Literatura Bautista

The English counterpart of our popular Spanish website

Critique of new RVG-only book “God’s Bible in Spanish”

This is a critique of God’s Bible in Spanish: How God Preserved His Words in Spanish Through the RVG published by Chick Publications and primarily written by Emanuel (Manny) Rodríguez. In addition to the editor, Humberto Gómez is listed as holding the copyright for the book. I refer to it as an RVG-only book, because the Reina-Valera-Gomez was presented as the only valid Spanish Bible, in spite of other versions available based on the Textus Receptus.

This critique is presented here in the order it was originally written and treats matters in the book at random. We have used headings throughout the review to separate the different matters being discussed.  The bulk of the review consists of pointing out passages in the Reina-Valera that we believe are treated unfairly. In this book passages in the Reina-Valera that are not covered in this critique are likely already dealt with in Explanations for Problem Passages in the Spanish Bible.

First Spanish version to be declared inerrant?

On p. 74 the following statement can be found: “We have concluded that there is absolutely no textual error in the RVG–none!” P. 186 also makes the claim that the RVG is “perfect.” After reading these statements, I could not help but wonder if this is perhaps the first time in history that a particular Spanish version has been declared textually inerrant or perfect within the pages of a book. As far as I know, this teaching that a particular Spanish version can be or is inerrant is a fairly a new doctrine in Spanish-speaking Fundamentalism. I say “fairly new” and “first time within a book” because I am aware of a graduate of Ruckman’s school who recently declared in an article that a certain Spanish Bible is inerrant. If I am wrong and someone in the past is in print in a book having declared a particular Spanish version to be textually inerrant, we welcome the documentation to be posted to the comments section at the bottom of the page.

The only way that a translation could be perfect would be if the translator/reviser is perfect in order to make perfect choices every single time. The RVG was revised multiple times between 2004 and 2010, and I surmise that it will continue to be revised in spite of the perfection claim. Regardless of how much a translator attempts to avoid interpreting, translating the Bible involves thousands of words that can be translated in multiple ways. Regardless of how much the RVG is portrayed as not contradicting the KJV, there are still passages where the interpretation between them is different. A few examples would include Jn. 1:1 and Mark 1:8 just for starters. Men do the translating–not God. Man can never do anything perfectly except when God performs a proven miracle, such as when the Biblical writers were inspired. If Gómez is not perfect or if he was not inspired of the Holy Spirit as the holy men of old then his revision cannot be perfect.

Vital information missing from Humberto Gómez’ biography

Chapter 1 is dedicated to a biographical profile of Missionary Humberto Gómez.  The first thing that came to my attention is the lack of any mention of academic qualifications or original language studies, which would be expected considering the magnitude of this revision project. Questions have rightfully been raised about Brother Gomez’s academic qualifications, and this book did nothing to answer the questions. Since he made the final textual decisions (after obtaining advice from his advisers), people should have a right to know what the academic qualifications are for a man who wants you to use his Bible exclusively.

Without naming who the critics are of those who were involved with the RVG, on p. 150 there is a complaint about how the “critic’s academic credentials are slender and their record of scholarly accomplishments non-existent.”  The academic degrees of at least eight who assisted with the RVG are mentioned, but why no mention of the academic qualifications of the man who made the final decisions, whose name graces the cover?

Does the RV 1960 use a Catholic expression that constitutes popery?

P. 144 contains a disturbing allegation that the 1960 contains a Catholic expression in Luke 21:5 which constitute popery. However, a simple look at Strong’s Concordance serves to show that ofrendas votivas is indeed a proper translation (it includes “a votive offering” in the definition of the underlying Greek word).

Was the working principle of the RV 1960 committee “to do away with the Textus Receptus as much as possible?”

That the working principle of the committee was to “do away with the Textus Receptus as much as possible” was alleged on p. 141. The footnote for this allegation directs one to a statement in a book by José Flores that explains some departures from the Textus Receptus, but the “as much as possible” part is greatly exaggerated.  That is putting it kindly, because José Flores is known for saying almost the exact opposite of what is alleged. In his other book Escribiendo la Biblia, Flores gives a more complete list of principles governing the RV 1960. Notice especially point two:

1. Conserve as much as possible the depth and beauty of the style of the Reina-Valera version.

2. Conform to the Textus Receptus, the oldest manuscript employed by Casiodoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera in their work. [Emphasis added]

3. Not to sacrifice recognized terms in favor of the desire to introduce regionalized terms.

4. To suppress words with vulgar connotations and archaic terms which are no longer used.

5. In doubtful passages, in the translation from Hebrew or Greek to Spanish, to consult preferentially the Revised English Version and the American Standard, in addition to the International Critical Commentary.

Revision Committee member Juan Díaz provided the exact same 5-point list verbatim in an article he authored (both omitting the RSV), with the minor exception of adding the dates to the two Bibles mentioned, which ranged from 1881 to 1901. We know that these English Bibles were not the only translations utilized, as they also consulted Spanish, French, Portuguese, and German translations.

Were the RV 1960 revisers just as bold in relying on English Bibles as the RVG was bold in relying on the KJV?

The following was alleged on p. 82: “Just as the 1960 revisers did not hesitate to confess their reliance upon the Critical Texts and major English translations based upon them, we are just as bold in our reliance upon the KJV.” There are several things wrong with this statement.

1. Humberto Gomez is on record stating (in reference to his revision work) that the KJV was the standard to follow and that it is inspired, perfect and infallible (see pp. 81-82).  No one involved with the 1960 believed that any English Bible they consulted was inspired or perfect. There is a major difference between consulting a revision compared to making it your final authority for translating. This statement in the book is incorrect and should be retracted along with many other statements.

2. The 1960 revisers also consulted translations in languages other than English, as well as older Reina-Valera editions. This relevant information was left out of the book.

3. This book, typical of anti-1960 material, provides half-truths regarding what the 1960 revisers, consultants, or Bible Society representatives said about its textual basis. Whenever the 1960 revisers and others involved said anything positive about critical texts or modern translations, the 1960 critics repeat it, which is their right (I have repeated some of those same statements in my book on the history of the 1960). But noticeably absent from their material are statements made by the individuals they love to quote which are on record and have been reproduced on this website for years and in my book which provide a more balanced picture.

For example, Nida is on record stating that “This revision [1960] does not follow a critical text”  in an article frequently quoted by 1960 critics to imply the exact opposite.

Nida, Eugene A. “Reina-Valera Revision of 1960.” The Bible Translator. July 1961, p. 117.

1960 reviser Francisco Estrello wrote:

This revision is substantially the same; the text has not been touched, the integrity of the text has been respected as and how it appeared in the version that has been used until now. Only in a few cases certain simple changes have been made, as in I Timothy 6:1 where “the Lord” has been substituted for “God,” since this is what appears in the Textus Receptus and in all the most important manuscripts.

Estrello, Francisco E. “Latest Revision of the Reina-Valera Bible.” Bulletin of the United Bible Societies. 3rd Qtr. 1955, p. 18.

4. Gómez is on record claiming he collated his revision with the KJV, but the same cannot be said about when the 1960 revisers, who consulted various translations as needed in various languages.

List of 38 problem passages in common Spanish Bible based merely on suspicion

Starting on p. 63 there is a list of 38 verses that are claimed to be corrupt in the RV 1960, with 20 claimed to be in error in the RV 1909. Before I proceed any further, I believe any Spanish revision including my favorite is capable of error, because it was translated by human beings, and not by the Holy Spirit himself. However, due to the sensitive nature of our dependence on reliable translations, I believe we should not be flippant about charging revisions with errors, nor base statements on suspicion.

I immediately recognized this list of 38 passages because it had been on the internet for some time. Several years ago I researched every one of the 38 complaints and provided vindication for each one without resorting to critical texts. I shared my research with the author of the list, who wrote back and admitted the list was based on his suspicions. However, he did not attempt to refute my research specifically for any of the 38 passages, even though I gave him an advance copy before posting it on my website. He has not retracted any of it, and now it appears in a book as if it is based on extensive research instead of mere suspicion.

For an example of how poorly-researched this section of the book is, allow me to direct your attention to the very first verse in the list of 38 allegations. The first complaint on p. 63 is as follows: “The RV 1960 says man became a living ‘being’ instead of a living ‘soul’ in Genesis 2:7.” The Hebrew word underlying the word in dispute is Strong’s #5315. It is nothing short of ironic that the RVG translated the same underlying Hebrew word in dispute as “ser” (being) in Genesis 9:12 (and other places as well)!

Based on statements of introduction and conclusion, the list of 38 passages is presented to the uninformed as if it dealt exclusively with critical texts departures in the RV 1909 and 1960, and not passages that on p. 74 are defended in the RVG as “…alternate, polysemic, or variants of formal equivalence readings and/or translational alternates.”

For the remaining 37 passages, we invite you to read the following article: Refutation of 38 objections to the common Spanish Bible from a proponent of the new Gomez Spanish Bible.

5 passages claimed to be wrong in previous Spanish Bibles

On p. 176 one of many efforts to uphold the RVG by denouncing previous Spanish Bibles is found. A paragraph appears claiming errors in 5 passages in unspecified Spanish Bible versions. I immediately recognized this list, because I had written the author several years ago requesting clarification, providing an opportunity for him to challenge my response to it. I wrote two e-mails and a postal letter, but I never received a response. The following are excerpts from a letter I had originally written to this writer regarding these five passages:

As to Ps. 12:7:

In Humberto Gómez’ private translation, he put “las” (feminine) instead of “los” (masculine or neuter) in Ps. 12:7, as found in all Spanish Bibles of the Valera line that I remember looking at. The question is this: Is the underlying word masculine or feminine in Hebrew? According to Jack Moorman, whose books DBS recommends, the underlying Hebrew word is masculine. Here’s his quote:

“A problem arises: Hebrew, like other languages, has grammatical gender, and here the pronoun them is masculine, while words is feminine. The more distant yet possible antecedents of verse five or verse one are masculine.”

“Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation” by Jack Moorman

How about the KJV 1611 translators? For Ps. 12:7 they placed a marginal note which stated: “Heb. Him, i. every one of them”

The way the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960 have it, (“los” masculine or neuter) it can’t be said that Ps. 12:7 doesn’t teach preservation, because it can refer both to the words of the Lord and the people mentioned in verse 5. In the KJV, by using “them,” (neuter) it can refer to either or both. However, Brother Gomez without providing vindication changed a masculine Hebrew word to feminine in Spanish in Ps. 12:7, so that the promise of preservation could only be a reference to the word of the Lord and nothing else. I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures, (the Bible teaches it in dozens of places) but I’m not for manipulating what the Bible says while translating from the original languages in order to strengthen a doctrine.

I have discussed this matter with Brother Gomez by e-mail about a year ago [2005?], but when I asked him to prove that the word he translated as “las” is feminine in Hebrew, he ignored my question. But now you are stating boldly that he is right in Psalm 12:6-7 and other Spanish Bibles are in error. With all due respect, I believe this requires some explaining on your part (not to mention Brother Gomez).

As to Exodus 25:18-22:

This “error” does not apply to some common versions of the Spanish Bible, such as the Reina-Valera 1960, so your statement could be somewhat misleading. But anyway, there isn’t even an error in the Valera 1909. “Cubierta” (covering or lid) is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word “happoreth.” See Strong’s dictionary.

As for John 3:5:

I read this over and over again and I cannot find any difference whatsoever in meaning between the KJV and the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960.

As for Matthew 4:3:

The only difference I could find was “the” added in the KJV before “Son of God.” I could not find “the” in Stephanus 1550 nor Scrivener 1894. Perhaps the English grammar justifies this, or it is somehow implied in the Greek, so I will give the KJV the benefit of the doubt. But what in the world is wrong with the Spanish Bible here? Following the Greek instead of the KJV? If Humberto Gomez was making the Textus Receptus his final authority, how did he come up with “el” in this passage?

As for Matthew 26:63:

This is the only one on your list which seemed to have even the slight merit. The only difference is that the KJV has “And the high priest answered and said unto him” vs. “Then the high priest said unto him” (my translation from RV 1960). In the first place, the way it appears in the 1960 it doesn’t change the meaning of the verse in any way, and secondly, the context implies that the priest was answering by it saying, “Then the high priest said…” There are times (although rare) when the KJV left out some word because the context did not require it. I can provide you with examples on request.

Way out of context

On p. 61 a quote appears from my 2001 book The Battle for the Spanish Bible in which I was defending Job 2:9 in the RV 1909. However, in the book we are critiquing at present (God’s Bible in Spanish) my quote is misused as proof of Eugene Nida’s influence on the RV 1960. What is interesting in all this is that the 1960 reading in Job 2:9 about which I was writing in the quote matches the KJV and RVG. I was explaining that in this passage the 1909 translates the keyword in a very literal fashion, while the 1960 (not to mention the RVG and KJV) focuses more on the actual meaning. If the author would have continued my quote with the very next sentence, it would have been obvious to readers that I was referring to a very specific instance of translating the actual meaning instead of the actual word, and I was not speaking of being non-literal in the 1960 revision in general.

Info on Nida very misleading

This book presents Eugene Nida as if he was ecumenical at the time the RV 1960 was being revised. That he became ecumenical later in life is not in dispute, but all the instances of working together with Catholics that I have seen including what was mentioned in the book under review were years after the 1960 was finalized. Earlier in life Nida was known for being relatively conservative, and even was interim pastor of an independent fundamental church in 1939. ( & In the years leading up to 1960 he was outspoken against Catholicism (for documentation, see my book The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible). When this information is considered, it is misleading to state the following on p. 57 in the book we are reviewing:

This man who headed up the revision of the RV 1960 considered it “gratifying” to see Catholics and Protestants working together successfully.

We have personally compared sample theological writings of Eugene Nida with sample writings of King James translators and we invite our readers to do the same. The following link contains writings of KJV translators: Books by or about KJV translators

Is this really “complete heresy?”

On p. 200 the book we are reviewing claims that the RV 1960 teaches a “complete heresy” in Romans 11:31 because of the word disobedient in the verse. However, the exact same Greek word in 1 Pet. 2:7-8 and 1 Pet. 3:20 was translated as disobedientes in the RVG!

Does the RV 1960 say Jesus was a sinner?

Regarding Luke 2:22, on p. 202 the following claim is found: “By saying that Jesus needed to be purified, the 1960 is saying that Jesus was a sinner.” Consider the following:

1.  It needs to be understood from the start that the purification under the law after childbirth was ceremonial and not for purification of sin. If the purification of Luke 2:22 had to do with purification from sin then one would be saying by implication that Mary had to be purified from her sin as a result of giving birth to Jesus. In the light of Ps. 51:5 (…in sin did my mother conceive me) that would be a dangerous view. What Jesus did by being circumcised, and what Mary did by presenting an offering on the 40th day had nothing to do with sin, but rather with sanitation, symbolism, fulfilling the law, and identifying with sinners. Although Mary was not sinless as Catholics teach, she had no sin of which to be purified as a result of giving birth to Jesus.

2. “Their purification” is a Textus Receptus reading, which is something the book under review does not inform the reader. Edward Hills, author of The King James Version Defended, states on page 221 of the 1984 edition of his book that “their purification” is the rendering of “Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts.”

3. The RV 1960 is not saying here or anywhere that Jesus is a sinner. This false charge of blasphemy in the RV 1960 and by implication in various Textus Receptus editions needs to be retracted among many other things in this book under review.

Is this reading in the RV 1909 “Roman Catholic?”

On p. 203, an allegation is made that the phrase “the virgin” in Mat. 1:23 in the 1909 is “Roman Catholic, exalting Mary as the ‘forever virgin.’” If we applied this same criteria to the RVG, it would make it Roman Catholic for referring to Mary as “the virgin” in Luke 1:27 in the RVG2010!

Does the RV 1960 say that Jesus could not be God?

On p. 206 the following tragic allegation can be found regarding Phil. 2:6:

These versions say Jesus could not be God because of His belief about God. That is heresy!

The dispute is simply over how to translate the Greek word harpagmos. The KJV translated it as robbery, the RVG as usurpación (usurpation), and the RV 1960 as aferrarse (to clutch or cling). I do not agree with the writer’s translation of the word aferrarse on p. 206 as “to persist obstinately about.” By including obstinately the author is reading too much into the translation. Also persist is not the most direct way to translate aferrarse, because the most direct translation of persist would be persistir. The Pocket Oxford Spanish Dictionary © 2005 from Oxford University Press defines aferrarse as “to cling (on) to,” and the Diccionario Espasa concise inglés-español © 2000 by Espasa Calpe defines it as “to clutch, cling.”

The bottom line here is the meaning of the Greek word harpagmos. Strong’s dictionary is very brief here, perhaps because this word only shows up once in the Bible. Strong’s dictionary directs us to Strong’s #726, which is apparently the root word. The root word is defined in Strong’s primarily as “to seize.” Surely a reasonable person would agree that “to seize” would involve or imply clutching or clinging to something. If the keyword was translated within reasonable bounds of the meaning in the original language, how could this translation in the 1960 be heresy?

Falseness in the text?

On p. 233, there is a claim that there is falseness in the text because the phrase “the brother of” is not in the RV 1909 and RV 1960 in 2 Sam. 21:19. The only problem with this accusation is that the phrase is not in the Masoretic Hebrew text either, although the book leaves out such balanced information in this case and in many others. Some translators have taken some liberty in translating this verse by adding words in italics to the text in an honorable attempt to avoid an apparent contradiction. However, the Spanish translators must not be faulted for the likewise honorable motive of translating the text literally as it was and not adding to the text. If the same claim is applied to the Masoretic text, it makes it a false text.

Incorrect translation according to what?

On p. 233, there is a claim that the Spanish equivalent of the word take was incorrectly translated in 2 Sam. 14:14 in previous Spanish Bibles. However, the KJV–which was declared perfect in this book–translated the underlying Hebrew word as take no less than 58 times!

Women preachers promoted in previous Spanish Bibles?

P. 234 contains a baseless accusation against previous Spanish Bibles which we have heard before from Brother Gómez’ writings. The accusation against Ps. 68:11 is as follows: “This is not only a bad translation, but it violates God’s command against women preachers.”

Of all the Spanish Bibles which I have checked, starting with the 1553 Ferrara Old Testament, they all have the feminine gender in this verse. Even the English Geneva Bible, regarded as being based on the Masoretic text in the Old Testament, added “women” to provide the verse in feminine gender. Respected commentators such as Albert Barnes agree that in Hebrew the key word in Ps. 68:11 is in feminine gender: “The [Hebrew] word used is in the feminine gender, and refers to the Oriental custom whereby females celebrated victories in songs and dances.” 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? Several years ago when Humberto Gómez was corresponding with me I asked him why he was translating the disputed word in Ps. 68:11 in the masculine gender if it was in the feminine gender in Hebrew. He never answered that question. The RVG promoters who go as far as saying their translation is absolutely free of textual errors are the ones who need to explain why Ps. 68:11 is translated as it is in the RVG and not the other way around.

With the feminine gender established in this verse—do previous Spanish Bibles even refer to women preachers here? Even though the book admits that several editions of the Reina-Valera refer merely to women that brought or announced good tidings, it places those translations in the same “bad” category of revisions they claim refer to women evangelists. The RV 1909 is an example of a revision which the book claims uses the term for “women evangelists.” The 1909 actually uses the phrase las evangelizantes, which is not the exact equivalent of evangelist. In Spanish the common universal term for evangelist is evangelista, not evangelizante.


On p. 235 there is a complaint against the RV 1909 in Eze. 26:18 for using the word éxito instead of a more common meaning like fin. In the explanation it implies that 1909 is correct when the author admits that “Exito [sic] rarely means “end.” It is true that éxito is not normally thought of as equivalent of fin, but that meaning is included in the respected dictionary of the Real Academia Española and may have been more common 100 years ago when the 1909 was produced. That this 1909 reading is put in the “bad” category is one of many examples of nitpicking in this book.

More confident than the KJV translators

On p. 232 a complaint appears against several past editions of the Reina-Valera for having some form of the word Menúha in Judges 20:43 instead of “with ease.” 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 Menuhain the text. In light of the note from the KJV translators in the margin, the writer in this book who wrote, “Menucha is not a place,” is more confident than the KJV translators were.

Is this really an example of “another horrible translation?”

The book, on p. 236, makes much of the word magos in the RV 1909 & 1960 for Matthew 2:1;16, 17. Its goes beyond saying it was bad along with other passages in the long list and adds that it is “another horrible translation.” It should be noted that mago carries the secondary meaning of referring to someone who is gifted at something (see dictionary of the Real Academia Española). The Reina-Valera reading is a transliteration of the underlying Greek word, and it closely matches the definition in Strong’s Concordance:





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

Does the RV 1960 say that God takes away salvation?

P. 212 contains a serious allegation that the wording of the RV 1960 in 1 Cor. 9:27 “…means that God takes away the salvation, or the life of the saved person.” At dispute is the translation of a Greek word (Strong’s #96), which is defined as follows:





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

There is no practical difference between becoming a castaway (the KJV reading) or being eliminated (the English equivalent of the 1960 reading). The writer in his brief explanation admits that this verse has nothing to do with salvation, but in order to place the RV 1960 in the “bad” category he has to make the 1960 translation apply to salvation in order to allege that it is saying therein that God can take away the life or salvation of a saved person.

One of the most absurd declarations in the entire book

P. 210 contains an attempt at teaching Spanish grammar with an agenda which fails miserably. The misleading lesson regarding the word estáis in John 13:10 makes the following claim:

Two different Spanish words can be translated “are.” One describes a temporary condition. The other is permanent. The RVG is the only Spanish Bible that uses the correct Spanish word, teaching that salvation is eternal, and not something that only lasts for a short while.

The way this book presented estáis as referring to a temporary condition is a half-truth. It is not a firm rule that one can apply to all situations. The Pocket Oxford Spanish Dictionary © 2005 from Oxford University Press contains the following explanation for the root word estar:

Estar denotes a changed condition or state as opposed to identity or nature, which is normally expressed by ser. Estar is also used when the emphasis is on the speaker’s perception of things, of their appearance, taste, etc.

That estáis does not consistently refer to a temporary condition can be observed in doctrinal passages where the RVG uses the term. If we applied the same criteria to all doctrinal passages in the RVG that contain estáis, a number of doctrinal truths would only be temporary. That this book is falsely charging all other Spanish Bibles with teaching that salvation only lasts a short while because of how they translated this verse is evidence that some behind the RVG are attempting to start a divisive RVG-only movement.

Bad grammar basis for allegation again

On p. 204 there is a similar charge to the one we just covered in John 13:10. This new one involves estaba (was) in Luke 5:17. The books sums up the charge with the following accusation: “The Lord’s power to heal never ended. This is a bad translation and bad doctrine.” It claims that estaba in the RV 1960 for this verse indicates a temporary condition and so it puts this reading in the “bad” category. What is ironic is that the RVG itself uses estaba in the exact same place in the verse. The only differences are the words following estaba. The RVG equivalent is “was there” while the 1960 equivalent in English would be “was with him.” The book translates the 1960 reading as “was (temporarily) with him.” How the 1960 having estaba con él (was with him) makes the Lord’s power temporary, while the RVG reading estaba allí (was there) is not temporary does not make sense either grammatically or theologically. To illustrate how absurd the accusation is, notice how the RVG has Jehová estaba con él in Genesis 39:23. If we would follow the logic of this book to its logical extent, we would have to say that the RVG teaches that the Lord was with Joseph only temporarily, and that the Lord being with him ended at Gen. 39:23.

Do several previous Spanish Bibles say that God is one of many gods?

p. 197 states:

In Spanish, the words: “before the God Jehovah” mean that He is one of many gods.

The offending phrase is supposed to be “delante del Dios Jehová” in the RV 1865 and 1909. A quick search revealed there are similar expressions in the RVG, as “del Dios Altísimo” in Gen. 14:18. If this accusation were true, then the RVG also teaches that God is one of many gods.

A similar accusation appears on the same page for Ezra 6:8 where in the RV 1865 and 1909 an expression equivalent to “this God” in English is used. However, the RVG in Psa. 48:14 uses the very expression (este Dios) being complained about in previous Spanish Bibles!

The KJV an independent variety of the Textus Receptus?

Edward Hills, the author of The King James Version Defended, is known to have referred to the KJV as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. The book we are reviewing points this out on pp. 85-86, and also gives some of the context of Hills’ statement. It should be noted that Hills’ statement is in the context of pointing out how sometimes the KJV was independent of the Textus Receptus, and not that the KJV should be treated as a sort of replacement for the Textus Receptus for the sake of translation to foreign languages. It should be noted that on pp. 229-230 of his book that Hills denies that the KJV is inspired, he asserts that it is not above the Greek and Hebrew, and denies that the KJV is absolutely perfect, although he holds that it was trustworthy. This shows that the late Dr. Edward Hills would not have agreed with many views espoused in the book we are reviewing.

Changed to teach false doctrine?

On p. 230 there is a tragic accusation of blasphemy against the RV 1960 regarding Acts 15:18, where it has the English equivalent of “from old times” instead of “from the eternity” as in the RVG. The book under review says the change was made “to teach the false doctrine that either God came into existence in ancient times or His knowledge started in ancient times.” This conspiratorial claim can be seen to lack merit once we look at the Greek. The KJV translated this as “from the beginning of the world,” which could be thought of by some as referring to when creation took place approximately 6,000 years ago. If we were as harsh on the KJV as this book is on the Reina-Valera, we have to conclude the same about the KJV, which would be wrong to do. The RV 1909 translated the phrase in question as desde el siglo (from the age or century) However, the book we are reviewing translated the 1909 reading into English as “from forever,” which would only be the case in plural forms such as in por los siglos de los siglos. The underlying Greek word is Strong’s # 165. Strong’s Concordance defines it as follows:





From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): – age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

The chapter on hell did not deal with the heart of the issue

The book contains a lengthy chapter regarding the controversy of how to translate the Greek and Hebrew words hades and sheol. The reason I state that it did not deal with the heart of the issue can been seen by comparing the chapter with my article Why the word hell appears less often in the common Spanish Bible compared to the KJV. The author seems to indicate familiarity with my article based on a reference on p. 134. The author brushes off and mostly ignores the data presented, questions the intelligence of transliteration when he felt it was not helpful, and suggests that those who disagree with him should preach an entire message on hell with transliterations and without mentioning hell even once (even though the Spanish Bibles he is opposing use the word hell multiple times). Examples of facts ignored in the chapter on hell which are dealt with in my article include how other respected foreign translations translate hades and sheol, the fact that some Reformation-era English translations such as Bishops and Coverdale contain the word hell more often than the KJV, the fact that the KJV translators sometimes place alternative translations for sheol in the margins, the fact that how to translate hades and sheol has nothing to do with critical texts versus the Textus Receptus, the fact that the descriptions of hell are still very vivid at least up to the RV 1960 regardless of what you call it, the fact that there is no dispute about the translation of other synonyms for hell such as “lake of fire” in the Reina-Valera’s up to at least 1960, and there is no admission of the fact that some uses of the term hell in the KJV and RVG are figurative.

Who gets to decide how to translate hades and sheol in the Spanish Bible?

The book we are reviewing over-simplifies the matter of how to translate the Greek and Hebrew words hades and sheol by making the KJV translators the final arbitrators for translators in a fashion that at the very least leans towards Ruckmanism. Observe these statements from pp. 123 and 126, both dealing with how to translate hell:

When qualified scholars, with the time and protection that the King James translators had, decided it should be “hell,” who in this day and age is qualified to argue with them? … Given the two overviews of the histories, it should be best to take the King James translators over Reina and Valera’s original work.

Although the KJV translators had to decide which word to put in the text each time they came to the word sheol, it should be pointed out that they sometimes seemed to be undecided, which is evident by marginal notes placed in their 1611 edition. To illustrate this, consider how at Ps. 49:15, where the KJV revisers translated sheol as “grave,” they placed a marginal note in their 1611 edition that stated, “or, hell.” Just six chapters over at Ps. 55:15, the opposite occurs. They have “hell” in the text, but the marginal note in the 1611 states, “or, grave.” This might have been repeated elsewhere in the 1611, but I did not continue looking for more examples. Although they produced a trustworthy and reliable translation that has proven itself over time, the KJV translators were fallible men, so their translation decisions should not be treated as the final authority for foreign Bibles as is taught on p. 86 of the book we are reviewing. That the KJV can judge Bibles in foreign languages is a new teaching that has been popularized by Peter Ruckman. Notice Ruckman’s position:

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

What is being taught in this section of the book on the intrepretation of hades and sheol contradicts some of the teaching of those who oppose the 1960 and promote the RVG. Notice the following, written by a non-Spanish-speaking writer who has spoken in a pro-RVG conference against the 1960:

Under no circumstances should the ambiguity in the original source-language be removed by inserting words of interpretation by the translator. (William, H.D. Word-For-Word Translating of The Received Texts. circa 2008, The Bible For Today Press, p. 230)

How intelligent is this?

This question is asked on p. 134 regarding transliterating hades and sheol. Here is our simple reply to the question at hand:

It is a common practice to transliterate the names of places in Bible translations (including the RVG). Therefore, to transliterate yet another place (hell) makes sense when it involves Greek and Hebrew words with multiple meanings in order to prevent the translator from having to interpret complex passages that have baffled translators in the past.

Is this not Ruckmanism?

This book on p. 82 admits that Brother Gómez has stated publicly regarding the Spanish Bible that “the standard to follow has to be the King James.” P. 86 contains a statement that should concern all those who abhor Ruckmanism: “True Bible-believers believe that the KJV is the finality of the Textus Receptus and thus the final authority. It is the standard for accuracy.” The very next page adds the following statement: “We insist that foreign Bible translators and revisers use the KJV as ‘the standard to follow’ because the scholarship that produced it is superior to any other translation.”

If we follow the definition of Ruckmanism given by D.A. Waite, a man praised in the book (pp. 105-107), this book we are reviewing teaches Ruckmanism outright. Notice what Dr. Waite writes in response to the KJV being regarded as the final authority on p. 5 of his 2009 book A Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism:

“…the King James Version of the Bible is the providentially preserved Word of God, and is actually (or essentially) the only and final authority in all matters of faith and practice for the English speaking world today.”

COMMENT #5. This is a definition of Ruckmanism. It’s a definition of what Peter Ruckman believes.

Waite condemns similar teachings found in the book we are reviewing as Ruckmanism in the past in his book A Critical Answer to God’s Word Preserved, pp. 18, 19, 64 & 65. How Dr. Waite can endorse a translation motivated by Ruckmanism (if we follow his own definition of Ruckmanism in his books) is something only he can explain.

Humberto Gómez’ sending church as a missionary for around the past 30 years is a church that heavily promotes Ruckmanism (see I have a catalog of books and tapes mailed in 2006 from Humberto Gómez’ church in Ohio and it lists 1,290 tapes by Peter Ruckman and 94 copies of his books and pamphlets. If this does not qualify Brother Gómez’ church as a Ruckmanite church, then not even Ruckman’s own church is a Ruckmanite church! Considering that he has been a member of a Ruckmanite church for 30 years, and he has stated publicly that the KJV was the standard to follow in revising the Spanish Bible among other things, I find it hard to believe that Ruckmanism did not play some role in the RVG.

In actual practice this book and the RVG translation philosophy allow an English translation to become the final arbiter of the Greek and Hebrew text. Notice: “By incorporating the KJV in the work of foreign Bible translation, the translator is incorporating both its Greek and Hebrew basis and the textual decisions of the King’s translators. This is the best form of the Received Texts to use for translation work.” (p. 84) On p. 83 the book advocates using the KJV as the standard to eliminate the confusion of multiple Textus Receptus editions. Notice carefully how this is worded:

For example, Beza authored 10 different editions of his Greek New Testament. Which of his 10 editions would you choose?

Using the KJV as the standard eliminates this confusion, for the King’s translators incorporated the best of all editions of the Received Texts.

I studied Ruckmanism a few years ago and wrote an article by the title The Danger of Ruckmanism as Applied to Foreign Language Bibles. My study of the issue reveals that one of the major reasons Ruckman holds up the KJV over the Greek and Hebrew is because of the issue of multiple editions of the Textus Receptus and the fact that sometimes the KJV deviates from it slightly. The only major difference between what Ruckman presents about the issue compared to this book is that Ruckman uses shocking terms such as “advanced revelation” and “the English corrects the Greek” which this book avoids. Notice Ruckman’s similar position:

Any translation on the mission field can be safely judged by a King James Authorized Version, and where it refuses to stick to the text the text can be altered safely to match the King James’ reading.

Ruckman, Peter. The Monarch of the Books, 1973, p. 29

There are many links to different levels of Ruckmanism within the RVG-only movement. As a disclaimer, I am not certain that any particular person who influenced the text of the RVG including Brother Gómez is a complete Ruckmanite to the point of pushing Ruckman’s multiple plans of salvation and regularly using his most controversial terms for the KJV such as advanced revelation, double inspiration, etc. However, an alarming number of individuals come from an environment in which Ruckmanism was taught and promoted to some extent. With their unusual views in some of their writings that the KJV in certain words is the final authority for the Spanish Bible, it is hard to believe that whatever Ruckmanism to which they were exposed at one time did not play any role in their current views.

The following are examples of links to Ruckmanism of which I am aware. On pp. 25-27 of the book we are reviewing, the American pastor who is credited with convincing Humberto Gómez that the Spanish Bible needed revised preached for Peter Ruckman on many occasions. The director of the printing press mentioned on p. 97 that first printed the RVG studied at Peter Ruckman’s school (I do not know if he graduated). In a recent sermon he spoke of Ruckman in glowing terms, recalling a visit to Ruckman’s bookstore in which he was glad to see Ruckman. On p. 112 a collaborator of the RVG is mentioned who has been a Spanish pastor of a church in Arizona which has had a history of Ruckmanite American pastors. In a phone conversation in 2007 he told me that Ruckmanites were good people from whom he refused to separate. A pastor mentioned on p. 187 who strongly influenced Brother Gómez to proceed with the RVG and helped facilitate his honorary doctorate has had Ruckman preach for him in the past. In a sermon in 2009 this pastor heaped praise on Peter Ruckman. A testimony on p. 189 comes from a missionary who studied under Peter Ruckman (I do not know if he graduated). The very editor of the book we are reviewing is a member of a church where the pastor is a graduate of Ruckman’s school. This pastor authored a pamphlet which is very defensive of Ruckman. The editor of this book we are reviewing did write an article in which he rejects the controversial term “double inspiration” for which Ruckman is known, but he has another article in which he makes a case for not distancing himself from Ruckman or laying out his differences with him. In that last article he admits to having read everything Ruckman has written in regards to the Bible issue and that he has referenced many of his commentaries. He states that he both agrees and disagrees with Dr. Ruckman on many things. Documentation for all that was stated in this paragraph is available upon request.

If one views Ruckmanism as a false doctrine, then one should separate from it and its circle of influence just like any other form of apostasy (Rom. 16:17). If Humberto Gómez is really against Ruckmanism, he would have demonstrated it in his actions by distancing himself from the membership roles of an activist Ruckmanite church decades ago. Instead, he retained his membership in this Ruckmanite church during his revision project and in his former website accessed on Nov. 22, 2005, he declared that he was a “proud member” of that church.

False doctrine?

A claim is made on p. 214 that the reading for 1 Pet. 1:5 in the Reina-Valera 1865-1960 “teaches a false doctrine.” Those Spanish Bibles contain the phrase para alcanzar la salvación (salud in 1909), while the KJV has “unto salvation.” The RVG has para la salvación (for/unto salvation). Objecting to the Spanish word alcanzar, the book claims without a source that “‘To reach or obtain’ does not appear in the Greek.” However, 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). Another strike against the accusation of false doctrine in this passage is 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.”

More erroneous information

On p. 196 the book used a new argument against the reading of various editions of the Reina-Valera for Daniel 3:25. To see what is being said against Daniel 3:25, please see Explanations for Problem Passages in the Spanish Bible. The new argument in this book is as follows: “Even when unbelievers in the Bible used God’s name, it is capitalized.” One only needs to go two chapters farther in the Bible to see how erroneous this statement is. The KJV says the following in Daniel 5:14, referring to the God of Daniel: I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee.

Treatment of hell by another contributing author

On p. 216 the author admits that the utilization of Sheol is a transliteration, but he still proceeds to claim that this practice is bad translation on p. 221. However, it should be realized that whenever a translator transliterates, he is not translating, so he cannot be charged with bad translation at that point. Transliteration is useful when there is not an exact equivalent in the receptor language, or when there is controversy over how to translate a given word which has multiple meanings or may be located in an obscure context. Returning to what the writer had to say about transliteration on p. 216, we find the following statement: “’Sheol’ is just a transliteration of the Hebrew word for hell. Why translate all other words but not this one?” This is an unfair question, because there are other instances of not translating words in the RV 1960, in the sense of utilizing a transliteration instead. The RVG does this as well, such as in the case of the transliteration raca in Mat. 5:22

On p. 216 the book objects to sepulcro as the translation of Sheol in the RV 1865 in 2 Sam. 22:6 in the following manner: “A sepulcher is ‘a grave, a tomb or a burial place,’ not even close to the Greek word used.” A similar accusation is found on the next page regarding Prov. 9:18: “Using the word ‘grave’ instead of the correct translation ‘hell’ is yet another attempt to mislead and confuse readers.” In the first place, in 2 Sam. 22:6 a Hebrew word is used, not Greek. That the writer would say that sepulcher or grave is not even close to the meaning of the word in the original language and is an attempt to mislead and confuse betrays the fact that he must not be aware that the RVG followed the KJV in translating the Hebrew word as grave about as many times as it did hell. As previously documented, sometimes when the KJV translators placed hell in the text, they placed a marginal note there that stated “or, grave.”

A statement on p. 217 mocks the utilization of the Spanish word for pit in Ps. 86:13 in the RV 1865 and 1909 in the following manner: “One can dig a pit out in his back yard. That is not what this verse is talking about.” These Spanish Bibles are being unfairly ridiculed by literal interpretation; however–if the RVG was interpreted literally at this verse, it would have a case of someone’s soul being freed from hell. Surely the RVG promoters would not like their translation treated with double standards of this nature as found throughout this book! By transliterating Sheol, the RV 1960 dealt with the problem of hell often appearing in a figurative manner in the Old Testament as in this verse. The KJV translates the key underlying Hebrew word found in this verse as pit three times. The RVG follows with the synonymous foso and abismo.

Conspiracy theories for hades and sheol

The two reasons the book gives for the transliterations of hades and sheol in the Reina-Valera are conspiratorial in nature:

1. Theological bias

“…an effort to obscure the doctrine of hell in the Bible. There can be no other good explanation for such an act.” (p. 132)

The one person the anti-Reina-Valera movement tries to link with the text of the 1960 edition is Eugene Nida. However, their conspiracy theory falls apart when consideration is given to the fact that Nida believed in a literal hell:

What about hell? I wish I could say there were none, I frankly do. But the same God who revealed His love in Jesus Christ revealed his judgment by Jesus Christ. History is not over until the judgment. Someone says, “Can we explain the morality of hell?” I say, explain to me the morality of existence apart from judgment and I’ll explain the morality of hell. Accesed Sep. 5, 2010.

Francisco Estrello (one of the six RV 1960 revisers) is on record that he believed in a literal hell. This is evident in his book Estudios de Evangelismo Personal, published in 1935 by Comité Regional de Educación Cristiana in Mexico. On p. 55 he brings up Rev. 21:8, which vividly speaks of the lake of fire:

Rev. 21:8. It’s sad to think of the end reserved for the unbelievers; God is just and his righteousness will be satisfied. Let’s become interested in the salvation of those who have closed their doors to the Truth. (translated)

2. Financial gain

“The only other reason that could be assumed is to ‘sell’ their Bible and make money. After all, who wants to read about hell since it is not a very pleasant doctrine to consider.” (p. 133)

Hell was translated as such over a dozen times, and the vivid descriptions are undisturbed. The facts do not measure up to the allegation.

Does the RV 1909 teach there are many gods?

Concerning Isa. 42:5, the book alleges the following on p. 198: “The words ‘the God Jehovah’ mean that he is one of many gods.” If this is so, then the same would have to be said about the RVG and KJV every time the phrase “the God” appears. The Bible recognizes that other gods are alleged to exist, but as is often the case including in this very verse being misrepresented in the 1909, the Bible makes it clear that the true God is the one who created the world and sustains life.

Do other Spanish Bibles say that Christ created inside himself?

P. 205 contains a new accusation against several previous versions of the Reina-Valera for Col. 1:16. Referring to Christ’s role in creation, the RV 1865 and 1960 has “in him” instead of “by him.” The book makes fun of this reading by stating, “Jesus didn’t create inside himself. Creation is not a part of himself.” This objection is wrong on three counts:

1. The underlying Greek word (Strong’s # 1722) was translated as “in”1,902 times in the KJV. It was also translated as “by” 163 times.

2. The Bible presents what was done in or by Christ in an interchangeable manner, and it is up to the translator to use his discretion in these cases. For an example of how foreign translations differ on this, notice 2 Cor. 3:14. It ends with, “…which vail is done away in Christ.” The RV 1960 in turn presents the vail as having been done away by Christ in this verse.

3. The book does not reveal the last half of the verse in the RV 1865 and 1960, which made it clear in no uncertain terms that everything was created through him and for him. Strong’s Concordance strongly vindicates the use of por medio de (through) used in the last part of this verse in the RV 1960 for the underlying Greek word (#1223).

Did the RVG 2004 teach an unscriptural doctrine?

On pp. 207-209 the book makes a big deal out of the use of se salva/se salvan/se salven/ in previous Spanish versions, saying that they “can also mean ‘save themselves,’ an unscriptural doctrine. Same applies for [sic] following verse, Luke 13:23.” What the book does not tell you is that the RVG 2004 contained the reading in Luke 13:23 that they now declare can refer to an unscriptural doctrine! For the RVG promoters to resort to readings (and not just this one) found in previous editions of the RVG in the process of criticizing other Spanish Bibles when they had declared the RVG before 2010 to be perfect is unbelievable (see the booklet Por Qué la Biblia Reina Valera Gómez es la Perfecta Palabra de Dios printed in 2009 before the RVG2010 came out). Returning to the issue at hand, the book we are reviewing does hint about it having different meanings other than save himself/themselves, but it does not consistently continue to list the alternative meanings throughout the three pages, nor does it mention that it could also be translated as “get saved.” At one point a question mark is placed after the author’s translation “(save themselves)?” for one of the phrases objected to, but the question mark is not used consistently with other identical readings. If se salva in previous Spanish translations teaches an “unscriptural doctrine,” then so would the RVG and KJV in 1Timothy 4:16: Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Another unbelievable allegation

P. 211 contains one of the most unbelievable allegations in the whole book. Concerning Ps. 104:4 it states: “But the 1865, 1909 and 1960 say his ministers are going ‘to the flaming fire.’ Sounds like His servants are going to hell.”

1. The book omits the first part of the verse containing the verb, which is necessary to establish the context. The verb in the first part of the verse indicates that he not only makes the wind his messengers, he also makes the flames of fire his ministers. It does not say or imply in any way, shape, or form that his servants or ministers are going to hell or any fire.

2. The book translates the RV 1960 reading y a las llamas de fuego sus ministros as “and to the flames of fire his ministers.” Is this correct? No! A thousand times no! The reason the book’s translation is incorrect is that within the context (necessitating the first half of the verse), the Spanish a does not mean “to.” A in Spanish often means “to,” but only if the context allows it. The verb hace (makes) found in the verse does not allow a to mean “to.” What the book does would be as absurd as translating Dios hizo a nosotros as “God made to us,” instead of “God made us.”

The author of this section of the book reveals something very interesting when he states that “Sounds like His servants are going to hell” (emphasis added). What it “sounds like,” without seriously considering grammar and the context, should not have been part of the criteria for judging a respected Spanish Bible with such harsh rhetoric as alleging that it says God’s ministers are going to the flaming fire.

Does the RV 1960 strip away the deity of Christ in this verse?

A statement on p. 207 strangely alleges that the RV 1960 reading para Dios, su Padre (unto God, his Father) in Rev. 1:6 “strip away the deity of Christ.” That accusation is unbiblical in the light of John 5:18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. A case could even be made that the RV 1960 reading (unto God, his Father) is stronger for the deity of Christ than the RVG reading (unto God and his Father) in the sense that a person with little knowledge of Scripture could think that “unto God and his Father” were describing two different beings. The Greek does have the equivalent of “and” here, but because of the nuances of the grammar of the receptor language, conjunctions do not always end up getting translated. The Bishops and Coverdale Bible did not have “and” here and match the RV 1960 reading, except for the comma.

Is this translation bad?

A claim on p. 231 states that the translation subirán (rise/ascend) in Lev. 2:12 in previous editions of the Reina-Valera is “bad.” However, notice how Strong’s Concordance begins its definition for the underlying Hebrew word (#5927): “A primitive root; to ascend…” Also notice the note in the margin placed in the 1611 edition by the KJV translators for this very verse:


Does the Reina-Valera reflect the critical texts more than the Traditional Texts?

On p. 48 the book makes the following claim about the Bible Societies’ role in the Reina-Valera:

…deliberately inserted more Alexandrian corruption to produce a Spanish Bible that reflected the Critical Texts more than the Traditional Texts that it was originally based upon.

The above conclusion may be an emotional argument, but we will not respond in kind. We will even use facts and figures provided by RVG promoters themselves. No Reina-Valera edition was specified, so we will use the RV 1960 for this demonstration. Rex Cobb, an RVG promoter, claims there are 191 “omissions, changes, or additions” in the 1960 when compared to Scrivener’s Greek text. ( We do not agree with these numbers, but for the sake of this demonstration we will accept their numbers. Dr. D.A. Waite claims that the critical text differs from the Traditional Text in 8,000 places (A Critical Answer to James Price, p. 68). Although whether the Traditional Text is the exact same thing as the Textus Receptus could be argued, we will go with these numbers for the sake of simplicity. If there are 191 “omissions, changes, or additions” in the Reina-Valera from the Textus Receptus out of a possible 8000, that is a mere 2 percent! How could a mere 2% reflect the critical text more than the Traditional Text?

This statistic can be compared to John Burgon’s (defender of the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version) view that the commonly Received Text was the true one in nine cases out of ten. (Goulburn, Edward Meyrick. John William Burgon late Dean of Chichester. A Biography: With extracts from his letters and early journals. Vol. 2, London: John Murray, 1892, p. 278)

When Dr. Waite defended the KJV for the fact that it departed from Beza’s 1598 Greek New Testament (the Greek text which the KJV followed the closest) in 190 places, he used the following argument:

As I explained earlier, there are 140,521 words in the Greek New Testament. 190 places would only amount to 0.14% places that varied from Beza’s Greek edition. This would amount to the King James Bible’s following of Beza’s Greek edition 99.86% of the time. (A Critical Answer to Michael Sproul, p. 62)

Imagine the possibilities if an identical formula were used to defend the Reina-Valera!

Our overall assessment of the book

No book is perfect, but with so many mistakes, exaggerations, and misleading information, I do not understand how this book continues to be promoted and distributed. Sadly, this book is typical of books written in recent years to discredit the Reina-Valera. We have documented that–in denoucing former editions of the Reina-Valera–dogmatic declarations, conspiracy theories, and assumptions of heresy were frequently resorted to. These books mix facts with half-truths and make many greatly exaggerated claims that do not withstand scrutiny.

One of our greatest concerns is that the adoption of the RVG is legitimizing the controversial writings, methods, and views of this movement. Also for reasons we have documented, we believe adoption of the RVG is a step towards legitimizing Ruckmanism.

The agenda to promote the RVG is clouding the RVG promoter’s judgment of the translations they are trying to replace. The problem passages covered hardly bother anyone except those who have an agenda for promoting a new translation to replace it. If the careless treatment of the Reina-Valera in this book is any indication of the scholarship behind the RVG, it does not speak well for it.

The RVG is not above criticism, but any criticism against it should be well thought-out, researched, and analyzed for the sake of fairness, even if RVG promoters continue to be unfair in their denunciations of the Reina-Valera. I plead with the reader to beware. If you are not in favor of the RVG, beware of how you oppose it. In opposing it we must not imitate the behavior and controversial methods of those with whom we disagree.

This article is available in Spanish: Crítica del libro promoviendo la RVG solamente “La Biblia de Dios en Español”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *