Introduction

Not everyone making accusations against the Spanish Bible in the current controversy among Fundamentalists realizes they are implementing a double standard at times. The typical accusations mentioned here are similar to charges being made. My motivating factor in writing this was to place the Spanish Bible on more even ground with the KJV, in order for others to realize that if we applied some of the standards being imposed on the Reina-Valera it could lead to invalidating the KJV. This would demonstrate that the criteria being imposed on the Spanish Bible in the hypothetical examples in this article (which are being played out in real life) are unreasonable and should be re-evaluated.

Typical accusation #1 “The Reina-Valera has some departures from the Textus Receptus”

Why this is a double standard: The KJV has a few departures from the Textus Receptus, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: F.H.A. Scrivener became intimately acquainted with the text of the KJV during his work on The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version. He placed a list of around 60 places in which he believed the KJV apparently followed the Latin Vulgate in the New Testament on p. 262 of his book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible. Jack Moorman, a pro-KJV author wrote on p. 27 of the 2nd edition of his book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text that “…there is a sprinkling of Latin readings in the Authorized Version.” The question should be whether a foreign translation is based on the Textus Receptus, not whether there are any departures whatsoever. No one is calling to revise the TR departures in the KJV; therefore calling to revise TR departures in foreign Bibles that are already based on the TR is a double standard.

Typical accusation #2 “The Reina-Valera 1960 is copyrighted. You cannot copyright God’s true Word.”

Why this is a double standard: The KJV has a Royal Crown Patent (the old equivalent of a copyright), yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: As to the question “Was the King James Bible ever copyrighted?” David Cloud, a pro-KJV author, answers as follows on p. 134 of his book The Bible Version Question/Answer Database:

1. The King James Bible was produced under the direct authority of the British Crown and is owned and “copyrighted” by the crown of England.

2. The British government still licenses all printings of the text in Great Britain, typically by designating one printer as the authorized publisher and requiring other printers to obtain a sublicense from that one.

Brother Cloud then continues with other explanations, such as how the copyright on the KJV does not extend outside of Great Britain.

Typical accusation #3 “The Reina-Valera 1960 was done by the American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society, which are under the umbrella of the United Bible Societies. They are very ecumenical. We should not trust a Bible from such a source.”

Why this is a double standard: The KJV translators were affiliated with the Anglican Church (with some being Puritan conformists), yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: It would be wrong to judge the KJV by the condition and beliefs of the Anglican Church today (some Anglicans have ordained homosexuals, performed so-called gay marriages, etc). By the same token, it is wrong to judge the Reina-Valera by the current ecumenical position of the Bible Societies which was not the case in the 1950’s while the Reina-Valera was being revised. In fact, documentation uncovered in my book The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 demonstrates that some 1960 revisers suffered Catholic persecution even during the years in which they performed their revision work.

Typical accusation #4 “Some of those involved in the revision of the Spanish Bible had some questionable beliefs.”

Why this is a double standard: Some of the KJV translators had questionable beliefs, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: David Cloud, a pro-KJV author, writes as follows on p. 139 of his book The Bible Version Question/Answer Database:

a. The lives of the King James translators were not universally godly. Some of the men were truly godly and some were less so. One of them was intemperate in the consumption of alcoholic wine, especially in the latter part of his life.

b. When judged from a Baptist perspective, they were certainly not without blame. As Anglicans, they held many doctrinal errors. To a man, they held the error of pedobaptism. Even the puritans among them held to state churchism.

Typical accusation #5 “The controversial Eugene Nida was involved with the Reina-Valera 1960 in one way or another. This means it should not be trusted.”

Why this is a double standard: Religious repression during the reign of King James is one reason the Pilgrims came to America, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: Although King James was somewhat controversial and had some involvement with the KJV, he was not among the translators. By the same token, Eugene Nida was involved at a time when he held more conservative views as documented in my book The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible. Regardless, he wrote that he had no vote on textual decisions when the 1960 revisers did their work.

Typical accusation #6 “The Reina-Valera has some problem passages which could be misinterpreted.”

Why this is a double standard: The KJV also has some “problem” passages that could potentially be misinterpreted, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: Peter Ruckman, whom I warn about extensively in my writings, admits on p. 3 of his book The “Errors” in the King James Bible that there are about 2,000 problem passages in the KJV. Of these, he says that around 1,600 can be explained by common sense without reference to a Greek or Hebrew lexicon. Of the 400 that remain, he says that about 20 could be called “difficult” problems, and 5 of those could be classified as “extremely difficult.”

The late Bruce Lackey, a pro-KJV author, wrote the following with which I concur concerning problem passages in the KJV, on p. 46 of his book Why I Believe the Old King James Bible: “There will always be a need for teachers to explain and expound God’s word. No translation can ever take the place of God-appointed teachers. It is a mistake to assume that the Bible is supposed to be perfectly clear to the surface reader, needing no explanation.”

Typical accusation #7 “Most of the Reina-Valera revisers weren’t Baptists, and none were fundamentalists.”

Why this is a double standard: None of the KJV translators were Baptists either, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: The KJV translators were Anglicans, with a minority being Puritan conformists.

Typical accusation #8 “The Revised Standard Version (RSV) was consulted when the Reina-Valera 1960 was being revised.”

Why this is a double standard: The Rheims Catholic New Testament was consulted according to the notes of a KJV translator, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.

Explanation: See pp. 63 & 118 of the book Translating for King James: Notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible edited by Ward Allen. Also pro-KJV author Jack Moorman on p. 248 of his book Forever Settled acknowledges the following regarding the influence of the Rheims on the KJV: “…many improvements in interpretation were taken from the Geneva Bible, and not a few phrases and single words from that of Rheims.” I’m willing to give the KJV the benefit of the doubt that this action didn’t introduce false doctrine into the KJV. Does the Reina-Valera in turn not deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Typical accusation #9 “The writings of one of the men involved with the 1960 indicate that they believed that in some cases it was all right to follow a critical text.”

Why this is a double standard: KJV reviser John Boys wrote a book in which he was defensive of the Latin Vulgate.

Explanation: John McClintock and James A. Strong in their joint work Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (1880) wrote the following on p. 869: “When the new translation of the Holy Bible was resolved on, under King James I, Bois was fixed upon to undertake the Apocrypha, which he completed, together with the portion assigned to some other party … his only published work was Veterum interpretatio cum Beza aliisque recent. collatio (London, 1655, 8vo), a vindication of the Vulgate version of the New Testament.” Fortunately, in spite of Boys’ views, the KJV ended up being based on the Textus Receptus, with relatively few Vulgate readings being discernable, which did not affect doctrine.

I am aware of an accusation of supposed double standards against those of us who accept the Reina-Valera 1960, because English Bibles were consulted in the process of revising it, whereas we supposedly reject this same concept in the new RVG Spanish Bible. Consider the following facts:

It is a standard practice to consult other Bibles including other languages when confronted with problem passages or areas of difficulty in translating the original languages. The preface to the KJV mentions that the KJV translators consulted several foreign Bibles, including Spanish. We do not object to the RVG reviser having consulted an English Bible. However, it is not normal for the translator or reviser to declare that the translation they consulted is perfect and inspired, and was the standard followed as was the case with the RVG. The 1960 revisers did not declare the English Bibles they consulted to be perfect and inspired. Numerous major differences can be noticed between the 1960 Spanish and English Bibles consulted, such as not following any instances of omitting entire verses. Bibles in German, French, Portuguese and Spanish were also consulted by the 1960 revisers, in addition to having access to a wide variety of commentaries (Nida, Eugene “Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960” The Bible Translator. July 1961, p. 113)

Conclusion

I would like to say in closing that you may depend on the KJV and the Reina-Valera. They are reliable, trustworthy, accurate and proven. The things I’ve said about the KJV should not be considered an attack, as I’m not trying to persuade others to abandon it, and it is the only version I personally use and endorse in English. Keep in mind that most of the documentation in this article comes from the writings of pro-KJV authors. The difference with the negative things others are saying about the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960 is that they are trying to persuade others to abandon it, and they do not use and endorse it. The Reina-Valera and people and organizations associated with it are not above criticism, but care should be taken to ensure that one’s criticism and motives do not constitute a double standard compared with what one allows for the Bible in English.

Read the Spanish version of this article here: La doble moral en la controversia sobre la Reina-Valera entre fundamentalistas

The author of this book obviously has the honorable motive of wanting the Word of God translated into the various languages of the world. His burden for souls around the world and his view of basing translations on the Textus Receptus is something we do not criticize. However, the honorable motives of an author do not make his book above criticism.

Whether Dr. H.D. Williams speaks a foreign language fluently or has done translation work, the book does not say. There is a one-page biographical profile about the author but no mention is made about the author speaking other languages fluently, doing actual translation work, or studying linguistics. There is just a passing reference in the book to Dr. Williams having taken some formal courses in a couple languages. In my view, all this does not mean he should have never written about this topic, but I believe he should have been more cautious in some of his statements. For example, in the section entitled “77 Criteria for Translating,” he used the phrase “under no circumstances…” for several issues in which conservative translators (including the KJV translators) sometimes made exceptions. Also, I believe that in his conclusion Dr. Williams lacked humility when he stated: “However, if a translation has not honored word-for-word translating as defined by this work, then it should be abandoned…”

On page xxiii of the preface the author states that “billions of people do not have a Bible among the people of the 200 most common languages,” and on page xxiv he says “the greatest number of people in the most common language-groups do not have a Bible.” That there are some around the world who do not have a Bible in their language is not in dispute, but to put the number in the billions (when the world population is around 6 billion) among those who speak the top 200 languages does not square with statistics demonstrating that portions of the Bible have been translated into 2,454 languages, with whole Bibles having been translated into 438 languages (http://www.bibelsallskapet.se/filer/slr2007.pdf). Perhaps the author does not consider foreign Bibles that are not based on the Textus Receptus to be Bibles. The author seemed to have critical text Bibles based on modern translation theories in mind when he wrote on page 21: “Their works are the product of sin, which offers no covering; only obscurity and darkness, by conceiving and uttering falsehood.” On page 87 he adds, “They are frauds because they are called Bibles, when they are only the comments of men on the Words.”

I believe a more reasonable position would be to still consider critical text translations to be Bibles, but simply less reliable Bibles than those based on the Textus Receptus. Why should these foreign Bibles (presumably not based on the Textus Receptus) be maligned with terms such as “product of sin…obscurity and darkness” when people are getting saved and growing with them, especially when in some cases it is all they have? Why should a growing Christian who loves the only Bible available in his language be told that he really does not have a Bible? I can hardly think of a greater insult than for a growing Christian to be told that what he thinks is a Bible is really not a Bible. If the only translation in a given language is not based on the Textus Receptus, I believe one is certainly needed, but I do not believe it is proper in the meantime to say they do not have a Bible. On a related note, see my article “Must all foreign translations based closely on the Textus Receptus be revised if not conforming 100% to the Textus Receptus?” at http://en.literaturabautista.com/?p=101.

On page xxii of the preface the author considers the views of many others on Bible translation to be mere theories, by this statement: “The Scriptural method for translating is clearly derived from the Lord’s commands and is not a theory.” If what the author proposes in his book is so simple and not involving theory like others, why did it take 270 pages to write it?

The author warns over and over again against interpreting in the process of translation. Although I would agree that unnecessary interpretation should be avoided, it cannot be denied that a Bible translator is forced to interpret thousands of times in the process of translating the Bible. One example would be the Hebrew word for God. It is defined in Strong’s Concordance as follows:

H430

אלהים

‘ĕlôhîym

el-o-heem’

Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

In Hebrew it does not make a distinction between the true God and false gods. Every single time that a Bible translator translates the Hebrew word for God, he is interpreting. Granted, 99% of the time the context makes is very obvious as to whether a false god or the true God is being referred to. An example where the context is a little ambiguous is the second mention of God in Genesis 3:5. Most Bibles based on the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament have translated the second mention as “gods,” while some in Spanish, Portuguese, and German (all based on the Masoretic Text) have translated it as “God.” There are many more examples that could be given of instances in which a translator is forced to interpret. Many marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV provide many examples of places in which alternative translations were provided. As in virtually all translations, the KJV translators took some liberties in the translation process. For example, the introduction to Young’s Literal Translation mentions that the Hebrew word panim was translated 94 different ways (if you count idiomatic renderings). Conversely, “to destroy” in the KJV represents 49 different Hebrew words according to Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance.

On page 16 we read the following: “Furthermore, the inspired Words of God are full of ambiguity and to remove it would be to forsake His words and replace them with man’s reasoning.” On page 53 a similar statement is also made: “Ambiguity in the original source-language should be left in the receptor-language.” The problem with this statement is that in the King James Version, the translation which the author rightfully believes is the best in English, its translators sometimes appear to attempt to remove an ambiguity. This would include 2 Sam. 21:9, where with obvious honorable motives the words “the brother of” were inserted into the text in italics. What should be warned against is going overboard in attempts to remove ambiguities.

On a more positive note, I wholeheartedly agree with the author on page 43 regarding the idea of Bible translators utilizing footnotes. Although Dr. Williams only mentions the idea of utilizing footnotes in passing, I believe it was the best advice in the book directed at Bible translators. If utilized correctly and briefly as possible, I believe footnotes are the best way for the translator to let readers know of times when he agonized over a translation of a certain word and still was not sure if his choice was the best possible. If a translator felt that his literal translation of a certain word or phrase could be misunderstood, he could provide the less literal translation in a footnote. At times a translator may feel that his translation choice in a given situation was either too literal or not as literal as he would have liked; therefore, he can briefly explain his reason for the final choice so others would know he did not translate something on a whim.

In a particular instance when the KJV translated the meaning of a Greek word in an accurate but non-literal manner, but a modern translation resorted to a literal translation, the author makes some puzzling statements on pages 98-99:

On occasion, an idiom will need to be translated with words which have the same meaning in the receptor-language. For example, “God forbid,” is a translation of Greek words mA ginomai “let not this be.” “Let not this be” does not give the full impact of the idiom in the New Testament. The impact of “let not this be” is to let it not happen as if God were preventing it. “God forbid” is the precise meaning of the idiom in English. It is not a dynamic equivalent translation like the NIV translation of mA ginomai at Romans 3:4, “Not at all!” The translation by the NIV has much less impact; and it is not the precise meaning of the passage!

What is strange about the author’s statements is that he accuses the more literal translation of Romans 3:4 of being a dynamic equivalent translation! Young’s Literal Translation has “let it not be!” in this verse. The KJV added the word “God” without Greek authority, although I believe it was justified because they were translating the meaning, but in doing so it was no longer a literal translation in Romans 3:4. As I will mention again in this review, the NIV has plenty of problems, and it tends to be much less literal than the KJV, but I found it strange that it would be criticized for being more literal in Romans 3:4, and even be accused of implementing dynamic equivalency in this instance.

On pages 234-235 he states that “KJB Jn. 11:41 ‘Jesus lifted up his eyes’ should not be changed to NIV Jn. 11:41 ‘Jesus looked up.’” In my opinion, this is an example of an insistence on translating in a more literal fashion than necessary. Referring to lifting up our eyes is not a normal way of saying we “looked up” in the English language. The KJV translators decided in this instance to translate literally, but many other times they felt free to translate the meaning rather than the actual words. An example of this would be Jeremiah 39:12, where the KJV translators have “look well to him” but they inform us in a marginal note that the literal Hebrew translation for this is actually “set thine eyes upon him.” I do not endorse the NIV, but in this instance it seems to translate accurately the meaning of the underlying Greek without being unnecessarily literal. There are many problems with the NIV, but in my opinion this is not an example of a problem.

On page 238 the author wrote: “Therefore, only the text that lies behind the King James Bible should be used.” If by this the author is referring to the Textus Receptus in general, I do not disagree. However, in recent times some who refer to the text underlying the KJV mean something else. Notice this from the Dean Burgon Society website, of which Dr. Williams is Vice-President according to the biographical profile in the back of the book:

But which [TR edition] is the purest? It is the TR underlying the KJV. … Is not the Greek Text underlying the KJV the Textus Receptus? Whose TR? Not completely Erasmus’s, Stephen’s, or Beza’s, it is a new edition of the TR which reflects the textual decisions of the KJV translators as they prayerfully studied and compared the preserved manuscripts. … I believe God providentially guided the KJV translators to produce the purest TR of all. The earlier editions were individual efforts, but the TR underlying the KJV is a corporate effort of 57 of the most outstanding biblical-theological, and more importantly, Bible-believing scholars of their day. Khoo, Jeffrey. “A Plea for a Perfect Bible” The Burning Bush. January 2003, pp. 5-6  http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/PDF/A_Perfect_Bible.pdf.

I do not know which definition for the text underlying the KJV that Dr. Williams has in mind, but if it is as defined in the above quote from the website of the Society he represents, I heartily disagree. This is because under Khoo’s definition, the textual decisions of the KJV translators are treated as essentially forming a new Textus Receptus—Scrivener’s in the late 1800’s. This would not be much different than composing a new Textus Receptus based on the textual decisions of an authoritative Spanish Bible and then insisting that the English Bible and all others be translated from it.

It was not my intention to review chapters by contributing authors in the book, but two related quotes captured my attention and will be discussed here briefly. In his chapter on Bible societies, Dr. Phil Stringer stated the following on page 157 regarding the British and Foreign Bible Society: “For the first ten years, all translations were done from the King James Bible.” In a paragraph on page 161 regarding the founding of the American Bible Society, Dr. Stringer wrote as follows: “All translations were to be made from the King James Bible.” No source was given for this information. I am familiar with a different author’s failed attempt at alleging that the American Bible Society once supposedly required translators to translate directly from the KJV. This other author tried to make the case only based on the fact that the American Bible Society (hereafter ABS) did not want the Greek word baptizo translated as “immerse” in the translations they published but rather left transliterated as in the KJV. The other weak evidence used by the other author was the case of a competing Bible society that made an unfounded accusation against the ABS. The ABS denied this charge vigorously in 1850 as follows:

Again, it has been charged that the board [of the American Bible Society] have set up the English Bible as a standard, to which all translations must be conformed. The resolutions above cited, as to which the society strictly adheres, show this to be unfounded. Missionaries and others, in making new versions, are required by these rules to translate from the original tongues, and their imitation of the English is not expected to extend any further than the transference of a few words which either can not be translated, or concerning the meaning of which there are disputes which divide the evangelical churches” (Strickland, William Peter. History of the American Bible Society: From Its Organization to the Present Time. 1850, Harper & Row, pp. 154-155 [bold not in original])

I have a separate article regarding the issue of translating the KJV into foreign languages here:  “Has the KJV been translated into hundreds or thousands of languages?” http://en.literaturabautista.com/?p=41

In his “77 Criteria for Translating,” the author used the phrase “under no circumstances…” for several issues, some with which I would readily agree. However, at times some of his criteria was not even followed by the KJV translators, whom the author holds up as an example. One case that got my attention was on page 230 where the author wrote: “Under no circumstances shall an anachronism be used in translating.” I immediately could not help but be reminded of anachronisms in the KJV, which the author and I agree is the most accurate Bible in English. The KJV contains vocabulary related to British monetary units, such as penny, pence, and pounds. His “under no circumstances” criteria would invalidate the KJV, which demonstrates in my opinion that the author is going too far with some of his ideas. It appears he is holding foreign Bible translations to a different standard than the KJV.

On page 4 the author laments that others consider the term “word-for-word” translating as too rigid, but in reality that is what the phrase implies to many people, not just modern language theorists. Many people’s perception of “word-for-word” translating is just that—translating word-for-word, regardless of meaning or word order such as in an interlinear. Dr. Williams explains that he only means word-for-word “so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow.” Many other conservative translators use terms that are much less subject to misunderstanding, such as “formal equivalence.”

In conclusion, as evidenced by examples in this review, it seems that the author sometimes tends to go overboard in his noble insistence on translating as literally as possible. Although I do not completely endorse it, in my opinion a much better book is available on the topic of Bible translating: Biblical Bible Translating, written by a Fundamentalist named Dr. Charles Turner. Dr. Williams referred to Dr. Turner’s book as “one excellent about translating” (p. 47). Dr. Turner has actual Bible translation experience and seems to have a much better grasp of the issues. In his book, Turner gives many examples of difficult decisions he had to make in order to achieve a balance between accuracy and understandability, some of which resulted in less literal translation at times than what some Fundamentalists might expect. He translated into a primitive language that did not have many theological terms in their vocabulary, causing him to have to be creative in his quest to be as literal as possible while maintaining a level of understandability that would keep readers’ frustrations to a minimum.

The author of this book review grew up as a missionary kid in South America and has spoken Spanish since he was two years old. As part of his ministry he has translated several Christian books, pamphlets, and tracts, as well as having served as an interpreter for preachers on dozens of occasions.

As reflected by articles in the Dean Burgon News from 1979-1980

On whether the KJV is inerrant

It is one thing to say that the Traditional Texts, the Massoretic and Received Texts, are closest to the originals, and it is a completely different thing to say that a translation is inerrant. Evidently, Peter F. [sic] Ruckman holds this view, affirming that the KJV is inerrant and infallible. Certainly this is going too far theologically.

Strouse, Thomas. “The Supernatural Approach to Textual Criticism” Part 3, The Dean Burgon News. January, 1980, p. 2

On preservation

I agree with Dr. Wisdom when he stresses the need for “verbal preservation” to go along with “verbal inspiration.” I could conceive, however, of God using “verbal inspiration” of his Word as he originally gave it to man without connecting it necessarily with “verbal preservation.” These two fields of theological and linguistic study are separate, and can be treated separately, though each is interrelated with the other. I don’t know that I would say that “verbal inspiration” is “useless” without “verbal preservation,” though I do agree that they go closely together.

Waite, D.A. “An Answer to Textus Receptus: Is it Fundamental to our Faith?” part 4 The Dean Burgon News. March, 1980, p. 1

We are in agreement on the vast number of manuscripts and other textual materials available for us today. We are also in agreement that somewhere within these vast numbers of manuscripts—over 2,255—we have “with certainty” every word of the Word of God.” … We are happy that Dr Panosian agrees with us, and others such as Wilbur Pickering that somewhere in the manuscripts and other materials that we have on hand, “every word of the Word of God” is to be found.

Waite, D.A. “An Answer to What is the Inspired Word of God?” Part 6 The Dean Burgon News. August, 1979, p. 3

The “pro-T.R..” [sic] people believe, on the other hand, that God has” verbally preserved” His Word through the close examination of all present documents and evidence which bears upon the very words of the Scriptures (which, in the New Testament at least consists of (1) the manuscripts themselves; (2) the lectionaries; (3) the quotations of the church fathers; and (4) the versions. Let it be said here, however, that the vast majority of Greek New Testament verses have no dissent about them whatsoever from these two groups (that is, the “Non-T.R.” group and the “Pro-T.R.” group). The argumentation comes about over those small number of words, verses, or longer passages (some of which are extremely important to various doctrines, and all of which are important in the ascertainment of the very words of God!) where the manuscript & other evidence is not agreed upon by both groups. We feel most definitely that the Textus Receptus or Traditional Text of the Greek New Testament contains by far the greatest amount of the very exact words of God the Holy Spirit as were in the original writings from the human writers’ own hands, of any other Greek text in print today!

Waite, D.A. “An Answer to Textus Receptus: Is it Fundamental to our Faith?” part 9 The Dean Burgon News. August, 1980, p. 2

On the Textus Receptus being the closest to the originals

It is entirely likely, that, in the main, this “Textus Receptus,” this “Traditional Text,” this “Majority Text” has indeed come “directly from the fingers of God”! … Cannot it be considered “possible,” at the very least (if not, in fact even “probable”) that God superintended and protected these various sources of his written Word so as to keep intact in the highest possible percentage of verses and words that text which, by and large, came “directly from the fingers of God”?!!

Waite, D.A. “An Answer to What is the Inspired Word of God?” Part 12 The Dean Burgon News. April, 1980, p. 2

On not blowing out of proportion differences with other fundamentalists on the Bible version issue

And I personally intend to continue this friendly relationship to this great school [BJU], regardless of any minor differences we might have on these matters of the texts of the Bible, though I know some of my friends do not wish to maintain a friendly relationship with them due to this difference.

Waite, D.A. “An Answer to What is the Inspired Word of God?” The Dean Burgon News. April 1979, p. 3

In recent years a small but growing minority of Fundamentalists are insisting that foreign language Bibles must not only be based on the Textus Receptus (the traditional position, which this writer upholds) but that these Textus Receptus-based foreign translations must now be re-examined to eradicate the slightest trace of any deviation whatsoever from the Textus Receptus. Although most of the attention is centered on the New Testament, a hard look at any possible deviations from the Masoretic text of the Old Testament is also taking place. The idea may sound noble and simple upon first impression, but there are some complex issues and problems that must not be overlooked. The purpose of this article is to examine some of the side effects and complexities involved in carrying out this new approach.

1. If one was really technical, this new approach would invalidate the KJV itself

2. This new approach would invalidate virtually every foreign language translation ever done

3. This is not the historical position of those who have defended the Textus Recepus in the past

Benjamin Wilkinson:

But, they say, there are errors in the Received Text. Yes, “plain and clear errors,” as their instructions informed the Revisers. It is to the glory of the Textus Receptus that its errors are “plain and clear.” … The errors of the Received Text, are the scars which tell of its struggles throughout the centuries to bring us light, life, and immortality.

(Wilkinson, Benjamin. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Payson, AZ: Leaves-of-Autumn Books, 1989 reprint, pp. 180-181)

4. Insistence on slavishly following the Textus Receptus 100% of the time is clouded by the reality of differing editions of the Textus Receptus

5. Insistence on verifying and revising foreign translations with Scrivener’s Greek text is unreasonable

6. Creating new translations that are reputed to be 100% Textus Receptus to replace ones that are already very closely based on the Textus Receptus where people have already endeared themselves to the text is likely to cause controversy and division

Conclusion

Appendix

Scrivener’s introduction to his Greek New Testament according to the text followed in the Authorized Version

Preface to the First Edition

The following is a summary from an article entitled “The King James Version of the Bible” by Steven Houck, a minister in the Protestant Reformed Church:

• It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.

• The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.

• It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.

• The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.

• It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.

• The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.

• Of all the English versions of today, it alone is the Bible of the Reformation.

• Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.

• It is the version which has been recognized for generations and generations as the Bible God has given to His English-speaking Church.

Búfalo

In the Latin Vulgate in Psalms 92:10 the underlying Hebrew word was translated as unicornis. Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon concludes the following regarding the mysterious animal represented by the underlying Hebrew word: “The animal meant is doubtful; I have no hesitation in agreeing with Alb. Schultens, Job loc. cit. and de Wette on Psalm 22:22; in understanding it to be the buffalo.”

Caridad

Caridad is the Spanish equivalent of “charity.” I do not object to the use of caridad in the Spanish Bible; although the word amor in my opinion is better, because it does not carry with it any Catholic connotation. I personally did not approve of the use of caridad in the RVG only because during the rough draft stage the reviser stated to me in correspondence that he would not use the term caridad because even though it wasn’t wrong, in Spanish he felt it was closely related to Catholicism. He also added that this was evidence that he was not making a Spanish translation “taylor-made for the Americans.” If he had not said this I would not have objected to it, just as I have not objected to caridad being used going back to Reina and Valera, although I believe amor is simply better.

Cubierta

Cubierta (covering) was used in some Spanish Bibles until 1960, when it was changed to propiciatorio. It has been alleged that cubierta does not mean “mercy seat.” This is how the KJV translated the underlying Hebrew word. As I will demonstrate, the short and simple definition of the underlying Hebrew word is “lid” or “covering.” The KJV translated it with a deeper meaning, taking into consideration the extended definition with reference to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant on which blood was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement by which God was appeased (which constitutes propitiation). But this does not mean that all foreign Bible have to have a deeper-meaning definition. The underlying Hebrew word is defined as follows by Strong’s Concordance:

H3727

כּפּרת

kappôreth

kap-po’-reth

From H3722; a lid (used only of the cover of the sacred Ark): – mercy seat.

Also the Greek word underlying “mercy seat” in the KJV New Testament include “lid” in its definition:

G2435

ἱλαστήριον

hilastērion

hil-as-tay’-ree-on

Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): – mercyseat, propitiation.

In reality the KJV translates the underlying Greek and Hebrew word in a less literal fashion than the Spanish Bible. “Mercy seat” in the KJV is a descriptive term instead of a strict and literal translation, although since the description and resulting word picture in the KJV is accurate, it should not be considered to be an error.

Día de reposo

“Day of rest” instead of “sabbath.” See Strong’s Concordance:

G4521

σάββατον

sabbaton

sab’-bat-on

Of Hebrew origin [H7676]; the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se’nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: – sabbath (day), week.

Doncella

The Vox New College Spanish & English Dictionary (1995 printing) has “virgin” as the first word in the definition list for the Spanish word doncella. As far as derivatives of the term, doncellería is defined in this same dictionary first as “virginity,” and doncel “virgin man.” The English word “virgin” is defined in Spanish as virgen, doncella. Doncella is simply a lesser-known synonym primarily meaning “female virgin.” The reason some have complained about this word being in the Spanish Bible is that deep down the list of possible definitions for the word doncella in a typical large dictionary, terms appear that may imply virginity, but do not guarantee it. In case any reader is still concerned about the utilization of doncella in the Spanish Bible, it should be noted that every time the virgin birth of Christ is involved, only the Spanish word virgen is used in the Reina-Valera.

Esclavo

Some have expressed their dislike for the use of esclavo (slave) in the Spanish Bible, especially when referring to a Christian. Some have not liked the use of esclavo in 1 Cor. 7:22, where the English Bible has “servant.” It should be noted that the underlying Greek word in 1 Cor. 7:22 (doulos) was translated “bondman” in Rev. 6:15 in the English Bible. The context should also be noted, where the following verse (1 Cor. 7:23) assures us: “Ye are bought with a price.” 1 Cor. 6:20 repeats this, and reminds us that we are not our own; we belong to God. In that sense of the word, we are His “slave” because we have been bought. But we are not just any slave. As a child of the King, we will have an eternal inheritance. It is a paradox of sorts. This is well illustrated in Gal. 4:7: “Wherefore thou art no more a servant [siervo in Spanish Bible], but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” Notice Strong’s Concordance definition for the underlying Greek word:

G1401

δοῦλος

doulos

doo’-los

From G1210; a slave (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily; frequently therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency): – bond (-man), servant.

Hades

See Why the word hell appears less often in the common Spanish Bible compared to the KJV.

Justicia

As for justicia, it is a perfectly legitimate translation. You can look at any English-Spanish dictionary and you will see justicia under the definition for “righteousness.” There is one other Spanish term that signifies righteousness: Rectitud. Rectitud is used 26 times in the Reina-Valera 1960, along with its derivative recto (76 times), and rectos (44 times).

Some may argue that the English word “justice” doesn’t carry the same meaning as “righteousness.” But justicia is a Spanish word, and just because it sounds like the English “justice,” and is spelled similar, it doesn’t mean it carries the exact same definition and connotations as it would in English. There are a lot of words in Spanish that sound like an English word, but the meaning in Spanish may be very distant. The Spanish word molestar is a case in point. A lot of people learning Spanish suppose it means “to molest,” but in Spanish it simply means “to bother.” Many who are learning Spanish think that soportar means “to support,” but it really means to endure (when referring to people—when referring to objects it can mean “to hold up”).

Mi mujer

Based on the phrase mi mujer in the Spanish Bible, one writer promoting the RVG made the sensational claim: “All Spanish Bibles (1602, 1865, 1909, 1960) degrade marriage.” He made this provocative statement because often the phrase mi mujer (literally “my woman”) is used as “wife” in the Spanish Bible. This may sound strange to English speakers, but in the Spanish language and culture (at least in most areas) mi mujer is a proper and common expression for “my wife.” I grew up in South America speaking Spanish since I was two years old, and the expression mi mujer for “wife” does not come across as strange to me in Spanish, as I was used to hearing it while growing up, even among Christians. The respected dictionary of the Real Academia Española includes “casada, con relación al marido” (married, in relation to her husband) in its definition of mujer. Although mi mujer for wife may seem awkward to Americans, we have no right to straighten out their language, any more than Spanish-speakers have no right to straighten out our language. Missionaries are not on the mission field to Americanize people nor change their customs and language (when they are not sinful).

The same writer who stated that all Spanish Bible degrade marriage, asked his English-speaking readers in his article how they would feel if he introduced his wife in a church as “my woman.” The only problem with that rhetorical question is that “my woman” in English is not a common designation for “wife” in America. Yet, as demonstrated in the previous paragraph, mujer can often mean wife in Spanish depending on the context according to the dictionary, and it is in common use in Latin America even among Christians.

Ojalá

There are three reasons that I believe the use of ojalá is proper:

1. Ojalá is an established Spanish word. The primary concern should be its Spanish definition. The Real Academia Española (RAE) dictionary defines it as follows: “Denota vivo deseo de que suceda algo.” As defined in the dictionary and as commonly used in the Spanish culture, it is a secular word with no religious undertones.

2. When law šá lláh is translated from Arabic to Spanish, it is si Dios quiere according to RAE. Allah is not even mentioned when translated. It is my understanding that Allah in Arabic can mean any god, whether Mohammed or the god of any other religion (please correct me if I’m wrong—I don’t want to inadvertently spread false information).

3. It has been considered a legitimate translation in Spanish Bibles for hundreds of years. Either oxalá (old spelling) or ojalá has appeared in the 1553 Ferrara Old Testament, Reina’s 1569, Valera’s 1602, 1865, 1909, etc. (I wasn’t able to verify Juan Perez de Pineda’s 1556 NT).

Although in the mind of most Arabics Allah is Mohammed, the term Allah is not of pagan origin. In the Scofield notes, under Genesis 1:1, it states the following:

Elohim, (sometimes El or Elah), English form “God,” the first of the three primary names of Diety, is a uni-plural noun formed from El – strength; or the strong one, and Alah, to swear, to bind oneself by an oath, so implying faithfulness…

Seol

See Why the word hell appears less often in the common Spanish Bible compared to the KJV.

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 12:8

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 at the beginning of Mark 2:17.

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 at the beginning of Mark 2:17, 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.

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, 2816^corr 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.

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

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

Genesis 1:5

Complaint: un día (1909 & 1960) instead of primer día. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: The KJV translated the underlying Hebrew word as “one” 687 times, so there was no reason to question this translation versus the ordinal number “first.” Every Bible in the Reina-Valera line I examined (1569, 1602, 1865 & 1909) had the same disputed reading as the 1960. See definition in Strong’s Concordance:

H259

אחד

‘echâd

ekh-awd’

A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: – a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

Genesis 3:5

Complaint: como Dios instead of como dioses.

Vindication: This situation is similar to that of Daniel 3:25. The translator is forced to interpret when he comes to this verse. The underlying Hebrew word is used interchangeably for the God of heaven as well as for heathen gods. The 1611 edition of the KJV had “Gods.” Strong’s Concordance demonstrates that the corresponding Hebrew word can be translated in more than one way:

H430

אלהים

‘ĕlôhîym

el-o-heem’

Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Genesis 18:19

Complaint: sé que instead of lo conozco. Source of complaint: Elephant book, Shane Rice, et al.

Vindication: The Hebrew equivalent of “him” is not in the Hebrew text. It was added by the KJV translators apparently because they felt it was implied, which is fine. See also how the 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, translated this verse:

Bishops 1568: “I knowe this also”

Exodus 12:5

Complaint: animal instead of cordero. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: the Hebrew word underlying “lamb” in this verse does not always mean “lamb” without exception. See the Masoretic text in The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English by J.P. Green as well as Strong’s Concordance:

H7716

שׂי שׂה

śeh śêy

seh, say

Probably from H7582 through the idea of pushing out to graze; a member of a flock, that is, a sheep or goat: – (lesser, small) cattle, ewe, lamb, sheep.

I do not consider the KJV reading to be wrong, but the Spanish reading makes more sense. Read the entire verse carefully and you should see why:

“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats.”

The choice was to be made between the sheep and the goats. Since goats are one of the choices, and goats are not sheep, it makes sense for the Spanish Bible to refer to choosing an “animal” between the sheep and the goats.

Leviticus 2:12

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

Vindication: subirán is the traditional reading of this verse in 1569, 1602, 1865, etc. Notice Strong’s definition of the underlying Hebrew word:

H5927

עלה

‛âlâh

aw-law’

A primitive root; to ascend, intransitively (be high) or active (mount); used in a great variety of senses, primary and secondary, literally and figuratively: – arise (up). (cause to) ascend up, at once, break [the day] (up), bring (up), (cause to) burn, carry up, cast up, + shew, climb (up), (cause to, make to) come (up), cut off, dawn, depart, exalt, excel, fall, fetch up, get up, (make to) go (away, up), grow (over), increase, lay, leap, levy, lift (self) up, light, [make] up, X mention, mount up, offer, make to pay, + perfect, prefer, put (on), raise, recover, restore, (make to) rise (up), scale, set (up), shoot forth (up), (begin to) spring (up), stir up, take away (up), work.

Judges 20:43

Complaint: Menúha instead of fácilmente. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: The KJV translators placed “with ease” in the text, but they also included the following marginal note in their 1611 edition: “Or, from Menuchah, &c.” The 1568 Bishops Bible, universally recognized as being based on the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament, has Menuha.

1 Samuel 5:6

Complaint: tumores instead of hemorroides. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: See Strongs Concordance, where the key word in Hebrew (# 6076) is defined as “From H6075; a tumor; also a mound, that is, fortress.”

2 Samuel 14:14

Complaint: ni Dios quita la vida (1909 & 1960) instead of y Dios no hace acepción de personas. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: The key underlying Hebrew word naw-saw was translated dozens of different ways in the KJV, so it should be expected that one would allow some flexibility in the way foreign Bibles translate this word. The 1535 Coverdale Bible, recognized as being based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament, translated the phrase in question as “And God will not take awaye the lyfe” in this verse, very closely matching the 1960.

2 Samuel 21:19

Complaint: hermano de omitted (1909 & 1960). Source of complaint: Elephant book, article by Shane Rice, et al.

Vindication: The phrase is in italics in the KJV because it is not found in the Hebrew text (although it is found in a parallel passage in 1 Chron. 20:5). The Spanish translators decided to translate the verse literally. The KJV translators took some liberty in translating this verse (using italics) in order to avoid an apparent contradiction. However, the Spanish translators must not be faulted for translating literally and not adding to the text. Keep in mind what others say in defense of the KJV when a literal translation is perceived to be contradictory: “I feel it is imperative to go by what the Traditional Masoretic text has as its reading and let the Lord figure out what may seem contradictions to us.” (Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today, 1995, p. 32)

2 Kings 10:25

Complaint: el lugar santo instead of la ciudad. The Elephant book considered this verse to be “an attack on the holiness of God.” The book continues: “Since when does God (and godly translators or revisers) consider idolatry ‘holy?’”

Vindication: In English we have “city of the house of Baal,” while in Spanish we have “holy place (sanctuary) of the house of Baal.” Keep in mind that the word “cities” in the KJV does not always carry the same meaning as “city” does today. See 1 Kings 9:19 for instance: “And all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen…”

Adam Clarke’s Commentary (published 1810-1826) comments on the meaning of the phrase “city of the house of Baal”:

Does not this mean a sort of holy of holies, where the most sacred images of Baal were kept? A place separated from the temple of Baal, as the holy of holies in the temple of Jehovah was separated from what was called the holy place.

Considering what this conservative Bible commentator of the early 19th century had to say regarding this exact verse, the RV 1960 shouldn’t be dismissed so readily as an attack on the holiness of God. Also compare this allegation with Eze. 7:24, where the KJV uses the phrase “their holy places” for something pagan. “The holy place” is a reference to a sanctuary, which also existed in some pagan temples.

2 Kings 23:7

Complaint: lugares de prostitución idolátrica instead of las casas de los sodomitas. Referring to this verse, the Elephant book states that “in the 1960 there is ‘an attack on the severity of homosexuality…’”

Vindication: The Spanish word for sodomites actually appears more often in the 1960 than in the KJV. Check Job 36:14 and 1 Tim. 1:10. Using the logic of the Elephant book, the KJV would be guilty of the above accusation. That is certainly not the case. I believe in giving the KJV the benefit of the doubt—should not the Spanish Bible be given the same treatment? See also 2 Ki. 23:7 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 “Heb male temple prostitutes” at the end of the definition. See also how often the Spanish word for sodomite and its derivatives appear in the RV 1960, compared to the English King James Bible. You might be surprised. The Spanish word for sodomy and sodomites occurs more frequently in 1960 than in the KJV! Notice Job 36:14 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Using the logic of those who attack the Reina-Valera, the KJV in English would be guilty of this shameful accusation. Of course this is not the case. I believe the KJV should be given the benefit of the doubt. Does not the Spanish Bible deserve the same treatment?

1 Chronicles 28:12

Complaint: en mente instead of por el Espíritu. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: The underlying Hebrew word was translated as “mind” five times in the KJV. Also it was translated as “in his minde” in this verse by the Bishops, Geneva and Coverdale Bibles, all recognized as being based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament.

Ezra 2:43

Complaint: los sirvientes del templo instead of los Nethineos. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance.

H5411

נתוּן נתיןo

nâthîyn nâthûn

naw-theen’, naw-thoon’

The second form is the proper form, as passive participle; from H5414; one given, that is, (in the plural only) the Nethinim, or Temple Servants (as given up to that duty): – Nethinims.

Esther 8:10

Complaint: en mulos, en camellos y en dromedarios omitted. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: This is another passage that has caused translators much difficulty, as several underlying words only appear 1-4 times in the Scriptures, and their meanings are somewhat in dispute. It should be noted that the same animals in this story are brought up again, and in the Bible translations I have seen that mention four animals in Esther 8:10, they only mention two animals in Esther 8:14. As the 1960, the 1535 Coverdale Bible, recognized as being based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament, mentions only one animal in Esther 8:10 and Esther 8:14. The 1960 and Coverdale Bible translate the passage in dispute as describing characteristics or origins of one animal, rather than mentioning several.

The descriptions and the fact that the coordinating conjunction “and” between the animals are not in the Hebrew led some translators to believe that as few as a single animal is being described instead of four different animals being listed. Strong’s Concordance defines the word underlying mules in the KJV as “a relay of animals on a post route,” and in 1 Kings 4:28 it was translated as “dromedaries.” At this point the KJV translators placed the following marginal note for dromedaries: “Or, mules, or swift beasts.”. The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon defines the word underlying camel at Esther 8:10 in the KJV as “royal (steeds),” which would be a horse at the king’s service or simply some kind of working animal. The Hebrew word underlying “dromedaries” in Esther 8:10 in the KJV according to Strong’s Concordance describe a mare (female horse).

Adam Clarke’s Commentary (published 1810-1826) comments as follows regarding this passage:

But there is really so much confusion about these matters, and so little consent among learned men as to the signification of these words, and even the true knowledge of them is of such little importance…

Job 2:9

Complaint: bendice instead of maldice. Bendice applies to the 1569, 1602, and some editions of the 1909. Source of complaint: Article by Manny Rodriguez, promoter of the RVG

Vindication: Strong’s Concordance. The definition of the underlying Hebrew word demonstrates that there is either an implication or a euphemism that can apply to its translation:

H1288

בּרך

bârak

baw-rak’

A primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason): – X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still, thank.

Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies also explains this Hebrew word quite well:

bârak: to bless; sometimes the word means to blaspheme, to curse; not from its natural force, but because pious persons of old accounted blasphemy so abominable, that they abhorred to express it by its proper name; and therefore, by a euphemismus or decent manner of speaking, instead of “curse God,” said “bless God.”

The underlying Hebrew word was translated as “bless” 302 times and “curse” 4 times in the KJV.

Job 11:12

Complaint: The passage supposedly makes it sound like an animal can give birth to a man. The controversial Elephant book says the Reina-Valera teaches evolution based on this verse!

Vindication: This verse is expressing that vain man will never be wise in God’s view, and uses the example of an impossibility (an animal giving birth to a man) to illustrate it. The 1960 translated the verse literally, although words could have been added for clarification as in the 1909. The verse in dispute is using figurative language, as is the case a few verses later in Job 12:8 when it makes reference to fish making declarations. It is as ridiculous to say that Job 11:12 teaches evolution as it would be to say that Job 12:8 teaches that fish can talk.

Job 21:13

Complaint: en paz instead of en un momento. It is alleged in the Elephant book that it teaches here that men can go to hell in peace.

Vindication: The underlying Hebrew word is rega, which in its definition in Strong’s Concordance refers us to raga, a related word which has been translated as “find ease” in the KJV:

H7280

רגע

râga‛

raw-gah’

A primitive root; properly to toss violently and suddenly (the sea with waves, the skin with boils); figuratively (in a favorable manner) to settle, that is, quiet; specifically to wink (from the motion of the eye lids): – break, divide, find ease, be a moment, (cause, give, make to) rest, make suddenly.

Also, the context in nearby verses speaks about God’s wrath towards the wicked. The wicked may die in peace, but the Spanish Bible does not state they will have peace in hell. Verse 20 of the same chapter states: “His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty.”

Psalms 2:12

Complaint: honrad instead of besad. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: The French 1996 Ostervald Bible, published by Bearing Precious Seed and based on the Textus Receptus. It has rendez hommage, (render homage) which is synonymous with “give honor.”

Psalms 12:6

Complaint: limpias (1909 & 1960) instead of puras. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: Every Bible in the Reina-Valera line I examined (1569, 1602, 1865 & 1909) had the same disputed reading as the 1960. The underlying word in the Hebrew was translated as “clean” 50 times in the KJV.

Psalms 12:7

Complaint: los (twice in verse) instead of las (twice in verse). Source of complaint: Article by Humberto Gómez, reviser of the Reina-Valera-Gomez.

Vindication: The words “them” and “word” in some languages can be translated in either masculine, feminine, or neuter forms. However, in Ps. 12:6-7 “them” is masculine in Hebrew. In English “them” is neuter, because it does not distinguish between masculine or feminine. In Spanish los can mean either masculine only, or both masculine and feminine (but not feminine only). Las in turn means feminine only. It is my belief that in Ps. 12:7 the Lord is promising to preserve both his words (verse 6) and the oppressed and needy (verse 5). I know that some believe either one or the other, but not always both. The RVG restricts it arbitrarily to only one of those two options. For the first time in Spanish Bible history (as far as I can tell) Humberto Gómez translated a Hebrew masculine pronoun as a feminine pronoun in Spanish at Ps. 12:7. The RVG official website accuses previous Spanish Bibles of being in error in this passage. The RVG in Ps. 12:7 now reads …Las guardarás; Las preservarás… I know that the motive of strengthening a Bible doctrine is noble, but I disagree with the tactic of manipulating a translation in the process. I have asked Brother Gómez on more than one occasion for evidence showing that the Hebrew pronoun in question was feminine, but to date my requests for such evidence has been ignored. There is a reason why all other Spanish Bibles have los instead of las. All others are translating the Hebrew literally! Even though preservation has been taught with Ps. 12:6-7 as it was in the Spanish Bible, even if it is believed that it was less clear before, it should be kept in mind that the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures does not hinge only on this verse. There are many other verses in the Bible that clearly teach the preservation of the Scriptures.

Psalms 68:11

Complaint: las que llevaban buenas nuevas (1960) or las evangelizantes (1909) instead of aquellos que la publicaban. It has been alleged that this verse refers to women evangelists. Source of complaint: Article by Humberto Gómez, reviser of the Reina-Valera-Gomez.

Vindication: In the first place, all Spanish Bibles do not read the same in this verse, but all apparently use the feminine gender, which is the issue here. Some critics wrongly translate the underlying reading in the 1909 las evangelizantes (the evangelizers, female gender) as “women evangelists” to make it sound as if these Spanish Bibles were endorsing women preachers, even though the common word for women evangelists would be las evangelistas. The 1960 reading has even less reason to be connected with women preachers, as it translates to English merely as “they (feminine) that carry good news.” All the Spanish Bibles I checked on, starting with the 1553 Ferrara Old Testament, have the feminine gender. Even the English Geneva Bible, recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus, added “women” to provide the verse in a feminine gender. Respected commentators such as Albert Barnes agree that in Hebrew the key word in Ps. 68:11 is in a feminine gender: “More literally, ‘The women publishing it were a great host.’ The word used is in the feminine gender.” The Spanish Bible has simply been translating this passage over the centuries in a strict literal sense. Why is it suddenly wrong 400+ years later?

Psalms 75:2

Complaint: Al tiempo que señalaré (1960) or tuviere tiempo (1909) instead of reciba la congregación. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: Since 1569 the Reina-Valera line has translated this verse similar to the 1909 and 1960 reading. Strong’s Concordance demonstrates that the underlying Hebrew word can be translated several ways:

H4150

מועדה מעד מועד

mô‛êd mô‛êd mô‛âdâh

mo-ade’, mo-ade’, mo-aw-daw’

From H3259; properly an appointment, that is, a fixed time or season; specifically a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): – appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed).

Psalms 138:2

Complaint: Word order. has engrandecido tu nombre, y tu palabra sobre todas las cosas (1909 & 1960, slight variation between them) instead of has magnificado tu palabra por sobre todo tu nombre. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, et al.

Vindication: As far as word order is concerned, the Hebrew can be translated either way. J.P. Green’s The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English based on the Masoretic text has: “for you have magnified above all your name your word.” The Geneva, Coverdale and Bishops Bible each translate it slightly different, but with a meaning that is closer to the Reina-Valera.

Proverbs 17:8

Complaint: el soborno para el que lo practica instead of el don a quien lo posee. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: The Hebrew keyword underlying “gift” was translated as “bribes” three times and “bribery” one time in the KJV. In no way is the 1960 promoting bribery, as in verse 23 in the same chapter the 1960 warns that bribery perverts the ways of judgment. Albert Barnes in his Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments has an interesting comment regarding this verse:

A half-satirical description of the power of bribery in palaces and among judges. The precious stone (literally as in the margin) is probably a gem, thought of as a talisman, which, “wherever it turns,” will ensure “prosperity” to him who, being the possessor, has the power to give it.

The complaint about this verse in the Spanish Bible included a translation to English that was slanted to put it in a bad light. It was wrongly translated as “A bribe is as a precious stone for him that does it.” The literal translation should be as follows, with implied words in brackets: “[the] Precious stone is the bribe for him that practices it; Wherever it turneth, [it] findeth prosperity.” It is not saying that bribery is as something precious as alleged, but rather that the precious stone is the bribe.

Proverbs 29:18

Complaint: profecía (1909 & 1960) instead of visión. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: The underlying Hebrew word has been translated in a variety of creative ways in Bibles based on the Masoretic text. The Bishops 1568 Bible has “When the worde of God is not preached…” The 1535 Coverdale Bible has “Where no Prophet is…” closely matching the Spanish Bible. The 1995 Almeida Portuguese Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society has Nao havendo profecia. Every Bible in the Reina-Valera line I examined (1569, 1602, 1865 & 1909) had the same disputed reading as the 1960.

The English reading of the KJV (Where there is no vision, the people perish) has endeared itself to the English-speaking people, and it is frequently a title for missionary-related themes. But this does not mean that foreign-language Bibles should be revised in this verse to exactly reflect the English reading. There are phrases in foreign Bibles that have endeared themselves to its readers, but that doesn’t mean that the English Bible should be changed to reflect them.

Ecclesiastes 3:15

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

Vindication: The Bishops 1568 Bible, known for being based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament, has restoreth.

Song of Solomon 2:10

Complaint: amiga instead of amada. Source of Complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: Several Bibles recognized as being based on the Masoretic text have the 1960 reading. This would include the 1649 Diodati Italian Bible (amica) and Luther’s 1545 German Bible (Freundin).

Isaiah 7:14

Complaint: la virgen instead of una virgen. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: In cases anyone thinks that the phrase “the virgin” somehow implies some kind of a conspiracy to introduce Catholic-sounding words in the Spanish Bible, keep in mind that this is the reading of Cipriano de Valera’s revision of 1602. He wrote a scathing book of over 700 pages against the Catholic Church. “The virgine” is also the reading of the 1587 Geneva Bible, recognized as being based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament. Ironically, even though this complaint also showed up in a pro-RVG book, the RVG2010 itself refers to Mary as “the virgin” in Luke 1:27!

Isaiah 9:3

Complaint: no omitted. Source of complaint: Elephant book.

Vindication: Both Albert Barnes and John Gill in their Bible commentaries state that the KJV reading of “not” comes from the keri reading. If their statement is correct, this means the KJV did not follow the normal Masoretic text concerning the word in dispute, but rather a note in the margin of the Hebrew text.

Isaiah 14:12

Complaint: Lucero instead of Lucifer in the 1569-1960. In 2 Peter 1:19 Christ is referred to as lucero, so the allegation is that Christ and the devil are the same in the Spanish Bible. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: Isaiah 14:12 is one of the few cases in which the KJV transliterated from the Latin Vulgate. The underlying word in the Latin Vulgate is lucifer, when the underlying word in Hebrew is haylale. Strong’s defines haylale as follows:

H1966

הילל

hêylêl

hay-lale’

From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: – lucifer.

Notice that Strong’s Concordance lists a dash before Lucifer. That represents how the KJV translators translated (or in this case transliterated) the word.

The Reina-Valera 1569, 1602, 1865, 1909 and 1960 all have Lucero or the old spelling of Luzero. The Spanish-English dictionary at wordreference.com defines Lucero as follows:

lucero m bright star

lucero del alba o matutino, morning star

lucero vespertino, evening star

– Diccionario Espasa Concise: Español-Inglés English-Spanish

© Espasa-Calpe, S.A., Madrid 2000

As can be seen, the Spanish translation closely follows the meaning of the underlying Greek word.

Part of the objection is that Christ is called lucero in 2 Peter 1:19. This may be why the KJV translators chose the Latin transliteration in Isa. 14:12. However, the Reina-Valera has historically translated the word in question literally, which should be considered honorable. Also notice that in 2 Peter 1:19 lucero is not capitalized as in a title, which helps distinguish it from the capitalized reading in Isa. 14:12. Notice also the marginal note at Isa. 14:12 placed by the KJV translators themselves in their 1611 edition still available as a reprint: “Or, O day-starre.” The KJV and Reina-Valera refer to both Christ and the devil as a lion (Lion of the tribe of Judah, roaring lion). We have no problem with this, just as Spanish-speakers have no problem with the traditional reading in their Spanish Bible heritage, knowing it does not violate the Greek and Hebrew.

The Italian Diodati 1649 translation, recognized as being based on the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus, has stella mattutina (morning star) in both Isa. 14:12 and 2 Pet. 1:19.

Keep in mind what others say in defense of the KJV when a literal translation is perceived to be contradictory: “I feel it is imperative to go by what the Traditional Masoretic text has as its reading and let the Lord figure out what may seem contradictions to us.” (Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today, 1995, p. 32)

Isaiah 44:21

Complaint: no me olvides (1909 & 1960) instead of yo no me olvidaré de ti. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: All the pre-1611 English Reformation-era Bibles I looked up based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament matched the 1960 reading. The Bishops, Geneva and Coverdale Bibles all have “forget me not.”

Isaiah 64:5

Complaint: ¿podremos acaso ser salvos? instead of y seremos salvos (question instead of statement). The allegation is that the 1960 reading puts in doubt the assurance of salvation. Source of complaint: Carlos Donate’s book.

Vindication: The phrase in question is somewhat ambiguous in the Hebrew, and has caused translators some difficulty. It should be noted that the context involves the unconverted by declaring in verse 7, “And there is none that calleth upon thy name.” The reading of this verse in the 1535 Coverdale Bible, “and there is not one whole,” is similar to the RV 1960. The Coverdale reading has no question mark, but contains a negation, which brings it closer to the interpretation of the RV1960. Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments explains the matter quite well and vindicates the 1960 reading:

But it seems to me that Castellio has given an intelligible and obvious interpretation by regarding it as a question: ‘Jamdiu peccavimus, et serv-abimur?’ ‘Long time have we sinned, and shall we be saved?’ That is, we have sinned so long, our offences have been so aggravated, how can we hope to be saved? Is salvation possible for such sinners? It indicates a deep consciousness of guilt, and is language such as is used by all who feel their deep depravity before God. Nothing is more common in conviction for sin, or when suffering under great calamities as a consequence of sin, than to ask the question whether it is possible for such sinners to be saved. I have thus given, perhaps at tedious length, my view of this verse, which has so much perplexed commentators. And though the view must be submitted with great diffidence after such a man as Lowth has declared it to be without sense as the Hebrew text now stands, and though no important doctrine of religion is involved by the exposition, yet some service is rendered if a plausible and probable interpretation is given to a much disputed passage of the sacred Scriptures, and if we are saved from the necessity of supposing a corruption in the Hebrew text.

Over and over again conservative commentators often defend a reading to which anti-1960 proponents have ascribed evil motives. The above example is only one of many. I’m afraid that many who reject the 1960 as corrupt have rushed in their judgment and have not given this honorable Spanish translation a fair hearing.

Isaiah 66:9

Complaint: no pariré? (1909) instead of no haré nacer? It has been alleged that this passage has God giving birth. Source of complaint: Article by Michael Lemma.

Vindication: The context clearly indicates that the statement is figurative. The previous verse speaks of nations giving birth.

Jeremiah 5:17

Complaint: comerá a tus hijos y a tus hijas instead of y comerán tu mies y tu pan, [que habían] de comer tus hijos y tus hijas. The brackets in the previous sentence represent words in italics that are not in the Hebrew. The controversial Elephant book accused the Reina-Valera of teaching cannibalism based on this verse.

Vindication: The Spanish Bible reading in question is a literal rendering from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Words could have been added (like italics as the KJV did) for further clarification. The context demonstrates that it refers with occasional figurative language in prophetic terms to the condition of the wicked. It does not really “teach” cannibalism, as this would be an extreme exaggeration.

Daniel 3:25

Complaint: hijo de los dioses (1909 & 1960) instead of el Hijo de Dios. Source of complaint: Elephant book, et al.

Vindication: the very same Hebrew Chaldee word ellah underlying “God” in that verse was translated “gods” in 11 other places in Daniel in the KJV according to Strong’s Concordance. The underlying Hebrew Chaldee word is used interchangeably for the God of heaven as well as for heathen gods. When translators come to this verse they are forced to interpret. One line of thinking is that the heathen king could not have recognized that the fourth man in the fire was the Son of God, and it could be further added that in verse 28 the king referred to the fourth man as an angel, hence the translation “son of the gods.” The other line of thinking reasons that since the fourth man is considered an epiphany in the OT, it should be rendered as “Son of God.” Since the Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous in this verse, the Spanish revisers decided to leave it ambiguous so everyone could interpret for himself, instead of the revisers doing the interpretation for them in an arbitrary manner. It is interesting to note that in the first edition of the 1611 KJV “son” was not capitalized. In Daniel 5:14 king Belshazzar refers to the God of Daniel as “the spirit of the gods” in the KJV. If Dan. 3:25 is wrong in the Reina-Valera, then Dan. 5:14 would have to be wrong in the KJV for the same reason.

Amos 7:14

Complaint: era (1909 & 1960) (before profeta and before boyero) instead of soy. Source of complaint: Article by Shane Rice, promoter of the RVG.

Vindication: The KJV has the words in dispute in italics in this verse, meaning that they were not in the Hebrew but added to make sense in English.

Continue to Part 2: Explanations for problem passages in the Spanish Bible – New Testament

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

It is this author’s opinion that many lists of supposed problem passages in the text of the Reina-Valera 1909 and 1960 are put together based on the creator’s mere impressions, designed in turn for those who will likewise use their mere impressions to reach lasting conclusions, rather than a scholarly analysis that takes into consideration the gravity of the matter.

Many readings criticized in the Reina-Valera 1909 and 1960 are found in other translations that are recognized as being based on the Textus Receptus. Some readings are shown to be synonymous terms while others are vindicated with Greek and Hebrew lexicons. Many problem passages in the 1909 and 1960 are vindicated upon consulting older revisions of the Valera, lexicons, conservative commentaries, or Textus Receptus-based Bibles in other languages such as the Italian Diodati, the French Ostervald, Luther’s German Bible, and the Portuguese Almeida translation by the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a precedent in these Textus Receptus-based Bibles as well as others regarding numerous readings in the 1909 and 1960 that have been questioned. When judging the soundness of a translation in any language, there needs to be an element of faith and some room for benefit of the doubt.

It should be pointed out that many of the most common objections to passages in critical text Bibles that are of the greatest concern do not apply to the 1909 and 1960. For example, there are no missing verses as compared to some translations based on critical texts that relegate them to footnotes. Even 1 John 5:7, one of the most disputed verses in the Bible, has remained in the Reina-Valera line since the first translation. 1 Timothy 3:16 reads, “God was manifest in the flesh.” Colossians 1:14 has “through his blood,” and Luke 24:6, “he is not here, but is risen”—a key phrase in a verse on the resurrection—is present in the Reina-Valera at least through the 1960 edition. All Reina-Valera editions have “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14.

It cannot be denied that there are “problem passages” in the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960, the most common Spanish Bibles in Fundamental circles. But by the same token, there are “problem passages” in the English Bible. However, I approach the English Bible with an attitude of faith, being willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Does not the Spanish Bible deserve the same treatment? For an example of a problem passage in the English Bible, see 2 Thes. 2:15:

KJV: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught…”

Spanish RV 1960: “Therefore, brethren, stand firm, and retain the doctrine which ye have learned…” (author’s translation from the Spanish).

If one were to use the same tactics commonly employed by many who denounce the common Spanish Bible, they would conclude that the above KJV verse teaches that we need to hold on to traditions, which is what Catholicism teaches. It could also be pointed out that Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Bishops and the Geneva Bibles did not have the word “traditions” here, but the Rheims 1582 Catholic New Testament did. Is this enough to condemn the KJV as a Catholic-friendly version? Absolutely not, especially when you are willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt and are willing to look for possible reasons why something was translated the way it was. Concluding rashly that the KJV is Catholic-friendly in this verse would be erroneous, thereby proving that the criteria used to reach such a misleading conclusion was flawed. Strong’s Concordance defines the underlying Greek word in the following manner:

G3862

παράδοσις

paradosis

par-ad’-os-is

From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law:

Although the KJV rendering of the above verse may sound unusual, it is vindicated by the Greek. The KJV translators therefore cannot be accused of trying to implement a Catholic agenda in the way they translated the above verse in question.

Problem passages must not be judged by mere impressions, but should be the object of diligent study. One of the most basic rules of Biblical interpretation is to interpret difficult or obscure verses in the light of clearer ones.

There are some problem passages that I did not attempt to vindicate because they involved matters of advanced grammar in Greek and Hebrew. If you are competent in advanced grammar in either biblical language and would like to assist me on some verses, please contact me.

There are some allegations against the Reina-Valera mentioned here that are just plain ridiculous, and the question may surface as to why I took them seriously enough to cover them here. I offer several reasons:

1. Some who are being presented with lists of problem passages in the Spanish Bible do not know Spanish and may not be capable of recognizing whether an allegation lacks merit.

2. Some laymen exposed to lists of problem passages in the Spanish Bible may not have any idea how to begin to verify claims without any knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

There are some problem passages that I did not cover. The following are possible reasons why they are not presently covered:

1. I may not have finished analyzing a given passage at this time, or I may not be aware of a complaint.

2. In some cases a passage in the 1909 and 1960 not covered here may indeed be based on a critical text, without previous precedent in TR-based Bibles that I had available for my perusal. However, I believe the evidence I present in Explanations for Problem Passages in the Spanish Bible demonstrates that this does not happen all that often. The reader should be reminded at this point that there are some cases where the KJV departed from the Textus Receptus as well, sometimes following the Latin Vulgate. This should allow us to place the Spanish Bible on a more even “playing field.”

3. Some sources that complained of various passages in the Reina-Valera did not seem to make the most minimal effort to investigate why the Spanish Bible read different from the KJV in a given passage. It is not my goal or intent to take every single complaint seriously enough to cover it here, especially if it involved a simple matter where the most minimal research would have removed any doubt. I covered many complaints that had no merit for the purpose of making a point, but “chasing every rabbit” is something I cannot do and keep from neglecting my ministry responsibilities.

When considering a charge against a reading in the Spanish Bible, I believe it is only fair to consider criteria allowed for the KJV. Keep the following in mind written by authors defending the KJV:

“Every passage [in the KJV] must be interpreted in the context of the wider testimony of Scripture…” (Cloud, David. The Bible Version Question/Answer Database. Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 2005, p. 52)

“Wouldn’t it be wiser to give the KJV translators (and Tyndale and Rogers and Coverdale and the Geneva and the Bishops’) the benefit of the doubt, and to admit that they had serious reasons for every translation they gave, though we can’t necessarily trace all of their reasoning today, hundreds of years after the fact. Again, it is one thing to say that a certain word or passage could be translated differently; it is quite another to brazenly claim that the KJV is WRONG.” (Cloud, David. For Love of the Bible. Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 2006, p. 94)

“If there is an ambiguity, it is also in the Greek, and an accurate translation can do nothing more than follow its underlying text.” (Cloud, David. Examining the King James Only Controversy. Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 1999, p. 123)

“If an interpretation is taught elsewhere in the Bible, and if that interpretation does not violate the immediate context, it must be accepted as a possible one. … It is the translator’s challenge to find the proper meaning which best fits the context. Therefore, for someone to say that the KJV is inconsistent in translating the particular Hebrew word is to ignore that all versions do likewise.” (Lackey, Bruce. Why I Believe the Old King James Bible. London, Ontario: Bethel Baptist Print Ministry, 1987, pp. 22, 23)

“…this is assuming to know the translator’s intention without any proof.” Ibid, p. 34

“Before one charges error, it is a good idea to stop and think about what is actually being said and try to find a reason why a different word was chosen.” Ibid, p. 37

“Although the translation may be unusual, it is a possible one and cannot be called a mistake. Anyone has the privilege of disagreeing with a translator’s interpretation, but if the translation be grammatically and contextually possible, it cannot be called an error… Rather than treat these places as errors, why not remember that the KJV translators were intelligent and reverent scholars, and try to find out why they did a particular thing in the way they did?” Ibid, p. 39

“…A careful study of context and related Scripture often shows that what was supposed to be a discrepancy or erroneous translation is not at all.” Ibid, p. 41

“It seems that people are condemning inconsistency when it is convenient to do so, then turning right around and condemning consistency when it is likewise convenient. Are people looking for reasons to condemn the King James Version so much that they resort to such inconsistency? (!) The fact is, that no one is always consistent. As has been said before, in all translation there is some interpretation; there is no way to avoid that and have an understandable translation. There will always be a need for teachers to explain and expound God’s word. No translation can ever take the place of God-appointed teachers. It is a mistake to assume that the Bible is supposed to be perfectly clear to the surface reader, needing no explanation.” Ibid, p. 46

Peter Ruckman, whom we warn about extensively on our website, admits there are about 2,000 problem passages in the KJV. Of these, he says that around 1,600 can be explained by common sense without reference to a Greek or Hebrew lexicon. Of the 400 that remain, he says that about 20 could be called “difficult” problems, and 5 of those could be classified as “extremely difficult.” In the preface and first chapter of his book The “Errors” in the King James Bible, he admits that some of his rationalization of certain passages may come across as a little extreme or far-fetched, and it may seem that at times he “stretches a point” to make two verses match. I point this out in case some would consider some vindications of problem passages in the Spanish Bible to be far-fetched. The point is that some difficulty is also faced when attempting to defend some problem passages in the KJV.

What follows are typical problem passages in the Reina-Valera 1960 and sometimes the 1909, often used unfairly in attempts to convince others by mere impressions that the Spanish Bible must be revised. Many more problem passages will be added over time, so check back often. If you would like a specific verse to be treated here, e-mail the author at bautistafundamental@yahoo.com. If you would like to submit an explanation of a problem passage for consideration for inclusion on the webpage, please contact me. Also feel free to contact me if you see weaknesses or inaccuracies in any of my vindications. We also have a similar webpage in Spanish: Defensa de los versículos más atacados en la Reina-Valera.

In many cases multiple sources could be used to vindicate a Spanish Bible reading. In most cases, however, I went on to the next problem passage after finding a single source of vindication. At times what may appear as unfamiliar sources are used to vindicate a reading in the Spanish Bible, such as ancient versions like the Peshitta, the Old Latin, the Armenian, the Coptic, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, etc. These versions from the early centuries are sometimes used in pro-KJV literature to vindicate the KJV and demonstrate antiquity for Traditional Text readings. Although I believe the closeness of these ancient versions to the Textus Receptus is sometime overstated, since they are sometimes used to vindicate the KJV and TR, it is only fair if they are also allowed to vindicate the Spanish Bible, although I did not give these sources priority. An example of using such sources to vindicate the KJV and TR would be Jack Moorman’s book Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers & the Authorized Version.

I do not consider the Reina-Valera to be infallible and inerrant, but I believe it is trustworthy and dependable. I also believe its problem passages deserve to be looked at diligently for possible vindication rather than rashly jumping to conclusions by mere impressions. These explanations are done without declaring the KJV reading to be wrong and without resorting to a critical text source for vindication.

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

Part 2: Explanations for problem passages in the Spanish Bible – New Testament

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

“A fully-documented comprehensive history of the events and the men behind the noble revision that became the common Spanish Bible of multiplied millions of Spanish-speaking Christians around the world.”

  • 134 pages; includes index and bibliography

  • Thoroughly documented with nearly 300 footnotes

  • Illustrated with 14 photographs

  • Modestly priced as low as $3.9 each (when ordering 5 or more)

  • Available in English and Spanish

  • Foreword by Missionary Austin Gardner

To order this book as well as other products related to the Spanish Bible, click here.

Chapter contents:
CHAPTER 1 WHY IT WAS FELT THAT THE 1909 REVISION NEEDED TO BE REVISED

CHAPTER 2 PLANS FOR A NEW REVISION OF THE SPANISH BIBLE

CHAPTER 3 THE REVISION UNDERWAY

CHAPTER 4 REACTIONS, INFLUENCE, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVISION

CHAPTER 5 BIOGRAPHICAL PROFILES OF THE REVISERS

CHAPTER 6 THE ROLE OF OTHER MEN IN THE REVISION

CHAPTER 7 EUGENE NIDA: HIS BACKGROUND AND DOCTRINE

CHAPTER 8 THE ROLE OF BIBLE SOCIETIES IN THE 1960 REVISION

CHAPTER 9 THE TEXTUAL BASIS OF THE REVISION

Read excerpts from all nine chapters here.
The book has been endorsed by numerous fundamental Baptist leaders, including the following:

“Calvin George has given us an accurate and factual history of our Spanish Bible. This book is a must for those that are sincere in wanting answers about the Reina-Valera 1960.”

—Dr. Ezequiel Salazar, Jr.

Pastor, Montecito Baptist Church

Ontario, California

“By faith we know God has preserved His Word for the Spanish-speaking people of the world. This is a great book for those seeking the truth about the Spanish version of the Bible.”

—Dr. Luis Parada

Spanish Pastor, First Baptist Church

Long Beach, California

“Calvin George has done an outstanding job of putting together the missing pieces in what has become a fascinating historical puzzle. For years I have studied and documented the lives of the original translators of the Spanish Bible. But Calvin George has documented the lives of the revisers of the most widely read and beloved version of God’s Word in Spanish, the 1960 version of the Reina-Valera Bible. After having read his work, I can only say, ‘Great detective work on a most challenging, delicate and sensitive case!’”

—Joaquin Hurtado, Jr.

Pastor, Spanish Fundamental Baptist Church|

South Gate, California

“This book is the product of systematic and scientific investigation and will be useful in clarifying erroneous concepts on the part of English speakers in regard to the Bible in Spanish.”

—Dr. David Acevedo

Pastor, Primera Iglesia Bautista

Brooklyn, New York

“I appreciate the honesty Brother Calvin had in presenting the facts and history concerning the revision of the Reina-Valera 1960. Secondly, I appreciate the simple form in which it was written.”

—Dr. Luis Ramos

Pastor, Iglesia Bíblica Bautista

San Luis Potosí, Mexico

“Calvin George has done an excellent job with this new book he has written. It is scholastically done, and I know it will be a great tool in the defense of the Reina-Valera version. In 1958, I stayed at the Latin American Biblical Seminary (at that time a conservative evangelical institution) during an evangelistic crusade in Costa Rica. It was there that I was introduced to the revised Reina-Valera version that was to be published in 1960. I met some of the men that were involved in the revision, and I remain convinced that they were sound in their doctrine.”

—Dr. Mike Casillas

Pastor, Templo Bíblico Bautista

Bayamón, Puerto Rico

To order this book as well as other products related to the Spanish Bible, click here.