringius, (Primasius), Ps-Ambrose, Haymo.

For English reading: 046, 1, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, 2065, 2073, 2138, 2432, it.gig,, syr.h,, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tyconius, Andrew, (Beatus), Arethas.

Source: UBS Greek NT, 2nd edition, p. 894.

When I see the reading of Rev. 22:14 criticized in the 1960, I can’t help but imagine what it would be like if the situation were reversed. If the situation was reversed, with the 1960 containing the reading of keeping the commandments to have the right to the tree of life and gain entrance into heaven, this would be the most attacked verse in the 1960! They would quote this over and over to try to demonstrate “irrefutable” proof that the 1960 taught works salvation. I’m willing to give the KJV the benefit of the doubt that it doesn’t teach works salvation, but on this verse it seems that the KJV defenders have more explaining to do (as to doctrinal implications of the reading) than 1960 defenders.

Out of respect for the heritage of the Reina-Valera and those who use it, we owe it to the Spanish Bible to be more diligent in our study before casting judgment, rather than being guided solely by first impressions upon mere simple comparisons between it and the KJV.


3 Responses to “Refutation of 38 objections to the common Spanish Bible from a proponent of the new Gomez Spanish Bible”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Anonymous says:

    works salvation in Rev. 22:14

    The question should not be whether Rev. 22:14 is talking about works salvation, but whether it is in the Textus Receptus or not! And IT IS! The Spanish Bible 1960 changed some verses to get away from the so-called works salvation, which is WRONG! They should have translated it as it is in Greek, and not give way to dogma first as the price of falsifying Scripture.

  2. Calvin George says:

    Re: works salvation in Rev. 22:14

    The point is that if the situation was reversed, the 1960 would be accused of teaching works salvation in Rev. 22:14. I do not believe that Rev. 22:14 teaches works salvation in the KJV, but I can see where someone reading it in passing could get that impression if they were not interpreting Scipture with Scripture. The 1960 reading is less sucesptible to misunderstanding, and forms a cross-reference with Rev. 7:14.

    You are right that the 1960 did not follow the Textus Receptus completely in this verse, but the KJV did not always follow the TR without exception either (I can provide some examples on request, from the writings of KJV defenders). If any departure whatsoever from the TR is “falsifying Scripture,” then by your own criteria, the KJV falsified Scripture in the few places it did not follow the TR. I do not believe the KJV falsified Scripture. I believe that the KJV and Reina-Valera are accurate, trustworthy and proven in spite of any TR departure, however slight. That a foreign Bible should never, never deviate from TR in the slightest is a relatively new teaching, as I document here: Must all foreign translations based closely on the Textus Receptus be revised if not conforming 100% to the Textus Receptus? I believe a translation should be based on the TR in the main, and therefore not drop any verses as in critical texts.

  3. Oscar says:

    Hades, the original greek word

    LIke or not, Hades is the word used in the original greek Bible.
    Hades. Literally, the invisible (or the invisible world). Corresponds to the Hebrew word Sheol, meaning the abode of disembodied spirits. The death takes the body, and Hell captures the spirit. The word “Spanish”, Hades is the same Greek word hades, that is, the word is not translated but only transliterated (represented by Greek letters Spanish literature). Not translated because there is no Spanish word (or English) that is equivalent.

Leave a comment...