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
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 12:8
Complaint: aun omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: This regards the Greek conjunction kai. The KJV does not translate the Greek word kai before “high captains” in Mark 6:21.
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: Erasmus’ Greek New Testaments (first editions of the Textus Receptus). Verified with his last edition of 1535.
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”).
John 16:3
Complaint: os (before harán) omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Codex 2 and 817, two manuscripts that Erasmus used in composing the Textus Receptus and with which Erasmus usually agreed, omit ὑμῖν.
John 16:10
Complaint: el Padre instead of mi Padre. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Erasmus’ Greek New Testaments (first editions of the Textus Receptus). Verified with his last edition of 1535.
John 18:20
Complaint: se reunen/juntan todos los judíos (all the Jews gather) (1909 & 1960) instead of siempre se juntan los judíos (the Jews always gather). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Erasmus’ Greek New Testaments. Verified with his first edition of 1516.
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: Erasmus’s Greek New Testaments (first editions of the Textus Receptus). Verified with his latest edition of 1535 (has κατήγγειλαν).
Acts 5:41
Complaint: el Nombre (1909) or del Nombre (1960) instead of su nombre. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The manuscripts used by Erasmus in composing the Received Text had textual variants here. His Codex 1 omitted αὐτοῦ. Enzinas 1543, Pérez 1556, Reina 1569 and Valera 1602 have él nombre (the name).
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 15:11
Complaint: Cristo omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: χριστόῦ is also omitted in the manuscripts Erasmus usually followed in the books of Acts (codices 1, 2815 & 1816) in forming the Textus Receptus. He may have followed codex 69, which contains χριστόῦ.
Acts 15:33
Complaint: a aquellos que los habían enviado instead of a los apóstoles. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: They both come from the same root word, and the only difference is a technicality: “who had sent” (ἀποστείλαντας) compared to “he who is sent” (ἀποστόλους).
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: This is not an issue of the underlying Greek text, but rather a translation issue. The Greek way of referring to “they have a vow on themselves” sounds a little awkward in Spanish, therefore it was translated “they have an obligation to fulfill their vow”.
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 Received Text has δίκην and the critical text has καταδικην, both terms with the same root word, with no translatable difference. δίκην can mean “a judicial hearing, judicial decision, especially sentence of condemnation” among its definitions (Thayers lexicon). See also Strong’s Concordance dictionary. Both Reina’s 1569 Bible and Valera’s revision of 1602 had “condenación” before the critical text existed.
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.
I think it is good to take into account the perspective of Erasmus on the cases of differences or variety in names of deity in the New Testament:
What shall we do about the Greeks, who read the appointed scriptures out of the Gospel text and for this reason sometimes add the name “Jesus,” taking it from the preceding passage, or put the name instead of the pronoun “his”? What shall we do about our liturgical practice, when we routinely add “In those days Jesus said to his disciples,” when the Gospel does not always have the phrase there? What shall we do about Saint Luke, who left out a part of the Lord’s prayer? Or about the Latin translator, who left out the conclusion found in the Greek – an omission of which Lee does not approve? But to avoid the impression that I am joking in a serious matter, let me say that there were variants in the Greek manuscripts in Origen’s time, there were variants in Ambrose’s and Augustine’s time. Today too there are variants in a number of passages, and yet the authority of sacred Scripture does not waver. (Collected Works of Erasmus. Vol. 72, Ed. Jane Phillips. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. 77-78)
Romans 1:17
Complaint: el evangelio instead of en él. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: There is no textual variant here. Previously the Reina-Valera 1909 had en él (in him/it), which is acceptable, since it is literally what the Greek text says. The detail is that en él is ambiguous in the context in which it appears in Spanish, because there are several nouns to which it can refer, the last and closest being “to the Greek” in the previous verse. The 1960 revisers took slight liberties in the translation to imply what is not in dispute, which is that it is in the gospel (see previous verse) that the righteousness of God is revealed by faith. The French Ostervald Bible (1744 edition), known to be based on the Textus Receptus, has Evangile in italics at Romans 1:17, equivalent to the RV1960. The latter did not use italics because in modern literature it represents emphasis.
Romans 4:8
Complaint: inculpa instead of imputa. Source of complaint: Elephant book.
Vindication: This is not a textual variant. 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. One of the guiding principles that the revisers formulated when revising the translation that is now known as the RV1960 was to “Eliminate words of a vulgar dimension and archaic terms in disuse”. (Flores, José. Escribiendo la Biblia. Grand Rapids: Editorial Evangélica, sin fecha, pág. 307).
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: desobedientes … desobediencia instead of no creísteis … incredulidad. 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). The same Greek word refers to Christ in Rom. 15:8 and Gal. 2:17, and Paul refers to himself with this same Greek term in Col. 1:25. They were not deacons in the sense of holding such an office in a local church. 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: Both the TR and critical texts have the same root words for God and Christ, the only difference is the endings which determine dative or genitive case. These words under examination here were subject to variation in the very manuscripts Erasmus utilized, and Erasmus himself changed Christ in Greek from the genitive to the dative between his 1516 and 1519 edition. The KJV has translated God θεῷ (dative form) as “of God” (i.e., Gal. 3:11).
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. Erasmus in his annotations on the Greek text comments on the ambiguity of the Greek wording as meaning either “in the sight of Christ” or “in the person of Christ”. (See Brown, Andrew J., (ed). Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. Ordinis Sexti Tomus Tertius. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004, p. 353)
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: y crece corresponds to καὶ αὐξανόμενον in Greek. The manuscript evidence involving καὶ αὐξανόμενον is almost equally divided, with approximately 300 manuscripts favoring its omission, and approximately 290 favoring its inclusion, including Codex 2105, a Byzantine codex that Erasmus used and often favored, but not in this case.
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 2:2
Complaint: aun omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: This regards the Greek conjunction kai. Erasmus left it untranslated in his Latin text in this passage. The KJV does not translate the Greek word kai before “high captains” in Mark 6:21, to provide just one example.
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.
Gonzalo Baez-Camargo, a consultant to the 1960 revision committee, briefly addressed the issue in an article in 1968. Below is a portion of his contribution:
The word must be understood here in a figurative sense, in which it has several possible meanings, including “body” and “wife.” The revisers were guided by the Holy Scripture itself in preferring wife, as 1 Pet. 3.7, a parallel passage to 1 Thes., recommends honoring “the woman or wife as the weaker vessel.” Many Bible passages clarify themselves in parallel passages as in 1 Pet. 3.7, where vessel and wife (woman) are equivalent, clarifying the meaning of vessel in 1 Thes. 4.4. (Baez-Camargo, Gonzalo. “Más notas sobre la revisión 1960” La Biblia en América Latina. Enero-marzo de 1968, p. 8)
There is no textual disputes about σκεῦος (vessel) in 1 Th. 4:4. It is not a matter of critical texts versus the Textus Receptus. It is strictly a translational issue. The context of 1 Th. 4:4 seems to make more sense as applied to one’s body. The previous verse specifies fornication, and the verse following 1 Th. 4:4 warns about lust (although biblically speaking, lust does not always have to do with sexual sin). Considering the authority of the original languages and context in interpretation, it is not wrong to turn to the primary Greek meaning of σκεῦος (vessel) and interpret 1 Th. 4:4 as a command to keep our body pure. The interpretation esposa/wife found in the 1960 revision is possible (taking into account the secondary meaning of the term in Greek and the parallel passage in 1 Pet. 3:7), but when one does not hold to the inerrancy of a translation, one is not forced into an interpretation that matches the translation perfectly in all its technicalities.
2 Thessalonians 2:2
Complaint: día del Señor (1909 & 1960) instead of día de Cristo. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Two manuscripts that Erasmus frequently followed (2105 and 2815) have κυρίου (Lord). Erasmus opted for the reading of codices 1, 2816 and 2817, which have χριστοῦ (Christ).
2 Timothy 4:1
Complaint: pues omitted. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The KJV likewise does not translate oun at the beginning of Luke 3:18.
Titus 2:7
Complaint: sinceridad omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Beza 1598 does not have the underlying Greek word ἀφθαρσίαν.
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: Tyndale 1534 New Testament, universally considered to be based on the Textus Receptus. Simiente not required by context in Spanish, as direct translation of Greek word for sperm could seem unnecessarily graphic. Not a textual variant.
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 critical text has ἁμαρτίας and the Textus Receptus has παραπτώματα. They are virtually synonymous terms, as the KJV has translated them interchangeably as “offence/s” at times. The critical text also adds οὖν (certainly/accordingly) after “confess” in this verse (which the 1960 does not translate), contributing to the evidence that the RV1960 did not follow the critical text in this verse.
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: Codex 2816, one of the Byzantine manuscripts Erasmus used and followed quite often has εἰς σωτηρίαν. In this particular case Erasmus followed other manuscripts, such as codex 1 and 2815.
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: There is a textual variant between the critical text and the Textus Receptus, but the Greek terms are virtually synonymous based on how they were translated interchangeably in the KJV (see Rom. 15:31 in the KJV for an example). Notice the similar definitions in Strong’s Concordance for the two underlying Greek words:
G544
ἀπειθέω
apeitheō
ap-i-theh’-o
From G545; to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely): – not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.
G569
ἀπιστέω
apisteō
ap-is-teh’-o
From G571; to be unbelieving, that is, (transitively) disbelieve, or (by implication) disobey: – believe not.
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).
1 Peter 4:3
Complaint: de nuestra vida omitted. Source of complaint: Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: τοῦ βίου was omitted originally in codex 2816 used by Erasmus, until it was corrected by a later hand. Also omitted in the Peshitta.
2 Peter 1:19
See vindication for Isaiah 14:12.
2 Peter 3:2
Complaint: vuestros apóstoles, en vez de: de nuestro mandamiento, que somos apóstoles. Source of complaint: Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Mandamiento is not omitted in the 1960, as Cobb’s verse comparisons seem to imply. The issue then becomes ὑμῶν instead of ἡμῶν (basically your vs. us). The manuscripts Erasmus utilized were divided at this point. Codices 1, 2816corr and most later manuscripts support the 1960 reading. Erasmus went with the reading of codex 2815, the original reading of 2816, and many other late manuscripts.
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” (present imperative). 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 root 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 2:21
Complaint: no quiere arrepentirse, en vez de: no se ha arrepentido. Source of complaint: Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Other than word order, the only difference is the addition of θέλει in the critical text. This corresponds to quiere in the 1960. The RV1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Revelation 2:22
Complaint: obras de ella instead of sus obras. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: At issue is the same Greek root word here, but the different suffixes determine the difference (αὐτῆς vs. αὐτῶν). The RV1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Revelation 3:4
Complaint: aun omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The RV1909-1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts. The reading also matches the Bishops 1568 Bible, universally considered to be based on the Textus Receptus.
Revelation 3:14
Complaint: en Laodicea (1909 & 1960) instead of de los laodicenses. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The RV1909-1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts. In fact, only about three Greek manuscripts are known to have the alternative reading for the translation de los laodicenses. 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 has “there was” in italics. The Spanish Bible for hundreds of years had the word como, which could have been for the purpose of clarifying the passage. Regardless, the RV1909-1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
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: y vi instead of he aquí. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: Cobb alleges an omission here in the way he words his complaint, but it is not a textual issue but rather a matter of translation. Critical texts have only καὶ εἶδον at the beginning of the verse, and the Textus Receptus has καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδού. The RV1960 translates all four Greek words in the TR. It seems the translation of ἰδού in the RV1960 is the issue. Said Greek word is an interjection in Greek, which is supposed to convey a strong feeling or emotion within a word that refers to seeing or beholding in the imperative. The RV1960 could be faulted for translating it plainly as vi (I saw), but the context is a narration, and sometimes it is awkward if not downright impossible to convey every nuance of an original language in the process of translation. Although most of the time the RV1960 translated the underlying Greek word as he aquí (behold), it translated it elsewhere as vi (see Acts 10:30). The KJV translated the underlying Greek word as “see” in various places (see Acts 8:36 for an example).
Revelation 6:12
Complaint: toda added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The RV1909-1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts. The word toda (all, feminine), has precedent throughout Spanish Bible history in this verse, and was also found in the Bishops Bible.
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 issue is ζωῆς vs. ζώσας, which is a mere technicality between “of life” and “living”. The RV1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
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. The RV1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Revelation 11:1
Complaint: el ángel se paró omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: This case is a variation within Textus Receptus editions. Erasmus and Stephanus omit the phrase.
Revelation 13:7
y pueblo added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The RV1909-1960 (including 1569 & 1602) in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
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. The RV1960 in this case reflects by far the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Revelation 14:5
Mentira (lie) instead of engaño (falsehood). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The possible underlying Greek words are synonymous, but the KJV follows more exactly the precise meaning of δολος, the term used in the Textus Receptus. The RV1960 in this case reflects by far the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
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. The RV1960 in this case reflects by far the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
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.” The RV1909-1960 (including 1569 & 1602) in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
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 17:8
Complaint: será instead of aunque es. Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: The RV1960 matches the reading of codex 2814 which is the manuscript Erasmus used for Revelation. It is uncertain why Erasmus did not follow it in this instance or what his source was for his reading.
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. Also the RV1960 in this case reflects the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Revelation 22:8
Complaint: soy el que added (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Rex Cobb’s Verse Comparisons.
Vindication: There is a variant in the Greek, but no translatable difference in English or Spanish according to my limited understanding of Greek. 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.
Leave a Reply to Donald Heinz Cancel reply