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. 

 

Verbo vs. Palabra

When I first started deputation way back in 1998, I was shocked to see that almost all Missionaries to Spanish-Speaking peoples used a Reina-Valera Spanish Bible that was corrupt!  (At that time, they used either the pro-critical text 1960 dynamic equivalence version or the A.B.S. 1909 critical text bible).

            As I read through the 1960 with my KJV, I was greatly appalled at the many doctrinal errors and critical text readings I found.  I then bought the older 1909, and was devastated to find many critical text readings and doctrinal errors in it as well.

            This drove me to study the history of the Spanish Bible, and I found the inconvenient truth that all Bible Societies had done an evil thing.  They had revised all their Reina-Valera Spanish Bible revisions with catholic and/or critical texts.

            Because of this, I bought a facsimile of both the old 1569 of Reina and 1602 of Valera and began reading them myself.  I found that though they were much better, they were not perfect, reading with the corrupt Latin Vulgate time and again, but at least not as much.

            In 2001, the 1865 American Bible Society Spanish translation was resurrected by the Valera Bible Society, and claimed to be the word of God in Spanish.  However, as I studied it, I found it too was full of errors, reading not only with the Latin Vulgate, but also it changed many words with no textual basis to do so.  Although it might have fixed some verses with the KJV, it butchered others, and left others unchanged, reading against the pure texts, often in favor of the modern critical texts.

            Then, in 2002 came the Gomez Bible, which used the corrupt Bible Society translations of 1909 and 1960 as it’s basis, claiming to have “corrected them” with the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.  However, it did not do a thorough job, (as it still has critical text readings), nor did it go back to the original 1602 to retain the pure old Castilian language.  (It’s in modern Spanish).  Further, it changed many synonyms in the Spanish Bible for no reason to do so, which made it read even closer to the modern Spanish NIV than the old 1602! 

            All of these versions also kept the corrupt catholic reading of VERBO in John 1:11, instead of going back to the pure Protestant reading of PALABRA in referring to Jesus Christ.  All the old Spanish Bibles, including the 1543 N.T. of Enzinas, the 1556 N.T. of Juan Perez de Pineda, the 1569 of Reina, and the 1602 of Valera, read “Palabra.”  (Note: The word VERBO did not even appear in Spanish, until it was added by Miguel Scio in his 1793 Spanish translation, translated completely from the catholic Latin Vulgate, in which the word in John 1:1 for Jesus is “Verbum”).

            I couldn’t help but ask myself, “Why did so many so called Bible-Believers use a corrupt Spanish Bible that read closer to the corrupt catholic texts than the pure Protestant Spanish Bibles which dated back closer to the time of our King James Bible?” 

            I still wonder why they do.  The only Spanish Bible ever to go back to those old Protestant texts of the Reformation, and “purify” the Spanish text by taking out any corrupt Vulgate readings, while still remaining true to the Castilian Spanish is The Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.  (It is also the only one today to read PALABRA instead of VERBO). 

Sadly, many of those who claim to be Bible Believers today and preach to Spanish-Speakers don’t appear to even want to hear or know the truth.  Instead, they dogmatically defend their corrupt versions in Spanish, even going so far to proclaim that “Verbo” is better than “Palabra.”

            Gail Riplinger has recently written a great essay on the subject of why Verbo is WRONG, and Palabra is RIGHT!  And boy is it a definitive work on the subject!  She gives proof that the Pope is behind “Verbo” and that that catholic word is also used by modern occultists and New Agers in describing their own god.  She also shows how Erasmus and many others were dogmatically against “Verbo.”

           Below is her treatise on the subject.  I hope it will be informative.  My prayer is that you will read it and pass it along to others, so that they might see the truth about their perversion of the Spanish Scriptures.  What the Spanish-speaking world needs is a pure Spanish Bible, and not a corrupt version done by liberal Bible Societies that prefer critical and catholic text readings over the pure word of God.

            Cipriano de Valera said it best in 1602, “Because it is not right to confirm the certain with the uncertain, the word of God with the word of men.”

            With the mountain of evidence Gail presents in her booklet, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone, when faced with this truth, could defend a Spanish version that uses the catholic, new age word “Verbo” instead of the more correct word “PALABRA.”

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

The Truth about the 1865 Spanish Bible

Way back on November 3, 2010, I posted a blog on my Truth Stands Alone Blog entitled, "A Crash Course on the Spanish Bible Issue," which you can still find and read.  In respose to my article, a man responded on December 30, 2010 with the following words: 

 

"Your history is incorrect regarding Mr Pratt and Mr Mora. Mr Pratt did not work on the 1865 Valera. He was commissioned to do it but did not because of the civil war and health issues. Therefore Mr Mora did the project on his own."

 

I believe this man was probably a defender of the 1865 Spanish Bible, and he probably was just repeating what many who defend that version are repeating, since one of the leaders of that movement has stated this very same thing on many occasions.

 

The statement this man makes above comes from the American Bible Society, and what he is stating is not the whole truth.  I too have received the very same information which the 1865 people have and which they quote for this statement.  But they do not give all the facts.

 

Here, for all the world to see, I give the whole truth about the 1865 Spanish Bible for all to see, for there are those who would have to you only know part of the truth, while they hide the rest, as it doesn't help their position.  Here I will give the whole truth not only about that statement, but also about the corrupt 1865 Spanish Bible.  I hope this article will not be seen as attacking, but rather as objective journalism, as the facts are clearly presented for all to see.

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE

 

According to Essay #16, of the American Bible Society Text and Translation, on pages 25 through 28, we find a written record of how the ABS 1865 Spanish Bible project was started.  I will quote from that work on various ocassions, for it is critical (no pun intended), that you see what that version is, and what the American Bible Society believed, and who worked on that version and what they did.  (I also am not photocopying or reproducing that article in any way, other than simply quoting from it as a credible source in this article).

 

According to page 25, we read:

 

"In March [of 1860] they recommeded that the services of Sr. de Mora of Madrid and the Rev. Mr. H. B. Pratt of Bogota, working with Mr. Brigham, be used to produce a Spanish Bible..."

 

Here we see there were not only two men who were hired to work on the version, but three.

Skipping ahead, the paper continues,

 

"The salaries for Mr. Pratt and Sr. de Mora were set at $1,200 a year each."

 

Then we read the words, "Then eye trouble and the disruption in communication by the Civil War made it necessary for Mr. Pratt (in North Carolina) to withdraw."

 

This makes it look like Mr. Pratt had nothing to do with the work, doesn't it?  But we will see later that he did.  (As it appears his eye trouble came from working on the revision).

 

Continuing in the report, we read,

 

"This enforced withdrawal of Mr. Pratt had caused the Versions committee to consider for a time dropping the project.  The Committee approved Psalms and Proverbs, (1,000 copies each) for publication and requested Sr. de Mora to continue with the Old Testament consulting Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Jones of the Committee and Dr. Brigham, de Mora to continue at the rate of $1000 per year."

 

Here we find three more men who were on the committee and worked on the project, bringing our total to five if we include Pratt, which me still must, as I will prove later.

 

In a May meeting of 1865, one Mr. Holdich presented a lengthy report on the history of the 1865 revision, and concluded:

 

"Athough they may not dare to hope that the work is absolutely perfect, for that would be to claim for it what belongs to nothing human, yet they have strong persuasion that it will be found a very decided improvement on Valera's generally excellent version."

 

He goes on about how they carefully changed words to modernized spelling, while trying to remaim faithful to the old beauty of the Castellan language.

 

Then we are told after the version was finished, that the committee gave a gift of $1000 dollars to Mr. Mora for his work, and I quote from page 26, "The book was published in 1865 with great hopes for wide use in Spanish America."

 

But then on page 27, we read the words of Mr. Pratt (you know, the guy who was supposed to have "dropped out" and not done any work on the 1865).  He says in speaking of Mora and the work:

 

"My good friend Mora, as my long and intimate acquaintance with him qualified me to know, was more than an ordinary master of Spanish, but had not nor could he have a clear notion of critical accuracy so far as the sense was concerned.  In our own division of labor, he was responsible for the language, and I for the critical accuracy of the revision.  He used to pass on over many things that greatly needed mending, without perceiving that need, till I followed after and called his aattention to them.  It is, I assure you, one of the few great disappointments of my life, that I could not go on with him till the work was done; and the more so as two men never wrought toghter in greater harmony than we did." 

 

So even though Pratt did drop out eventually, by his own confession from his own words here presented, he did work together with Mora (and in great harmony, mind you). 

But look also at the words I have underlined in his quote.  He confesses his job was to be responsible for CRITICAL ACCURACY.  What does that mean?  Well, if you know Pratt, and you know the American Bible Society at that time, and you know what was taught in their Bible Schools, then you know that it is talking about the CRITICAL TEXTS!  That Mr. Pratt loved the critical texts is no secret.  In 1893, he produced his own Spanish Bible entitled, "La Versión Moderna" which was based entirely upon the critical texts.

Still, 1865 defenders say it's impossible that Pratt could have inserted critical text readings into the 1865.  They claim number one, he didn't work on that revision at all, (but what we've seen from his own words above he did work some with Mr. Mora), and two, they say that there were no critical texts around in 1865.  But that is an outright lie.  There were critical texts, especial those of Lachman and Tishendorf in the 1850s and 1860s.  Not to mention there existed the corrupt Latin Vulgate, a critical, catolic text.

 

Now, we will look further at the ABS paper.  On page 27 we read that Pratt requested two copies of the finished 1865 so that, and I quote, "...he might note in one of them all the remaining inaccuracies..."

So he kept one for himself, and the other he marked up, no doubt inserting more critical texts readings.  Was this later used by the ABS?  We do not know, but we do know the following from page 27:

 

"Dr. Holdich was distressed at the errors Mr. Pratt then noticed and the latter explained further what had been his part in the work: 

 

'I must say in justification that Mr. Mora had no part of the Bible which I had reviewed except the New Testament (barring the Revelation, which I have here), or that we had made but a partial revision of it, having determined to leave many things unsettled, til we came to revise it again before publication, our intention was to revise the Old Testament once, but the New Test. twice as its CRITICAL ACCURACY [emphasis mine] was most important.'"

 

Notice what he says in this confession.  He says that he was distressed by "errors" noticed by Mr. Pratt.  It appears from context that to him "errors" are places where the 1865 does not read with the critical text.

 

Further, he says that Mora had no part in the translation except the N.T.  So who did it?  Could it have been Pratt working with him on the N.T. before he dropped out?  Could this have been why he had eye trouble?

 

Finally, he says they revised the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice.  Who did the revision???  Was it Mr. Holdich?  Who ever it was, most likely he is the one who added many more critical text readings to the 1865, as it is full of them.

 

Continuing to read the ABS report we read on page 27:

 

"He [Holdich] pointed out that...Mr Mora had no critical knowledge of the Scripture, nor even of the present English version."

 

Did you get that?  Mora had no CRITICAL knowledge.  It appears Mora was only interested in the original 1602 of Valera and reproducing it.  He worked hard at changing the Old Spanish spelling of words to modern Spanish spelling, but he either didn't care or didn't know anything about the critical text readings, so he steered away from them.  It was PRATT, and HOLDICH, who found them, pointed them out, and most likely made changes.

 

Now we come to the last paragraph on page 27, which is a real shocker.  It says:

 

"A point of interest in this connection is committee action in 1868 by which the word 'Palabra' was ordered changed to 'Verbo,' Dr. Schmidt to make a list of the places where this was to be done.  At the next meeting he reported changes to be made in John 1:1, 14, 1 John 1:1, 5:7, and Rev. 19:13."

 

So here we have an interesting confession.  We are told in 1868 the word "Palabra" was ordered changed to "Verbo" in the 1865 edition.  So that means there must have been an 1865 edition where it said "PALABRA."  Thus, that means there was more than one edition of the 1865!

If you look at the 1865 that is being sold today, you'll see it says "verbo."  So is it really even an 1865, or is it instead an 1868 revision of the 1865? 

 

That needs to be addressed, especially, when you have yahoos going around saying things like, "We need to defend every word of the 1865!"  How can they do that if the version they are using isn't the 1865, but a revision of it done in 1868???

 

Anyway, on page 28, we find an interesting paragraph with a lot of information.  There we read:

 

"About this time [1868] in writing to Mr. Girdlestone of the BFBS, Dr. Holdich said he was at a loss to know what to do about a Spanish Bible.  The ABS edition was better than the Valera but what were they to do?  [Note: it was better in their eyes because they were pro-critical text and they added Critical Text readings.]  All the criticisms came from Mexico and South America.  'We do not know how far to rely on them!'  He would like a comparison of the BFBS and ABS editions.  There should be one as near perfect as possible and both Societies use it.  'How can this be secured?' "

 

Look at what we find in this paragraph.  Dr. Holdich of the ABS (American Bible Society) wrote to a member of the BFBS (British Foreign Bible Society), and proclaimed his 1865 (or 1868) was better than the Valera.  To him I'm sure it was, as it had been mixed with critical texts, which he believed were the "older and more reliable" texts.  But then he confesses that there were many criticisms of the 1865 from Mexico and South America!   That means many Spanish Christians did not like it or accept it!  Probably because they weren't in favor of the critical texts!

And then he says they should work together to get a near perfect as possible Spanish Bible. 

Interestingly enough, they did work together to produce the 1909 Reina-Valera Spanish revision, which became very widely accepted and even was the standard Spanish protestant Bible in Central and South America for over 70 years (until it was replaced by the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible).  (Note: the 1909 was not perfect as it too has critical text readings).

 

So there you have it.  We clearly see from the ABS Text and Translation history that the 1865 Spanish Bible was produced by men who were pro-critical texts, and who inserted many critical texts into their translation.  We also see that their version was NOT ACCEPTED and was very much criticized by people in Mexico and South America.  And the fruit of the 1865 (or 1868), was to get them to produce another Bible, the 1909.

 

Years ago Dr. Floyd Dallis wrote of the corruption in the 1865 Spanish Bible, and adamant defenders of the 1865 lamblasted him and said his claims were unfounded lies.  I'll let you decide for yourself as I quote from Dr. Floyd Dallis:

 

"Dr. Pratt made the most of his textual changes because of the then recent discoveries of Dr. Tishendorf.  Thus, of all the revision to this date, this one had more changes in the text bassed on Westcott and Hort corruptions.  About 100,000 chagnes were made in wording.  Dr. Pratt and Dr. Mora began their work in 1861.  Because of the numerous corruptions of this edition, the 1909 was published!  Note the 1909 was therefore published to correct the corruptions of the 1865 of the ABS!"

 

Now two things are obviously wrong with this statement.  First, Westcott and Hort didn't come on the scene until 1881 with their own published critical greek text.  Second, Pratt and Mora started in 1860, not 1861. 

 

But the rest of the quote seems pretty much right on the line!  Especially with the evidence we have just seen as we read through ABS's own history of that version.

 

With all this information, how could anyone who claims to be a Bible Believer who loves God and wants a pure Spanish Bible use the 1865?  We don't even know if it really is an 1865.  For what those who use an 1865 are preaching from says "Verbo" which our source tells us is what was changed in 1868. 

 

But even after reading all of this evidence, there will still be some who will seek to defend the 1865 and try to deny the truth.  It is for them, that I continue with a little more evidence. 

 

THE CRITICAL TEXT READINGS IN THE 1865 ABS

 

We will assume that the 1865 being pushed today is the original 1865.  We don't know this, but we'll assume it.  And we will take the version that they are printing and look at some places where it does not line up with the Textus Reptus and the King James Bible.  In fact, we'll prove that it instead lines up with the critical texts.  Eight examples should be sufficient to prove the point.  (For even one critical text reading against the textus receptus and King James in favor of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus is too many!)

 

However, before going further, let me state that in my first book, "A Brief look at the History of the Spanish Bible,"  I pointed out a list of problems in the 1865 Spanish Bible.  After that, those behind the 1865 Spanish Bible printed the 1865 with fifty changes to the text (many of which are those same errors I listed in my book), and these were listed in the back of their version under the title of "Errata."  (If this is not a confession that the original 1865 was in error, I don't know what is).

 

Because of this, many brethern accused those behind the 1865 of being deceitful in continuing to call that version the 1865, as it was no longer the 1865, but a revision of it done in 2005.  They claimed it should have been called either a 2005 Reina Valera, or a 2005 revision of the 1865.

Those behind the 1865 later undid those fifty changes (many of which were critical text readings removed), in order to defend the original 1865, claiming it alone was the word of God, and that no version after 1881 (when Westcott and Hort put out their critical text) could ever be anything more than a "Laodicean" version of the scriptures.  (So what did that make their 2005 edition?)

 

8 PLACES THE 1865 READS WITH THE CRITICAL TEXTS 

 

Matt. 24:2  Omits the word Jesus following the Latin Vulgate

 

Mark 15:3  Removes "mas el no respondió nada" following the Vulgate

 

Luke 9:43   Removes the word Jesus as do Aleph, B, and the Vulgate

 

Jn 14:28      Changes "mi padre" to "el padre"as do Aleph, B. and the Vulgate (see also 16:10,25 and (8:28)

 

Acts 16:10   Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

 

Acts 17:27    Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

 

Acts 22:16    Removes the words El Señor reading with the Vulgate and the critical texts

 

James 1:12   Changes Señor to Dios following the Latin Vulgate reading

 

 

CHANGES IN THE 1865 WITH NO TEXTUAL BASIS

 

Not only does the 1865 follow the critical texts against the King James and Textus Receptus, it also makes many strange changes with no textual basis for doing so.  Below are a few examples:

 

Matt. 8:1         Adds Jesus to the verse when there is no textual basis to do so!

 

Mark 6:44      Omits the word como

 

Mark 8:25      Adds the words de lejos  

 

Acts 8:16        Omits Señor

 

Acts 8:25       Changes Señor to Dios

 

2 Cor. 10:18  Changes Señor to Dios, following no text on earth!

 

1 Tim. 6:1      Changes Dios to Señor with no textual basis to do so

 

2 Tim. 4:14   Changes Señor to Dios, for no reason following no text

     

 

These are just a few of the many places in which the 1865 version has changed the true Reina-Valera Bible, departing not only in favor of the critical texts, but making changes with no texual basis to do so whatsoever!  It's almost like whoever revised it decided they liked to interchange God and Lord back and forth anytime they so desired.

 

IN SUMMARY

 

The mountain of evidence given in this brief blog should be sufficient to any true Bible believer that the 1865 spanish Bible is not worth wasting your time with.  Although it has greatly improved some verses to match even closer to the KJV, it has also destroyed other verses by making them read with the critical texts, and decimated even other verses by changing words which don't match with any text on the face of the earth!

 

Those who defend the 1865 claim to be KJV in English.  If so, how do they reconcile the fact that their Spanish version doesn't line up with the English version?  And how can they claim (as they do) that the KJV is perfect, and then claim their 1865 is perfect when they don't say the same thing?

 

It is up to you, dear reader, with the evidence presented here to decide for yourself what to do with the 1865 (or is it an 1868?) Spanish Bible.  Facts have been given which cannot be denied from those who commissioned the work to be done (the American Bible Society).  I have also tried to give evidence within the pages of the 1865 itself which prove it reads with the critical texts, and I've given information about how those who push the 1865 have revised it, but then gone back to the old version, proving they are not really interested at all in a pure Spanish Bible that lines up with their English King James.

 

But, you mark my words, those who defend the 1865 will not deal with the facts, or the evidence.  They will continue to do what they have always done, which is to try to explain away the obvious, and say that facts have been "twisted" or "taken out of context." 

 

If falls upon you then, dear reader, to study this issue for yourself and see who is telling the truth.  And please don't allow yourself to be taken off the trail with side arguements.  Stick to the facts as I have done. 

 

Eventually, if you will study with an open mind, you will find exactly what I have found, that the purest Spanish Bible available today is the 1602 Purified Spanish Bible. 

Un breve perfil del asunto de la biblia hispana

Por muchos años estuve siguiendo el asunto de la Biblia Hispana, y estuve vigilando la batalla de los Fundamentalistas uno contra el otro acerca de cuál Biblia en Español es la correcta. Y estuve mirándolos, que todos están consecuentemente EQUIVOCADOS en cuál Biblia ellos eligen, cómo cada uno defiende una versión que está mezclada con cualquiera de los textos católicos, los textos críticos, y/o un español moderno en vez del hermoso castellano antiguo de España, como la antigua Reina-Valera de 1602. A como yo veo la refriega, no puedo hacer sentido a la vez, que Dios me haya arrojado justo en el centro de la controversia, en orden de enseñarme algunas cosas, y entonces usarme para ayudar a los hispanos a aprender acerca de la historia de su Biblia, y apuntarles a la pura palabra de Dios en su idioma. Al mirar atrás hace varios años, yo veo cabalmente cómo Dios me usó en una poderosa manera para mostrar a los hablantes de Inglés y Español sobre la verdad que circunda la controversia de la Biblia Hispana, y la práctica moderna de Fariseos quienes hipócritamente esconden la verdad sobre sus versiones corruptas, con el objeto de engañar a las masas. Por años, escribí muchos libros del asunto de la Biblia Hispana y los he visto impresos y distribuidos ampliamente, con mucha positiva retroalimentación. Gail Riplinger me dijo personalmente: “El lo que a mí concierne, Ud. Es la mayor autoridad en el asunto de la Biblia Hispana y la historia de la Biblia Española.”  Tan engorroso como esto puede ser, reconozco que aun tengo mucho qué aprender. Pero estoy feliz y agradecido que Dios me ha dado un propósito y razon por mi ministerio.  Entonces, continuo predicando la verdad sobre las versiones de la biblia castellana varias, y apuntado a los hispanos a la biblia mas pura en su lenguaje.

Para ustedes que no saben nada sobre este asunto, doy lo sugiente breve perfil...

LA REVISION REINA-VALERA 1960. Por casi medio siglo, los fundamentalistas han defendido inexorablemente la popular Biblia Hispana 1960, ahora conocida como la “Versión corona”. Pero cuando esa versión salió en los tempranos 1950´s (apareció solamente en el texto del Nuevo Testamento, y era una edición bilingüe impresa con la Revised Standard Version en Inglés) ¡ningún fundamentalista pudo tocarla con un décimo de pie! No fue sino hasta que ellos imprimieron las notas de Scofield, que algunos fundamentalistas la compraron. Entonces eventualmente más lo hicieron, y finalmente se convirtió en la Biblia estándar de los fundamentalistas por los próximos cuarenta años. (Tristemente, ellos la compraron más que todo por las NOTAS, no por el TEXTO) Así fue como los misioneros fundamentalistas, quienes son “Rey Jaime Solamente” en inglés, hipócritamente se convirtieron a la Versión Revisada Estándar en español. Entonces, vinieron unos cuantos muchachos como yo mismo, quienes de hecho leímos la 1960 con la King James, y fuimos espantados con las muchas diferencias. Nosotros entonces comenzamos a preguntar,  ¿porqué otros misioneros, los cuales únicamente usan la King James en inglés, y están contra la Versión Estándar Revisada inglesa, podrían usar una Biblia española que lee como la Estándar Revisada en muchos lugares? Esto cabalmente no hace sentido. Eventualmente, un misionero en Guatemala encontró un libro de José Flores (un asesor consultivo de la revisión1960) en el cual el autor declaró que la Biblia Hispana 1960 fue cotejada con la Versión Estándar Revisada inglesa y los TEXTOS CRÍTICOS en esa revisión. Yo mismo y otros  comenzamos a puntualizar fuera de esto, así como los muchos ERRORES DOCTRINALES en la 1960. También demostramos la influencia de Eugenio Nida y su condenable doctrina de EQUIVALENCIA DINÁMICA, la cual enseña que un hombre no tiene que traducir las palabras, sino solamente la idea o el mensaje detrás de las palabras. (Esto permite al traductor convertirse en su propio “intérprete”, bastante más que un honesto y objetivo traductor) Pero a causa de exponer la verdad, fuimos etiquetados como “hacedores de problemas” y “Atacadores de la Biblia” en vez de verdaderos Creyentes Bíblicos, nosotros quienes buscamos una Biblia pura para ganar a los hispanos. 

LA REVISION REINA-VALERA 1909

No todos los fundamentalistas siguieron la corriente de la 1960. Unos cuantos se atascaron en la antigua 1909, y a causa de ello fueron a menudo ridiculizados y atacados por los seguidores de la 1960. Muchos denunciaron que era “arcaica” y “caduca”, y otros solo despedazaron a favor de la más popular 1960. Por mucho un dogmático fundamentalista quien conoció su Biblia y vio los horrendos errores de la 1960 no quiso renunciar. Él estuvo firme en su convicción de usar la antigua 1909, la cual fue conocida como la “antigua versión.” Pero cuando se confrontó con la verdad, que la 1909 fue hecha por hombres quienes no sólo favorecieron los textos críticos, pero también los usaron en su traducción, muchos que usaban la 1909 se desconcertaron.  Eventualmente ellos desearon una Biblia pura basada en los textos puros subyacentes a la Biblia Rey Jaime, y no una versión mezclada con los textos críticos de hombres. Entonces ellos comenzaron a buscar algo más.

EL NUEVO TESTAMENTO DE ENZINAS DE 1543

Un movimiento comenzó en Arizona en los 1990´s para resucitar el Nuevo Testamento de Francisco de Enzinas de 1543, el trabajo de un docto y bien conocido protestante español. Fue reimpreso en castellano antiguo (en donde la “s” es una “f” y la “v” es una “b”, etc.) pero vio muy poca distribución y aceptación por muchos fundamentalistas. No obstante fue mucho mejor que la 1960 y 1909, también tuvo problemas con católicos que cambiaron algunas cosas después que Enzinas hizo su trabajo. Entonces no fue muy pura.

LA BIBLIA HISPANA 1865 A.B.S.

Entonces en 2001 Jeff McCardle y Paul Garcia trataron de resucitar la Biblia Hispana 1865. Yo estuve allí cuando ellos reunieron un grupo de hombres para mostrarles la versión que ellos hallaron y cómo ellos trataron de convencernos de todo eso, y yo los cito: “La verdadera palabra de Dios en Español.” Con su lista de 200 versículos que mostraron, la 1865 era mejor que la 1960 y 1909, y cercana a la Rey Jaime, algunas personas rápidamente aceptaron la 1865. Yo estuve escéptico, y no lo hice, determinando estudiar más. Yo busqué y halle que el Sr. H. B. Pratt quien trabajó en la 1865 (con un hombre de apellido Mora) estuvo muy predispuesto alrededor de los textos críticos (tanto que él produjo una versión en 1893 basada enteramente en ellos, llamada "La Version Moderna"), y que él insertó algunas lecturas del texto crítico en la 1865. Él también cambió muchas palabras sin base textual para hacer tanto (frecuentemente cambiando “Dios” a “Señor” o viceversa ¡por ninguna razón!) Con una lista yo hallé que sobre 50 lugares en la 1865, se lee contra la Rey Jaime o con los textos críticos, y fui con Jeff McCardle para hablar con Peter S. Ruckman sobre el asunto. Jeff estuvo dispuesto escribiendo un artículo en el boletín de Ruckman titulado “Boletín Bíblico Bautista”, en el cual él estableció que los hablantes hispanos pudiesen defender “cada palabra de la Biblia hispana 1865.” Frente a la verdad, Jeff eventualmente hizo 50 cambios en su consentida 1865, a favor de la Rey Jaime y los textos puros, pero de último él decidió deshacer esos cambios, como ellos no iban junto a su enseñanza, de que ninguna Biblia después de 1881 pudo haber sido la preservada palabra de Dios.

A causa de su espaldarazo, y no deseando purificar su versión más adelante, Jeff hubo perdido mucha credibilidad, y su movimiento y su Sociedad Bíblica Valera, están sufriendo ahora por causa de ello. Emanuel Rodriguez (quien ahora está a favor de la nueva Biblia de Gómez) recientemente escribió un buen artículo en el Internet exponiendo a Jeff McCardle y su ilógica y bamboleante posición doctrinal.

LA BIBLIA HISPANA 1602 PURIFICADA

La próxima versión que viene, adelanta lo que McCardle no hizo, y que realizó una extensiva revisión de la original Valera 1602, con los textos puros subyacentes a nuestra Biblia King James. Es la Valera 1602 Purificada (también conocida como la 1602 TR en el Nuevo Testamento o la 1602 Monterrey, siendo la misma Biblia) Quienes trabajaron en esta versión son Hispanos de origen (no Americanos como McCardle) Ellos son Bautistas Independientes, muy fundamentalistas cristianos, localizados en Monterrey, México. Como iglesia local, ellos trabajaron por 15 años purificando la Biblia Hispana para acercarla y alinearla con el Texto Recibido y el Texto Hebreo Masorético.

Siguiendo las advertencias de Cipriano de Valera en el prefacio de su versión 1602, ellos fueron directamente atrás a la original 1602 y comenzaron desde allí. (Nota: la 1602 original no fue impresa muy exactamente como la edición de Valera 1602, algo que las Sociedades Bíblicas han tomado bastante para “revisar” (“cambiar”) en muchos pasajes para que lea más a favor de los textos católicos, y que sea posible distribuir en países católicos. Por esta razón biblias modernas como la 1960, 1909, 1865, la nueva Gómez, y otras retienen el término católico “verbo” en vez del correcto término protestante “Palabra” al hablar de Jesu Cristo.)

Aquellos detrás de la 1602 Purificada también fueron verso por verso con todas las Antiguas Biblias protestantes, como también la Rey Jaime, ellos hicieron un escrutinio de cada versículo  con el Texto Recibido y el Texto Hebreo Masorético. Lo que ellos produjeron fue el más exhaustivo y escolástico trabajo hecho por ALGUNO en la faz de la tierra, dando a los Hispano-hablantes una Biblia que lee no sólo con los Textos Puros (en vez de los textos críticos) pero que también retiene el antiguo español castellano de Reina y Valera, en vez del moderno español (como hace la Gómez)

La Valera 1602 Purificada está endosada por Gail Riplinger, como la correcta Biblia española, no solo por causa del arduo trabajo (oración y ayuno) involucrado, pero también a causa de elegir usar las antiguas PALABRAS PROTESTANTES en vez de las modernas palabras CATÓLICAS. También es la única Biblia hispana que usa “SEÑOR” siguiendo la  Biblia Rey Jaime (que usa LORD en mayúsculas) en el Antiguo Testamento, en vez de “Jehová.”

Después que la Valera 1602 Purificada salió en 2,002 (exactamente 400 años después de la revisión 1,602) no fue muy bien recibida. La razón, porque muchos fundamentalistas permanecen en una actitud de ataque. Ellos usan tanto la 1909 como la 1960 y no quieren nada más, como lo que su “grupo” ha usado por muchas décadas (yo les llamo “grupistas” que usan una Biblia porque otros en su grupo lo hacen, no por que ellos deseen una Biblia pura para el pueblo de habla hispana)

Conforme la mentalidad de su “grupo” o “campo”, ellos prefieren atacar más que estudiar el asunto, y rápidamente menoscaban el exhaustivo trabajo de la Valera 1602 Purificada.

Ellos hasta han regado el rumor que el pastor Raúl Reyes era un “homosexual”  (¿No son el tipo de divertidos enemigos de la Rey Jaime los que dicen las mismas cosas?) y muchos otros degradantes apelativos.

Los que hicieron la obra de la Valera 1602 Purificada fueron atacados vehementemente por los fundamentalistas apóstatas, pero no les moletaron.  No, ellos decidieron trabajar sólo y dejar a su criticos ladrar.  Cómo Pastor Raul reyes dijo, "Tuvimos que tomar una decisión.  Tomar tiempo para escribir las cartas y correos electrónicos de nuestros atacadores o dejar sus ataques de niños para hacer la obra de Dios, confiando en El para ayudarnos tener una Biblia pura para el mundo hispano."
Asi, decidieron terminar su obra y dejarla hablar por si mismo.  (Lo que ella hace por leer completemente con los textos puros contra los textos criticos, mientras que se retiene el lenguajedel castellano del original antigua 1602 de Valera).
Cuando fue primeramente imprimida, sólo como un Nuevo Testamento (la biblia entera salió a luz en 2007), los al lado de la 1960 que lo atacó mostraron su ignorancia de su propio idioma por atacar la palabra "Palabra" en vez de "Verbo."  Mucho ni siquieran a visto a un original 1602, ni sabían que todas versiónes protestantes antiguas usaron "Palabra" en hablar de Cristo y no la palabra CATOLICA "Verbo."
Aquellos que usaron la 1960 defendiendo su versión se probaron que fueron mas interesados en politicos en vez de la pureza de las palabras de Dios.  Sin embargo, lo mas que ellos ladraron contra la Purificada 1602, lo más curiosos fueron la gente y lo más que la buscaron.  Asi, aprendieron que la mejor manera mantener la Purificada fuera de los manos de las multitudes fue simplemente ignorarla y no mencionarla mas.  Y esto es  exactamente lo que ellos hicieron, y lo que estan haciendo ahora, ni siquiera mencionandola en favor de una versión moderna que se llama la Gomez. (Nota:  Muchos que ahora estan al favor de la Gomez son los mismos que usaron la 1960 y atacaron a la 1602 Purificada).

La Moderna Gomez de 2004/2010

Después que salió la 1602 Purificada, algunos Fundamentalistas sabios comenzaron realizar que jamas no pudieron negar la verdad que ambos la 1909 y la 1960 contienen problemas, adicciónes, lectores criticos, y errores doctrinales.  Eventualmente los ataques se bajaron y los hispanos fundamentales realizaron que las problemas en sus versions no pudeiron se negado.  Asi, escogieron a discutir mas sobre el asunto, y vez de debatirlo.
Durante este tiempo, un Sr. Humberto Gomez, un Fundamentalista Independeniente Bautista y un misionero a su pais nativo de Mexico, decidió hacer su propia versión de la biblia en Español, revisando la 1909.  Sin conocer nada del Hebreo ni el Griego, he creyó que Dios le mandó a comenzar en revisar la biblia española, y así lo hizo.
La primera edición de su Nuevo Testamento salió en 2004, y pronto fue llamado la RVG '04 (o la Reina-Valera Gomez '04).  Interesantemente, muchos han dicho que la primera edición de la Gomez lea muy cerca con la Valera 1602 Purificada (la cual el usó en sus iglesias por algún tiempo), y dicen que ellos pensaron que él usó la Purificada en su revisión, cambiando palabras con sinónimas para que la obra se parece como su propio obra.  Si esta es la verdad o no, quizás nunca sabremos, sin embargo debemos mencianarlo, porque paraece que el copió mucho de la 1602 Purificada.
La verdad es que cuando salió la Gomez en su primera edición del Nuevo Testamento, ¡fue lleno de MUCHOS ERRORES y PROBLEMAS!  Por ejemplo, en 1 Cor. 7, la dio permiso a un padre casarse con su propio hija!  (Si, lo leiste correcto).  Y en Juan capítulo 2, lo tenía a Cristo en una fiesta donde la gente estaban "borrachos" tomando liquor.  (Si, tambien lo leiste correcto).
Pero en vez de recebir ataques por su obra por los fundamentalistas modernas, el encontró muchos que quisieron cambiar a su lado y ayudarle en su obra. (Pienso que no leyeron su primera edición, porque se la leyeron, no se como pudieron aceptarla).
Su "ayuda" consistía de enviar al tal Gomez sugerencias por medio del correo electrónico de cosas que el debería cambaiar.  Mientras que Sr. Gomez no sabía nada de Hebreo ni Griego, el buscó el ayuda de un Sr. Donald Waite, y juntos trabajaron en hacer su traducción mas cerca de los textos puros.  Sin embargo, Gomez insistió que el quedará como la "autoridad final" en el proyecto, según lo que el ha dicho con sus propios palabras.  (Por esto, todavía se llama la Reina Valera GOMEZ).
La Gomez ahora esta en su quinta edición.  Muchos fundamentalists estan adoptandola y aún Publicaciónes Chick la imprimen.  (Ellos la llaman la Gomez 2010).
Pero, mientras que yo he estudiado esta versión, encontré algo interestante.  Aunque que jacta de ser una revisión de la antigua 1909, en muchos lugares las igual con el corrupto 1960, usando las mismas palabras y cambiando las oraciones para leer igual con la orden de la 1960.  (Es a decir que la Gomez es nada mas que una revisión de la 1960).
Algunos han pensado que el razón es que Sr. Gomez querría que la gente que usan la Gomez cambiarán a su versión, sabiendo que lea muy cerca de su 1960.
Lo que sea, Sr. Gomez y su biblia han aumentado a un movimiento politico hoy en dia, mientras que aquellos que la usan adoran y hasta elevan al Sr. Gomez mas que las palabras puras de Dios.  Y la biblia Gomez, aunque que es cierto que lea mas cerca al Rey Jaime en algunos partes, todavia retiene la palabra católica VERBO en vez de la palabra protestante "Palabra".
Ademas, los seguidores de Gomez dogmaticamente llaman a la Gomez "Las palabras preservadas de Dios en Español."  Pero, ¿Es la verdad?
La pregunta que debemos cuestionar es:  ¿Esperó Dios hasta Gomez para darnos las palabras puras preservadas?  Y si, entonces, ¿Qué tal con aquel pasaje que permite al padre casar con su hija?  Fue esto Dios preservando su palabra pura?
También debemos preguntar, ¿Quiso Dios las sinónimas muchas que Gomez escogió usar en su versión, las cuales no se hallan en la original 1602, para ser sus palabras preservadas en Español, o ya nos dio Dios sus palabras preservados por los sigos desde 1602 y debemos honrar y guardar estas palabras antiguas lo mas posible?   (Como aquellos que nos dio la Valera 1602 Purificada han hecho).

RESUMEN

La controversia de la Biblia Castellana has sido lleno de muchos peleas amargas y ataques por fundamentalistas modernas quienes batallan sobre cual biblia que ellos piensen es la biblia mejor en Español.  Usualmente, su razon que su versión es mejor es porque un hombre en su grupo lo dice y usa o ha usado por anos aquella versión.  Pero pocos quieron hacer el trabajo duro de comparar todas la versiones con el Rey Jaime y los textos puros para ver si su versión es pura.  En vez de buscar las palabras puras de Dios para llevarlas al mundo hispano, estan feliz en llevarles algo, mientras que saben que contiene palabras catolicas, criticas y/o sinónimos del hombre.
Para mi, mi deseo es a llevar al mundo hispano la palabras PURAS de Dios, lire de textos criticos y católicos.  Y, creo que la palabra pura de Dios en Español es la Valera 1602 Purificada, la cual es CASTELLANA antigua (no Español moderna) y es la mas cerca del Rey Jaime en English y los textos atras de ella, y también es el más cerca del antiguo 1602 y los textos PROTESTANTES de la reformation Española.
Pero mientras que veo a los fundamentalistas, veo que ellos no tienen interes de tener una biblia española pura.  Me parece que estan mas interesados en los politicos.  Y en vez de hablar to de los TEXTOS (Las palabras preservadas de Dios), sólo quieren atacar o adorar a los hombres -- Los TRADUCTORES (a los hombres).
Fundamentalistas han sidos EQUIVOCADOS antes en embrazar a la 1960 y la 1865.  ¿Es posible qué también estan equivocados en aceptar a la versión modern como la Gomez?  Debes decidirlo por si mismo.  Y la única manera decidir es por medio de estudiarlo por si mismo.
Yo lo estudié, y sólo uso la Valera 1602 Purficada en predicar y enseñar.  Y lo hago sólo después de haber estudiado el asunto.  De mis estudios, llegé a la conclusión única que la Valera 1602 Purificada es la Biblia Española mas pura disponible hoy en dia.  Pero no tomas mi palabra.  Hay que hacer lo que yo hice.  Agarra a la antigua 1602, y a todas la biblia antiguas protestantes (la 1543 Enzinas, la 1556 Juan Perez de Pineda, la Biblia de Ferrara de 1553, y muchos mas), y compararlas versículo por versículo con las 1865, la 1909, la 1960, la Gomez y el Rey Jaime.  Y econtrarás lo que yo encontré, que la Valera 1602 Purificada en Castellana (igual que el KJV es inglés antigua elizabethana), y que ella lea en favor mas con los textos del reformación protestante, mientras que la 1865, 1909, 1960 y la Gomez lean mas cerca con los textos criticos.  Y aunque la Gomez jacta de haber quitado cada lectura crítica de su versión, lea mas cerca con la 1960 y la NVI en muchos lugares.
Así es un perfil de la controversía de la Biblia en Español.  Fundamentalistas necesitan terminar el "grupismo" y "politicos".  Y deben estar ocupados en comenzar "grupos de estudio" para verificar la verdad. 
Para más información, favor vaya a mi página del red:

http://www.rrb3.com/