Many Independent Fundamental Baptist Missionaries to Spanish speaking countries use the 1960 Reina Valera Spanish Bible. Many of them claim that this is "the word of God" in the Spanish language. But is this so? Many who make this claim are strong King James Bible defenders in English and make the claim that the 1960 Spanish Bible is the "King James Bible" in Spanish. But is this true?

According to Jose Flores, a consultant on the 1960 Reina Valera project, this Spanish version of the Bible is not even close to the King James Bible in English. I quote from a source that translated the following from his book "El Texto del Nuevo Testamento," published by CLIE, 1977 page 232,

"ONE PRINCIPLE ADDED TO THE FIRST LIST OF THE REINA-VALERA 1960 REVISION COMMITTEE WAS THAT WHEREVER THE REINA-VALERA (1909) VERSION HAS DEPARTED FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS TO FOLLOW A BETTER TEXT, WE DID NOT RETURN TO THE RECEPTUS. POINT #12 OF THE WORKING PRINCIPLES STATES: IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A DOUBT OVER THE CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL, WE CONSULTED PREFERENTIALLY THE ENGLISH REVISED VERSION OF 1885, THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION OF 1901, THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF 1946 AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY."

The proof is not only found in the confession of one the "consultants," but also in this version itself. Many pro "critical text" readings can be found in this (per)version of the Spanish Bible which, like the RV, RSV, and ASV in English, follow the corrupt text of of Westcott and Hort (1881).

Changes "the name of him" to "the name of him and his father."

Not only is the 1960 Reina Valera revision "anti-King James," it also contains many errors, doctrinal attacks, and lies as do all Bibles based on the corrupt "critical texts" of man.

Examples:

Says "Isaiah" said what is quoted when it is the quote of two prophets and not Isaiah only. (Malachi is quoted in vs 3).

Removes the word "No."

Changes "three" to "thirty."

Adds "hijo Isaac."

The 1960 Spanish Bible was produced by both the American Bible Society (in the United States) and the British and Foreign Bible Society (in England). The head of the American Bible Society was a man by the name of Eugene Nida. This man was the founder of the theory termed by some, "Dynamic Equivalence." He taught that in any translation work from one language to another, the literal words are not as important as the "message" or "idea" that the writer is trying to get across.

This false teaching makes the translator the final authority as he determines what the writer tried to say. He decides how he will translate words and phrases according to what he thinks "the message" is that the writer wanted to get across. However, when it comes to the Bible. I’m not interested in what a man thinks "the message" should be. I am interested in "What did God say!" I want not only His words, but all of them! And, I am against a man trying to give me what he thinks it means.

According to Nida, "Each translator is an interpreter." But what does God say about this? 2 Peter 1:20 states, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." When it comes to the Bible, I want to know each word that God says, and I don’t need any man telling me what he thinks it means or what he thinks it should say.

This damnable, liberal theory of Nida is found in the 1960 Spanish Bible, which his "Bible Society" produced (while he was the head of it). Let’s look in this version to see this.

"Hemorroids" is changed to "tumor."

This strange theory that allows one to deviate from the actual words in the texts to insert (or subtract) from the text to make clear what he thinks the writer intended to say. This leads to some very strange readings in the 1960 Spanish Perversion.

Says a man is born of a donkey.

Another interesting factor in the development of the 1960 Spanish version is it’s ties to the Catholic church. It is a well know fact that the American Bible Society is now in cahoots with the Roman Catholic Church. In fact over half of the employees of this organization or Catholics (See http://www.chick.com/bc/2000/popespest.asp?FROM=Catholicpage for more information). This Society is also a member of the United Bible Societies, which shortly after 1960 funded Catholic Cardinal Carlos María Martini from Milan, Italy, to produce the text UBS #3.

The word "venerar" (venerate) is used. This is a Catholic word.

The 1960 Spanish Bible has many problems. Not only were liberals doing the actual translating, who were bias to the Catholic church. Not only does it have many errors and doctrinal attacks. It also has some other interesting things about it that one should know.

How a "King James Bible Believer" could take a stand for the perfect word of God in English, and then use the 1960 Spanish Bible with all of these afore mentioned errors. I don’t know. But let’s move on to the 1909 Spanish Bible.

This version is known as the "Old Reina Valera" in most Christian bookstores. It was printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. It was translated by men who wanted to "correct the many errors in the 1865 Spanish Bible" (more about this version later). According to Carlos Donate, missionary to Guatamala,

The 1909 also makes some changes in its text from the Textus Receptus manuscripts. Let’s look at some examples of where the 1960 follows this version in the Critical text.

Change "spirit" to "wisdom."

"The Lord" is taken out.

Add "Jesus" for "he."

Although the 1909 is better than the 1960 version. There are a few places where the 1960 reads better than the 1960.

Add’s "del original."

Now let’s move on the the 1865 Spanish Bible produced by the by the American Bible Society. The work began in 1861. It was done by Angel H. Mora from Spain, and a Rev. H.B. Pratt, an American Presbyterian missionary in Bogata. Most of his revision consisted of a very small portion of the Old Testament and a lot of the New. They made over 100,000 changes in orthography and calligraphy. And, some changes in the text itself. What they produced was a Spanish Bible that was more in line with both the English King James and the Reina Valera of 1602.

However, this version is not perfect. It has several small problems with it. One for example is found in 2 Peter 1:19. The 1865 (like all Spanish Bibles except the 1602 TR) calls Jesus Christ "Lucifer" (Lucero) instead of the day star (la estrella de la manana).

Now let’s turn our attention to the 1602 TR revision put out by the folks of Iglesia Biblica Bautista de Gracia in Monterrey, Mexico. This group took the King James, the Textus Receptus, the 1569 Spanish Bible of the Bear, and all Spanish Bible versions or portions of the scripture before this, and compiled all of these together to produce a perfect Bible in the Spanish tongue. The Spanish world has yet to have exactly what God said until now. The 1602 TR not only gives credit to the work of Cipriano of Valera, who for 20 years worked to revise the 1569 Spanish Bible and rid it of the Septuagint and other corrupt fountains. But they also give credit to that perfect, infallible King James Bible.

Let’s look at the 1865 and the 1602 TR Version.

Daniel 3:25 Both say "Hijo de Dios" (Son of God)

Matt. 15:8 Have "Este pueblo con su boca se acerca a mi."

The 1865 Spanish Bible is much closer to the original 1602 Spanish Bible that Cipriano de Valera produced, and the King James Bible than the 1909 and 1960 revisions. However, the 1865 does have a few problems. These are all fixed in the 1602TR. That is why I believe that this is the right Bible in Spanish. Let’s look at some examples:

*The 1602 TR reads along with the 1865 in most places, but also says:

2 Peter 1:19 Only Spanish Bible that calls Jesus Christ "la estrella de la manana" (the day star) all others call him "lucero" (Lucifer)

Philippians 4:2 Only Spanish Bible to say "la misma mente" the same mind.

2 Cor. 2:17 Only Spanish Bible to say "corrumpen" (corrupt the word of God)

In closing, let me remind you that the words of the Lord are pure words. If this be so, then I want a pure Bible. That means I must have the pure words for it to be pure. If the version I have has even one error in it, then it can’t be God’s pure word. The very word "pure" means without error, corruption, or defilement. Thus, the 1602 TR is the pure word of God as in my studies, it is not the words of man who changed God’s words to give you what they thought "the message" was (like the 1960). Nor is it like the 1909 which contains many Critical text readings (it is after 1881). Although the 1865 is much closer to the King James Bible, it still can’t be pure as it calls Jesus Christ "Lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19. How can that honor God?

I believe the right Bible in Spanish is the 1602 TR. To receive a copy of a New Testament, email me at: Robertbreaker3@cs.com or contact me in Honduras at:

Robert Breaker III

Apartado Postal 60

La Esperanza, Intibuca, Honduras

May the Lord bless you and open your eyes to "Which Bible in Spanish" is the word of God.