By Dr. Carlos Donate (originally written in 2005, updated in 2024)
“The Bible Believer’s Guide to Elephant Hunting” by brother Jeff McArdle of the Valera Bible Society located in Miami, Florida, is a good exposé of the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts of the Reina-Valera Revision of 1960 and those who defend Westcott and Hort.
Unfortunately, since the writing of his book, he has also attacked the RVG. In April of 2005, I began to help Dr. Humberto Gómez and his project to purify the Antigua Reina-Valera 1909 and bring it to the highest standard with the Received Text for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old.
In speaking with Brother Jeff McArdle, and others, I have tried to make it clear why I prefer not to use this revision today. His book, “The Bible Believer’s Guide to Elephant Hunting” dismisses the idea of a complete revision by Bible believing Christians, and therefore dismisses the aforementioned projects. I appreciate brother McArdle and his stand for a good Spanish Bible. However, I beg to differ with certain of his comments, and I hope that he, as well as others, will understand the need to further revise and purify the Valera 1865. Although some of the words and phrases in question are a matter of idiomatic expressions, many are not. Some are doctrinal in nature, and thus require additional textual revision, which my dear brother opposes.
It was understood in his book that changes in the Spanish Bible that· come from a Latin American (Mexican) mindset, would invalidate any project being undertaken by Latin Americans because in his opinion it isn’t Spanish- that is, from Spain. This not only is absurd, but also inaccurate. Some changes in the RVG are in agreement with older, pre-Valera versions. This would include Enzinas´ New Testament of 1543, Juan de Valdez ´collation of several New Testament books, and the Juan Perez Pineda´s New Testament prior to 1569. These men were all Spaniards. Included also on this list would be the Ferrara Old Testament of 1553, which Reina and Valera consulted, but didn’t necessarily follow. An example is Deuteronomy 32:25 and Joel 1:8. There we read “virgen” rather than Valera´s “doncella” or “muger moza”. Prior to Mora and Pratt’s revision of 1865, there was the 1806, 1813, 1816 and the 1831 revisions. I have consulted most of these. All, if any, word changes were, of course, consulted with the official Spanish-language dictionary called “Diccionario de la Real Academia Española”, as were all morphological expressions and grammar. Dr. Gomez could not “produce” what has already existed for centuries. Dr. Gomez and his collaborators chose, after much deliberation and prayer, what they felt was the correct rendering of a word which already existed in an older version which aligned itself with the KJB, without it being a King James Bible word per se.
For the sake of comparison, let’s consider the word “tradiciones” in the 1865 as it appears in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15. Though the KJB has “traditions” (Greek: paradosis—doctrine, teaching), in Spanish it was unwise for Mora & Pratt to choose this word, given the Catholic church’s emphasis on following traditions. In Spanish, we believe that the better word is “doctrina”, just like the original 1602 had. In selecting which word should or shouldn’t be retained, the IBBG studied their etymology, that is, their root meaning. The etymology of some Spanish words derives their origin from paganism or a non-Christian philosophy, such as “ojalá”, which in the days of Spain’s control by the Muslims was actually a prayer to the false god Allah, even though the expression is now common in Spanish. The 1865 retains this word 12 times. Therefore, being of Spanish origin doesn’t make it necessarily proper. As to so-called “archaisms”, that is, words and expressions that are old, and supposedly out-of–use, I believe that certain good Spanish words, however old they may be, should be retained in our Spanish Bible. Archaic words in the Spanish Bible ought to enrich our Spanish vocabulary. The 1865 has many of them, and we are not opposed to them entirely. However, it’s interesting that there are some words in the 1602/1865 that are not to be found in any Spanish dictionary, like the word “aljanaya” in Habakkuk 1:15 & 16. The 1909 offers “aljerife” which does appear in DRAE. Archaic words ought to be retained in any Bible so long as they can be defined.
Brother McArdle´s statements against IBBG´s usage of Valera´s name in association to the Valera 1602 project are preposterous. Though Enzinas, Valdez, Perez and others were indeed consulted, Valera´s 1602 was indeed their main text. It was their starting point. Added to this, we read how both Reina and Valera invited God´s royal priesthood to improve upon their work. Spanish Reformer Cipriano de Valera began this process. Reading Reina and Valera’s own words, it is generally understood that their Bibles were not a final product. Allow me to quote Valera from the introduction of his 1602 Bible: “....y aun algunas (sometimes) vezes avemos alterado el texto (we had to alter the text). Lo cual avemos hecho con maduro confejo y deliberacion ( we did it with much maturity and deliberation): y no fiando (not relying on ourselves) nos de nosotros mismos (porque nueftra confiencia nos teftifica quan pequeño fea nueftro caudal) lo avemos conferido con hombres doctos y pios (but have consulted these changes with pious and learned men), y con diverfas traflaciones ( and diverse translations), que por la misericordia de Dios ay en diverfas lenguas el día de hoy ( which by the mercies of God we have today).” Valera goes on to say how he revised some other words which he felt were better rendered differently. This is not, then, as suggested by Brother Jeff McArdle, a “Laodicean-age” thing. It was Valera´s own wish for others to revise his work. Valera started the process because he felt Reina´s 1569 Bible needed it. Brother McArdle dismisses the notion of a someone wanting to purify the Valera Bible even though Valera himself said it needed revising. Consider his rejection of the Vulgate, and the Septuagint (LXX), which were included in Reina’s Bible previously.
May I say a word on the concept of restoration? Some brethren fail to understand it. “Restoration” refers to putting back into the Spanish text the words and phrases which were taken out by the 1960 revisionists against the Valera original text. It refers to words or phrases restored back into the text which followed the Received Text and/or the KJB which appeared in post editions of the Valera 1602 Bible, including the 1816, 1831, 1850, 1857 and the 1865.
Also, I cannot understand why Brother McArdle would suggest on page 58 of his book that we ought to reprint the original 1602 just as it appeared back then for mass distribution purposes! I believe that would be a mistake. Some words then wouldn’t go over well today. For example, words like “cabrón” (vulgar term) which Valera used 48 times in 1602 would not go over well in Latin America.
Is revision of the original text necessary? Yes, of course. Pratt believed and practiced revision. Did he not revise the phrase “sumo Pontífice” found in the original 1602 all throughout the book of Hebrews to “sumo sacerdote”? Indeed. We likewise feel this is definitely the right word.
Let’s do a word study of “castigo” as it appears consistently in the 1865. Some of these references are Proverbs 1:2, 3, 8; 8:10; 23:10. Though it may be argued that DRAE´s definition of “castigo” could include instruction, some could misconstrue the meaning and say that the 1865 teaches we ought to beat our children. Our heavenly Father instructs us. It stands in my opinion, that 1909 has the better choice of words such as “consejo”, “doctrina” or “enseñanza” in many of these passages. Common sense, not doctrine, is the issue here.
Daniel 4:8, 9; 5:11,14 has “dioses santos” in the 1865. That’s fine, because it agrees with KJB. However, if we followed the original 1602, we would have “ángeles santos”. The original 1602 has “confesaba” in Daniel 6:10, but Mora & Pratt, following KJB, revised this word and instead used the better “daba gracias” (gave thanks). The upcoming 5rd edition of RVG will have it likewise-- “daba gracias”.
What about Daniel 7:9, 13 & 22? The 1865 revised this passage following the 1611 AV and has “Anciano de días” instead of 1602´s “anciano de grande edad”. The point is, we can’t always go with the original 1602. Mora & Pratt didn’t. They knew better.
Go to Daniel 9:25. The original 1602 has “Capitán Christo”. It seems that neither Mora nor Pratt liked that expression (also appears in 1831) and decided to revise it, naturally with the KJB, to read “Príncipe Mesías”.
We read in 11:37 of Daniel where 1865 changed the word “curará” to “hará caso” in one of two places in the same verse. Then we see in verse 38 that they left the letter d in capital form, whereas KJB and 1909 render it properly with small letter d. The word “Dios” belongs strictly to the one and only true God. Trifle mistakes? Perhaps, but does the reader now realize that the original 1602 needed revision?
With the original Valera 1602 we have a major doctrinal problem with its rendition of 1 Peter 2:2. There we have the words “en salud” added as part of the text, which would advocate progressive salvation, when in reality these two words are not part of the TR. Where did Valera get them? No doubt from an inferior text, perhaps the Vulgate (“in salutem”)? G.R. Berry´s Interlinear GNT reveal that these two words (eis soterion) are part of the textual criticism of our day. I’m sure glad Mora and Pratt believed, and practiced revision principles! Actually, the 1831 had already produced the change like it appears in the 1865.
Also, if we go with the idea of reprinting the 1602 just as it appeared back in 1602, one would have to delete “de Cristo” from Romans 1:16. Therefore reprinting the 1602 is definitely not a good idea.
Pratt did not think to reprint the 1602 as is, else he would have used “charidad” all 102 times as it appears in 1602. Speaking of which, the 1602 (and therefore 1865) omit “of charity” OR “of love” in Jude 12, just like the Vulgate does. The TR Greek has “agapaiv”.
Again, Mora and Pratt did not follow 1602 as is in Matthew 25:46, where we read “suplicio” instead of “tormento” like 1602. Why this change? “Tormento” speaks to the sinner better than “suplicio”.
We read in Colossians 3:17 how Mora-Pratt’s 1865 rendered the Greek word di (from the Greek dia) as “through”. However, the KJ men translated it as “by”. Deity being affected, we do know it is corrupt, as Westcott and Hort chose this reading years later (see RSV, 1960, etc). One will note that 1602 has “por” (by), not “por medio de” (through). The RVG restored “por”.
Another big change that needed attention was Psalms 12:7, where Valera, unfortunately, did not revise. This is one of the most important verses that we Bible believers use to defend the pure (not just clean) words of God. The brethren of the Valera Bible Society will be quick to point out the construction of the Hebrew in this verse. The first “them” here is masculine plural—“eem”. The second “them” can either be masculine OR feminine singular—“enu”. Contextually, and due to this ambiguity, we must say that the whole chapter is referring to words spoken by the heathen and words spoken by the Lord. The change must be made if providential preservation is to be taught from the text.
Another change must be made in Daniel 3:25. This was the verse pastor Mickey Carter confronted his former Spanish pastor with! The 1865 does not translate the verse adequately enough here. In order to teach that the 4rth Man was the Son of God, in Spanish the article “al” must be inserted before “Hijo”.
Another problem: I honestly think “dioses” in Hosea 4:12 needs to agree with 1611´s “God” (Dios)—capital D.
Go to 1st Chronicles 28:12. Was Solomon´s temple concocted in the mind of David, or did God´s Spirit reveal it to him? KJB says “by the spirit”. Most commentaries (Gill, WEN and MH) ascribe the designing of the Temple to the Holy Spirit. However, the 1865, following the 1602, did not translate it clearly enough, and ascribe its design to Solomon´s own will. (“en su voluntad”) losing a valuable teaching of God´s illumination. I would hope that Bible believers would want to follow the KJB here, as most modern perversions (RSV) render this “in his mind”.
Again, Pratt took too much liberty to take away a perfectly good word in Hebrews 13:13. The Spanish word they inserted here is “baldón”. The original 1602 has “vituperio” which is a more common expression for reproach.
The 1865, following 1602, doesn’t call the Bible-believers to “earnestly contend for the faith”, in Jude 3. Here it says to “endeavor to persevere in the faith”, (“...os esforcéis á perseverar en la fé...”) which sounds like we ought to strive to save ourselves, a common teaching of the Pentecostal movement. Enzinas had translated the same verse properly years earlier as “batalléis fuertemente por la fé” which agrees with KJB.
The doctrine of hell is weakened in 1865. Words like “sepulcro” don’t do justice in several passages. In Psalms 16:10; 116:3; Proverbs 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; y 27:20. RVG and KJB say “hell” because it is believed a sinner needs to read “infierno” rather than “huesa” (2nd Samuel 22:6), or “osario” (Habakkuk 2:5). This last word deals with the place where bones are kept and is a bad translation in the 1865.
It’s a shame that 1865 misses the mark in Psalms 138:2 by not revising this most important verse dealing with the word of God being magnified ABOVE his name. Ferrara 1553 supports KJB here.
Let’s return to the issue of revision. Have the brethren who defend the 1865 as the absolute Spanish Bible ever check out Numbers 35:19, 21, 24 and 27? In these verses one will find that Pratt indeed used the KJB, as well he should, to retranslate the 1602 phrase “el pariente del muerto” to read “el redimidor de la sangre” (the revenger of the blood).
Pratt and Mora believed in italicizing words and phrases. This they did in many places. In some cases, italics are used to show that a word or phrase is not in the original language or manuscript. Apparently, Mr. Pratt or Mr. Mora didn’t think that 1st John 2:23b was part of the original, else why would they italicize this portion? The 1831 Valera does not italicize here.
Jeremiah 5:17 has an unnecessary case of cannibalism in 1865 just like the 1960. In this case, italicizing is in order. The italicized phrase “que habían de comer” must precede the second “comerá” just as KJB´s which.
Let me mention now something about the word metal. The 1865, following 1602, uses the ambiguous word “metal” whenever the KJB uses “brass” or “copper”. Shouldn’t we Hispanics know what exact metal the Bible is referring to in these passages? Likewise, the 1865 lacks precision when it comes to “pure gold” and “fine gold”. These two words have different meanings in their original language. “Puro” is pure and “fino” is fine or good, but fino is not pure necessarily. Then again “fino” is omitted several times when it talks about linen. Some examples are Exodus 39:2,3,5,8; II Chronicles 2:14; Esther 1:6; 8:15; and Ezequiel 16:13. In reference to gold, I’ll let the reader do a collation of these two terms comparing 1865 with KJB to see what I mean.
May I also call the reader’s attention that Mora & Pratt needed to revise Hebrews 3:11? Years earlier, in 1543, Enzinas as well as the Valera 1831 had corrected the verse to say “no entrarán en mi reposo”, like KJB. In 4:3 and 5 the Enzinas NT as well as Valera 1831 also had “no entrarán en mi reposo”, which is what KJB implies. Hence, restoration and revision is absolutely necessary.
By following 1602 in Romans 3:25, we have “aplacamiento” instead of the better word, “propiciación” as it appeared in Valera 1850. The Bible itself ought to define its words. Even Webster’s 1828 dictionary mentions the atoning sacrifice of Christ in relation to this exclusive word. We know that it was His blood that atoned for us. “Aplacamiento”, in theology, doesn’t necessarily deal with blood atonement, as does “propiciación”. Further collation of the seven passages in the 1865 where this word appears will reveal that “aplacar” and its related forms are translated differently in the KJB precisely due to its broad sense, whereas “propiciación” in its three New Testament passages (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10) always deal with the blood of Jesus.
Do animals have “almas” as we humans do? No, of course not! Animals have lives, but not souls. However, this misconception can be used against those who vouch for the 1865 if Leviticus 17:14 doesn´t get revised. The RVG has it right, rendering it “su vida”. In other words, the life, not soul, of the animal is in the blood. These, and many more examples which can be shared, give you an idea that 1865 needs revising.
Not much can be said about Angel Herrera de Mora, the coeditor of the “Mora-Pratt 1865” Bible, other than the fact the he converted from Catholicism and later came to America. I have a book in my personal library written by this Spaniard which talks about the history of Protestantism in Spain up until the mid-1800’s. He joined Henry Barrington Pratt in revising the Spanish Bible. Mr. Pratt likewise was a great man, having served as missionary to Colombia for some time. Ironically, he eventually became a Bible-corrector when he later produced the Versión Moderna (1893), which did away his reputation for being a Bible-believer. Did God reject the 1865 because Pratt betrayed his own convictions following the Egyptian texts of Westcott and Hort? Perhaps so. Consider the Scriptures: “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.”---Ecc. 10:1.
I tend to agree with brother McArdle´s assessment regarding Spain and England. Indeed, God chose England to translate and mass produce the pure word of God, the King James Bible. However, Brother Jeff failed to mention that much of God´s pure and preserved words also came from Spain. Many manuscripts which were used by our good men of the Hampton Court were in fact of Spanish origin: G-I-I, G-II-8, G-I-5 from the Complutensian Polyglot; and quite possibly the translation of “God” in Acts 19:20 from Enzinas 1543, among others. We need to be careful how we portray our Spanish brethren’s input on the word of God. Having said this, I must add that we don’t necessarily need a Spanish Bible as much as we need a pure Bible in the Spanish language for all Hispanics! God wrote only one Bible. This is perhaps the single most important reason why we should support the efforts of the IBBG and RVG who are revising the Spanish scriptures using older Spanish versions that match the KJB. The same blessings obtained by the English readers of the KJB will then made available to the Spanish readers.
Overall, Jeff McArdle did well in exposing Westcott and Hort. However, he unfairly charged Dr. Gómez for being a “Laodicean” producing a “laodicean-age bible”. This accusation is unjust as well as dispensational, and hermeneutically wrong. The Laodicean church doesn’t care for the purity of the Word of God, and the souls of lost men like Dr. Gómez and his collaborators do.
By the way, Brother Jeff disagrees that Dr. Gómez has put his name alongside Reina-Valera. However, I believe Dr. Gómez gives God the glory for the work that is being carried out and has said so in public and in the frontpage of his Bible. To me, RVG is just a name that identifies the project.
Thus, it stands that we Hispanics deserve the most accurate Bible just like the English have it in the KJB 1611. To fall short of this goal gives the defenders of Westcott & Hort the premise to remain with their textually inaccurate bibles.
Comments