Lies on the 1602 Purificada Website
- Dr. Peter Putney
- Mar 3
- 10 min read
Updated: Mar 8
Buy the truth, and sell it not; Also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
Proverbs 23:23.
As someone who is involved in the promotion of textual purity in the Spanish language, I am often frustrated with the amount of false information that is being circulated regarding the Spanish Bible. False and deceptive information needs to be called out and condemned by those who value the truth or else it will continue to deceive people. In this article, I would like to call out some outright lies that are told on the website valera1602.org and by the 1602 Purificada promoters.
Lie #1, Dr. Rex Cobb supports the 1602 Purificada over the RVG
Recently someone texted me a comparison chart that is being promoted on the Valera 1602 Org website. The chart is called on their website “Valeras Compared” and was written by Dr. Rex Cobb. You can find this chart on their website using this link: https://www.valera1602.org/articles. The same chart is also available on other websites associated with the 1602P such as ibblagracia.com. I will link the chart in question below.
When I opened the chart, I was surprised to see that Dr. Cobb had listed the RVG as having one discrepancy with the Traditional Text and the 1602P as having none. I was very confused by this because I had a copy of this same chart on my computer. I have used it in the past to show that the RVG is in complete agreement with the Traditional Text. I looked at the original chart that I have on hand and was very surprised at what I found. The original chart was different from the one that was being circulated by the Valera 1602 Org website. I will link the original chart by Dr. Rex Cobb below.
The first thing that I noticed is that the original chart does not have a 1602P column, it also has the 2004 RVG as having zero discrepancies with the Traditional Text. What was going on here?
The original chart also does not call the 2004 RVG the "Gomez." I noticed a number of other changes as well. Going back to the modified chart on the Valera 1602 Org website, I saw this statement at the bottom.
So now it was obvious that the 1602P column was added by Valera 1602 Org, but why would the RVG be given an A+ in the original and a flaw in the modified version? The Spanish version of the modifed chart was different in that it said that both the 1602P and the "Gomez" were added. I know this is not true because I have the original chart with the RVG present. I also wanted to know why was the title changed from 2004 to "Gomez?" and why the "Dr." was removed from Dr. Gomez’s name?
I investigated further and contacted Dr. Rex Cobb to ask him why these changes had taken place. In response, Dr. Cobb released the following public statement regarding this modified version of his chart.
February 27, 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
Several years ago, missionary Allen Johnson requested permission to use the studies I had compiled on Spanish Bible versions to check the textual purity of a new Bible that had recently evolved into what is now called the 1602 Purificada (1602P). I did not give him permission to change any of my studies, only add his findings about the 1602P.
Over the years, I have made additions and improvements to the limited studies I gave to Brother Johnson, but it appears that he is now using the old, outdated information with my name on it to promote the version that he prefers (the 1602P) and to discredit the Reina Valera Gómez (RVG) that he opposes. This in my opinion is a very questionable practice that misrepresents me and the RVG Bible. Any such information or conclusions are irrelevant, unreliable, and should be ignored.
Rex L. Cobb
It should be obvious that Dr. Cobb didn't approve all of these modifications and misuse of his chart. Why would he continue to support and promote the RVG if he believed the 1602P was better?
Dr. Rex Cobb is not only a supporter of the RVG, he is also a collaborator and has helped with its translation. He has been a tremendous help in revising the RVG and has released a public endorsement of the RVG Bible. You can read that endorsement here: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/an-experienced-bible-translator-endorses-the-rvg.
There is also a fully up to date version of Cobb's chart that includes the 1602P on the RVG Bible Society website. I will link his latest chart below.
In this updated chart, Dr. Cobb includes the RVG and the 1602P together. Notice how he has them ranked their fidelity to the Traditional Text of the Bible.
You will notice that the 1602P is given a discrepancy and the RVG is given a clean grade. The truth is that Dr. Rex Cobb's research proves the opposite of what the 1602 Purificada crowd is trying to teach with their modified chart on their website and in their promotional materials. This is called deceptive marketing.
I would like to publicly call on the 1602P promoters to immediately cease the use and propagation of this "modified" chart and issue a retraction to those they have sent it to. Dr. Cobb has publicly stated regarding this issue "This in my opinion is a very questionable practice that misrepresents me and the RVG Bible. Any such information is irrelevant and unreliable, and it should be ignored." Integrity dictates that they use the updated chart by Dr Cobb in which he himself included the 1602P and found issues in it. If they do not wish to use his updated chart then they must stop misrepresenting his work.
Lie #2, The Catholics changed God's name from "Palabra" to "Verbo"
On the home screen of the 1602P website, we find the article by G.A. Riplinger titled, "Catholics Changing God's Name." In this article, Riplinger argues that the Latin word "Verbum" (an origin word of “Verbo” in Spanish) is a corrupt word introduced by "Pope Novatian." Those of us who have studied church history will remember that Novatian (200-256 AD) lived about 100 years before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 325 AD. How could someone who lived 100 years before the Catholic church existed be a Pope? This is called deception.
Riplinger leans heavy into the argument that the 1569 and 1602 Reina-Valera Bibles used "La Palabra" in John 1:1 and that all Spanish Bibles must also do so. It was supposedly changed by "the Catholics" for unknown nefarious reasons. What she does not tell the reader is that "El Verbo" was used in older Spanish Bibles that date back to 1250AD[1] and that many modern Catholic Bibles also use "La Palabra." I will quote a few modern popular Bibles used by Spanish-speaking Catholics today.
(Catholic) Dios Habla Hoy: "En el principio ya existía la Palabra; y aquel que es la Palabra estaba con Dios y era Dios."
(Catholic) La Biblia de Jeresalén "En el principio existía la Palabra y la Palabra estaba con Dios, y la Palabra era Dios."
(Catholic) La Biblia Latinoamericana "En el principio era la Palabra, y la Palabra estaba ante Dios, y la Palabra era Dios."
(Jehovah's Witness) Traducción del Nuevo Mundo "En el principio la Palabra existía, la Palabra estaba con Dios y la Palabra era un dios."
If the Catholics changed the name of God to "El Verbo" then why do the modern Catholic Bibles and cult Bibles use "La Palabra?" This claim that the 1602P crowd is making is absolute and total nonsense and they should be ashamed for promoting this deception on their website.
The truth is that "El Verbo" is universally recognized in the Spanish world as the name of Christ "the Word" in modern Spanish. The RAE (the official dictionary of Spanish) defines "Verbo" as "the second person of the Holy Trinity."[2] In the Langensheidt Standard Dictionary of Spanish/English words, the word "Verbo" is defined as "the Word" (capital ‘W’ in reference to Jesus Christ). In the Harper Collins Spanish College Dictionary (5th edition) "El Verbo" is again defined as "the Word." The same can be said of many other Spanish dictionaries. "El Verbo" is a correct translation for "The Word" in Spanish. "El Verbo" is also a masculine word that does not create the Spanish grammar issues such as needing to refer to Jesus as "she" like "La Palabra" does. Please see the following graphic for more evidence that "El Verbo" is the correct word to use in the Spanish Bible.
"La Palabra" is a feminine word that requires feminine pronouns and therefore Jesus must be called "she." The 1602P uses "La Palabra" as their title for Christ, but then uses masculine pronouns instead of the correct feminine ones. In John 1:1-3 the 1602P reads:
1 EN el principio era la Palabra, y la Palabra era con Dios, y la Palabra era Dios.
2 Éste era en el principio con Dios.
3 Todas las cosas por él fueron hechas; y sin él nada de lo que es hecho, fue hecho.
I am sure that the 1602P revisers will have an argument as to why they broke the Spanish grammar rules here to make Jesus’ pronouns masculine. The reality is that there is a practical consequence to this change. The average Spanish reader is going to read the masculine pronouns in V3 and think that they refer to God (Dios) at the end of V2 thus losing the point of the verse that Jesus is the Creator. I am sure that the Jehovah Witness cult loves this change because they did the same thing in the Spanish New World Translation:
This idea that the Catholics changed God's name in the Spanish Bible is absolutely false and is deceptive marketing of the 1602P Spanish Bible. There is already enough confusion regarding the Spanish Bible issue without lies such as these. The 1602 Purificada crowd should stop teaching these falsehoods and issue a public retraction.
More information on “Verbo” vs “Palabra” here: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/a-look-at-john-1-1-putting-to-rest-the-debate-over-verbo-and-palabra
Lie #3, The 2004 RVG added a word to "condone the sin of INCEST"
The final lie I will deal with in this article that is being taught by the 1602P crowd is from an article on their website by Robert Breaker. What has me confounded is why the 1602P is officially promoting Robert Breaker's materials on their website and distributing his articles. Breaker is a former missionary who was dropped by his sending church and mission board for lying about his ministry.[3] He is currently the "pastor" of an online "church" called "The Cloud Church" (thecloudchurch.org). One only needs to spend a short time watching his YouTube videos or reading his materials to know that this is not someone you want as the face of your Bible version. He has even called RVG users a cult in one of his articles.[4]
I am truly confused as to why the 1602P representatives have chosen to promote him on their website and in the materials that they distribute. This tremendously hurts their credibility.
All of that aside, lets look at one particulary egregious lie that Breaker states in his article on the 1602P website. I will post a screenshot from the article which shows a reading in the original 2004 RVG which was corrected in all subsequent editions.
Notice that Breaker says that "hija" has been "added" to the verse. He also says that the "translator" (Humberto Gomez) knew it wasn't part of the original text. Breaker uses this verse in almost all of his materials that attack the RVG. On his YouTube channel he states that the RVG 2004 is the only Bible that adds "hija" to the text.[5] In another article, he questions if this supposed reference to incest gives us a "window into the mindset of the translator?"[6] The not so subtle slanderous implication from Breaker is that Dr. Gomez is a pervert.
The problem is that all of this is a terrible and slanderous lie. The RVG is a revision of the RV1909. I will quote the same verse from the RV1909.
Mas, si a alguno parece cosa fea en su hija virgen, que pase ya de edad, y que así conviene que se haga, haga lo que quisiere, no peca; cásese.
Why is the word "hija" in the RV1909? The reason is because it was in the original 1569 version by Reina (La Biblia del Oso)
Mas ſi à alguno parece coſa fea en ſu hija, que paſſe ya de edad, y que anſi cõuiene que ſe haga, haga loque quisiêre: no pec ca; case ſe.
Breaker is correct in saying that "hija" in this verse is an error. That is why it was quickly fixed. What is not true is that Dr. Gomez "added" this reading to the text as it was already present in the RV1909 from which the RVG came. It is certainly not true that the 2004 RVG is the only Bible that has this reading as he claims in his videos.
I am pretty sure that if Humberto Gomez wanted to sue Robert Breaker for slander and lies it would be an open and shut case. The question is why are these false and slanderous statements from Breaker on the 1602P website? Its presence is an endorsement from the 1602P promoters and this is shameful and egregious. They should immediately pull this slander down and issue an apology to Dr. Gomez for promoting it.
Conclusion
The Bible tells us in Proverbs 10:18 that "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." I understand that the 1602P promoters want to sell their Bibles and convince people that their version is the best. The problem is that the Bible condemns their use of lies and deception to do so. I know that the Spanish Bible issue can get heated at times, but it should never be acceptable to propogate false information in an attempt to convince people to use their preferred version. If the Valera 1602 Org representatives have integrity, they need to remove these deceptive articles immediately and stop propagating them. Let us all take a stand for integrity and truth as we go forward teaching textual purity in the Spanish language.
For more information on my opinion of the 1602P, please see my article: My thoughts on the 1602 Purificada
[3]Full letter to Robert Breaker by his former Pastor https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/the-rantings-and-ravings-of-robert-breaker pg 20-21
Comments