Valera 1602 Purified on E-sword?

A friend sent me a link the other day to a place where someone had posted the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible on e-sword.  It is:

http://eswordbibliotecahispana.blogspot.com/2011/08/reina-valera-1062-purificada.html

I went there and tried to download the file, but was unable to do so.  My Norton software said it had a low level virus.  (Who would put a virus in a Bible program???)

Many people have been asking for and excited about getting the text to the Valera 1602 Purified to use on their E-sword program. 

So can anyone out there download this program and take out the virus and make it available for others to use?

If so, let me know...

Robertbreaker3@hotmail.com

In response to Luis Vega's article

Years ago a man named Luis Vega wrote an article entitled, "Breaker's Allegation of 'Verbo' Refuted," in which he wrote a derogatory treatise in which he defended the word Verbo in the modern Spanish Bibles, while attacking Missionary Evangelist Robert Breaker.  He further attempted to prove his point with what he claims was "rock-hard" evidence, and what he gave to some might look convincing.  However, it's not what he said, but what he DIDN'T SAY.  It's what he either intentionally or unintentionally left out that gives us the true story.  To read this man's article, and I would encourage you to do so, please click on the link below:

http://www.valera1865.org/en/the_silly_gringos_club/roberts_breakers_broken_spanish/refuting_breaker_john_1_1/index.html

I also encourage you to look up:

http://www.valera1865.org/en/the_silly_gringos_club/index.html

In which, Robert Breaker, is labelled a "silly gringo" by these people. 

Let's now examine the evidence for ourselves and see who really is the "silly" one.  (Oh, and by the way, Robert Breaker does have Spanish Blood in him, so it's quite insulting to call him a "Gringo.").

In Mr. Vega's article, he claims, and I quote, "The only way that the word 'Verbum' could be accurately considered a Catholic word is if it originated from the Roman Catholic Religion or a Catholic text.  This article has been written exclusively to carefully examine Breaker's shocking claim to see if it holds water."

In the same spirit, we will do the same, and carefully examine Mr. Vega's claims.  For the FACTS prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to any rational minded individual that Verbum and Verbo are both CATHOLIC words.

Before going further, it must be mentioned that Mr. Vega claims he wrote to Mr. Breaker, and that he never responded.  The truth is Mr. Breaker did not receive his correspondence and would love for him to email it to him anew.  Mr. Breaker's email is:  Robertbreaker3@hotmail.com

Now, back to the truth about "Verbo."  Mr. Vega says that the word "Verbum" appears in, and I quote, "ALL pre surviving pre-Vulgate Old Latin Bibles."

He then gives a list of those he wants us to look up.  And then with an act of uncharitableness, he jabs, "I wonder if Robert Breaker knew this before opening his big mouth."

But what are these Latin manuscripts of which he speaks?  He gives us a 4th century manuscript and then tries to make us believe that it came from the 2nd century.  So we are supposed to believe him because he gives us a latin text 400 years after Jesus and says that it was from 200 years earlier.  So, according to Mr. Vega, the word Verbum is used in the Latin text 200 years after Jesus.

But he forgets two things.  First, the Catholic church was being formed around that time.  Some give the official date at 324 A.D with Constantine.  So wouldn't that put us in the time of Catholic scholars?  Second, what about the documented evidence of the fact that before 250-300 A.D. there are Latin texts which DO NOT USE Verbum in John 1:1?  Why does Mr. Vega not mention these?

Below, I quote from Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle, who wrote the scholarly work, "Sermo; Reopening the Conversation on Translating Jn. 1:1," published in 1977 by North-Holland Publishing.  Be it know that the words in BOLD and all caps were typed that way for emphasis:

"Tertullian [160-225 A.D.] and Cyprian [who died in 258 A.D.] quote Sermo in EVERY CITATION of the opening of the Johannine prologue.  In addition to eight quotations, there is Tertulian's valuable, impartial testimony Adversus Praxean that THE CUSTOM OF LATIN CHRISTIANS WAS TO READ, 'In principio era SERMO,' although he preferred ratio to Sermo.  Cyprian twice quotes Jn 1:1 in Adversus Iudaeos ad quirinum as 'in principio fuit SERMO, et SERMO erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo.'  He also interprets Sermo as Christ in three three Psalm verses and a passage from the Book of Revelation.  CYPRIANO IS ACKNOWLEDGED A SUPERIOR SOURCE OF THE OLD LATIN BIBLE BECAUSE OF HIS ANTIQUITY, and because he repeats almost one-ninth of the New Testament.  But if the modern theory of dual North African and European sources for the Old Latin Bible is correct, then Sermo in Tertulian and Cyprian may only demonstrate the former tradition.  No European patristic writings in Latin contemporaneous with Tertullian survive for comparison. SERMO REMAINS THEN THE EARLIEST EXTANT LATIN TRANSLATION OF logos IN JOHN 1:1 and on Tertullian's word the reading commonly circulated."

Now, how do you argue with that?  SERMO is the oldest word, period!  But I must continue quoting from the same passage for you to see what happened next historically:

"Verbum FIRST OCCURS as a translation for logos in John 1:1 in Novatian's tract on the Trinity, but he reports Sermo also.  After Novatian this ambivalence about Sermo and Verbum disappears until Augustine REVIVES IT.  Hilary nine times cites the opening verses of the Johannine prologue an IN EVERY INSTANCE, logos is translated as Verbum.  By the fourth century Verbum is UNIVERSALLY PREFERRED IN THE WEST."

Now, I don't want to be mean.  I really don't, but if Mr. Vega can say it in his article, can I not say the same, only just changing the name.  I will do so, "I wonder if Mr. Vega knew this before opening his big mouth!"

Mr. Vega seeks to tell us that Verbum has always been the early reading.  But here is "rock-hard evidence" to show you the exact opposite.  He also only runs to 4th century manuscripts, but then tries to make you believe they were from the second century.  Should we believe Mr. Vega, or a true scholar who gives us documented evidence?

From the above quotes, we see beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was indeed the CATHOLICS who perverted the word and changed Sermo, the correct word to Verbum, their own preferred word.

Next, Mr. Vega says that Erasmus' Textus Receputs first edition uses "Verbum," and he wants us to believe that because it's in the Latin T.R., we should accept it.  He further tries to make you think that Erasmus was in favor of the word because he inserted it into the text.  Sounds like a good arguement, doesn't it?  But like Paul Harvey used to say, we need to hear "the rest of the story."

Erasmus later put out a second edition of his Greek/Latin New Testament "T.R." text.  And guess what?  It has Sermo in John 1:1 rather than Verbum.  Why is this.  It's because Erasmus was a Catholic who worked close with the Catholic Church.  For this reason, he HAD to use Verbum in his first edition.  But as he studied the issue, he viewed that word as wrong, and having liberty to do so, he later corrected the text with Sermo, and wrote an entire treatise in Latin AGAINST the word Verbum, and in favor of the use of the word Sermo.  Why didn't Mr. Vega tell us this?  Did he just not know about that? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  But with this stated, there is now no excuse for ignorance.  Verbum was the latin CATHOLIC reading, and Sermo was the old church reading from the 1st and 2nd century.  Erasmus, when he learned this, wanted to go back to the older reading, and not to the preferred CATHOLIC reading.

Mr. Vega then goes to the word in Spanish "Verbo" which incidentally comes from the Latin Vulgate word "Verbum," and tries to defend that word.  But he doesn't tell you the whole truth.  (That seems to be Standard Operating Procedure for Mr. Vega.)  The truth is ALL old Protestant Bibles from the 1500's and 1600's use Palabra in John 1:1 in speaking of Jesus Christ.  The word Verbo did not appear in the Spanish Bible text until 1793 when a catholic named Scio translated his own Spanish Bible (with the authority of the CATHOLIC CHURCH) directly from the Latin Vulgate.  He was the first to use the word Verbo in Spanish, clearly a derivative of the Catholic word Verbum.

Mr. Vega then runs to the dictionaries in Spanish and tries to defend Verbo.  But he fails to mention that many Spanish dictionaries are very bias towards Catholicism and the Catholic church.  But he does tell us that Palabra and Verbo are "synonyms."  If this be the case, then which word do you want?  The PROTESTANT word, or the CATHOLIC word.  For any sane person can see that Verbo has its roots in Catholicsm, and therefore is a Catholic word.

Mr. Vega closes his article by claiming that Robert Breaker is "irresponsible, profane, ignorant..."  He then tries to judge the heart of Mr. Breaker by claiming that Breaker's pointing out that Verbo is a Catholic word was only with the intent to, "harm."

Is that so?  Of course not.  Mr. Breaker is right and has been right in his assertion that Verbo is indeed a Catholic word.  And it's the intention of Mr. Breaker to point true Bible Believers to the only Spanish Bible put out today that doesn't use Verbo in John 1:1.  That Bible would be the Valera 1602 Purified.

In closing, something else that should be mentioned is the fact that the 1865 Spanish Bible that Mr. Vega and his crowd so dogmatically stand on leaves us questioning greatly the veracity of that translation.  For from the actual documents of the American Bible Socieity, which put out that version, we read that the original 1865 said, "Palabra" in John 1:1.  But the 1865 they defend does not say that (it reads Verbo).  Yet reading further in the A.B.S. documents we find that Palabra was changed in the text in 1868 to "Verbo."  So, the question must then be asked, are those who defend the 1865 really even have an 1865?  Could it rather be an 1868?

At any rate, Mr. Vega's article was not done in the spirit of meekness or in a scholarly fashion.  It was attacking and the fact that he did not present the facts (all of the facts) proves he needs to rethink his position. 

The facts are as follows:  Verbo comes from Verbum, the Latin Catholic Vulgate reading, which was not the original word used by the early church.  They used Sermo.  The word Verbo is a catholic word, who's origins first appear in the Bible in 1793 in Scio's text, which was translated directly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.  And like the early church, the Spaniards of the time used a different word (Palabra).  It was the Catholics who changed the word to Verbo.  Should we as Spanish-speakers allow Catholics to bully us and make us accept certain words?  For that reason alone, we should return to the word Palabra, especially when that was the original word in the 1865 which these guys so fondly embrace and defend.

For more information about Verbo vs Palabra please click on the link below:

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/verbo%20vs%20palabra.htm

This article written by Robert Breaker.  It was not written to attack rather inform.  It is my hope that the facts herein will be embraced by those who are truly interested in the truth, and are willing to accept it without becoming emotional about it.  It is my hope that true Bible Believers will come to terms with the fact that they've been duped into using a Catholic word.  And I hope they will return to the true word rather than continue using the vulgate catholic word or a derivative of it.

A GREAT NEW REFERENCE TOOL!

I'm happy to announce that a man named Stephen Hite has released a new reference tool entitled: The Octapla.  It is eight different versions of the Spanish New Testament, presented verse by verse.  These include the:

1543 Francisco de Enzinas N.T.
1556 Juan Perez de Pineda N.T.
1569 Cassiodoro de Reina N.T.
1602 Cipriano de Valera N.T.
1793 Felipe Scio de San Miguel N.T. (Catholic version)
1865 ABS Mora and Pratt N.T.
1909 ABS N.T.
1960 ABS N.T.

This is an amazing feat, as many people have never seen for themselves the original 1543 Enzinas, the 1556 Juan Perez de Pineda, nor the 1602 Valera New Testaments.  These are true Protestant versions of the Spanish Bible.  Nor do many people realize that the SCIO Catholic text was used by many Protestant Bible Societies to CHANGE the true Reina-Valera text, in making their own "Hybrid Spanish Bibles."  The reason being, that Protesant Bible Societies wanted to make their versions look more "Catholic" as they handed them out in Spanish and Latin America.  This is because the Papists would BURN Protestant Bibles on the spot.  But if the Bible appeared to be Catholic, or at least Pro-Catholic, then it would be allowed.

One way to test if a version was Catholic (or Pro-Catholic) was to turn to John 1:1.  If the word was "Verbo" (a Catholic word), then it was allowed by the priests and papists.  But if the word was "Palabra," then it was destroyed.  (For more on the catholic even occultic word VERBO, click here)

Mr. Hite's "Octapla" does a great job of showing how modern versions departed from the true Protestant texts to follow the Catholic texts.  It also shows how the Valera 1602 Purified, is the only Spanish Bible available today which reads closer to the original Spanish Protestant texts. 

Anyone seeking to obtain the Octapla, should click below to go to the following site:

http://www.octapla.com/

It should be noted that there were a lot of mistakes and errors in the first edition of his work.  Mr. Hite claims these should be corrected in his second printing of the work.

Why is it called the VALERA 1602 Purified?

A question that is asked by many English and Spanish-speaking people alike today is why the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible is called the VALERA 1602 Purified, and not the "Reina-Valera" 1602 Purified?

The answer is very simple, and it is on purpose.  You see, when Cassidoro de REINA put out his translation in 1569, Valera worked with him as a revisor and editor of proofs.  But Valera did not like Reina's attitude of being so anti-semetic.  If you will read the preface of Reina's Bear Bible, you will find that Reina called the Jews "superstitious" on several occasions.  And it was Reina who said that he chose to use the word JEHOVAH in the Old Testament in place of the word of the word SENOR (like the older Protestant translations and the King James Bible did).  Reina tells us his reason was because he didn't like the Jews using Adonai (Lord) in place of Jehova, and he called them "superstitious" for doing so.  Valera, however, didn't see it this way, and in the preface of his 1602 edition of the Spanish Bible, he tells us that every time we see the word JEHOVAH in the text, we can instead read LORD (SENOR) in it's place.

Because of Reina's anti-semitism and Valera's ability to point out that you don't have to use Jehova, everyone from 1602 on referred to the Spanish Bible as the VALERA Bible.   They did not call it the "Reina-Valera."  In fact, even the now popularly resurrected 1865 American Bible Society translation referred to itself as the Valera 1865, and even those who endorse this version, omit Reina on purpose, calling their organization the VALERA 1865. 

It wasn't until the 1960 Spanish version came out that people began to once again put REINA with the word VALERA, making the Spanish Bible the "Reina-Valera" version.  Before this it was only known as the "Valera" 1865.

So why is this?  Well, if you do your studying, you'll see that Valera was more anti-Catholic, and more amicable to the Jews.  Christians knew this, and for this reason (and because Valera revised the old Bible of Reina, taking out LXX and Vulgate readings) they chose to remember Valera and forget Reina.  It was on purpose, as they did not want to remember a man who was so against the Jews.  (Note:  Reina's use of the word "Jehova" instead of "SENOR" (Lord) has led to a great number of Jehovah Witnesses gaining much ground in latin america.  It's all because of Reina's hatred for the Jews.  Another note:  The only Spanish Bible printed today that actually follows the KJV is the Valera 1602 Purified, as it uses SENOR in all but about 4 places, following along with the King James)

So why did those behind the 1960 resurrect the name of Reina and add his name to their Spanish translation?  Because the text of Reina was closer to the Roman Catholic text, and the American Bible Society at the time was very friendly towards Catholicism.  Thus, as adamant liberals, those behind the 1960 wished to remember and honor someone like REINA by adding his name to their translation, starting the name "Reina-Valera" Spanish Bible.  Before that, it always known as only the "Valera" Spanish Bible.

Now you know why it's not called the "REINA-VALERA 1602 Purified."  It is because those behind the work chose to follow the old Spanish texts (which left the word "Reina" out), and to not honor a man who was against the Jews.  It is also because it is not a modern translation like the new "REINA-VALERA GOMEZ" Spanish Bible, which follows the wordage of the 1960 ABS Bible in many places. 

(Note:  Before Reina and his 1569 translation there was the Juan Perez de Pineda translation of the Psalms in the 1540s, as well as a translation of the Psalms  by Juan de Valdez around that time, in which they both used Senor (Lord) instead of Jehova.  Reina, therefore, was the first to use Jehova instead of the more commonly used word "Lord" at the time.)

The 1602 Valera Purified New Testament now Available

We now have the Valera 1602 Purified in Spanish available online via Amazon.com at a price of $16.02.  (Price is intended to honor the year of Valera's work of 1602).

It can be ordered by visiting:

https://www.createspace.com/3676224

We are practicing and learning how to use P.O.D. (print on demand), so we have taken the .pdf file of the Valera 1602 Purified New Testament and cut and copied it page by page to make the New Testament of this translation available, as they are hard to get today. 

Thankfully, though, more whole Bibles shall be printed soon, as the plan is to print the newest, updated version in December.  I hope we can find a way to make these available online as well.

Sincerely,

Robert Breaker

My books now available online

I'm going through and getting my books online available for people to order through Amazon.com.  I'm not finished, but I'm getting there.  My first book, "A Brief History of the Spanish Bible" is now up.  I've gone through and rewritten it and added a lot of information.  (It's no longer that "brief.)  I've even put a comparison chart in it of all the Spanish Bibles used today, and the chart does well to prove the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible is truly the best available Spanish Bible out there.  Soon, my books "The History and Truth About the Spanish Bible Controversy" and "The History and Truth About the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible" will also be available.  I've done an exhaustive revision of them both and they have a lot more information in them.  I hope my latest book about the Spanish Bible will be available soon.  It's entitled, "The Spanish Bible: its Inception and Those Courageous Men Behind its Translations."  But I'm still revising it extensively.

My other books I'll slowly be adding as well.  So for those interested in obtaining a copy, please go to my bookstore by clicking the link below:

http://www.rrb3.com/bookstore/bookstore_index.htm

Defenders of Verbo

I got an email today from a friend telling me that the 1865 crowd has written an article about me.  So I looked at it:

http://www.valera1865.org/en/bible_corrupters_corner/1602_purified_changed_but_not_purified/index.html

 

As I read it I couldn't help but laugh.  Those who use the word "Verbo" are so out of touch with reality.  They actually think that we believe the word "Verbo" in Spanish is defined as "Verb" in English.  I've never said that.  What I have said, is that the word "Verbo" is the Catholic, new age" word, while the word "Palabra" is the Protestant word used by true Christians throughout the ages.

 

I have even posted on my website Gail Riplinger's great article which does a great job of showing true Christians throughout the ages have rejected the word Verbo (or Verbum in Latin).  Gails work can be found at: 

 

http://www.rrb3.com/PDF%20files/Catholics_Changing_Gods_Name_mailed2.pdf

 

It's sad that those who use the 1865 won't deal with the facts and won't present the truth to people about this word.  The would rather defend it and their translation without presenting the truth, only offering opinions.

 

The truth of the matter is as follows:

 

1.) They completely ignored the fact, which Gail Riplinger documented, that the original 1865, done by Mora, had the word "Palabra" in John 1:1. The American Bible Society changed it to Verbo in 1868.

 

2.) Also, they are calling the 1865 Bible the "Reina, Valera, and Mora." This won't work, as Reina and Valera both had Palabra in John 1:1.

 

3.) Finally, some recent editions of the 1865 Spanish Bible change John 1:9, altering its longstanding "Aquel Verbo" to "Aquella Palabra." This suggests that there is recognition that "Palabra" is the original 1865 reading in other verses, which should likewise be restored in all verses, not just one.

 

These three points were presented to me by Gail Riplinger, and it was her wish that these three points be presented to those who are interested in the Spanish Bible Issue.  For more info on the Spanish Bible Issue please go to:

 

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/spanish_bible_issue.htm

 

Also, check out my comparison chart of the various Spanish Bibles which shows the one that really is the closest to the KJV and its underlying texts at:

 

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/my_comparison_of_spanish_bibles.htm

 

I believe the facts speak for themselves.