The Valera 1602 Purificada (1602P) is a Spanish Version that was originally released as a New Testament in 1999 by Iglesia Bautista Bíblica la Gracia (Grace Bible Baptist Church) in Monterrey, Mexico. The 1602P was released as a whole Bible in 2007, and as an updated edition in 2019 and in 2024. According to the website, “they have spent years on the purification process of the original Valera 1602 Spanish Bible.” This Bible is a revision of the 1602 Reina-Valera, and its goal is to follow the traditional text. The 1602P is used by some who desire a Spanish Bible that is free of the Critical Text and other textual corruptions that are so common today in Bible versions. As a Reina Valera Gomez (RVG) user, I have been asked many times my opinion of the 1602P, so I decided to review it in this article.
First of all, I would like to commend the 1602P revisers for their effort to have textual purity in this version. I am a friend of all those that love the Word of God and try to take a stand for textual purity in any language. That being said, the 1602P promoters and supporters have presented this version as a better Bible than the Reina Valera Gomez (RVG) for those who are seeking textual purity in Spanish. In this review, we will put that claim to the test. The text of the 1602P used in this article is from the 2024 edition that is available on their website valera1602.org, and the RVG is from the 2023 edition, available on rvgbiblia.com.
Accuracy
I began my review of the 1602P by reading in the book of Proverbs. I will note that I was not directed to that book by anyone, I simply chose it as a starting point. Since the 1602P presents itself as superior to the RVG, I compared it with the KJV and RVG together. While reading, I immediately noticed some anomalies. One verse that jumped out at me was in Proverbs 19:7:
1602P Todos los hermanos del pobre le aborrecen: ¡cuánto más sus amigos se alejarán de él! buscará la palabra y no la hallará.
KJV All the brethren of the poor do hate him: how much more do his friends go far from him! he pursueth them with words, yet they are wanting to him.
RVG Todos los hermanos del pobre lo aborrecen: ¡Cuánto más sus amigos se alejarán de él! Los buscará con palabras, y no los hallará.
In the last phrase of this verse, I noticed a big difference with the KJV and RVG. The 1602P reads “he searches for the word, and will not find it.” This is simply a bad translation. The point of the verse is that the poor man is pursuing his "friends" with "words." He is not pursuing the "words." I noticed that other Spanish Bibles make this same error (for example the RV1909 and RV1960). The RVG renders it correctly in agreement with the KJV (and the Hebrew grammar).
Moving on, I found another questionable rendering in Proverbs 21:25-26:
1602P El deseo del perezoso le mata, porque sus manos rehúsan trabajar. 26 Hay quien todo el día codicia con avaricia: mas el justo da, y no desperdicia.
KJV The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour. 26 He coveteth greedily all the day long: but the righteous giveth and spareth not.
RVG El deseo del perezoso lo mata, porque sus manos rehúsan trabajar; 26 todo el día codicia; pero el justo da, y no escatima.
The 1602P changes the subject from the slothful man in V25 to a random person by adding “hay quien” to verse 26. The KJV and RVG accurately show that the subject of V26 is the slothful man of V25.
In addition to the verses I have already noted, here are some other questionable readings I found in just four consecutive chapters of reading the 1602P. All of these verses were accurately rendered in the RVG.
Proverbs 19:12 says “lion cub” instead of “lion”
Proverbs 19:29 says “bodies” instead of “back”
Proverbs 20:12 adds “equally” to the verse
Proverbs 22:9 says “merciful” instead of “bountiful”
Proverbs 22:23 says “judge” instead of “plead”
Now I admit, I have not read the entire 1602P (I have read the RVG multiple times), but I feel that if this many issues are present over just four consecutive chapters, it is safe to assume that other issues exist elsewhere. As far as textual accuracy is concerned, I believe the RVG is the clear winner.
textual faithfulness
As I already stated, the 1602P (like the RVG) tries to be faithful to the traditional text of the Bible and avoid the corrupt readings found in so many modern Bibles. Because of this, I was surprised when I read Proverbs 25:24.
1602P Mejor es estar en un rincón de casa, que con la mujer rencillosa en espaciosa casa.
KJV It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.
RVG Mejor es vivir en un rincón del terrado, que con mujer rencillosa en espaciosa casa.
The anomaly in the 1602P is that they translated "housetop" or "rooftop" as "casa" (house). This is strange since the Hebrew word for "housetop" is distinct from that of "house" which is used later in the verse. The Hebrew word seems very obviously to mean "housetop." I noticed that the original 1602 Valera and 1569 Reina made the same error. It is a known fact that Reina used manuscripts that included the Septuagint, so I decided to check the Lexham English Septuagint. I was surprised to find it in agreement with the original Reina 1569, Valera 1602, and the 1602P.
Lexham English Septuagint It is better to live on the corner of a house than in a shared building with an abusive woman.
Now I do not know for certain as to why the 1602P chose "casa" (house) in this verse but I know that it is inaccurate and should be rendered "housetop" or "terrado." Because of this, I believe the RVG more faithfully follows the traditional text of the Bible than the 1602P.
Grammar
The second thing I noticed about the 1602P while reading it was some strange grammar choices. For example, in Proverbs 20:13:
1602P No ames el sueño, porque no te empobrezcas; abre tus ojos, y te hartarás de pan.
RVG No ames el sueño, para que no te empobrezcas; abre tus ojos, y te saciarás de pan.
KJV Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread.
The choice to stick with “porque” instead of the widely understood and used “para que” (as in the RVG) is an example of extremely outdated grammar of the 1602P. This is one example of many that make the 1602P noticeably harder to read than the RVG. The 1602P also uses "enclitic pronouns" in verses such as Proverbs 23:35.
1602P Y dirás: Hiriéronme, y no me dolió; azotáronme, y no lo sentí; ¿cuándo despertaré? aun lo tornaré a buscar.
RVG Y dirás: Me hirieron, pero no me dolió; me golpearon, pero no lo sentí; cuando despierte, aún lo volveré a buscar.
These verb forms are considered archaic by RAE or "Real Academy Dictionary of Spain" (the official standard that defines correct Spanish grammar and words). Many examples exist of outdated Spanish grammar and words in the 1602P. One text that caught my eye while reading was Proverbs 23:13-14:
1602P No rehuses la corrección del muchacho: porque si lo hirieres con vara, no morirá. 14 Tú lo herirás con vara, y librarás su alma del infierno.
KJV Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. 14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
RVG No rehúses corregir al muchacho; porque si lo castigas con vara, no morirá. 14 Tú lo castigarás con la vara, y librarás su alma del infierno.
The modern use of the word "herir" according to the RAE dictionary (and common understanding) is to "hurt, injure, cut, or damage" (with the rod).[1] In the context of disciplining children, this word needs to be updated in the 1602P, but it is not. The RVG rightly updates here with the phrase "castigar con la vara" (punish with the rod).
One of the worst gramatical offenses of the 1602P is in the name of Jesus Christ. The 1602P says "Jesús Cristo" 80 times. Anyone that speaks Spanish knows that "Jesucristo" is how it is said and is the correct grammar in Spanish. I feel bad for any preacher that has to read this embarrasing error from the pulpit during a message.
The promoters of the 1602P tell us that the archaic and hard to read Spanish in their revision is a good thing. They point to the King James Version as their justification for their outdated grammar. However I believe that this is a false equivalence. The King James Bible is the pinnacle of English literature, the same is not true of the 1602P and the original Reina-Valera 1602. The King James Bible is easy to read even for children 400 years after it was released, the same is not true of the 1602P and Reina-Valera 1602. The King James Bible was released 400 years ago and has a right to use archaic language, the 1602P was released in 1999 (with more recent editions) and yet still wants to use archaic Spanish.
The RVG is not only textually accurate, but also grammatically accurate, and uses updated and beautiful language. In the area of literary prowess and readability, the RVG wins hands down.
Use of “La Palabra” instead of “El Verbo”
One of the more interesting decisions of the 1602P revisers was their “grammar changes” that they made in John 1:1-3. In their desire to avoid using the widely used “El Verbo” title for Jesus, they went with “La Palabra” for “the Word”. The original 1602 Reina-Valera also used “La Palabra” but was forced to then call Jesus “she” (ella) in verse 3 because of Spanish grammar rules. "La Palabra" is a feminine word that requires feminine pronouns and therefore Jesus must be called "she." The 1602P revisers decided to go with "La Palabra" as their title for Christ, but then use 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.
Now 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:
1 En el principio la Palabra existía, la Palabra estaba con Dios y la Palabra era un dios.
2 Él estaba en el principio con Dios.
3 Todas las cosas llegaron a existir por medio de él, y sin él no llegó a existir ni siquiera una sola cosa.
Why was this confusing translation decision made by the 1602P revisors? The answer seems to be a bizarre belief that the commonly used "El Verbo" translation is some Catholic/pagan term. On their website, valera1602.org, they post prominently a 33-page article written by Gail Riplinger with the title "Catholics Changing God’s Name." In said article, Riplinger argues that the Latin word "Verbum" (an origin word of “Verbo” in Spanish) is a corrupt word introduced by "Pope Novatian." Now 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. Calling him a "pope" is odd to say the least.
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 [3] and that many modern Catholic Bibles also use "La Palabra."
For sake of brevity, I do not have time to deal with all the errors of Riplinger’s article in this review, but I can point you to an excellent article that details why she is tremendously mistaken: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/verbo-or-palabra-why. I recommend that the 1602P revisers seriously reconsider promoting this article on their website as I feel its blatant errors hurt their credibility. For those who want to explore the real Latin origins of the word "Verbo" and the manuscript evidence for said word, here is an in-depth article: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/apologia-pro-verbum-perspectives-regarding-the-latin-translation-of-the-logos-and-their-doctrinal.
Latin root-word origins aside, "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."[4] 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."
“SEÑOR” or “Jehová”
Another difference between the 1602P and most other Spanish Versions (including the Reina-Valera 1602 of which it is based) is the decision to change the traditional "Jehová" to "SEÑOR" throughout the Bible. English readers will remember that when they read "LORD" with all caps in the King James Bible, it means that the word "Jehovah" is being translated. In Spanish Bibles, the simple rendering of "Jehová" has been the accepted translation for hundreds of years. Both Reina and Valera stood for the use of "Jehová" in their Bibles of which the 1602P is a revision. Because of the 1602P's decision to not use "Jehová," I think that it is inaccurate to then call it a Valera 1602 Revision. That change alone is a major one that takes place in over six thousand occasions and goes against the views of the original translators. The 1602P promoters teach that the RVG is inferior to the 1602P because the RVG uses "Jehová" and the 1602P "SEÑOR." I strongly disagree that the 1602P is superior because of this difference.
promoting robert breaker
In doing research for this article I was surprised to find that the 1602P website has an article written by Robert Breaker posted prominently on their articles page. A friend of mine also sent me a comparison chart made by Breaker that is being circulated by the official 1602P spokesmen in an attempt to attack the RVG. In examining Breaker's comparison chart, I noticed most of the verses were from older editions of the RVG and have been corrected in the later editions (especially the 2023). Others were, quite frankly, just incoherent criticisms. For example, Breaker attacks the RVG for its use of "presenta" in Mathew 5:24:
1602P Deja allí tu presente delante del altar, y ve, reconcíliate primero con tu hermano, y entonces ven y ofrece tu presente.
KJV Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
RVG deja allí tu ofrenda delante del altar, y ve, reconcíliate primero con tu hermano, y entonces ven y presenta tu ofrenda.
The official definition of the verb "presentar" in Spanish (according to RAE) includes "offer, and give freely." The point is that "presenta" and "ofrece" are synonyms and to attack the RVG for using "presenta" is absurd because both words are fine. The entire article by Robert Breaker being promoted by 1602P representatives is full of these types of "errors" in the RVG.
Another example that Breaker uses to attack the RVG is Psalm 23:2. He criticizes the RVG's use of the future tense "hará" since the KJV uses the present "maketh." I did a simple check of the tense of the Hebrew verb and found that it is in the imperfect tense which means "actions that are not completed or actions that occur in the present or future."[5] The Spanish language has many different verb tenses and the Spanish future tense being employed here is not erroneous, nor does it conflict with the tense of the English. To condemn the RVG over the perfectly fine use of the future tense here is hypocritical considering that the 1602P just a few chapters later in Psalm 126:1 uses the future tense where the RVG and KJV use the past:
1602P CUANDO el SEÑOR hiciere tornar la cautividad de Sión, seremos (future) como los que sueñan.
RVG «Cántico gradual» Cuando Jehová hizo volver la cautividad de Sión, éramos (past) como los que sueñan.
KJV When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were (past) like them that dream.
What has me confounded is why the 1602P is officially promoting Robert Breaker's materials on their website and with his articles that they distribute. Breaker is a former missionary who was dropped by his sending church and mission board for lying about his ministry.[7] He is currently the "pastor" of an online only "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. 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. I feel it hurts their credibility.
The name "Valera 1602 Purificada"
Something interesting about the 1602P is that they intentionally left off the name "Reina" in their "Reina-Valera" revision. I was told by someone who was on the original revision committee that this was done due to doctrinal disapproval with Reina. I personally feel that this decision was disrespectful as it uses his work while trying to alienate him from it. I recently heard a representative of the 1602P say, "unlike the RVG, we were not interested in putting a man's name on our revision." I am not sure how this makes any sense since the man's name "Valera" is on their Bible. In spite of this contradiction, if we follow this logic and reject a Bible because it bears the name of its workmen then we cannot use the King James Bible either.
conclusion
I would like to conclude by stating that I do not believe that the 1602P is superior to the RVG. The RVG is more grammatically accurate and textually accurate than the 1602P. While I appreciate the desire of the 1602P revisers to produce a Bible that is accurate to the traditional text, I do not think that the finished project is the best available Spanish Bible we have today. I wish the 1602P supporters well, but I believe personally that the better option for those seeking textual purity in the Spanish language is the RVG.
[7] 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