By Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez
One of Calvin George’s biggest arguments to justify obvious Critical Text corruption in the 1960 Reina Valera is his claim that the KJV also has the Critical Text in it. This is false, however. There are no Critical Text corruptions in the KJV. There are no departures from the Textus Receptus in the KJV, as Calvin George claims. He is twisting the facts and spreading misinformation for his personal agenda to defend the indefensible.
He accuses us of having a double standard. His argument goes as follows.
“Why this is a double standard: The KJV has a few departures from the Textus Receptus, yet this should not invalidate the KJV.
Explanation: F.H.A. Scrivener became intimately acquainted with the text of the KJV during his work on The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version. He placed a list of around 60 places in which he believed the KJV apparently followed the Latin Vulgate in the New Testament on p. 262 of his book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible. Jack Moorman, a pro-KJV author wrote on p. 27 of the 2nd edition of his book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text that “…there is a sprinkling of Latin readings in the Authorized Version.” The question should be whether a foreign translation is based on the Textus Receptus, not whether there are any departures whatsoever. No one is calling to revise the TR departures in the KJV; therefore calling to revise TR departures in foreign Bibles that are already based on the TR is a double standard.” from his article "Double Standards in the Spanish Bible Issue"
Calvin George Quotes Jack Moorman Out of Context
Dr. Moorman said: “…there is a sprinkling of Latin readings in the Authorized Version.”
Pay careful attention to the way Calvin George quotes Jack Moorman here. George is being very deceptive because he uses the quote of Moorman as if the “sprinkling of Latin readings” in the KJV is supposed to be considered a bad thing. In other words, George wants the reader to think that these “Latin readings” in the KJV were corrupt Critical Text readings which depart from the TR. This is false.
George is ripping a good man’s quote out of context and twisting it to serve his agenda to convince his audience that its ok for a Bible to have some Critical Text “sprinkled” in it. If George would have given the entire statement, the reader would clearly see that Moorman was actually complimenting the KJV for the “sprinkling of Latin readings”. Here’s Jack Moorman’s entire statement in its context:
“The Latin Christians who opposed Rome had a far more vital faith than that which usually characterized the Greek East. We look to them for our spiritual heritage, and they were an important channel through which God preserved His Word. This helps explain why there is a sprinkling of Latin readings in the Authorized Version. Remember also that many of the great doctrinal words in our English Bible are based on a Latin and not Greek derivative.” P. 28-29, When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text, by Jack Moorman (see pics in the addendum of the page of this quote in its entirety)
Everything Jack Moorman says about this “sprinkling of Latin readings in the Authorized Version” is positive. Moorman goes on to explain that the Latin texts complimented the Greek texts and served as great evidence to confirm purity and faithfulness to the original.
“Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide believers of each generation “into all truth” (John 16:13). With regard to the text of Scripture, “all truth” was found in one primary source with some complement from another. The primary source was the Greek speaking East with occasional refinement and verification from the Latin and Syriac areas.” P. 29, Ibid
Notice what Dr. Moorman says that the Latin does. It provided "refinement" and "verification". These are good things. Jack Moorman is showing us that Latin evidence helped to refine the KJV text and verify its purity. It should be clear from Jack Moorman’s statements here that he did not consider the “sprinkling of Latin readings” in the KJV to be corrupt but rather pure renderings that agreed in substance with the Textus Receptus. We will see soon that the Latin that Moorman said was sprinkled in the KJV was good Latin readings from pure Latin texts.
Jack Moorman, in no way, shape, or form, is implying what George claims. Basically, Calvin George is lying. Plain and simple. He is twisting what Moorman said. To rip someone’s words out of context and twist them in an effort to make it look like he agrees with your agenda is downright dishonesty.
Calvin George gets away with this, however, because most people are not going to take the time that we do to check his statements. Just a little bit of homework would reveal that George is deliberately misleading his audience to fit his agenda to defend the Critical Text in the Reina Valera 1960 edition.
A Common Misconception of the “Latin Vulgate”
Many unskilled readers see the word “Latin” and immediately assume it is speaking of something Catholic and corrupt. This is a mistake. Dr. David Brown, President of the King James Bible Research Council, elaborates:
"Don't make the mistake that many people make. When they hear the word Latin used in conjunction with the Bible, or church, they automatically assume that it is to be associated with the Roman Catholic Church. However, that is not true because in northern Italy, the Italic Church had begun in A. D. 120 according to Theodore Beza, the associate and successor of John Calvin, the Great Swiss reformer. Its remoteness isolated it from the influence of the Church at Rome. The Italic Church was the forerunner of churches in this same region, which would later be called the Vaudois, or, the Waldenses. Both of these names simply mean "peoples of the valleys." The Italic, or pre-Waldensian Church, produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year 157 AD. The noted church historian, Frederic Nolan, confirms this. This date is less than one hundred years after most of the books of the New Testament were written. The greater point is that the Itala (or Old Latin) was translated from the Received Text, indicating its existence to the earliest days of the New Testament church. There, the Received Text clearly existed and was used by churches in early church history." p. 92-93, The Indestructible Book, by Dr. David Brown
Calvin George counts on the ignorance of his audience. By not informing his readers of the fact that not all Latin texts were bad, but that many were good texts, he can get away with creating a false narrative that the KJV is riddled with "Critical Text" readings since the KJV translators leaned heavily upon Latin evidence for their work.
The truth is that although the KJV translators had access to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which was the Roman Catholic’s Latin Bible for many years, it was not the only Latin source available to them, as we will prove. There are over 10,000 Latin manuscripts in existence. Most of these are pure manuscripts that reflect pure original Greek readings that would later be collected into the Textus Receptus.
The word “vulgate” means “common”. The term “Latin Vulgate” is a reference to the Latin Bible texts that were in common usage among the average (common) Latin-speaking Christians of earlier times.
In his book entitled God Wrote Only One Bible, J.J. Ray wrote on page 99:
“The text of these oldest Bibles of the Roman Province is known as the Old Latin. This Old Latin was known as the Latin Vulgate many years before the days of Jerome 340-420 A. D. This term “Latin Vulgate” referring to the Old Latin which was translated from the Received Text, was not replaced until April 8th, 1546, when, at the Council of Trent Jerome’s Revised Latin was declared to be the authentic Bible of the Roman Church. Since then the term Latin Vulgate refers NOT TO THE OLD LATIN in harmony with the Received Text, but to the REVISED LATIN OF JEROME.” emphasis his
Take notice that the term “Latin Vulgate” was used as a reference to the Received Text family of Old Latin texts for centuries before the Catholic church demanded for it to refer only to Jerome’s text. Do you think that true Bible-believing Latin-speaking Christians who opposed the Catholic church complied with the demands of the Council of Trent? Would you? Of course not. They would have continued referring to THEIR Latin Bibles, which would have been purer than Jerome’s Catholic text, as the true Latin Vulgate.
Do you see the confusion that the Catholic Church caused? (1st Cor. 14:33 “God is not the author of confusion”) The Catholic Council of Trent hijacked the term “Latin Vulgate”. Since then, we now have a title that is applicable to two different Bibles. The corrupt Latin text of Jerome on one hand. The purer Latin text of earlier non-Catholic Christians on the other. Nowadays Christians get the two texts mixed up in discussions. Usually they assume that any reference to "the Latin" is a reference to Jerome's Catholic text.
That Bible-believing Christians of the past rejected Jerome’s corrupt Latin Bible and continued to use purer Old Latin Bibles is confirmed on the front page of the website for the Vetus Latina Institute:
“As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire in the first centuries after Christ, it became necessary to produce Latin versions of the Bible for those not able to understand the Greek of the New Testament or Septuagint.
The first translations were made by individual Christians for use within their own community. These are known as the Old Latin or Vetus Latina.
Towards the end of the fourth century, Pope Damasus asked the scholar Hieronymus (St. Jerome) to produce a revised version of the Gospels. Along with Jerome's translation of the Old Testament, an anonymous revision of the rest of the New Testament, and a handful of books from other sources, these later became the standard version, the Vulgate.
The Vulgate took many years to become established as the principal Latin Bible. In the meanwhile, the Old Latin versions continued to be used. Some of these translations are preserved in Bible manuscripts, in the writings of the Church Fathers and in early Christian liturgies.
These texts are of great significance for the history of the early Church and the transmission of the Bible. Most of the Old Latin translations were made from Greek manuscripts which no longer exist. Although the Latin texts have undergone their own process of transmission, the original layer preserves a witness to the Bible, especially the New Testament, which would otherwise be lost to us.” http://vetuslatina.org/
Jack Moorman states in his excellent book on manuscript evidence entitled Forever Settled that “the very word "Vulgate" was falsely used by Jerome.” To elaborate upon this statement Moorman then quotes Benjamin Wilkinson who said:
"The word Vulgate means 'commonly used', or 'current'. This word has been appropriated from the Bible to which it rightfully belongs, and given to the Latin Bible of Jerome. It took hundreds of years before the common people would call Jerome's Latin Bible, the 'Vulgate'."
"Since Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible by the early Christians in these parts were made into Latin. The early Latin translations were very dear to the hearts of those primitive churches, and as Rome did not send any missionaries toward the West before 250 AD, the early Latin Bibles were well-established before those churches came into conflict with Rome. Not only were such translations in existence and well established long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy, but the people for centuries refused to supplant their Old Latin Bibles by the Vulgate. God in His wisdom invested these Latin versions by His Providence with a charm that outweighed the learned artificiality of Jerome's Vulgate. For nine hundred years, we are told, the Old Latin held its own after the Vulgate appeared. The critical version of Jerome never displaced it, and only replaced it when the Latin ceased to be a living language." P. 20-21
The point is that whenever someone says that the Latin Vulgate was used in the KJV, this should not be seen as a bad thing. There were 2 types of Latin Bibles referred to as "the Latin Vulgate". A very good one and a not as good one. I am not denying that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was consulted by the KJV translators. What I'm pointing out is that when it was, it would had been compared with pure Latin texts that the KJV translators also had in front of them, along with every other TR-friendly resource they were working with. Anything influenced by "the Latin Vulgate" would had been in agreement with the overall evidence of the Traditional Texts that the KJV was based upon.
What Kind of Latin Bible Influenced KJV Readings?
Calvin George wants his readers to believe that the Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV were only that of the corrupted kind rather than that of the pure Latin Bibles of non-Catholic Christians. If this was true it would allow him to argue that it is likewise ok for a little bit of the Critical Text to be sprinkled in the Reina Valera Bible.
However, the Bible says in Galatians 5:9 “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” We prefer a 100% pure Bible. We don’t want one sprinkled with a little bit of corruption. A little bit of corruption is too much. Jesus said in Matthew 4:4 “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Therefore, we need a Bible with all of God’s words, not one with some of His words missing due to a sprinkling of the Critical Text. In regard to His words, God promised purity and preservation in Psalm 12:6-7, not a sprinkling of corruption.
One individual who was against corruption was Desiderius Erasmus, the father of the Textus Receptus. Everyone knows about his Greek New Testament, which paved the way for the development of the Received Texts that ultimately resulted in the making of the King James Bible. The KJV was the crowning work of the TR. Many don’t think much, however, about the fact that Erasmus’s text not only included God’s word in Greek, it included his own Latin translation as well.
Erasmus was a Reformer. He wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Part of his strategy to do so was to provide a Latin Bible that was more pure than Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
In fact, in the picture below, we have Erasmus's 4th edition of the TR published in 1527. Notice it has 3 texts parallel to each other: his Greek text, his own Latin translation, and Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
Why was Jerome’s Vulgate included beside Erasmus’s personal Latin translation in this edition? Obviously, they were there for comparison. Erasmus wanted to show that his Latin text was better. The Greek text was there to demonstrate what the original Greek text would have looked like. In other words, Erasmus wanted to show that his Latin translation was more faithful to the original Greek than that of Jerome’s.
In his book The Text of the King James Bible, Dr. Laurance Vance quotes Erasmus and says:
"Erasmus considered his work to be "written for the benefit of scholars," and "especially students of theology." He said in his Apologia that his Latin version was not meant to replace the Vulgate: "For those who are fond of the Vulgate, their edition is still available for them to use. I neither change it nor condemn it; in fact, it is not spoiled by my revision but rendered clearer, purer, and more accurate. Let the Vulgate be read in the schools, changed in the churches, quoted in sermons. I think I can promise that whoever reads my version at home will better understand his own." p. 366, The Text of the King James Bible, by Dr. Laurance Vance
Notice Erasmus's desire for something "clearer, purer, and more accurate". In Erasmus's 5th and final edition of the TR, he removed Jerome’s Latin Vulgate while maintaining his own. It should be obvious that Erasmus considered his Latin text to be superior to that of Jerome's.
As diplomatic as Erasmus tried to be about all this the Roman Catholic church did not take kindly to Erasmus's Greek and Latin New Testaments. Dr. Vance points out:
"Erasmus's correction of the Vulgate was the catalyst that ultimately led to the "the swift success of the Reformation and the concomitant loss of the ecumenical authority of the Catholic Church." p. 363, ibid.
The Catholic church never accepted Erasmus's work. Instead they labeled him a "heretic" at the Council of Trent for doing a Greek and Latin New Testament without their permission and for books he wrote which challenged Catholic doctrine. In reaction to Erasmus’ work, a Catholic friar named Ambrosius Catharinus wrote, “Eramus planted, Luther watered, but the devil gave the increase.”
In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus’ name on the Catholic church's public list of forbidden authors [The Index of Forbidden Books]. For more information for the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church against the work of Erasmus see Dr. David Brown's book Desiderius Erasmus: The Man, His Important Work, and Its Consequent Influence.
We know that the King James translators had Erasmus’s Greek AND Latin texts in front of them when they did their work on the English Bible. We have indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the KJV translators used Erasmus's Latin translation in their work on the KJV. There is a book entitled Translating For The King which is a collection of the personal notes of John Bois (compiled by Ward Allen) concerning his work on the KJV. On page 119 (of the first edition) Bois makes reference to "All copies of Erasmus's Latin New Testament, which I have examined".
In fact, not only did the KJV translators have Erasmus’s Greek and Latin New Testaments, but they also had the N.T. texts of Robert Estienne, aka Stephanus, and Theodore Beza available to them.
Guess what? Stephanus’s and Beza’s texts also contained Latin translations. Stephanus reproduced Erasmus's Latin text and Beza did one of his own.
John Bois makes reference to the Latin texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in his personal notes, proving that TR Latin texts were indeed utilized in the KJV.
From everything I read it seems that Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza all desired a purer Latin Bible to serve as the foundation for a reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. Looking back on history, Bible-believing Christians today understand that the Catholic church is so corrupt that it was never going to be reformed. What men like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza did, however, with the contribution of their Greek and Latin New Testaments was provide a basis that would instead serve as the foundation for a bunch of Reformation era Bibles like that of Luther, Olivetan, Diodati, Reina and Valera, the KJV translators, and more that all made a great impact. The Reformers had one thing in mind, but God had something much greater in mind. Through their valiant efforts and noble intentions, God's pure words went even further than they intended.
Everyone knows that the KJV translators were also Protestants. They opposed the Catholic church. While it is true that they spoke respectfully about Jerome as a scholar in their preface, something that many Bible translators did as they believed they were simply giving credit where credit is due, they would not have approved of any Catholic corruption in THEIR English text considering their opposition against the Catholic church. It would be farfetched to believe that the 54 KJV translators that assembled in 6 different groups would have accepted any "Critical Text" readings that would contradict the collective evidence of the Textus Receptus editions they were working with.
Consider this statement in the preface of the King James Bible:
“So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness…”
Notice that the KJV translators were expecting opposition by “Popish Persons”, the Roman Catholic Church. Why would they expect opposition from the Catholics if their Bible was “sprinkled” with Latin readings which reflect Jerome's Vulgate as opposed to the TR? Does that make sense to anyone?
The overall point is that the "sprinkling of Latin readings" is not Critical Text influence in the KJV as Calvin George claims. The KJV was influenced by more Latin evidence than just that of Jerome's. Even if there was anything significant that may had been considered from Jerome's Vulgate, there is no proof that such things conflicted with the TR.
Where is Calvin George's evidence that the KJV translators chose readings from a Critical Text Latin Bible which departed from the TR? He has none.
What About the 60 Latin Vulgate Readings in the KJV that Scrivener Pointed Out?
I will not weary you by taking the time in this article to discuss the 60 Latin Vulgate readings that F. H. A. Scrivener pointed out in the KJV text. This was already done by an Italian Bible translator named Christopher Yetzer and you can read his fine treatment of this in the following link: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/analysis-of-the-60-latin-vulgate-readings-in-the-kjv-identified-by-scrivener
In Yetzer's article, he shows that word choices in the KJV that may had been influenced by the Latin Vulgate are non-issues in regard to how different they might be from the way they are worded in the Greek TR.
For example, 7 of the 60 places has the word "Beelzebub" (Matthew 10:25, 12:24, 12:27, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15, 18, 19). The difference is in the spelling. The TR has the word spelled with the letter "L" at the end instead of the letter "B". So the TR has it spelled in Greek as "Beelzebul" while the Latin has it as "Beelzebub". Yetzer explains:
"The evidence does not indicate that the KJV translators blindly or solely relied on the Latin Vulgate. Rather, it is more likely that they considered the arguments of Beza, Erasmus and their lexical sources. They may have also understood Jerome’s reasoning and agreed that the name referred to the Old Testament “god of the flies.”"
Such insignificant differences are what Calvin George is calling "departures from the TR". Folks this is not a TR departure. IT'S THE SAME WORD, just spelled differently from one language to another!
There is a world of difference between this and the very real departures from the TR that exist in the 1960 RV.
According to Yetzer's research, the 60 Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV are not in any real conflict with the Greek TR. In other words, these are not places in the KJV where the reading contradicts the TR. The Latin Vulgate was simply consulted to consider other options for word choices. These are translational, linguistic matters, not matters of a Critical Text verses the TR. Calvin George is misrepresenting the Latin Vulgate and the KJV translators usage of it.
Yetzer concludes his article with the following statement:
"A more thorough review of available sources suggests that the influence of the Vulgate has been overstated in this list, and that the translators’ decisions were often more nuanced than Scrivener’s list implies."
In other words, while it is true that the Latin Vulgate was consulted in the process of investigating word choices, the Latin Vulgate was simply one of many sources considered. Not to mention, it is possible that Latin influenced readings in the KJV may had been influenced by the Latin text of Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or Jerome, or another one, or a combination of them, or all of them.
Translating is tricky. As a bilingual preacher and former missionary who has been involved in 2 Bible translation projects and who has translated books and tracts into Spanish and English, I understand how challenging translation can be. Calvin George, likewise, should know better, but he is too driven by an agenda to see clearly what ought to be plain and obvious to anyone that is bilingual. The majority of words and phrases in any language are translatable. Other words and phrases, however, don't always have a clear equivalent available. So translating from Greek to English could be challenging at times. Sometimes there may be a word choice in Latin that is better suited for the English Bible which at the same time does not conflict in substance with the underlying Greek.
The KJV translators was the greatest collection of linguists and scholars that ever assembled for the purpose of translating God's words. That fact isn't even arguable. The KJV translators were skilled enough to know how to utilize the Latin without compromising the underlying Greek basis in the TR.
Again, just because something was influenced by Latin does not automatically make it anti-TR. That is a shallow conclusion. Calvin George's accusation against the KJV is shallow. These Latin-influenced renderings in the KJV do not conflict nor contradict the collective consensus of the TR. They agree in substance. They are in harmony. Dr. Jack Moorman said that the Latin and Greek word choices complimented one another. There is a difference between something that compliments and something that contradicts.
Calvin George should know better. The truth is too clear. That he is trying to imply something different about the "sprinkling of Latin" in the KJV shows that he is being intellectually dishonest. He is blinded by an agenda.
The Actual Critical Text Corruption in the Reina Valera 1960
Meanwhile, in the 1960 RV, which Calvin George defends, there are real actual departures from the TR. I'm not talking about different ways to spell a word or differences in nuances of word choices. I'm talking about actual corruption that exist in the 1960 RV due to an intentional basis in the Critical Texts.
The man who managed the 1960 RV revision committee, Eugene Nida, admits it:
"Nevertheless in some instances where a critical text is so much preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus the committee did make some slight changes..." The Bible Translator, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1961, p. 113
One of the 1960 revisers, Dr. Jose Flores, admitted departures from the TR here:
"One principle added to the first list of the RV 1960 revision committee was that wherever the RV (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." El Texto del Nuevo Testamento, by Jose Flores, p. 323
This is irrefutable evidence! It is so undeniable that at times even Calvin George is forced to admit it:
A few departures come from a critical text.” The Battle for the Spanish Bible, by Calvin George, p. 42
“There were some departures from the Textus Receptus in the 1960, as Eugene Nida testifies” The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible, by Calvin George, p. 120
Calvin George knows that his Spanish Bible is tainted with the Critical Text. He just wants us to accept that this is ok by trying to convince us that the KJV is sprinkled with Critical Text variants as well. This is false, however. He has no real proof to back up his hypothesis.
Meanwhile, Dr. Flores made it very clear that they deliberately "departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text", which for them is the Critical Text and CT-based Bibles. Why wouldn't they? They were of the Critical Text school of thought. Flores even listed the CT-based Bibles that they followed to make changes in the RV 1960:
The Revised Version of 1885 (which is the original English Bible based upon Westcott and Hort's text)
The American Standard Version of 1901
The Revised Standard Version of 1946
Calvin George is trying too hard to manipulate the truth and ignore reality. The reality is that the 1960 revision of the Reina Valera was a Critical Text effort and the KJV was a Received Text effort. The translation philosophies behind both groups was totally different. George's emotional attachment to the 1960 RV causes him to live in denial of this reality. Therefore, his discernment is compromised and he is trying to sell to his audience an inconsistent, flawed, and muddied view of both Bibles. The disturbing thing is that many Hispanics are falling for it.
Due to the deliberate use of the CT and corrupt CT-based English Bibles, there are REAL departures from the TR in the RV1960. The omission of the words "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22 is a real departure from the TR. The omission of the words "by Jesus Christ" in Ephesians 3:9 is the same kind of departure from the TR, which affects the doctrine of the deity of Christ, that we complain about in the corrupt English Bibles. The omission of the word "Lord" in Luke 23:42 is a real Critical Text influenced omission. The change of the word "her purification" to "their purification" is a Critical Text influenced change which makes Jesus a sinner since the word "their" makes the sin offering apply to Him as well. The addition of the words "unto salvation" in 1st Peter 2:2 is a real Critical Text interpolation which causes the 1960 to teach a works-based salvation. We could go on and on. Check out our many, many articles and charts all over our website (www.sociedadrvg.com) to see tons of irrefutable evidence of TR departures and real Critical Text influence in the RV 1960.
Overall, Calvin George is arguing apples and oranges. There is no similarity between the real TR departures that exist in the 1960 RV and the "sprinkling of Latin readings" in the KJV. None whatsoever.
The Burden of Proof
In the United States we have a legal principle: "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is on Calvin George to demonstrate that there are Latin-influenced readings in the KJV which reflect Jerome’s Vulgate IN A WAY THAT CONTRADICTS the collective evidence of the Textus Receptus. I'm not talking about translational differences of word choices (synonyms) or different ways to spell word equivalents in different languages, but actual contradictions, especially those of doctrinal significance. He has not done this. He cannot do this because the truth is that there are no real departures from the TR in the KJV. A reading that reflects Latin wording more than the Greek equivalent does not constitute a departure from the TR.
As we have demonstrated, Calvin George claims departures from the TR by twisting the words of good men like Dr. Jack Moorman and ripping them out of context, while hoping that no one does the homework to discover his dishonesty and self-serving agenda. Calvin George is not counting on people to think things through and scrutinize his false claims. We at the RVG Bible Society are not going to let him get away with it. He has gotten away with this for too long. We will continue to point out his misinformation because he is leading good Hispanic Christians astray. He is leading good American Pastors astray also. He is causing discord and hindering good Christians from working with each other.
We should all be unified and standing together for purity in not only the Bible in English, but in Spanish, and every other language as well. Yet, Calvin George insists that we are the ones causing the division. We are not. We are standing for the purity of God's words. Falsely accusing the KJV of containing the leaven of the Critical Text is divisive and deceptive. Justifying the Critical Text in the Reina Valera Bible, instead of correcting it, is what is dividing good Hispanic fundamentalists.
American Pastors who claim to stand for the KJV and TR need to stop letting him get away with this. They are sacrificing the integrity of foreign Bibles on the altar of "well we need to just get along and win souls". Why can't we win souls with a Bible in Spanish that is 100% pure and totally based upon the Received Texts like the KJV? Meanwhile, Hispanic brethren are being told to get their perspective on Bible translations from a guy who undermines the KJV when he is in front of a Spanish-speaking audience and justifies the corruption in the RV 1960. Yet when he is in front of a KJV church in the U.S. that may financially support him he acts like he is a true TR man or KJV man. He isn't. True proponents of the TR and KJV don't accuse the KJV of departures from the TR. Pro-KJV pastors and churches in the U.S. would never allow someone to undermine the KJV like this in front of their congregations but for some reason they are ok with him undermining the KJV to Hispanic audiences. What's worse is if anyone, like those of us in the RVG Bible Society, dares to ask for consistency, we are seen as troublemakers with a bad attitude.
While it is unfortunate to see those who are being led astray by Calvin George's misinformation, we are grateful for those who understand this issue enough to see clearly what is going on. Many are getting their eyes opened to the corruption that has infiltrated Spanish Bibles like the 1960 edition of the Reina Valera. Many are seeing that the Reina Valera Gomez Bible is the purest and best option. Therefore, we will continue to produce material, such as this article, to help those who have the backbone to stand for what is right.
2nd Corinthians 8:21 "Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men."
ADDENDUM
Comments