by José Luis Torres

As the writer of this article, and editor of the present publication, I am moved by my conscience to respond to the accusations that the Reina-Valera (RV) version of the Spanish Bible is corrupt and unreliable. What I now write, is my personal position, not one representative of an association, or convention; not even of the church sponsoring this ministry; though I am certain, many other men, in different circles, no doubt will agree with what is being said here.

Many a man, some honest, some I do not think they are have taken the task on themselves to compare, revise, and update the Reina-Valera. What is said in here, could be construed as an attack on these men, or as lack of consideration towards their person; but I assure you, dear reader, that what moves me is a zeal for the Word of God, its Author, and the precious souls whose eternity lies on what is said therein.

If in the process of explaining the so called "problems" of the RV, some heads fall off; so be it. I have no ties that bind me to anyone for flattery; nor do I owe my salary to any Convention, or Association, or American church, that I might fear to say what so strongly beats in my heart, as a truth rooted up in my bowels: the truth that God has given His Spanish people a copy of His preserved, pure Eternal Holy Word.

You can take what I am about to discuss any way you want, but I am only stating my position, sharing my findings, and my convictions; and informing, moved by the convictions my conscience has lead me to accept. I could not do otherwise. I love God and His Word, and will always do all I can to defend it, proclaim it, and to preach it, regardless of the consequences; so help me God!

Let me try to state my position and share my findings in the most brief way possible, since the subject is not a small one, in any sense of the word:

1. First of all let me say that I believe in the doctrine of the preservation of God's Word. I believe God has preserved His Word in the Spanish language through the Reina-Valera either the 1909, or the 1960 versions. I believe with all my heart, that it is just as much the Word of God, as the King James Version of the Bible KJV, and I also humbly believe, it is a superior translation than the KJV. I always took both my RV Spanish Bible and my KJV Bible to every class while in seminary; including the four years of Greek, and the three of Hebrew I took , and 90 % of the time, when a comment was made in class about the meaning of a passage or a better way a verse could have been translated, the Spanish Bible was right. I have checked this with other Fundamental American Baptist missionaries in the Latin American field, and most of them have agreed to that, only a few would admit it publicly, because of the KJV issue.

2. I believe it is a disgrace to the cause of Christ, that men, however well minded they may be, with little, if any, knowledge of either the textual issue, the biblical languages, and most of all, the Spanish language; give themselves to the task of giving us, "poor, ignorant Spanish people", a perfect Bible in our language. I resent that.

3. The so called "problems" with the Spanish Bible, are due to, or can be explained with, either of the following:

1. Lack of understanding of the Textual issue. It is a fact, that only 95% of the Bible is accounted for in the extant Greek MSS (We don't think there is a problem with the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament). There are few minor portions of the NT, which would not jeopardize any doctrine of the Christian faith, that just could not be found in accord in the 5,000 plus extant Greek MSS. I believe that God allowed that, and that said unaccounted portion gives room to differences between two versions of the Bible in like number of languages. Erasmus himself, unable to find some portions of the New Testament in any Greek MS available to him, had to do his own translation from the Latin Vulgate. After explaining the supposedly "corrupted" portions of the Spanish Bible that deal with doctrine, what is left can be accounted for with this fact.

Other sincere men say that inasmuch the Reina-Valera does not line up word for word to the KJV it is corrupt, and that the Reina-Valera needs to be brought the touchstone, which is the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV. That sounds very much like Ruckmanism, because, in the first place, the KJV does not line up with the Textus Receptus itself. There are words not italicized in the KJV that are not in the original Greek that supposedly underlies the KJV, i.e., the Greek text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. Two examples of that are: Hebrews 11:6 where the word "diligently" is not in the original Greek, [although it certainly adds emphasis] to the word "seek". Another example is in 1 Peter 2:2, where the words "of the word" were added in the English text without proper Greek authority.

Also, to which of the Textus Receptus does every Bible should be brought in line to? According to Edward Miller, author of a book reprinted by the Dean Burgon Society (staunch defender of the KJV 1611, and of the Traditional texts; of which society, Dr. D.A. Waite is the president, who is the author of DEFENDING THE KING JAMES VERSION: Fourfold Superiority of the KJV, and is the president of THE BIBLE FOR TODAY, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108 · (609) 854-4452) that in his time:

The text of Stephen, which was afterwards carefully reproduced by Mill, has been generally taken in England as the standard or 'Received' text, and that of the Elzevirs has been thus regarded on the continent. (A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. A Dean Burgon Society Reprint: by Edward Miller, Collingswood, New Jersey, 1979; pages 11, 12)

We see, then, that there were at least two Textus Receptus acknowledged in the last century; not considering that before his death, Erasmus himself produced five editions of his own Greek Text, and that after him, by 1551, four more editions were produced by Stephen, five more by Beza, and two more by the Elzevirs. The last one, published by 1633, contained the famous phrase Received Text for the first time.

What Textus Receptus, then, should be the measuring rod? Since by the admission of the KJV 1611 authorities:

The translators, however, of our Authorized Version did not adhere exclusively to any of the chief editions. When their authorities were at variance, they sometimes in their interpretation [are the translators inspired?] to the 'Received Text' followed Beza, sometimes Stephen, sometimes the Complutensians, Erasmus, or the Latin Vulgate. (Ibid., Miller, page 12 - words in brackets mine)

Therefore, to try to make a translation in one language line up with the underlying text of another in a different language, not having for sure, a bounded book to refer to as such (the underlying Textus Receptus), is a different breed of Ruckmanism. Two different teams (The RV translators), in two different geographical locations (one in England under the protection of the King James, and the other on the run all over Europe), at two different times (the RV translators during the 1560's, and the KJV fifty one years later; i.e., in 1611), obviously using two different editions of the Textus Receptus, CANNOT (I repeat) cannot produce two translations of the Bible exactly the same word for word.

2. I do not believe God would have one modern language over another, to preserve His Word, and make it a standard for the rest of the languages spoken in the world. I believe this idea has its roots in the arrogant American mind, that has lead many to believe that God is going to save the world through the Americans; who act as if the president of the US. was God's Messiah for this age, or as if the continental U.S.A. was the promised land, and the American people was the chosen people. Some preach as if God was more concerned with preserving this country, than His glory and honor. We Christians have our own form of Armstrongnism, do we not?

Therefore, I believe each Bible, the KJV and the Spanish RV, is just as much the Word of God as the other; and the differences between them, and I mean, the real differences, can be accounted for in the same way the Synoptic problem, or the problem with the accounts in the historical books of the Bible, can be accounted for. You do not let ignorance make you throw away your Bible. The things you cannot explain in difficult passages of the KJV, only make you study those passages more carefully, not to throw your Bible away. Why not do likewise with the Spanish Bible. Why not wait until well versed men, or new findings, shed new light on the issue?

Someone wrote to me and said: "I applaud every effort and zeal for a perfect Bible." I am sorry, but I do not "applaud every man who has zeal [but lacks basic translation skills and common sense], for a perfect Bible. . ." The men involved with the translation of the RV were not novices in the work they were doing; they were polyglots. I mean, they did not just have some exposure to several languages (including the biblical languages), they were experts in them.

3. Some of the "problems" are only seen by those ignorant of the original languages. For instance, the KJV reads in Daniel 3:25: "like the Son of God"; and in the RV: "semejante a hijo de los dioses ("like unto a son of the gods"). This "problem" is not too difficult to explain. The Hebrew (or the Greek for that matter), does not have either capital or small letters, they are all the same. Only context can determine when to use capital G or small g (d in Spanish), when referring to the true God or a false god. The plural or singular can be accounted for because the Hebrew word for "God" is ELOHIM, which has plural ending, as any Hebrew student would know, but not the critics of the Spanish Bible. The context in the passage plainly shows that it is an unsaved man speaking, and therefore, we can not put words in his mouth and say that he saw Jesus Christ, since he did not know Him; I believe, like in many other instances, the RV is better translated here, for stating plainly what an unsaved man was saying. God does not need our help to prove that Jesus Christ was active even in the Old Testament. Another key word in this verse is the word like. The writer is clearly stating that the man saw someone "like the Son of God" (or a "like a son of the gods"), but not just: "the Son of God." This is a matter of interpretation on the part of the translators; but regardless of how a group of translators may have interpreted it, the original still says BEN ELOHIM; whatever that means to a native speaker. One thing you can not do for certain is to say that it is a textual corruption in the Spanish Bible. Even the 1611 KJV has "sonne" with small "s," as very few KJV bigots would know.

I am yet to find a single native Spanish speaking pastor, who also knows his Bible inside out, or a missionary who has spent his life in the Spanish mission field; who would say that because the KJV and the RV differ, we should trash the Reina-Valera Bible. Only those Anglo-Americans, supposedly burdened for the Spanish speaking people; or Mexican-American pastors (who master neither, the English nor the Spanish language) dare to say that we do not have the Word of God in the Reina-Valera version of the Bible.

4. Ignorance of the Spanish grammar, on the part of the modern English translators who discredit the Spanish Bible, accounts for some of the so called "problems". For instance, I once was shown that some of the titles for Christ in the RV were in small letters, while in the KJV were in capital letters, and that such use of small letters was an attack to the Deity of Christ. Adjectives such as: "Baptist", "American", "Fundamental", and so on, are not capitalized in Spanish, while in English they are. What a silly argument. What are you going to do when you find that both in English and in Spanish, the personal pronoun "he" (él in Spanish) when referring to God, is not capitalized? Are you going to correct the Bible? Of course not. Leave our Bible alone!

Pastor Parada (see his article in this issue of APOLOGIA) recently interviewed Kent Rabe, and he (Rabe) told him (brother Parada) that there were not differences between the English and the Spanish grammars. That just tells you the kind of men who are messing with our Bible. Kent Rabe is the associate of Pastor Thacker, of Broken Arrow Baptist Church, in Pearce, Arizona; and is the editor of a publication devoted to undermine the Word of God in Spanish. He likewise, promised to send samples of his translation work to me, and I am yet to see them since September of last year. (He has refused to send them, despite all the attempts this writer has made).

In a hand out that has circulated all over the country (copies of it may be obtained from this editor upon request), where there is a comparison chart between several versions of the Bible, including the RV, there are many so called omissions listed there that are just not true. The word is there, either as a synonym, or in a different word order. Plain ignorance of the Spanish language. Few examples will suffice: Matthew 15:8, 20:34; Mark 14:51, 15:3 (the "omitted" word is in the following verse), 15:8, etc., etc. The individuals who made this chart use words such as: "questionable changes", "omitted", "O.K.", "added", and so on. It makes you wonder, who put these ignorant men in charge? "Questionable" on the basis of what? or according to whom? Questionable because they do not understand Spanish, or because that verse does not follow the same word order the KJV does? Nonsense!

Brother Parada has checked a copy of Kent Rabe's translation of the Gospel of John and the book of Romans; and has found serious grammatical as well as doctrinal mistakes in it. Parada confronted Rabe about it, and Rabe still said, in spite of admitting to the errors in front of several men (after no little arguing), that he still believed he was God's man to give us, Spanish people, a perfect Bible in Spanish.

5. Some of the omissions, can be explained by understanding the techniques, and philosophy of the translation work. For instance, in Romans 1:16 The KJV reads: . . the gospel of Christ; while the RV omits the words "of Christ". A careful study of the contexts indicates that the gospel verse 16 talks about could not be other than the one of Christ. Even the KJV in the previous verse did not say "of Christ", but: am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome. We know there is no other gospel (Gal 1:6-8). I do not know for sure why the translators left those words out in verse 16; it may be because they could not find it in their revision of the TR they had. I do not know, but if you start with the assumption that one version in one language should be preferred over the other; then you will find omissions, additions, and "errors" as such. Could it not be that the omissions in the RV, are in reality additions in the KJV, or that the additions in the RV are in actuality omissions in the KJV? When you study both Bibles with an unbiased mind, you will find neither, because both are the Word of God in their respective languages today, and that both contain, proclaim, and defend the very same doctrines Bible believing Christians have held so dearly throughout the centuries.

Many times, it is difficult to be totally faithful to the original in a translation, without sounding absurd or not making sense at all. That is why sometimes words are transliterated. Words like Hades, Sheol, Selah, many times are left untouched, because they are very difficult to translate, even with the help of the context. All Hebrew proper names have their meaning. In some translations, they have been translated with their meaning, in others, they have been transliterated. This is clearly seen in the quotations the NT writers made from the Old Testament. For example: . . . . .Hebrews 3:7-11, which is a quotation from Psalms 95:7-11, which the LXX translators interpreted the Hebrew words Meriba and Masah, as provocation and temptation respectively, and the NT writer quoted it accordingly.

In some languages, a word may perfectly describe another in its original language, while in another language a whole descriptive phrase may be needed. In all translation work there is interpretation involved. Nobody can simply translate word for word, from one language to another (as any person who speaks more than one language knows), without being absurd or not making sense at all, as already pointed out. This is particularly true with the Hebrew language. Thus, in Jeremiah 1:8, the KJV translates: be not afraid of their faces, while the RV reads: no temas delante de ellos ("fear not before them"). Any unbiased mind will realize that the KJV translators transliterated the Hebrew idiom, while the RV translators interpreted it, and translated it into Spanish in a way that would make better sense. One way or the other, the meaning is the same.

All the above allows for differences between two translations of the Bible.

4. Someone argued that those who do not believe that the KJV is the Word of God today to which other translations of the Bible need to be conformed, do so because they do not know the history of the English Bible. It is true that the English Bible has a marvelous history, and you can see the Hand of God protecting it and preserving it from the enemies through the centuries. That is also true about the Bible in other languages! It is certainly true about the Spanish Bible!

While it may be true that I do not know the history of the English Bible as well as many honest English speaking men who believe in their Bible, though I think I know fairly well, since I have studied it from several sources, several times; it is likewise true that the Americans who attack my Bible, and those who agree with them, do not know the history of the Bible in Spanish. (A brief work on this subject is being written in English by Rev. Joaquín Hurtado, Jr., and will be made public shortly).

Kent Rabe and Thacker claim they have an antique Spanish Enzinas Bible. In a personal telephone conversation with Rabe, he admitted to me that he did not know for sure that Bible was the Enzinas Bible, but that they thought it was. Brother Parada, in his interview with him, asked him the same question, and he said that he did not care whether or not it was an Enzinas Bible, but since they have been calling it that, they would keep on doing so. For your information, there have never been an "Enzinas Bible". Francisco Enzinas only produced a New Testament in the Spanish language, leaning heavily upon the work of other God fearing, Spirit filled, Bible believing men, who had done translation work; but never a whole Bible. Evidently these men are ignorant of the history of the Spanish Bible.

To say, that your Bible is the only version God has preserved for the world today, because you are so stunned by the history of the Bible in your language, is not justified, but it is an irresponsible statement; especially if you voluntarily ignore the history of the same Word of God in other languages.

5. Also, along this line, we can claim that the Jews (God's chosen people) in Spain and all over Europe, were always involved in the translation of every version of the Spanish Bible, and we know that the Word of God was committed to them (Romans 3:1-2). I do not know that you can make such a claim in the English language.

6. I do not endorse the latest versions, such as the 1977 revision, or the Southern Baptist Versión Actualizada. I believe both of them are not even Reina-Valera revisions, since they have departed so much from both, its text, as well as its style. I would gladly stand for the Reina-Valera 1909 or 1960. It is true that there are some differences between them, but I would not approach them with the same irreverent attitude as those Americans who are trying to give us a perfect Bible in our language.

7. I admit that the Reina-Valera Bible needs updating, as much as the KJV, for the simple fact the languages are dynamic and are constantly changing; though I am certain many KJV defenders would not agree with me on that, despite of the fact that the KJV itself has undergone some major revisions along the way, and very few people would be able to understand the original 1611 KJV, as they are very well aware. Granted, I would like to see the Reina-Valera revised, but I would not mess with it myself, but would let scholarly educated, Spirit filled, Bible believing men do the work. Until then, I know God would not have let the more than 22 Spanish speaking countries and regions of countries, go without His Word for almost 500 years.

8. Nobody should arrogantly dare to claim that the Bible in his language is the standard for all others today, and that all others need to be corrected with his particular version of the Bible, because they are all corrupted, since they do not agree word for word with his Bible. If I, mistakenly believed that my Spanish Bible should be the canon by which all other Bibles, including the KJV, should me measured, only because I know the wonderful history of the preservation of the Spanish Bible better than any other man, and because God loves the Spanish people in a very special way; I could point out to you that

   1. The KJV attacks the Deity of the Holy Spirit in Romans 6:8, because it says: "spiritually minded", making a noun (pneuma) an adverb, and therefore, using small "s"; while the RV reads: "ocuparse del Espíritu", ("being minded busy of the Spirit") keeping the noun as such, and using capital E, for Spirit; or that

   2. The KJV teaches salvation by works in Rev 22:14, for it says: "blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life"; while the RV says: "bienaventurados los que lavan sus ropas, para tener derecho al árbol de la vida" ("blessed are those who wash their garments, to have the right to the tree of life"); or that

   3. The KJV attacks the Deity of Christ because it calls Jesus a "thing" in Luke 1:35, and again "it" in Luke 2:17; which is the personal pronoun used in English for things and animals; or that

   4. The KJV promotes false gods because a false god is referred to as the true God (with capital G) in Daniel 11:38; or that

   5. The KJV makes condemnation an unavoidable fate in John 3:36, by simply saying: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life" not placing the responsibility as an act of the will, as it does in the Spanish Bible , by saying: "El que cree en el Hijo, tiene vida eterna; pero el que rehúsa [refuses to believe] creer en el Hijo, no verá la vida"; or that

   6. Reversing the accusation that the RV is corrupted in 1 Peter 2:2 for "adding" the words para salvación ("unto salvation"); but rather the KJV says: As new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby, with no explanation whatsoever added the words of the word, which are not in the TR, neither are they italicized as it is its custom with such words; and furthermore, it changed the words no adulterada ("not diluted, or contaminated", from the Greek adolos, lit. without guile), for sincere. And you could go on and on.

   Of course I say all of this fictitiously, because though I believe the KJV is the Word of God for the English speaking world today, and these "errors", a sign of the stamp of the hand of man in it, can be explained in a valid way; and it does not mean it is not the Word of God. By the same token, I just happen to believe that, though the Reina-Valera needs updating, it does not contain doctrinal errors, but is the true perfect Word of God for the Spanish speaking world today.

   Somebody wrote to me, concerning these "errors" in the KJV, that Dr. so and so (a man with great scholarly qualifications, whom I personally admire and respect) did not believe the KJV had errors in it; and that such "errors" should be treated in a God honoring, Bible honoring way. May I ask: Is it too much to ask that the same be done with the Spanish Bible? Or does just the KJV deserve to be treated that way? Why do you Americans call my Bible polluted and unreliable? Do you not fear God? How would you feel if I called your KJV Bible that? How did you feel just now in the previous paragraphs when I pointed out to you those "problems" with the KJV? Did you like it? Well, neither do I like arrogant Americans calling my Bible corrupt and unreliable.

9. Men with such a character and lack of integrity like Kent Rabe and Thacker, who fearlessly lie saying that the RV is a translation from a Catholic Bible translated from the Vulgate by a Catholic monk, and others who just parrot it along, and publish it in their publications, cannot be entrusted with a colossal work as the revision of a Bible in a language that is not their native language. When people like that I do not care if they are Bible believing, Fundamental, Separatist Baptists call my Bible corrupt because it does not conform to the KJV word for word; I am sorry, but I cannot stand it, but have to say something about it. I challenge those who call my Bible a corrupt Bible, to show me just one doctrinal error in the RV, with facts, not with a bunch of nonsense!

All of the men, who are trying to give us Spanish people a "perfect" copy of the Word of God say that all they want to do is to bring the RV in agreement with TR underlying the KJV. Their plan seems so good: revising, checking, studying, revising some more, checking some more, consulting with scholars and missionaries, etc., etc. When it comes to the actual work, all they are trying to do is to get the KJV in Spanish, and are lying through their teeth when they say they are not. Be not deceived!

If this is not true, why do they want the Spanish Bible to read Fantasma Santo, rather than Espíritu Santo? (in Spanish, the word ghost, does not have the dual meaning as in English; the word fantasma means the whited spooky being used in children cartoons). What is wrong with Espíritu Santo? Or like Rabe in his translation of Romans 6:23 put el salario del pecado ("the salary - wages- of sin"), rather than la paga del pecado, just to make it sound more like the English. What is wrong with the word paga. As a matter of fact, the word paga (reward, sanction) conveys the meaning better than salary or wages.

I have a word of advice to those people: Mind your own business, read your own Bible, explain the difficult passages to your own people, teach it to your sheep, preach it to the lost, and let us do likewise! It is a shame that we Bible believing preachers, have to write articles such as this one, robbing from the valuable time God gives us, to answer to such inanities like the ones that tickle the feeble minded. Paul exhorted Timothy: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ Preach the word (2 Tim 4:1,2).

God's people are going to the world, and the world is going to Hell, while we waste our time, falling in Satan's trap, being minded in earthly things, while the eternal things are left undone. Let's go back to what God called us to do!

Back to APOLOGIA web page.

Find out (in Spanish) The Way to Salvation, or How to Find a New Life in Christ. Learn why only Jesus saves and whyAll religions lead the same path.