Explanations for problem passages in the Spanish Bible – New Testament

Click here for the introduction to Explanations for Problem Passages in the Spanish Bible

Click here for Part 1: Explanations for problem passages in the Spanish Bible – Old Testament

Matthew 2:1

Complaint: magos (1909 & 1960) instead of hombres sabios. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: Magician is the primary meaning of mago in Spanish, although it also carries the secondary meaning of referring to someone who is gifted at something. The Reina-Valera reading is a transliteration of the underlying Greek word, and it closely matches the definition in Strong’s Concordance:

G3097

μάγος

magos

mag’-os

Of foreign origin [H7248]; a Magian, that is, Oriental scientist; by implication a magician: – sorcerer, wise man.

Matthew 2:12

Complaint: avisados por revelación (1909 & 1960) instead of avisados por Dios. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: The word “God” is not in the Greek, but is rather implied, so translators have the option of adding it if desired. See definition in Strong’s Concordance:

G5537

χρηματίζω

chrēmatizō

khray-mat-id’-zo

From G5536; to utter an oracle (compare the original sense of G5530), that is, divinely intimate; by implication (compare the secular sense of G5532) to constitute a firm for business, that is, (genitive) bear as a title: – be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak.

Matthew 5:22

Complaint: sin razón omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book and Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits this. The Bible states that it is possible to be angry and not sin (Eph. 4:26).

Matthew 5:27

Complaint: por los de antes omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: A plea for the Received Greek Text: And for the Authorized Version of the New Testament in answer to some of the Dean of Canterbury’s Criticism of both by Solomon Caesar Malan, a defender of the Textus Receptus and the KJV, acknowledges regarding this omission on p. 111: “These words are, it is true, left out in many MSS., as also in most of the old versions. … the weight of evidence is in favour of the omission…”

Matthew 6:1

Complaint: justicia (1909 & 1960) instead of limosnas.

Vindication: The 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, recognized as being the Textus Receptus-based Italian Bible. It has giustizia.

Matthew 6:24

Complaint: riquezas instead of mammón. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: See underlying Greek word in Strong’s Concordance:

G3126

μαμμωνᾶς

mammōnas

mam-mo-nas’

Of Chaldee origin (confidence, that is, figuratively wealth, personified); mammonas, that is, avarice (deified): – mammon.

Matthew 7:2

Complaint: os volverán omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: The phrase “it shall be measured to you again” in the KJV represents only two Greek words. Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus (Pocket Interlinear New Testament [1982] by J. P. Green) has “it will be measured to you,” matching the 1960.

Matthew 8:28

Complaint: gadarenos instead of gergesenos. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1995 Almeida Portuguese Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society, based on the Textus Receptus. It has gadarenos.

Matthew 10:5

Complaint: mandamiento omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: There is no omission here, but rather replacement with the synonymous phrase dio instrucciones. It closely follows the definition in Strong’s Concordance:

G3853

παραγγέλλω

paraggellō

par-ang-gel’-lo

From G3844 and the base of G32; to transmit a message, that is, (by implication) to enjoin: – (give in) charge, (give) command (-ment), declare.

Matthew 11:26

Complaint: en tus ojos omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: Also omitted by the 1568 Bishops Bible, the Tyndale 1534 New Testament, and the 1587 Geneva Bible, all recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. The Greek does not have “eyes” or “sight” in this verse, although translating it as “before your eyes/sight” is an option.

Matthew 12:31

Complaint: a los hombres omitted at the end of the verse. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: The French 1996 Ostervald Bible, published by Bearing Precious Seed and based on the Textus Receptus, also omits this. The 1960 uses the pronoun les to refer back to the previous mention of los hombres in the same verse.

Matthew 12:40

Complaint: gran pez instead of ballena. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G2785

κῆτος

kētos

kay’-tos

Probably from the base of G5490; a huge fish (as gaping for prey): – whale.

Matthew 16:8

Complaint: tenéis instead of trajisteis.

Vindication: Although there is a slight textual variant here in the Greek (involving a couple letters in one word), it is possible to arrive at the reading the Reina-Valera adopted with the Textus Receptus reading. The KJV translated the underlying Greek word lambano as “have” three times.

Matthew 17:20

Complaint: poca fe instead of incredulidad. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: See underlying Greek word in Strong’s Concordance:

G570

ἀπιστία

apistia

ap-is-tee’-ah

From G571; faithlessness, that is, (negatively) disbelief (want of Christian faith), or (positively) unfaithfulness (disobedience): – unbelief.

Matthew 18:26

Complaint: suplicaba instead of adoraba.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “besought hym.”

Matthew 20:20

Complaint: postrándose instead of adorándole. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: See how Strong’s Concordance defines the underlying Greek word:

G4352

προσκυνέω

proskuneō

pros-koo-neh’-o

From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): – worship.

Matthew 20:34

Complaint: los ojos omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Context. Los ojos already mentioned once, making the second mention optional as far as grammar is concerned. Sometimes the KJV did this, such as in Lk. 21:6. In this verse “stone” is mentioned twice in the Greek, but only once in the KJV, because the second stone is implied by the statement “stone upon another.”

Matthew 21:7

Complaint: se sentó (1909 & 1960) instead of le sentaron. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Newberry’s Interlinear Greek New Testament based on the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus has “he sat on them.” The nearest antecedent is the garments that were placed on the donkey and the colt. The KJV added “him” in italics to clarify the context, believing that “them” referred to those who were placing Jesus on the donkey. Both the English and Spanish Bible have Jesus sitting down on the donkey at the end of the verse.

Matthew 22:13

Complaint: tomadle omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Matthew 23:25

Complaint: injusticia (1909 & 1960) instead of other synonymous terms. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Based on the two Greek texts I compared (one from the Textus Receptus line, one from the critical text line), this case does not seem to be a textual variant. Valera’s 1602 was the first in the Reina-Valera line to use the disputed word injusticia, which means “unrighteousness.” It has been translated all sorts of ways, but always synonymous with wickedness. Casiodoro de Reina’s 1569 Spanish Bible has inmundicia, (possibly derived from the Latin Vulgate’s inmunditia) which means “filth.” The 1995 Almeida Portuguese Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society has iniqüidade, the Portuguese equivalent of “iniquity.” The 1996 Ostervald French Bible has intempérance, which means “intemperance.” The KJV and most English Reformation-era Bibles settled for “excess.” All these various terms are virtually synonymous with each other and should not be a cause for concern.

Matthew 27:41

Complaint: y los fariseos added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Geneva 1587 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “and Pharises.”

Matthew 28:9

Complaint: It is alleged that a major portion of Mat. 28:9 is missing (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: The KJV starts verse 9 at the beginning of the last sentence of verse 8 in the 1909 & 1960. In the end, nothing is missing.

Matthew 28:19

Complaint: haced discípulos instead of enseñad. The Reina-Valera has been accused of using a less-dogmatic phrase. Source of complaint: Elephant book and Carlos Donate’s book.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G3100

μαθητεύω

mathēteuō

math-ayt-yoo’-o

From G3101; intransitively to become a pupil; transitively to disciple, that is, enrol as scholar: – be disciple, instruct, teach.

Mark 1:2

Complaint: Isaías el profeta (1909 & 1960) instead of en los profetas. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: 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.

The 1960 reading in this passage is also found in several versions from the early centuries that are sometimes used in vindicating the KJV and demonstrating antiquity for Traditional Text readings. This would include the Peshitta, the Gothic, and several Old Latin manuscripts.

Mark 6:27

Complaint: le decapitó en la cárcel omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Gary La More’s book While Latinos Slept.

Vindication: The phrase that is supposedly missing is found at the very beginning of the next verse, as in the 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, which is universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Mark 6:33

Complaint: muchos (1909 & 1960) instead of la gente. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: See underlying Greek word in Strong’s Concordance:

G3793

ὄχλος

ochlos

okh’-los

From a derivative of G2192 (meaning a vehicle); a throng (as borne along); by implication the rabble; by extension a class of people; figuratively a riot: – company, multitude, number (of people), people, press.

Mark 6:44a

Complaint: como omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, recognized as being the Textus Receptus-based Italian Bible, also omits it.

Mark 6:44b

Complaint: de los panes omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Mark 7:19

Complaint: esto decía added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The phrase being complained about is in several editions of the Reina-Valera in italics (such as the 1909 plus the 2001 by the Trinitarian Bible Society). It was added for clarification, which happened many other times in the KJV. The 1960 did not employ italics, because in modern literature it represents emphasis.

Mark 10:51

Complaint: Señor omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: There is no omission, but rather a translation with a synonym (maestro) in the 1909 & 1960. The underlying Greek word is Rabboni, which was translated as “Master” in the Bishops 1582 Bible and the 1534 Tyndale New Testament in this verse.

Mark 14:52

Complaint: de ellos omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: The 1995 Portuguese Almeida Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits this.

Mark 15:3

Complaint: mas él no respondía nada omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Omitted from the Stephanus 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus.

Mark 15:4

Complaint: te acusan instead of testifican contra ti. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. It has “they lay vnto thy charge.”

Mark 16:18

Complaint: en las manos added.

Vindication: The Reina-Valera adds what the passage clearly implies. The KJV says “They shall take up serpents.” That clearly implies with the hands. Thayer’s Lexicon includes “to raise upwards, elevate, lift up: the hand” among possible definitions for the Greek word underlying “take up.”

Luke 1:3

Complaint: investigado con diligencia (1960 & similar wording in 1909) instead of entendido perfectamente. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. It has “searched out diligently,” matching the Reina-Valera.

Luke 1:69

Complaint: cuerno omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: There is no omission, but rather a slightly different translation that does not violate the Greek. The 1960 has poderoso Salvador. The 1996 French Ostervald translation published by Bearing Precious Seed and based on the Textus Receptus has puissant Sauveur (powerful/mighty Saviour). Thayer’s Lexicon includes “a mighty and valiant helper, the author of deliverance, of the Messiah” in its definition of the underlying Greek word.

Luke 2:22

Complaint: de ellos instead of de ella. Source of complaint: Elephant book, Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons, et al.

Vindication:

1. “Their purification” is the reading of the majority of the Greek manuscripts (The King James Version Defended, 1984, by Edward Hills, p. 221).

2. “Their purification” is the reading of the editions of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus and Stephanus (The King James Version Defended, 1984, by Edward Hills, p. 221).

3. “Their purification” is the reading of various versions based on the Textus Receptus before the KJV came out, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, and the Great Bible.

4. “Their purification” is the reading of the French Ostervald Bible based on the Textus Receptus.

5. The Spanish New Testament of Enzinas in 1543 had “their purification.” This is an interesting fact, because it was the first New Testament in Spanish translated directly from the Greek.

An exposition of the Old and New Testaments by John Gill (a Baptist):

…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.

Luke 4:5

Complaint: de tiempo omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: The 1534 Tyndale New Testament, the 1535 Coverdale Bible, and the 1587 Geneva Bible, all recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Luke 5:17

Complaint: sanar instead of sanarlos. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: In the first place, the context in Spanish implies “them.” Secondly, the 1995 Portuguese Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is based on the Textus Receptus, also has sanar.

Luke 8:43

Complaint: The equivalent of the English word “living” supposedly omitted. Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: There is no omission. The 1960 simply translated this verse closer to how the 1534 Tyndale New Testament, the 1568 Bishops Bible and the 1587 Geneva Bible had done it. They have “all her substance” while the 1960 has todo cuanto tenía (all that [she] had).

Luke 8:51

Complaint: consigo added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Geneva 1587 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “with him.”

Luke 9:43

Complaint: Jesús omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book, Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons, et al.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Luke 9:48

Complaint: es instead of será. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus (Pocket Interlinear New Testament [1982] by J. P. Green) has “is” (present tense).

Luke 11:15

Complaint: Beelzebú instead of Beelzebub. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Reina-Valera does not always spell a Greek transliteration exactly as in Greek, just as the KJV and others do not always follow the Greek spelling. The Greek transliteration does not have a third letter “b.” See Strong’s Concordance:

G954

Βεελζεβούλ

Beelzeboul

beh-el-zeb-ool’

Of Chaldee origin (by parody upon [H1176]); dung god; Beelzebul, a name of Satan: – Beelzebub.

Luke 13:35

Complaint: ciertamente omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Luke 16:9a

Complaint: Ganad amigos por medio de instead of Haceos amigos de. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: Of all the statements made by Christ, this is one of the most difficult to explain, even as it stands in the KJV. To present this as a problem passage in the 1960 without acknowledging that the KJV or alternative Spanish reading requires some explaining is unfair. The Greek word underlying ganad (gain) was translated as “gained” in Luke 19:18 in the KJV. The Greek word underlying por medio de (through, or by means of) was translated as “through” in 2 Corinthians 13:4 in the KJV.

Luke 16:9b

Complaint: falten instead of fallareis. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus (Pocket Interlinear NT [1982] by J. P. Green) has “it fails.” Whether the verse is suggesting that we fail (or lack), or riches fail (or lack) is subject to interpretation. To insist that only the KJV interpretation should be followed in the Spanish Bible is to lean towards Ruckmanism.

Luke 18:28

Complaint: las posesiones nuestras (1909 & 1960) instead of todo. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G3956

πᾶς

pas

pas

Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: – all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

Luke 21:5

Complaint: ofrendas votivas instead of dones. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G334

ἀνάθημα

anathēma

an-ath’-ay-mah

From G394 (like G331, but in a good sense); a votive offering: – gift.

John 1:9

Complaint: hombre, venía instead of hombre que viene. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: This is not a matter involving a textual variant. As much as a translator may not want to interpret, this is one of those cases where a translator is forced to make an interpretation. Albert Barnes in his Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments explains the situation as follows:

The phrase in the original is ambiguous. The word translated “that cometh” may either refer to the “light,” or to the word “man;” so that it may mean either “this ‘true light that cometh’ into the world enlightens all,” or “it enlightens every ‘man that cometh’ into the world.”

John 1:42

Complaint: Pedro instead of piedra. Catholic bias has been alleged. Source of complaint: Carlos Donate’s book.

Vindication: The KJV translators translated this Greek word as “Peter” 161 times, and in John 1:42 they decided in this sole instance to translate the meaning, hence “stone.” If the KJV translators translated this word “Peter” 161 times, why call the Spanish Bible “Catholic” for doing it in this verse? That is a double standard! Strong’s Concordance defines it as follows:

G4074

Πέτρος

Petros

pet’-ros

Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: – Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

John 2:22

Complaint: les omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

John 3:34

Complaint: le omitted (1909 &1960). Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: There is no omission here. Unto him is in italics in the KJV at this verse, as the revisers apparently felt it was needed for clarification.

John 14:12

Complaint: al Padre (1909 & 1960) instead of mi Padre. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “the father.”

John 14:28

Complaint: al Padre (1909 & 1960) instead of mi Padre. Source of complaint: Elephant book and Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “the father.”

John 15:7

Complaint: pedid (1909 & 1960) instead of pediréis. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Geneva 1587 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “aske” (without “ye shall”).

Acts 2:33

Complaint: ahora omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Also omitted in the 1535 Coverdale Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, as it must have seemed to them that it was already implied in the context.

Acts 2:41

Complaint: con gozo omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1909 & 1960 match the historical reading of this verse (such as in 1569 & 1602). The 1602 has especially been recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Acts 3:24

Complaint: anunciado (1909 & 1960) instead of predicho. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1568 Bishops Bible (tolde) and the 1534 Tyndale New Testament (tolde), both universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Acts 5:41

Complaint: el Nombre (1909) or del Nombre (1960) instead of su nombre. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: According to Newberry’s Interlinear Greek New Testament based on Stephanus 1550, the Greek literally says “the name of him” The 1960 dropped “of him,” but they capitalized Nombre (name) to ensure it would refer to Christ. The KJV dropped “the” apparently because the English grammar did not call for it.

Acts 10:48

Complaint: Jesús added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, recognized as being the Textus Receptus-based Italian Bible. It has Gesù.

Acts 11:28

Complaint: César omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Also omitted in Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Acts 13:6

Complaint: toda added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: See the Tyndale-Rogers-Coverdale Bible (sometimes called the Matthew’s Bible), universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. It has “all.” See also Strong’s Concordance:

G1330

διέρχομαι

dierchomai

dee-er’-khom-ahee

From G1223 and G2064; to traverse (literally): – come, depart, go (about, abroad, every where, over, through, throughout), pass (by, over, through, throughout), pierce through, travel, walk through.

Acts 15:33

Complaint: a aquellos que los habían enviado instead of a los apóstoles. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1960 translated the meaning of the word “apostle,” rather than the actual word. The KJV did this in John 13:16. Also see Strong’s definition below.

G652

ἀπόστολος

apostolos

ap-os’-tol-os

From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): – apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

Acts 17:22

Complaint: religiosos instead of supersticiosos. Source of complaint: Carlos Donate’s book.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G1174

δεισιδαιμονέστερος

deisidaimonesteros

dice-ee-dahee-mon-es’-ter-os

The compound of a derivative of the base of G1169 and G1142; more religious than others: – too superstitious.

Acts 19:27

Complaint: venera instead of honra. Source of complaint: Elephant book and Carlos Donate’s book, which alleges Catholic bias.

Vindication: The Portuguese word for venerate (veneram) was used in the 1995 Almeida Portuguese translation by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is known for taking a strong stand for the Textus Receptus. It should also be kept in mind that the word in question was used in the context of the heathen worshiping a false god.

Acts 21:23

Complaint: sobre sí omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Geneva 1587 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Acts 22:26

Complaint: ten cuidado omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Acts 25:2

Complaint: príncipes de los sacerdotes (1909) or principales sacerdotes (1960) instead of el sumo sacerdote. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, as well as the Enzinas 1543 Spanish New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, have “the hye prestes” and “Príncipes de los Sacerdotes,” respectively.

Acts 25:6

Complaint: no más de ocho o diez días (1909 & 1960) instead of más de diez días. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons, et al.

Vindication: See the marginal note the KJV translators themselves placed for that verse, available in the 1611 reprint: “¶Or, as some copies reade, no more than eight or ten dayes.”

Acts 25:15

Complaint: condenación (1909 & 1960) instead of juicio. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The French 1996 Ostervald Bible, published by Bearing Precious Seed and based on the Textus Receptus, has condamnation.

Romans 1:5

Complaint: por amor de su nombre instead of por su nombre. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: This is not a textual variant. The 1960 revisers apparently felt that the traditional “for his name” reading was more plain than necessary. Therefore they changed it to “for love/sake of his name.” One of the key underlying Greek words (huper) was translated “sake” five times in the KJV. See Strong’s Concordance:

G5228

ὑπέρ

huper

hoop-er’

A primary preposition; “over”, that is, (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond, across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding; with the accusative case superior to, more than. In compounds it retains many of the listed applications: – (+ exceeding abundantly) above, in (on) behalf of, beyond, by, + very chiefest, concerning, exceeding (above, -ly), for, + very highly, more (than), of, over, on the part of, for sake of, in stead, than, to (-ward), very. In compounds it retains many of the above applications.

Romans 1:16

Complaint: de Cristo omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: The RV 1909-1960 matches the historical reading of this verse in the 1569, 1602 and 1858 Valera Spanish Bibles. The reading as found in the Spanish Bible has considerable manuscript support, such as the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, C, G, P26, Armenian, Coptic, etc. The phrase in question was not included in the Spanish Bible hundreds of years before Westcott & Hort texts, so the omission cannot be traced to it. It is not presenting another Gospel that is not of Christ as some have unfairly alleged, since the last half of the verse speaks of this Gospel being the power of God unto salvation.

Romans 1:17

Complaint: el evangelio instead of en él. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Reina-Valera took some liberty to make plain that “therein” was referring to “the gospel” of the previous verse. The French Ostervald 1868, recognized by many to be based on the Textus Receptus, did this also (in italics). The Reina-Valera 1960 did not use italics because in modern literature it means emphasis.

Romans 4:8

Complaint: inculpa instead of imputa. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Inculpar is synonymous with imputar. The likely reason that imputó was replaced with a synonymous term is because the root word has become a highly vulgar term in modern Spanish.

Romans 4:23-24

Complaint: contada instead of imputado. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: This situation is similar to Romans 4:8. All forms of words that contained the root word puto/puta were replaced in the 1960, apparently because of its vulgar connotation in modern Spanish. The Greek word underlying contada (counted) was translated as “count” five times in the KJV.

Romans 8:32

Complaint: gratuitamente omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Gratuitamente (freely) is not in the Greek text. The Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops and Coverdale Bible did not have it. Since the Greek word refers to giving, it could be said that “freely” is implied, but leaving it out is not an omission.

Romans 10:7

Complaint: “If you have your 1960 Bible, the word [sic] ‘bring up again’ was erased. It merely says ‘to bring up Christ from the dead.’ In other words, as if Christ was still in the tomb, as if he still had not resurrected.” Source of complaint: Humberto Gomez (Gnostic heresies recording).

Vindication: The 1960 translated this verse literally. This is not a textual variant. Both Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus (Pocket Interlinear New Testament [1982] by J. P. Green) and Newberry’s Interlinear Greek New Testament based on the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus have “Christ to bring down,”(without “again”) matching the 1960. The word “again” is not in the Greek, but was added in the KJV for clarification. The 1960 translators were not erasing anything that was in the Greek.

Notice the context also. The last part of the previous verse speaks about bringing Christ down from above, and then contrasted with bringing him up from the dead in verse seven. Baptist commentator John Gill says regarding this: “… these phrases are proverbial, and often used to express things impossible.” Notice also that just two verses down from the verse in dispute, is a famous resurrection verse which ends as follows: “…and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

No one has said that the 1960 revisers did not believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection but, by the nature of the complaint against this verse, such a thing is being implied. This is an insult to the 1960 revisers who tended to be conservative in their theology. One 1960 reviser even composed a beautiful poem about the resurrection, with the title “¡Él Vive!” (He lives!)

Romans 10:9

Complaint: Jesús es el Señor instead of al Señor Jesús. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “Iesus is the lorde.”

Romans 10:15

Complaint: el evangelio de omitted (before paz). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The French 1996 Ostervald Bible, published by Bearing Precious Seed and based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Romans 11:30

Complaint: desobedientesdesobediencia instead of no creísteisincredulidad. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: Both underlying Greek words were translated as “disobedient” several times in the KJV (Rom. 10:21, Eph. 2:2, etc).

Romans 11:31

Complaint: desobedientes instead of no han creído. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: The same underlying Greek word was translated as “disobedient” four times in the KJV (Rom. 10:21, 1 Pet. 2:7, 1 Pet. 2:8 and 1 Pet. 3:20).

Romans 11:32

Complaint: desobediencia instead of incredulidad. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: The underlying Greek word was translated as “disobedient” several times in the KJV (Eph. 2:2; 5:6, Col. 3:6).

Romans 14:18

Complaint: esto (1909 & 1960) instead of estas cosas. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Spanish Bible has translated this consistently as esto (this) in this verse from 1569-1960 in all the editions I’ve checked. The underlying Greek word was translated as “this” in Luke 16:26 and Luke 24:21 in the KJV.

Romans 16:1

Complaint: diaconisa (1909 & 1960) instead of sierva. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: To begin with, the author of this vindication does not believe in women deacons as an office in the church. Acts 6:3 and 1 Timothy 3:12 as found in all Bibles in the Reina-Valera line restrict it to men. A problem surfaces here because the underlying Greek word in Romans 16:1 is diakonos, and is clearly a reference to Phebe, a woman. It is my personal theory that Phebe was the wife of a deacon. 1 Tim. 3:11 has special instructions for the wives of deacons, so they had responsibilities—but not as an officer of the church, as only men were allowed to be chosen in Acts 6:3 and women do not meet the requirement of “husbands of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:12). Since the underlying Greek word in Romans 16:1 is diakonos, a translator could hardly be faulted for transliterating the word.

1 Corinthians 1:23

Complaint: gentiles (1909 & 1960) instead of griegos. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: This same Greek word was translated “Gentile” in Rom. 2:9 in the KJV.

1 Corinthians 2:12

Complaint: gratuitamente omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Gratuitamente (freely) is not in the Greek text. The Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops and Coverdale Bible did not have it. Since the Greek word refers to giving, it could be said that “freely” is implied, but leaving it out is not an omission.

1 Corinthians 7:3

Complaint: el deber conyugal instead of benevolencia. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance:

G2133

εὔνοια

eunoia

yoo’-noy-ah

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 pro-KJV) where it defines the word in question with “required ‘kindness’ i.e. conjugal duty.”

1 Corinthians 9:20

Complaint: aunque yo no estoy bajo la ley added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1534 Tyndale New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “whe I was not without lawe.”

1 Corinthians 9:21

Complaint: de (Dios), de (Cristo) (1909 & 1960) instead of a (Dios), a (Cristo). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “of God … of Christe.” The Spanish Enzinas 1543 has a Dios … de Cristo, 1556 Pineda con Dios … de Cristo, Reina 1569 de Dios … del Cristo, and Valera 1602 de Dios … de Cristo. Also, the underlying Greek word in the Textus Receptus can be translated either way, as demonstrated by comparing Newberry’s and Green’s Interlinear, both based on the Textus Receptus.

1 Corinthians 9:27

Complaint: eliminado instead of reprobado. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: See how Strong’s Concordance defines the underlying Greek word:

G96

ἀδόκιμος

adokimos

ad-ok’-ee-mos

From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1384; unapproved, that is, rejected; by implication worthless (literally or morally): – castaway, rejected, reprobate.

1 Corinthians 14:33

Complaint: autor omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: “The author” is in italics in the KJV in this verse, meaning it is not in the Greek.

1 Corinthians 15:8

Complaint: como a un abortivo, me apareció a mí (1909 & 1960) instead of nacido a destiempo, Él fue visto también por mí. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: Abortivo is defined by the Real Academia Española dictionary as “nacido antes de tiempo” (born before time). The key underlying Greek word is defined as follows by Strong’s Concordance:

G1626

ἔκτρωμα

ektrōma

ek’-tro-mah

From a compound of G1537 and τιτρώσκω titrōskō (to wound); a miscarriage (abortion), that is, (by analogy) untimely birth: – born out of due time.

Also the 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has the same key words as the 1960: apparito ancora a me, come all’abortivo.

1 Corinthians 16:2

Complaint: Dios omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Leaflet by Jeff McArdle.

Vindication: “God” is in italics in the KJV in this verse, meaning it is not in the Greek.

2 Corinthians 2:10

Complaint: presencia instead of persona. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: The Greek word underlying “person” (Strong’s #4383) was translated as “presence” seven times in the KJV.

2 Corinthians 2:17

Complaint: mercaderes falsos (1909) or medran falsificando (1960) instead of adulteran. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: See 2 Cor. 2:17 in The Defined King James Bible by The Bible For Today (D.A. Waite, general editor, who is very pro-KJV) where it defines the word in question with “debase; deceitfully peddle.”

2 Corinthians 4:14

Complaint: con (Jesús), instead of por (Jesús). It has been alleged that by having the reading “with Jesus” instead of “by Jesus,” it denies the resurrection of Christ. Source of complaint: 2007 Mexico RVG conference video

Vindication: Look at the first part of the verse in the 1960: “he which raised up the Lord Jesus…” (the first half reads like the KJV). It reveals the resurrection of Jesus as already completed! Also the Greek word in question (Strong’s #1223) was translated as “with” in Mark 16:20, and in other places in the KJV, so the 1960 did not violate the Greek in the process of translation. If the phrase “with Jesus” leaves Jesus in the grave awaiting our resurrection as alleged, then the KJV does likewise in Col 3:1: ”If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.”

2 Corinthians 8:24

Complaint: Missing the word y (1909 & 1960) before the phrase ante las iglesias. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops Bible, as well as Enzinas 1543, Pineda 1556, Reina 1569 y Valera 1602, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus also leave it out, as it must have seemed to them that it was already implied in the context.

2 Corinthians 11:6

Complaint: lo hemos demostrado instead of somos manifestados. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G5319

φανερόω

phaneroō

fan-er-o’-o

From G5318; to render apparent (literally or figuratively): – appear, manifestly declare, (make) manifest (forth), shew (self).

Galatians 5:4

Complaint: os desligasteis instead of ha venido a ser sin efecto.

Vindication: This verse is already used even as it stands in the KJV in failed attempts to prove one can lose salvation. This is the verse that ends with “ye are fallen from grace.” The way the 1960 translates this verse does not violate the Greek. Note how the dictionary in Strong’s Concordance defines the word in question:

G2673

καταργέω

katargeō

kat-arg-eh’-o

From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: – abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

This same Greek word was translated “loosed” in the KJV in Romans 7:2.

Ephesians 3:9a

Complaint: por Jesucristo omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: The disputed reading in this passage is also found in several versions from the early centuries that are sometimes used in vindicating the KJV and demonstrating antiquity for Traditional Text readings. The early-century versions that have this reading include the Peshitta, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Coptic (Sahidic & Bohaidic), most Old Latin manuscripts, and the Ethiopic. The disputed reading is in brackets in the 1569 and 1602 editions of Reina and Valera.

Ephesians 3:9b

Complaint: dispensación (1909 & 1960) instead of compañerismo. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, recognized as being the Textus Receptus-based Italian Bible. It has dispensazion.

Ephesians 6:9

Complaint: de ellos added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: See the marginal note placed by the KJV revisers in the first edition of the 1611 still available as a reprint: “|| Some reade, both your, and their master.”

Ephesians 6:24

Complaint: amor inalterable instead of sinceridad. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Thayer’s Lexicon includes “to love one with never diminishing love” in its definition of the underlying Greek word.

Philippians 4:2

Complaint: ruego omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Spanish grammar does not require the word in question to be included twice just two words apart, which could be considered awkward. Even the KJV does this at times. An example would be Luke 21:6, where the word “stone” shows up twice in Greek, but only once in the KJV. Based on the two Greek texts I compared (one from the Textus Receptus line, one from the critical text line), this case does not seem to be a textual variant.

Colossians 1:6

Complaint: y crece added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1649 Diodati Italian Bible, recognized as being the Textus Receptus-based Italian Bible. It has e cresce.

Colossians 1:17

Complaint: en él instead of por él. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication. The KJV translated the underlying Greek word as “in” no less than 1,902 times.

1 Thessalonians 4:4

Complaint: esposa instead of vaso. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G4632

σκεῦος

skeuos

skyoo’-os

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.

The word “vessel” was synonymous with wife in Bible times. See 1 Pet. 3:7.

2 Thessalonians 2:2

Complaint: día del Señor (1909 & 1960) instead of día de Cristo. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1909 & 1960 match the historical reading of this verse (such as in 1569 & 1602). The 1602 has especially been recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Titus 2:7

Complaint: sinceridad omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Matthew’s 1537 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits the word.

Titus 3:10

Complaint: que cause divisiones instead of hereje.

Vindication: See Titus 3:10 in The Defined King James Bible by The Bible For Today (D.A. Waite, general editor, who is pro-KJV) where it defines the word in question with “(Gk schismatic, factious person {one who causes splits, divisions, factions…” See also Strong’s Concordance:

G141

αἱρετικός

aihretikos

hahee-ret-ee-kos’

From the same as G140; a schismatic: – heretic.

Hebrews 2:16

Complaint: no socorrió a los ángeles instead of no tomó para sí la naturaleza de los ángeles. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: It should be noted first that “him the nature of” is in italics in the KJV, which means it is not in the Greek, but was added for clarification. As to the matter of helping angels, see the definition of the underlying Greek word in Strong’s Concordance:

G1949

ἐπιλαμβάνομαι

epilambanomai

ep-ee-lam-ban’-om-ahee

Middle voice from G1909 and G2983; to seize (for help, injury, attainment or any other purpose; literally or figuratively): – catch, lay hold (up-) on, take (by, hold of, on).

Hebrews 3:18

Complaint: desobedientes (1960) or no obedecieron (1909) instead of incrédulos. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: The underlying Greek word was translated as “disobedient” four times and as “obey not” three times in the KJV.

Hebrews 4:8

Complaint: Josué (1909 & 1960) instead of Jesús.

Vindication: The Hebrew word translated “Joshua” when translated into Greek is the same Greek word as the word for “Jesus.” Observe the footnote placed in the original KJV by the translators themselves in the 1611 reprint: “¶ That is, Josuah.” A similar scenario is found in Acts 7:45. See also Heb. 4:8 in The Defined King James Bible by The Bible For Today (D.A. Waite, general editor, who is pro-KJV) where it defines the word in question with “i.e. Joshua (Heb equivalent of Jesus).”

Hebrews 11:11

Complaint: simiente omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits the word.

Hebrews 11:31

Complaint: desobedientes instead of incrédulos. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: The underlying Greek word was translated as “disobedient” four times and as “obey not” three times in the KJV.

Hebrews 12:23

Complaint: iglesia omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits the word.

James 5:16

Complaint: ofensas instead of faltas. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The underlying Greek word paraptoma was translated 7 times as “offence/s” in the KJV.

1 Peter 1:5

Complaint: para alcanzar la salvación (1960; salud in 1909) instead of para la salvación. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: Enzinas 1543, Pineda 1556, Reina 1569 and Valera 1602 agree with RV 1909 and 1960. Notice the explanation in the first part of Strong’s definition for the underlying Greek word (#1519): “A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered)…” (Bold added for emphasis). Also notice the context. The chapter starts off four verses prior directing itself indisputably to believers. Verse 5, the very verse being accused of teaching false doctrine, affirms that we are kept by the power of God through faith. At times the Bible presents salvation as something that for the Christian will have its ultimate fulfillment in the future, as in Rom 13:11: “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.”

1 Peter 2:2

Complaint: en salud (1909) or para salvación (1960) added. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: See the Syriac Peshitta, which is recognized to not be from an Alexandrian source. See also the Great Bible 1539 (italics) and Bishops 1568 (italics).

It has been said that this passage in the Spanish Bible teaches process salvation by having the phrase “for/unto salvation.” If that was the case, then by the same criteria it would have to be acknowledged that the KJV teaches works 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 through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Of course the KJV does not teach process salvation in 2 Tim. 3:15, and by the same token the Spanish Bible doesn’t either in 1 Pet. 2:2. There are several other verses to keep in mind when interpreting 1 Pet. 2:2. Among them are the following:

1Pe 1:5 “Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Rom 13:11 “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.”

1 Peter 2:7

Complaint: no creen instead of desobedientes. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

G544

ἀπειθέω

apeitheō

ap-i-theh’-o

From G545; to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely): – not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

1 Peter 3:21

Complaint: corresponde instead of figura. By not referring to baptism as a figure, the Reina-Valera supposedly teaches baptismal regeneration. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: The Matthews 1537 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus has “which signifieth baptism” instead of figure, closely matching the 1960.

Strong’s Concordance:

G499

ἀντίτυπον

antitupon

an-teet’-oo-pon

Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart: – (like) figure (whereunto).

2 Peter 1:19

See Isaiah 14:12.

1 John 2:27

Complaint: permaneced (imperative) instead of perseveraréis (future). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “so byde.” See also 1 Jn. 2:27 in The Defined King James Bible by The Bible For Today (D.A. Waite, general editor, who is pro-KJV) where it defines the word in question with “remain.”

Strong’s Concordance:

G3306

μένω

menō

men’-o

A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): – abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

1 John 2:28

Complaint: no nos alejemos de él avergonzados instead of no seamos avergonzados delante de Él. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: The key underlying Greek word is defined as follows in Strong’s Concordance:

G575

ἀπό

apo

apo’

A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): – (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

1 John 3:16

Complaint: de Dios omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book

Vindication: “Of God” is in italics in some editions of the KJV and is omitted in the Stephanus 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus.

2 John 1:8

Complaint: no perdáis instead of no perdamos. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: Both readings are plural present subjunctive, the only difference between them is one being in the first person and the other in the second person. This does not change the meaning of the passage. There are cases in which even the KJV did not follow the exact tense or mood of the Greek or Hebrew. The translator should be allowed some liberties in translating. The fact that these types of things are thrown into lists of problem passages in the Spanish Bible demonstrates desperation (in my opinion) on the part of those who seek to discredit the Spanish Bible.

3 John 1:5

Complaint: especialmente added. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: As for especialmente, this is not a textual variant based on the two Greek texts I compared (one from the Textus Receptus line, one from the critical text line). The Greek (Stephanus 1550 Interlinear by Newberry) literally has “and this strangers,” which in Spanish can be changed slightly without changing the meaning in order for it to not sound awkward. The 1960 revisers apparently added especialmente so it would not turn out clumsy in the receptor language. They did not utilize italics because in modern literature it represents emphasis.

Jude 1:22a

Complaint: de algunos tened misericordia omitted.

Vindication: The exact phrase is in the very next verse in the Reina-Valera 1960: (…y de otros tened misericordia…). Occasionally a foreign language Bible or even some English Reformation-era Bibles will have a phrase or keyword in the next or previous verse compared to the KJV.

Jude 1:22b

Complaint: A algunos que dudan, convencedlos (1960) or discerniendo (1909) instead of haciendo diferencia.

Vindication: I personally believe that phrase is accurate as it stands in the KJV, but the KJV translators had to be a little creative to come up with such a beautiful-sounding phrase that didn’t violate the Greek. For example, the Bishops Bible, which is what the KJV is a revision of, had the following awkward-sounding translation: “seperatyng them” (instead of the beautiful KJV rendering “making a difference).The phrase in question corresponds to only one Greek word which Strong’s Concordance defines as follows:

G1252

διακρίνω

diakrinō

dee-ak-ree’-no

From G1223 and G2919; to separate thoroughly, that is, (literally and reflexively) to withdraw from, or (by implication) oppose; figuratively to discriminate (by implication decide), or (reflexively) hesitate: – contend, make (to) differ (-ence), discern, doubt, judge, be partial, stagger, waver.

The KJV translated the underlying Greek word as “doubt” 5 times. The Reina-Valera 1960 translators seemed to have focused on this meaning of doubt, so they interpreted this verse as a commandment to convince those who doubt. Since the underlying Greek word can be translated in so many ways, translators are forced to interpret when they come to this verse.

Revelation 1:6

Complaint: y omitted (before su Padre). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Revelation 2:20

Complaint: toleras instead of permites. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: See Rev. 2:20 in The Defined King James Bible by The Bible For Today (D.A. Waite, general editor, who is pro-KJV) where it defines the word in question with “tolerate, permit, allow.”

Revelation 3:4

Complaint: aun omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Revelation 3:14

Complaint: en Laodicea (1909 & 1960) instead of de los laodicenses. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “in Laodicea.”

Revelation 4:6

Complaint: como added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The phrase in question has long been a target of additions for it to make sense in a receptor language. The KJV adds “there was” in italics. The Spanish Bible for hundreds of years had the word como to clarify the passage.

Revelation 4:11

Complaint: voluntad (1909 & 1960) instead of placer. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice.

Vindication: The underlying Greek word was translated as “will” 62 times in the KJV.

Revelation 5:6

Complaint: vi instead of he aquí. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The underlying Greek word is the following according to Strong’s Concordance:

G2400

ἰδού

idou

id-oo’

Second person singular imperative middle voice of G1492; used as imperative lo!: – behold, lo, see.

The underlying Greek word was translated “see” in several places in the KJV, including Luke 17:23.

Revelation 6:12

Complaint: toda added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The word toda (all, feminine) has precedent throughout Spanish Bible history in this verse and is also found in the 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Revelation 7:17

Complaint: Word order. fuentes de aguas de vida instead of fuentes vivas de aguas. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The 1539 Great Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus.

Revelation 9:19

Complaint: los caballos added. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Italian Diodati 1649 translation, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. It has de’ cavalli.

Revelation 11:1

Complaint: el ángel se paró omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits this.

Revelation 14:1

Complaint: él y el de added (before su Padre). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Italian Diodati 1649 translation, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. It has il suo nome, e il nome di.

Revelation 14:15

Complaint: te omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Geneva 1587 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, also omits it.

Revelation 16:1

Complaint: siete added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Geneva 1587 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “seuen.”

Revelation 17:5

Complaint: Reina-Valera starts the title in verse with Babilonia instead of misterio. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: The Greek does not indicate which word is the start of the title. Also the Geneva, Bishops, Coverdale and Tyndale have “a mystery,” matching un misterio of the Reina-Valera.

Revelation 19:8

Complaint: acciones justas instead of justicia. That the Reina-Valera teaches works salvation here has been alleged. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: See underlying Greek word in Strong’s Concordance.

G1345

δικαίωμα

dikaiōma

dik-ah’-yo-mah

From G1344; an equitable deed; by implication a statute or decision: – judgment, justification, ordinance, righteousness.

Revelation 19:17

Complaint: la gran cena de Dios instead of la cena del gran Dios. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: This complaint has to do with word order only. See the Italian Diodati 1649 translation, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. It has al gran convito di Dio.

Revelation 21:14

Complaint: doce added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has “12.”

Revelation 22:6

Complaint: espíritus instead of santos. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: The Italian Diodati 1649 translation, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, has spiriti.

Revelation 22:8

Complaint: soy el que added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.

Vindication: This part of the verse does not seem to be a textual variant. Newberry’s Interlinear of the Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus edition has “he who” at this point. The 1995 Almeida Portuguese Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society based on the Textus Receptus has sou aquele que (sou in italics).

Revelation 22:14

Complaint: lavan sus ropas instead of guardan sus mandamientos. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: Manuscript support for either reading is fairly evenly divided. Using the abbreviations scholars use to differentiate the evidence of varying manuscripts and quotes of church fathers, here is the breakdown:

For Spanish reading: A, 1006, 2020, 2053, it.ar, it.c, it.dem, it.div, it.haf, vg, cop.sa, 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.ph, syr.h, cop.bo, Tertullian, Cyprian, Tyconius,

Andrew, (Beatus), Arethas.

Source: UBS Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, p. 894.

It could be said that the revised reading corresponds with Revelation 7:14: “…These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Revelation 7:14 clearly shows us that the washing of robes mentioned in Revelation 22:14 of the Reina-Valera 1960 refers to “washing our robes in the blood of the Lamb.”

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 supposed 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 here, but on this verse it seems that the KJV requires more explaining (as to doctrinal implications of the reading) than the 1960 reading.

Click here for Part 1: Explanations for problem passages in the Spanish Bible – Old Testament

Click here for Part 3: Explanations for criticized words and phrases appearing multiple times in various verses in the Reina-Valera

2 Responses to “Explanations for problem passages in the Spanish Bible – New Testament”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Donald Heinz says:

    Premise
    Calvin: It seems your premise here is false. Judging by your ‘vindication’s here, it can be said that if any difference appears once in any old version considered ‘tradicional’ in any language or in the Greek manuscripts, we can be assured that it is okay. That’s pretty weak reasoning.

  2. Calvin George says:

    Re: Premise

    Can you provide a specific example of what you mean? In the introduction to these vindications I went to great lengths to list the broad criteria that is allowed for defending the KJV. Does not basic logic and simple fairness dictate that the very same criteria can be used to defend a foreign Bible?

Leave a comment...

*