In 2024 I preached a message condemning the removal of the name of Christ from popular Spanish Bibles. I touched on the fact that the devil hates the name of Christ and expressed my belief that the devil is behind the textual corruption of the Bible, especially regarding the trend of the corrupt Critical Text to delete the name of Christ in modern Bible versions. Had I preached this message only against the NIV and other Critical Text English Bibles, I am certain that all KJV pastors would have given me a resounding amen. My trespass however, was in showing that these Critical Text corruptions also exist in the RV1960 Spanish Bible. As a result, an RV1960 defender took the time to write a 9,000 plus word article that defends the Critical Text's removal of the Lord’s name from the RV1960 Spanish Bible. You can find said article on Calvin George's website and you can listen to the message in question here: https://youtu.be/3iLnxNLHTYg?si=M_Egwf7zOBRyNZRc.
I pastor a church and have preached regularly for many years, so I am accustomed to people disagreeing with my preaching. I must admit though that having a whole article written attacking a single message of mine is a first for me. Normally I would not respond to such nonsense, but in this case, I believe that the defense of the name of Christ in the Bible is a worthy cause for me to dedicate the time to a response. Let us begin by looking at some of the texts that I presented in my message where the RV1960 follows the Critical Text and deletes the name that is above all names.
Christ omitted – Luke 4:41a
KJV) And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God...
(NIV) Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!”... (omitted)
(RVG) Y también salían demonios de muchos, dando voces y diciendo: Tú eres Cristo, el Hijo de Dios...
(RV1909) Y salían también demonios de muchos, dando voces, y diciendo: Tú eres el Hijo de Dios... (omitted)
(RV1960) También salían demonios de muchos, dando voces y diciendo: Tú eres el Hijo de Dios... (omitted)
(Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text) εξηρχετο δε και δαιμονια απο πολλων κραζοντα και λεγοντα οτι συ ει ο υιος του θεου και επιτιμων ουκ εια αυτα λαλειν οτι ηδεισαν τον χριστον αυτον ειναι (omitted)
By Jesus Christ omitted – Ephesians 3:9b
(KJV) ...which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
(NIV) ...which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. (omitted)
(RVG) ...desde el principio del mundo en Dios, que creó todas las cosas por Jesucristo;
(RV1909) ...escondido desde los siglos en Dios, que crió todas las cosas. (omitted)
(RV1960) ...escondido desde los siglos en Dios, que creó todas las cosas; (omitted)
(Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text) και φωτισαι τις η οικονομια του μυστηριου του αποκεκρυμμενου απο των αιωνων εν τω θεω τω τα παντα κτισαντι (omitted)
Of Christ omitted – Romans 1:16a
(KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation...
(NIV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation...(omitted)
(RVG) Porque no me avergüenzo del evangelio de Cristo; porque es el poder de Dios para salvación...
(RV1909) Porque no me avergüenzo del evangelio: porque es potencia de Dios para salud...(omitted)
(RV1960) Porque no me avergüenzo del evangelio, porque es poder de Dios para salvación...(omitted)
(Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text) ου γαρ επαισχυνομαι το ευαγγελιον δυναμις γαρ θεου εστιν εις σωτηριαν παντι τω πιστευοντι ιουδαιω τε [πρωτον] και ελληνι (omitted)
Cometh in the name of the Lord omitted – Mark 11:10
(KJV) Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
(NIV) “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” “Hosanna in the highest heaven!” (omitted)
(RVG) ¡Bendito el reino de nuestro padre David, que viene en el nombre del Señor! ¡Hosanna en las alturas!
(RV1909) Bendito el reino de nuestro padre David que viene: ¡Hosanna en las alturas! (omitted)
(RV1960) ¡Bendito el reino de nuestro padre David que viene! ¡Hosanna en las alturas! (omitted)
(Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text) ευλογημενη η ερχομενη βασιλεια του πατρος ημων δαυιδ ωσαννα εν τοις υψιστοις (omitted)
Lord omitted – Luke 23:42
(KJV) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
(NIV) Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (omitted)
(RVG) Y dijo a Jesús: Señor, acuérdate de mí cuando vengas en tu reino.
(RV1909) Y dijo a Jesús: Acuérdate de mí cuando vinieres a tu reino. (omitted)
(RV1960) Y dijo a Jesús: Acuérdate de mí cuando vengas en tu reino. (omitted)
(Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text) και ελεγεν ιησου μνησθητι μου οταν ελθης εις την βασιλειαν σου (omitted)
Lord omitted – Mark 9.24
(KJV) And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
(NIV) Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” (omitted)
(RVG) Y al instante el padre del muchacho, clamando con lágrimas, dijo: Señor, creo, ayuda mi incredulidad.
(RV1909) Y luego el padre del muchacho dijo clamando: Creo, ayuda mi incredulidad. (omitted)
(RV1960) E inmediatamente el padre del muchacho clamó y dijo: Creo; ayuda mi incredulidad. (omitted)
(Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text) ευθυς κραξας ο πατηρ του παιδιου ελεγεν πιστευω βοηθει μου τη απιστια (omitted)
Other examples that were mentioned in my message where the RV 1960 omits the name of Christ are found in Matthew 24:2, Luke 9:43, Acts 3:26, Acts 7:30, Acts 9:5, Acts 15:11, Acts 15:17, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2 Corinthians 4:10, and 2 Corinthians 5:18.
The Critical Text Dilemma of Calvin George
The problem that Calvin George faces in his attempt to justify the above deletions of the Lord’s name is that they are Critical Text/Alexandrian Manuscript readings. This fact is undeniable. The RV1960 relied heavily on the Critical Text. The famous Eugene Nida was the organizer and overseer of the Reina-Valera 1960 revision committee. Like most modern textual critics, he was a huge supporter of the Critical Text. In his book Bible Translating, he encourages Bible translators to use the Critical Text when translating the Bible to any other language.[1] Nida admits to intentional departures from the Received Text in the RV1960. In his book The Bible Translator he wrote:
Nevertheless, in some instances where a Critical Text is so much preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus the committee did make some slight changes, particularly if such changes were not in well-known verses where an alteration would be unduly upsetting to the constituency.[2]
The men behind the Reina-Valera 1960 said themselves that they used the Critical Text. They specifically stated that they tried to insert the Critical Text into the RV1960 in such a way that would not be "upsetting" to those who would buy the Bible.
Jose Flores, who was the President of the Spanish Bible Society and a consultant to the RV1960 revision committee, speaks to the incorporation of the Critical Text in the RV1960 Spanish Bible. He said:
One principle added to the first list of the RV 1960 revision committee was that wherever the RV1909 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.[3]
Flores clarifies that the RV1960 not only used the Greek Critical Text, but also followed English Critical Text translations.
So how can Calvin George make us all feel better about the many places where the RV1960 deletes the name of Christ as a result of following the Corrupt Critical Text? His only solution is to try to distract us by using a logical fallacy.
The Logical Fallacy of False Equivalence
George’s entire article is him using the logical fallacy of false equivalence in order to try to distract his reader from the fact that the RV1960 follows the corrupt Critical Text and deletes the name of our Lord in many key places. Here is a short definition of false equivalence.
False Equivalence: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.[4]
In order to demonstrate how this fallacy is employed, let’s take a look at some of his arguments in the article.
George: "Sometimes the KJV does not include divine names that are in the Textus Receptus”
George brings up Acts 7:20 and says it is an example of the KJV leaving out the Lord’s name. He then tries to convince us that the RV1960 is just doing the same as the KJV in deleting Christ's name so we should not be upset. George is right that the word Θεῷ was not translated as “God” in this verse in the KJV. It was however translated as “exceedingly” because in this case it can be considered an “Hebraism.” A number of English translations do the same thing. This is not a deletion of the name of God nor is it an inaccurate translation. I wonder sometimes what anti-KJV websites George gets his arguments from, but they are always things that have been debunked long ago. There are multiple good articles online that explain this verse and it is hard to argue against the fact that in English, this is a correct translation. What does this have to do with the RV1960 deleting “by Jesus Christ” from the creation of the world in Ephesians 3:9, “Lord” from the confession of the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42, or “Christ” from the confession of the demon in Luke 4:41? Absolutely nothing. Calvin George is simply employing a false equivalence in order to try to distract us from the Critical Text deletions of the RV1960.
Next George tells us that the KJV follows Beza’s TR and does not include “Holy One” in Rev 16:5 even though some other Reformation Bibles and TR editions included it. I personally don’t have a problem with this, I trust the collation methods of the KJV committee a lot more than I do the RV1960 committee. Jack Moorman writes about the good manuscript evidence supporting this decision of the KJV translators in his book When the KJV departs from the Majority Text. In this same verse the RV1960 leaves out “and shalt be." What does the KJV following Beza’s TR have to do with the RV1960 following the corrupt Critical Text and deleting the name of Christ from the gospel of Christ in Romans 1:16? Absolutely nothing, it's simply another false equivalence. We also see here the game plan of Calvin George in his attempt to defend the Critical Text in the RV1960: Cast doubt on the reliability of the KJV.
Next Mr. George brings up the fact that sometimes characters in the KJV address Christ as “sir” when it could have been translated “Lord.” What does this fact have to do with the RV1960 following the corrupt Critical Text and deleting the name of Christ throughout the New Testament? Absolutely nothing. It is just another example of the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Next up, we are reminded that sometimes the KJV (and other versions) add the name of Jesus for clarity, so we know who is being talked about. George points out that sometimes the RV1960 changes the Greek pronoun for Jesus to a proper name. This is supposed to make us feel better about them deleting the name of our Lord elsewhere. What does this have to do with the RV1960 following the corrupt Critical Text and deleting the name of Christ in key places throughout the New Testament? Once again, it's just an argument of false equivalence.
George then goes into differences between various editions and manuscripts of the Textus Receptus. His tactic with all these arguments is to cause the reader to doubt the trustworthiness of the KJV. The only way he can defend the Critical Text in the RV1960 is to try to convince us that we cannot really know for sure what the pure text of the Bible actually is. I will remind the reader that the greatest coalition of manuscripts and TR editions, ancient translations, church father’s quotes, and other resources ever done was accomplished by the King James translators. That is why the King James Bible, and its underlying text are my final authority. I am not bothered by these small differences within manuscripts of the traditional text family as the process of collation has directed us to the preserved text of the Bible. We know what God said in His Word and we are not left in the dark to wonder what should and should not be in the Bible. As we will soon see, Calvin George thrives on creating unceartainty and doubt in the mind of the reader as to the exact text of the Bible. For more information on how to know for sure that God has perfectly preserved His Word, you can read my book Not One Jot or Tittle which is available on Amazon.com.
Don’t Worry about Doctrinal Changes
George: "There are those who will say that doctrines are affected by discrepancies of divine names in the Reina-Valera when the context does not support their statements, nor do basic and recognized rules of hermeneutics. No doctrine is missing, as no major doctrine hinges on just one or two verses."
Here we are told not to worry about the doctrines affected by Critical Text verses in the RV1960 because we can always just use other verses. Why would we make a big deal about Jesus Christ being removed from the creation in Ephesians 3:9 when we can just find another verse? According to his logic, I am assuming that Calvin George does not have a problem with Critical Text Bibles removing 1 John 5:7, or other entire verses in Critical Text translations because we could always just find other verses to make our point. Why should we care when the Alexandrian manuscripts delete the resurrection story in Mark 16? We can always read about it in the other gospels. I hope the reader can sense my sarcasm.
We should note that the arguments Mr. George uses are the exact same as those who defend the NIV and other corrupt English versions. Where is his limit of how much of the Bible can be removed before it bothers him? I personally want all of the Scriptures because the Bible tell me that I need every word of God.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
More attacks on the KJV
George: "It has been demonstrated in this study that even the KJV sometimes does not follow the TR, but those cases are admittedly rare. I find it interesting that those advocating for no deviations from the TR in the slightest in foreign translations are not willing to have non-TR readings removed from the KJV, regardless of how few there might be."
The reader should once again notice the false equivalence here. The KJV at times deviated from Beza’s edition of the TR because the manuscript evidence demanded that they do so. I would encourage the reader to get Jack Moorman's book When the KJV departs from the Majority Text. This book clearly demonstrates that in every supposed "departure" the KJV translators collation of manuscript evidence was second to none and they made the correct decision. What they did not do was follow the corrupt Critical Text like the RV1960.
Calvin George's false equivalence here is trying to say that the correct decision of the KJV translators to weed out problems in Beza’s TR edition gives permission to the RV1960 to use the corrupt Critical Text of Westcott and Hort. Once again, he defends the Critical Text in the RV1960 by attacking the integrity of the KJV. This is always his main argument when trying to convince KJV users to use the RV1960 in Spanish. I deal with this deception in more detail in this video if interested: https://youtu.be/KL-M25BYX_8?si=tm_7AGzlN4ceYWGi
The reality is that George is perfectly fine with the RV1960 following the Critical Text. Consider what he has written:
George: “I believe Westcott & Hort Texts can be consulted in the process of translating (such was the case in the Reina-Valera 1909 & 1960); however, it must not form the basis for a translation.”[5]
George: “Yes, I recognize that there are some critical readings in RV1960… the Reina-Valera and the sources from which they originate are reliable”[6]
This is not someone that King James Bible believing Christians need to be listening to regarding the purity of the Spanish Bible. He does not value textual purity, nor does he believe that we can know for sure what the Bible actually says. All he can do is attack the integrity of the KJV in order to justify the Critical Text following RV1960.
George calls me a conspiracy theorist
In his article, George calls my statement that many changes in the Critical Text Bibles have been influenced by the devil a “conspiracy theory.”
George: "The conference speaker did not use the term “conspiracy,” but it does not seem too strong a term to describe his theory as to the discrepancies over divine names in the Scriptures, considering his statements, such as “one of the greatest blasphemies the devil has ever achieved.”
George takes the naturalistic road to explain the multitude of terrible corruptions in the Critical Text. He blames scribal errors (which at times did happen) and makes this statement:
George: "It’s completely unreasonable to attribute heretical motives without foundation while there are reasonable alternatives at hand."
Then George makes this interesting confession...
George: "Church history does reveal that there were some, such as Marcion, who attempted to corrupt Scripture. Marcion even edited his own gospel, likely based on the book of Luke, but brazenly expunged much of the content of the first four chapters, and that was just the beginning. Intentional manipulation of Scripture in history is not denied."
George admits that many textual corruptions were indeed intentional and done by bad actors. There are many books that have been written about these intentional corruptions. What he refuses to concede is that the devil could be working through these bad actors. Instead, he calls me a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that the devil is behind the name of Christ being deleted in the Critical Text corruptions.
Is it really hard to believe that the devil could be involved in textual corruption? Was not the first deception of Satan "Yea, hath God said?" Consider what the Bible says about this topic of the devil working through bad actors:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Eph 6:12
According to the Bible, bad actors are indeed doing the work of Satan. Our battle is with the devil, not with men. While these men may or may not be conscious of it, the devil uses them to accomplish his purposes. I find it disturbing that Calvin George, who is a preacher, has such a naturalistic view of the world and the Bible that he calls another preacher preaching about the spiritual battle of textual corruption a conspiracy theorist. Was my crime of noticing the spiritual battle here so great that it should invoke an entire article attacking me? I will let the reader decide.
George twists the facts
George attempts to argue in his article that some of the textual corruptions regarding the name of the Lord were not a result of the RV1960 following the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort.
George: "Nearly all the passages the conference speaker complained about concerning divine names had precedent in the Spanish Bible in the 1862 edition or before (at least five going back to 1569), which pre-dates Westcott and Hort’s 1881 text. Of 18 disputes over divine names in the RV1960, 15 were omitted in the Reina-Valera lineage in the 1862 edition or earlier. This results in 83% of cases before Westcott and Hort’s 1881 text. If one case of Jesucristo (two divine names incorporated into one word) enclosed in brackets in older Spanish Bibles is included, 17 of 18 cases were before 1881 (94%). If the conference speaker was trying to imply that the discrepancies over divine names in the Spanish Bible can be linked to two controversial figures, the historical timeline does not add up!"
I have learned from experience not to trust information provided by Calvin George, so I went ahead and looked up the 16 verses I mentioned in my message in older Reina Valera versions. Here is what I found:
Matt 24:2 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1862
Mark 9:24 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Mark 11:10 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Luke 4:41 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Luke 23:42 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Luke 9:43 – Divine name missing in older Reina-Valeras
Acts 3:26 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Acts 7:30 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Acts 9:5 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Acts 15:11 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Acts 15:17 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Rom 1:16 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1862
1 Corinthians 9:1 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
2 Corinthians 4:10 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
2 Corinthians 5:18 – Divine name included in the 1556, 1602, 1858, 1862, 1865
Eph 3:9 – Divine name is included in 1556, brackets in 1602, italics in 1862, 1865[7]
Only one of the examples that I used in my message does not appear in older Reina Valera Bibles. We all understand that the older Reina Valera Versions were not perfect and at times used corrupted texts in their translation. The Critical Text of Westcott and Hort did not exist until 1881 but the manuscripts on which they were based did.
Despite this desperate attempt, George cannot escape the fact that the RV1960 follows the Critical Text. George admits it himself and it is clearly stated by the RV1960 revision committee. Is George being intentionally deceitful when he implies that Westcott and Hort had nothing to do with the RV1960 leaving out the name of our Lord in these sixteen texts? Why is he so desperate to defend these corrupt readings and removal of the name of Christ in the RV1960?
George does not believe that we can be certain as to what God says.
George: "…some seem to insist that nothing less than absolute certainty in every non-doctrinal technicality is acceptable in preservation. On one hand, such a desire is admirable, but we must be realistic and transparent with what has indeed been preserved for us, which provides adequate, wonderful, trustworthy certainty, even though it may not meet the threshold of absolute certainty in every non-doctrinal technicality as in the original autographs."
Several years ago, George wrote an attack article on my book Not One Jot or Tittle: How God preserved His Word for all nations. In his article, he gives seven reasons why he does not believe that the perfect preservation of the Scriptures is possible. I deal with all seven of his reasons thoroughly in this article: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/did-god-perfectly-preserve-the-scriptures-my-response-to-calvin-george-s-attack-on-my-book
The point is Calvin George is just another naturalistic Bible critic who does not believe that we can truly know for sure exactly what God said in His Word. This allows for a plurality of texts and no final authority as to what the Bible actually should say. Why KJV pastors would continue to listen to him is beyond me. They might as well be listening to Mark Ward.
What is the solution to this problem?
George: "Should we disrupt all Spanish ministries that use the RV1960 and call all missionaries home using the RV1960 or issue them ultimatums to quit using it based on an unproven hypothesis? The speaker did not call for this outright, but would it not be the effect if his rhetoric was taken literally?"
I do not believe that the solution to the problem of the Spanish Bible is to disrupt all Spanish ministries and call all missionaries home. I believe that the solution to the problem is to stop using the corrupt Spanish RV1960 and start using good Spanish versions like the RVG. The problem is that people like George put politics above the purity of God’s Word.
George: "I’ve said many times that the problem with the RVG is not so much the text, but the movement behind it."
Calvin George just spent an entire article trying to justify the Critical Text deletions of the name of Christ from the Word of God. He attacks me for pointing out these problems and calls me a conspiracy theorist and a user of “divisive rhetoric,” yet he ends his article with saying that the text of the RVG is good, but he would never consider supporting it because of politics. I believe that it is time for all to put politics and personalities aside and take a stand for the purity of God’s Word. Stop being complicit with these Critical Text Bibles removing Christ's name for the Word of God!
Conclusion
I hope the reader will take the time to listen to my message that caused Calvin George to be so upset. They can then decide if I am peddling “conspiracy theories” about the corruption of God’s Word being influenced by the devil. I pray that God will help me to continue to defend the name of Christ from the corruptions of the Critical Text for the rest of my life. The precious name of Jesus Christ is worth defending.
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. - Acts 15:26
[1] Eugene Nida, Bible Translating, (American Bible Society), 1947, 50.
[2] Eugene Nida, The Bible Translator, Vol 12, 1961, 113.
[3] José Flores, El Texto Del Nuevo Testamento, CLIE 1977, 323.
[5] Calvin George, The Battle for the Spanish Bible, 115.
[6] Calvin George, article attacking my book Not one Jot or Tittle, (available on his website)(Google translate was used to translate his statements from Spanish to English).
Comments