A rebuttal to Jeff McArdle’s response against the book God’s Bible in Spanish
By Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez
Contributing Writers: Nelson Giménez & Daniel Leiva
Updated on March 14, 2025: The original version of this article was released on August 10, 2010 on the website of the Dean Burgon Society. It was written after the release of my book entitled God’s Bible In Spanish published by Chick Publications. Since then Jeff McArdle, who this article addresses, has gone home to be with the LORD. Also since then, the use of the RVG has continued to flourish throughout the Spanish-speaking world while the Spanish Bible that McArdle promoted has all but become irrelevant. There are still some, however, who were indoctrinated by McArdle’s flawed perspective, that are still trying to find for this failed Spanish Bible some level of relevancy 15 years later. They continue to fail and in this article I explain why. Since the fall of the 1865 Valera Bible Society I had pretty much retired this article because I didn't think it was needed anymore. However, someone recently asked me if anything had ever been written to address McArdle's flawed perspectives. So I decided to update and republish what I wrote 15 years ago.
The President of a small club that no longer exists, once called the Valera Bible Society, based out of Hialeah, Florida wrote a critique of my book God’s Bible in Spanish. His name is Jeff McArdle. His article was entitled A Brief Response to Emanuel Rodriguez’ book God’s Bible in Spanish. Today McArdle is with the LORD. During the last years of his life he aggressively promoted the 1865 edition of the Spanish Reina Valera Bible but with almost no success.
This rebuttal not only answers his weak arguments, it demonstrates why hardly anyone is taking his arguments nor his students seriously.
First off, I publicly thank Jeff McArdle for purchasing my book and promoting it through his article on his website. In just the first few weeks of being released, the book God’s Bible in Spanish, had sold over 1000 copies.[1] Praise the Lord! And thank God for even our critics, like Jeff McArdle, who helped to get the word out even through their protest. The wisdom of God is brilliant!
Jeff McArdle’s Last Stand
Proverbs 26:27 “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.”
The Reina-Valera Gómez Bible is the preserved and inerrant word of God in Spanish. Native Spanish-speaking Bible-believers are rejoicing to hold in their hands a Spanish Bible that is 100% based in the Received Texts. Bible printers are testifying of how difficult it is to keep up with the demand for the RVG around the world. For example, Bro. Jim Fellure, director of Victory Baptist Press in Milton, FL, reported:
“The RVG Spanish Bible, without any major advertisement campaigns, is becoming more popular all the time. There is seldom a day goes by that VBP [Victory Baptist Press] does not ship several hundred, and some days several thousand of the glue bound, vinyl cover editions to the mission field without charge. The RVG/KJV, genuine leather bound, English and Spanish parallel [Bible] is by far the most popular among the different editions of the RVG Bible. The demand for these Bibles is so great that we are considering a distribution center in one of the South, or Central America Spanish speaking countries. Please pray with us about this matter!”
Dr. Dan Hummel, of Beacon of Truth Baptist Ministries, has testified that since printing the RVG it has been impossible to meet the demand. Chick Publications, as well as Victory Baptist Press, publishes the RVG with great success. God’s preserved words in Spanish continue to grow at a rapid rate globally. The Reina Valera Gomez Bible Society, over which I preside, has estimated that around 3 million RVG Bibles have been printed since its debut in 2004.
For over 20 years now God has blessed this celebrated revision of the Reina-Valera Bible with many souls being saved, many Bible-believing churches established, and the next generation of Latin American preachers being trained for the ministry through the RVG. This author personally believes that we may soon experience a revival like never before throughout Latin America as a result of the RVG, just like Europe and North America experienced when the KJV first came on the scene.
Meanwhile, the Spanish Bible that McArdle’s few remaining students are trying to push upon Latinos, labeled by them “the 1865 Valera” (they dropped the name of “Reina”), is one that sat on the shelf collecting dust for many years. Today Hispanic Bible-believers continue to reject this Bible despite all the efforts of McArdle’s students to resurrect it from the dead.
The more the RVG grows and multiplies, the more irrelevant the critics like McArdle and his society become. But right before McArdle went home to be with the LORD and his society completely sank into an oblivion, McArdle made his last stand. Hence, his response to my book.
In McArdle’s frustrated ambitions he has become so desperate that he is now saying just about anything to promote his Bible (which hardly anyone cares about). Due to the rapid growth of the RVG worldwide, McArdle’s society was forced into a survival mode as it struggled to defend their deteriorating position, criticized the RVG, attacked Dr. Humberto Gómez on a personal level, and attacked anyone else that had anything to do with the RVG, all the while hoping that some way, somehow, there would be a miraculous turn of events in their favor. Their plans have back-fired.
How did this downward spiral towards irrelevance begin?
The Strange Position of the Valera Bible Society
Around the year 2000 some Americans rediscovered the 1865 Mora and Pratt revision of the Spanish Reina-Valera Bible. Upon examination they found it to be more true to the Textus Receptus than the RV 1960 and other Spanish Bibles. They were so excited about this discovery that they decided to rally together some friends and colleagues to support, promote, print, and sell this Spanish Bible. They soon formed what they now call the Valera Bible Society headed up by Jeff McArdle.
However, despite how pleased they were with this Bible they recognized that it still had some weaknesses. So they initiated a revision of this text by introducing 50 changes. This revised edition of the 1865 Valera was published in 2005. But afterwards some of their colleagues started to second-guess the 50 changes. So they then voted to undo those changes. Afterwards, no further plans were set in motion to correct the problems in the 1865 text. Any hope of finishing this particular revision was hopelessly gone.
To justify all this McArdle invented a new idea that since we are living in the Laodicean age, a time period characterized by the defects of the Laodicean church in Rev. 3, no Christian today could ever be used of God to translate the scriptures nor to correct errors in existing foreign Bibles by way of revision. This far-reaching conclusion, as formulated by McArdle, is based on the idea that before the foundation of the world (or at least since Rev. 3 was written) all Christians living in the Laodicean period (which spans from about 1880 to the 2nd coming of Christ) were preordained or “doomed” to apostatize.[2] Therefore no one in the Laodicean age can have anything to do with translating or correcting errors in foreign Bibles since they’re all helplessly apostate.
This was a new twist to the dispensational teaching that the 7 churches of Asia represent different time periods throughout church history. Instead of the defects of the Laodicean church characterizing an age and the state of Christianity in general, McArdle went a step further and added the idea that EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN in this age is hopelessly apostate by default, without exception, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to fix that.
McArdle needed this new and extreme idea in order to create an alibi for his group’s negligence to correct the errors in his Spanish Bible. It also provides him a way to protest against anyone else who decides to do what his society failed to do, which was fix the mistakes and provide the Spanish-speaking world with a totally accurate and pure Bible.
Instead of facing the truth and correcting the errors (like they started to do until they quit), McArdle decided to pretend that the errors in the 1865 did not exist. So he then started to label the inferior readings in the 1865 as “advanced revelations”.
Now for a long time many of us prayed for a Spanish Bible that would be completely based upon the Received Texts and thus equivalent to the KJV in textual purity. When we heard about the resurfacing of the 1865, some of us were immediately interested. We were also a little encouraged when a revision of the 1865 was initiated (starting with the 50 changes). All that was needed was for McArdle’s group to finish what they started. Perhaps they could have been the answer to our prayers in regard to finally having a totally accurate Spanish Bible. The problem would have been solved. Case closed.
This was what the KJV translators did. The KJV translators recognized that there were other good TR-based English Bibles in existence (such as Tyndales, the Bishops, the Geneva, etc) but in their work they endeavored to “make a good thing better.” Thus, the KJV was born.
But of course, McArdle and his friends “dropped the ball” by deciding to go backwards on their plans instead of forwards. Once we heard that McArdle’s club was going to undo the good changes they did and then try to force us to accept the 1865 “as is” due to his hyper-Laodicean doctrine, that was just a bit too much private interpretation for us to swallow. We are not ready to just turn a blind eye on the inferior readings in the 1865 and pretend that they are just “advanced revelations”. Neither will we accept some unbiblical idea that due to the times we live in no one is allowed to correct the errors in foreign translations. So rather than go along with McArdle’s madness, we decided to look elsewhere.
Although I agree that we are living in days of apostasy (thus, it is called the Laodicean age), I don’t see anything in Revelation 3, or anywhere else in the Bible, to indicate that in our day and time God cannot use a Christian to translate His Scriptures or correct errors in foreign translations like the Reina-Valera Bible. There is nothing in the Bible to insist that due to the times we live in we are ALL helplessly apostate by default. Just because there are many Christians falling into apostasy today does not mean that we all have to follow suit, as if we were programmed that way with no freewill or choice in the matter. This new idea is simply a private interpretation of the Scriptures. God always had a remnant of faithful believers in EVERY dispensation that remained true to Him despite the times. Some of us refuse to go along with the times. Some of us intend to “keep on the firing line” till Jesus comes!
McArdle’s teaching is also a highly impractical position. There are right now over 3000 languages and dialects in the world today which do not have one verse of scripture. As a Missionary I have had the privilege to meet some of God’s choicest servants around the world today who are involved in trying to translate the Word of God for people who have never had it before.
This is a worthy cause! All throughout church history, Bible-believing missionaries have always been involved with translating God’s Words for the sake of the common people.
For example, in New Guinea Bible-believing Missionaries worked hard to translate the Scriptures into the Pidgin dialect. They used the KJV in their work. For many years, Missionaries in New Guinea had to use a Pidgin translation of the Good News for Modern Man because that was all they had available. But according to McArdle’s theology these men should have ceased their endeavors to get the true words of God to their people because they are all Laodicean apostates by default. Since they are living in the “wrong time period” they must settle for the Good News bible and just do the best they can.
But again, this strange position is completely false. It is a ridiculous stretch of dispensational teaching. It is highly impractical. It is a private interpretation. If anything is apostate, it is this false doctrine invented by McArdle!
Eph 4:14 “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”
Heb 13:9 “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.”
Is the 1865 Valera Perfect?
When McArdle dug a hole for himself with a position that prohibited him from correcting the errors in his Bible, in order to stay in business, he had to come up with a way to explain away the weaknesses in his Bible. So he tried to promote the 1865 Valera as if it was perfect all along by calling the errors “advanced revelations”. He tried to elevate an imperfect Bible to the same status as the inerrant KJB. On the Valera Bible Society’s website, McArdle wrote:
“And we will continue, Lord willing, to defend Cipriano de Valera (1602) and Ángel de Mora (1865) and every word that they ever wrote, as the perfect and INSPIRED (eat your heart out Dr. Waite) word of God in the Spanish language.”
Now it is obvious that in the beginning McArdle and his society did not believe this Spanish Bible was perfect because they attempted their own revision of the 1865 Valera. The edition of the 1865 that they revised with 50 changes is still being sold (at the date of this writing) on his society’s website. All 50 of the changes that he and his society made are listed in an errata sheet in the back. I own a copy. (see Appendix B for a complete list of the 50 changes they made)
Now that they are undoing the good changes, as well as changing their position for strange non-biblical ideas, they have lost credibility. But no amount of flip-flopping will change the fact that the 1865 has its flaws. Here’s one small example. Num. 31:39b:
KJV – “the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one”
RVG – “el tributo para Jehová, sesenta y uno.”
1865 – “el tributo de ellos para Jehová, setenta y uno.”
Notice that the KJB says the Lord’s tribute was 61. Likewise, the RVG says 61. But the 1865 says 71. This is a plain error.
What does McArdle say about this error in his Bible?
“We have already stated publicly that this is a KNOWN typographical error to be corrected in later editions.”
But I thought McArdle was willing to defend every word in the 1865 because according to him it’s perfect. First off, McArdle cannot prove that this error is just “typographical”. Secondly, if the 1865 is perfect, why is he planning on correcting Numbers 31:39? I thought errors in the 1865 are simply “advanced revelations”.
Now if anyone thinks this error is not that big of a deal, they should consider 2 Sam. 21:19. Every Bible-believer is familiar with the debate over “Who Slew Goliath?” In this verse, the KJB says in 2 Sam. 21:19:
KJV – “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite”
Notice the words in italics – “the brother of”. According to the KJB, Elhanan slew one of Goliath’s brothers. But all the modern, corrupt, Alexandrian bibles in English do not include the words the brother of in 2 Sam. 21:19. Thus, these bibles teach that Elhanan slew Goliath. Of course, this is an error because:
1. Everyone knows David slew Goliath according to the famous story as told in 1 Sam. 17.
2. The cross reference to 2 Sam. 21:19 is 1 Chron. 20:5, in which it is made plain that Elhanan slew Goliath’s brother named Lahmi.
Those who support the Alexandrian Critical Texts claim that the words the brother of are unnecessary because they are not found in the Hebrew text. Furthermore, they explain that this is why the KJV translators put the words in italics.
But this information is not entirely true. Without going into all the details, any student of languages understands that sometimes certain words are implied without being said (or in this case written). This phenomenon exists in what is called elliptical languages. One language teacher explains:
“The way I can best explain it is that both Hebrew and Greek are elliptical languages. Elliptical means certain things are implied but not directly expressed. We use this in English too. "Been there, done that". In this expression, there is no subject in the English sentence.
Likewise the Hebrew and the Greek frequently leave out the subject, or the verb or the direct object or other parts of speech; instead they are sometimes implied.”[3]
It should be automatically understood that the words the brother of are implied in the underlying Hebrew but were mentioned in italics in the KJB so as to make sense in English.
At any rate, 2 Sam. 21:19 is a gross error in all the new Alexandrian bibles. It is not an “advanced revelation”. It is an error. Plain and simple.
This same verse was corrected by Jeff McArdle and his society in their beginning days. But now that the Valera Bible Society has voted to undo the 50 changes, those wanting to use the 1865 are forced to use a Bible that teaches that Elhanan slew Goliath.
No thanks! Bible-believers refuse to use a Bible that claims that Elhanan slew Goliath, especially when we have the opportunity to use a Spanish Bible – the RVG – that does not contain this error. (More errors in the 1865 are documented in my book.)
The sad thing is that the few Christians out there who plan to use this Bible must now figure out some kind of way to explain away this error and at the same time convince themselves that they are consistent to their position as King James Bible-believers. For example, on an Internet blog discussion, one member of the Valera Bible Society named Vince Larue tried to explain the omission of the words “the brother of” by speculating that perhaps there were 2 Goliaths in the Bible, despite the fact that 2 Chron. 21:5 already revealed that the name of the giant that Elhanan killed was Lahmi, one of Goliath’s brothers. When the foolishness of this argument was demonstrated to who was in those days an aspiring missionary to Chile, he replied:
“The King James Bible has at least one reading that is found ONLY in the Critical Text. I still believe that it was given by inspiration. See, I accept that God gave the 1865, and therefore it is God's word in Spanish.”
Do you see what’s going on here? To defend the weaknesses in the 1865 Valera you have to adopt the same arguments used by the Alexandrian crowd in defense of the NIV, RSV, ASV, etc. and change your position on the KJB. McArdle and his society members are now resorting to wild claims and as we see here at least one has gone so far as to claim that even the KJB has Critical Text readings and that God inspired those corruptions. But of course, this is not true. There are no Alexandrian readings anywhere in the KJB.
The reading that this Brother was referring to was the second half of 1 Jn. 2:23 which is rendered in italics. He made the mistake of assuming that because the entire second part of this verse was in italics that it must have been a Critical Text reading. But the truth was that this reading was not based in the Critical Texts. Instead it was based in the pure Old Latin manuscripts, many of which were used by the Waldenses and other Bible-believing groups, for many centuries. But because the KJV translators had no Greek support at the time they decided to put the reading in italics. However, the assumption that this was a Critical Text reading in the KJB was false.
So this is what happened with the Valera Bible Society. Their change of position forced them to reach outrageous conclusions as they struggle to defend a lost cause. When confronted with the fact that his Bible teaches that Elhanan killed Goliath, another one of McArdle’s colleagues even went so far as to say, “I personally would rather believe that Goliath was resurrected and killed again …” This is a blind loyalty to a defected text.
Now that the VBS is undoing the correction of 2 Sam. 21:19 in their Bible, forcing it to read like all the corrupt Alexandrian English bibles. The RVG has 2 Sam. 21:19 correct and in perfect agreement with the KJV.[4]
Is the RVG Based on the Received Texts or the KJB?
McArdle wrote:
“These men have conflicting authorities. In his book on page 68 he says, "First and foremost 100% loyalty to the pure texts, Textus Receptus for the NT, and the Masoretic Text for the OT." But then on a blog he wrote in on July 27, 2010 he says, "...we believe the KJB is the perfect, inspired, INFALLIBLE Word of God and is the final authority in everything. That would include choosing a foreign Bible translation [emphasis McArdle’s]."
This issue was already discussed in Chapter 4 of the book God’s Bible in Spanish.
Now it is possible that when McArdle wrote those words that he had not yet reached Chapter 4. So in this matter we’ll give him the benefit of a doubt that his reading skills were not so dense that he missed the point of an entire chapter.
However, for those reading this article that have not yet had a chance to read the book, let us take this opportunity to address this matter yet again. For this is actually a good question. Was the RVG based on the Received Texts or the KJB?
As explained in Chapter 4, the RVG was completely based upon the Received Texts. Men with proficiency in the original languages aided Dr. Humberto Gómez to ensure conformity to the pure Hebrew and Greek texts. One such consultant, Dr. D. A. Waite, testified:
"I am pleased to recommend the Spanish Bible of Dr. Humberto Gómez. I have found him to be a kind, careful, humble, and able student who has spent hundreds of hours in carrying out his burden to get the Spanish Bible of 1909 (by which he was led to the Lord Jesus Christ as his Saviour) in line with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying the King James Bible. He has done this. He has spoken with me about several questions he had in certain places of his translation in an effort to be both clear and correct…. He has sought to correct the various errors of translation in the Old Testament as well as those in the New Testament. His Spanish New Testament has followed the Greek Received or Traditional Text on which the King James Bible was based."
Dr. Waite goes on to explain that he personally looked up many key verses that had been in error in the Spanish Bible for many years and when he examined these in the RVG he said:
“I found every one of them to be in conformity to the Received Greek Text and have been made doctrinally correct.”
Also, another of Dr. Gómez’s consultants was a linguist, a former missionary to Mexico (for over 20 years), and an experienced Bible translator named Dr. Rex Cobb. Dr. Cobb did an extensive comparison of 16 different Spanish Bibles. After going through the entire New Testament verse by verse, he found the RVG to be in complete conformity to the Textus Receptus. However, Dr. Cobb found at least 28 departures from the TR in the 1865 Valera. (All this information is discussed in the book.)
Now in Chapter 4 of my book it was also explained that though the Received Texts served as the foundation for the RVG revision, the KJV also served as a standard or a guide to follow in order to identify Alexandrian corruptions and determine purity. Every Bible translator in history incorporated other faithful translations in their work. The KJV translators incorporated many foreign language translations in their work.
There are no Bibles that are ONLY based upon Greek and Hebrew. Contrary to the claims and wishes of some, no such Bible exists anywhere.
Also, as explained in the book, the RVG is not a KJV in Spanish. The RVG is simply a revision of the 1909 Antigua edition of the Reina-Valera in which the KJV was utilized. However, even in places where corruption was identified, Dr. Gómez did not feel obligated to compromise Spanish grammar in order to match the Spanish Bible with the KJV word for word in every instance. This was not necessary. When a reading is converted back to the Received Texts, and rendered accurately in Spanish, it will automatically be in agreement with the KJV. On the other hand, readings in the RVG that do match the KJV word-for-word were many times just a simple result of accurately translating the Received Texts into Spanish. For there is no conflict between the KJV and its underlying Greek and Hebrew words in the Received Texts.
So yes, we unashamedly affirm that the KJV was utilized in the RVG revision. The experts that produced the KJV were the greatest collection of scholarship ever gathered for the task of translating the Scriptures. So when trying to figure out how to accurately represent the Received Texts in the target language, what better standard or guide to follow than the KJV?
With the Received Texts as the foundation, the KJV as the standard guide, and the collaboration of nationals around the world to ensure accuracy of grammar in the target language, how can the Bible translator go wrong? This is exactly what Dr. Gómez did!
But why McArdle, who claimed to stand for the KJV, would have a problem with this is beyond me.
Concerning the Involvement of Dr. D. A. Waite
McArdle wrote:
“By the way Manny, one of the "primary consultants" (your words), D. A. Waite, does NOT believe the KJV is "inspired", as you say you believe, so why consult him?”
This is something McArdle liked to bring up in his articles because he thought it was supposed to bother us that a man who does not believe the same like most of us do when it comes to Bible inspiration was involved in the RVG revision.
Bob Jones Sr. said one time, “It is never a compromise to go down the right road with anyone.” Dr. Waite knew what I believed concerning Bible inspiration and I knew what he believed. I didn’t agree exactly with the way he defined inspiration and he didn’t agree with the way I do. We respectfully disagreed on that matter.
But what we did agree on is that the Alexandrian Critical Texts are corrupt. We both agreed that the Received Texts are to be the Hebrew and Greek basis for any Bible translation. I may had not been able to walk down the same road with Dr. Waite when it came to the way he defined inspiration. But when it came to supporting the cause to purify the Spanish Bible by eliminating Alexandrian readings and bringing it in conformity to the Received Texts, I could easily go down that road with Dr. Waite with a clear conscience.
At least as a “Textus Receptus man” Dr. Waite was consistent in his position. McArdle was not consistent.
McArdle’s society called Dr. Waite “Bro. Gomez’s spiritual pimp”.[5] Yet, I never saw Dr. Waite trying to justify obvious error in the Spanish Bible by calling them “advanced revelations”. I didn’t see Dr. Waite trying to justify a Bible that says that Elhanan slew Goliath in 2 Sam. 21:19. I have more respect for a man who is consistent to his position than a man who says he stands for the KJB but then goes against it by justifying anti-KJB errors in the Spanish Bible.
McArdle had to try to make Dr. Waite’s involvement with the RVG look like a bad thing because Dr. Waite’s presence in this work destroyed McArdle’s claims that the men involved with the RVG didn’t know Greek. You see McArdle liked to fancy himself a Greek scholar. But when considering Dr. Waite’s credentials in the Greek and Hebrew languages, we are not so impressed with whatever amount of Greek McArdle may had known. In regards to Greek grammar, McArdle knew that he couldn’t tie Dr. Waite’s shoelaces. Dr. Waite was an expert in the original languages who studied and taught them for over 70 years and decades before McArdle was born.
McArdle was a graduate of the Pensacola Bible Institute founded by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman in Pensacola, FL. Dr. Ruckman and Dr. Waite were opposed to one another on the doctrine of inspiration. However, even Dr. Ruckman called Dr. Waite “a champion of the Traditional Texts”.[6] So when it comes to conforming the Spanish Bible to the Traditional Texts, who better to consult in regards to Greek grammar than “a champion of the Traditional Texts”?
Dr. Ruckman’s bookstore in Pensacola, FL carries some of Dr. Waite’s books. Why would Dr. Ruckman sell material by a man that he sorely disagreed with? Dr. Ruckman answered that question in a past issue of his Bible Believers Bulletin. Though he believed that Dr. Waite was wrong on the matter of Bible inspiration, Dr. Ruckman recognized that when it came to information on the Textus Receptus Dr. Waite had much to offer.
And when it came to questions concerning Greek and Hebrew grammar and the need to ensure conformity to the Received Texts in Bro. Gómez’s revision, Dr. Waite had much more to offer than McArdle and his entire society combined.
Now those of us who support the RVG don’t worship scholarship like McArdle students do. We are more impressed with the fact that the man that God chose to head up the revision of the Spanish Bible was a man like Dr. Gómez. Dr. Gómez grew up in poverty in Mexico. As a little boy, he sold gum and shined shoes on the street just to help his mother put bread on the table and survive. Growing up on the streets of Mexico Bro. Gómez eventually became a criminal and was in and out of prison. Then one day after being released from prison Bro. Gómez got saved. Sometime later he was called to preach. And for the past 50 years Bro. Gómez has made full proof of his ministry with many souls saved, men trained and ordained into the ministry, and churches planted all over Mexico.
The point is that when God decided to use someone to revise the Spanish Bible, he didn’t call a bunch of pseudo-scholars like McArdle and his society. He chose a lowly Mexican Gospel preacher who got saved off the streets. This way God gets the glory instead of a bunch of make-believe scholars.
And to further demonstrate that God has a sense of humor, when McArdle and other critics like him tried to raise an argument against Dr. Gómez’s work on the basis of his education and scholarship credentials, God brought men like Dr. D. A. Waite, a man with 5 earned degrees and licenses in 2 states to teach Hebrew and Greek grammar, to assist Bro. Gómez with that aspect of the revision. So no matter how you slice it, God gets the glory and not a Bible society.
And besides, if McArdle’s students still want to make an issue out of Dr. Waite’s involvement based on some of Dr. Waite’s beliefs, why do they use the KJB in English? Some of the KJV translators believed in infant baptism. Should we abandon the KJV? I wonder what they believed about inspiration. Cipriano de Valera was a Calvinist who worked with John Calvin in Geneva and translated Calvin’s Institutes into Spanish. McArdle sold material against Calvinism in Spanish on his website. Perhaps his students should abandon the Valera Bible altogether, any edition, on the basis of Valera’s beliefs.
McArdle’s Confused Perspective of the 1602 Valera
McArdle wrote:
“Here follows a response to Emanuel’s invective and false information. Like for example, he says that “Both the 1569 Reina and the 1602 Valera was [sic] tainted with the Alexandrian texts.” Valera is a FAITHFUL translation of Erasmus, so then how could it possibly be tainted when Emanuel himself says that Erasmus was “the first in a PURE line?””
McArdle tried to pretend that there were no flaws in the 1602 Valera revision. But if the 1602 Valera did not have its weaknesses, which it did (see pg. 47 of my book for some examples), why was he using the 1865 revision of Mora and Pratt instead of the original 1602 of Valera?
Of course, McArdle also tried to pretend that the 1865 and 1602 Valera Bibles are both the same. But anyone can simply purchase a facsimile of the original 1602 Valera as well as the 1865 revision and it wouldn’t take an honest person more than 5 minutes to see that these two Bibles are definitely not the same.
What’s even stranger about McArdle’s complaint here is that in his own book, entitled The Bible Believer’s Guide to Elephant Hunting, he himself admitted that the 1602 Valera was tainted:
“As grand as the accomplishment may be, and as good as the translation they made is, there are problems nonetheless with even Valera’s revision. About 99% of the problems in the original 1602 Valera are problems of omissions where Valera did not have all the information he needed available to him.”[7]
On the same page, McArdle went on to say concerning the 1569 and 1602 that “there are certainly omissions and additions in these 2 Bibles”. So why did McArdle complain about me saying something that he knew was true according to his own statements in writing? Could it be that McArdle was so desperate to respond to my book that he totally forgot about what his position was?
The truth is that Valera himself knew that his revision still needed more work. In his own preface, Valera called for more revision of his text. He never intended for his work to be accepted as perfect. He simply worked hard to provide something for the Spanishspeaking world with something to work with until the revision was ultimately finished and totally purified. To see the exact quote of Valera go to page 43 of my book or purchase a facsimile of the original 1602 Valera and read the preface.
Valera was an honest man. He was honest about his own text needing revision. What was McArdle’s problem?
The “Why So Long?” Argument
McArdle raised the following question:
“Some of us are wondering why God took so long to put His book in Spanish...”
In other words, McArdle was trying to form an argument by raising the question, “If the RVG is God’s Bible in Spanish, why did God wait so long to produce it for the Spanish-speaking world?” (The first draft of the RVG was printed in 2004)
This is the same line of thinking behind the argument, “If the KJV is perfect, where was God’s perfect Word before 1611?” This question, concerning the English Bible, has been answered over and over again. But McArdle wanted to adopt this same question, invented by the Alexandrian text crowd, and apply it against the RVG.
This question was already thoroughly answered on pg. 44 of my book. It was explained that the influence of Bible-believing Christianity was (and still is) extremely limited in Spain due to the stronghold of the Catholic church. The Spanish Inquisition did not officially end until 1834, so it wasn’t until then that the Spanish-speaking world had the liberty to revise the Spanish text that Valera provided in 1602 without the fear of persecution and the hindrance of the Catholic church.
Also, I’m surprised that McArdle would raise this question when he already attempted to answer it in his Elephant book when he wrote:
“The truth is that God owes nothing to the Spanish people, least of all a perfect Bible. The Bible is a gift from God and to think that God owes Roman Catholic Spain and Latin America anything in the way of a Bible is a foolish assumption indeed.”[8]
Though I don’t agree with McArdle’s tone against Hispanic people, here we see that McArdle at least recognized the stronghold the Catholic church had on Spain and Latin America. So he of all people should have understood why it took many years for the Hispanic people to have a totally accurate Bible. Look at how much time spanned between Wycliffe’s initial English translation in the 1300s before the English-speaking world was introduced to the King James translation. Is God to be faulted for taking so long to provide His Words in English?
The weird thing about this type of objection coming from McArdle is that he insists that the Bible he promotes, the 1865 Valera, is the answer for the Spanish world. Yet his Bible had not been in circulation for over 130 years. His Bible only resurfaced after the year 2000 and was made available by his society in 2005 after revising it with the 50 changes. So the same argument he raised against our Bible also applies to his 2005 revision of the 1865 Valera.
McArdle’s “Tongue in Cheek” Position on the King James Bible
James 1:8 “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways”
Bro. Gómez has made his position on the King James Bible very clear. Concerning his work of revision, Dr. Gómez publically proclaimed at a Dean Burgon Society meeting:
“But the Standard to follow has to be the King James. This I say in public and I am not ashamed of this: 100%.”[9]
At one time, McArdle also claimed to have this position. In his book The Bible Believer’s Guide to Elephant Hunting, he declared the King James Bible as the standard by which to judge, correct, and revise the Spanish Bible or any other Bible in any language. For example, McArdle wrote:
“In other words, the AV1611 (King James Bible) is the only absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice for any man living ANYWHERE on God’s green earth and, as such, is fully capable of correcting any Bible in any language.”11
“Or, as one brother once pointed out, “If the King James can correct the Greek, then it can certainly correct the Spanish.” This statement is absolutely true of the King James Bible in regards to omissions and additions in any Bible.”[10]
“The Latin brethren here in the U.S. are going to be held accountable to God for not using the King James Bible as the standard by which to judge their Spanish Bible, in regards to omissions and additions. This is not an extreme statement.”[11]
These were very strong and clear words. After reading these statements, one would be led to believe that Jeff McArdle was very firm in this position. You would also assume that McArdle would have been the first in line to support Dr. Humberto Gómez and the Latinos that produced the RVG. But in his critique of my book, we are about to see that over and over again McArdle contradicted his position by complaining about places in the RVG text where Dr. Gómez used the KJV as the standard to go by in revising the Spanish Bible. We will look at several examples of McArdle’s unstable position on the KJB.
A while back, McArdle and I went back and forth on an Internet blog concerning the Spanish Bible. During the course of our conversation, I noticed that McArdle was actually faulting Dr. Gómez for using the King James Bible in his work. I found that to be odd considering all the things McArdle has written in the past. So I responded to McArdle:
“You said in your Elephant book something to the effect “the KJB has the authority to correct any Bible on God’s green earth”. Then when someone like Bro. Gómez does exactly that, you do a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and say it’s wrong. You are a confused individual.”
McArdle’s reply was:
“I said the “King James can correct any Bible on earth” thing tongue in cheek.”
So in other words, McArdle was just “kidding” or “joking” with all his bold statements for the KJB. His so-called “stand” for the KJB was not to be taken seriously, for after all, it was all just “tongue in cheek”. His own words.
Well guess what. Our position for the KJB is not “tongue in cheek”. We actually mean what we say. This just goes to show that anyone can say anything and appear to be more principled than they really are. But the proof of what one really believes is when they put it into practice. Bro. Gómez and the Latinos who assisted him in the RVG have put into practice the very things that McArdle claimed to believe.
When McArdle had the chance to “put his money where his mouth was” he backed out. Meanwhile, it turns out that McArdle showed up God had already raised up a little Mexican boy that sold gum on the streets of Mexico to eventually do what the President of a Bible Society couldn’t do.
The following are examples of McArdle contradicting the position he claimed to have on the KJB by criticizing the RVG for agreeing with the KJB:
Example #1
McArdle said translating Hebrew into Spanish in a Spanish Bible was wrong.
In many Spanish Bibles, including the 1865, the word for “scapegoat” (found in Lev. 16:8, 10, and 26) is not translated. Most Spanish Bibles simply use the Hebrew transliteration – Azazel – for the word scapegoat. Dr. Gómez, with the collaboration of other native Hispanics around the world, and in collaboration with Hebrew scholars like Dr. D. A. Waite, translated this Hebrew word into Spanish.
In the RVG, the Hebrew word Azazel is translated as macho cabrio de escapatoria, which means “male escape goat”. This is an example of a place where the KJV was used as a guide to figure out how to translate a Hebrew word into Spanish. In this case, Bro. Gómez was able to apply the collective wisdom of the over 50 scholars that produced the KJV.
Reina and Valera did not have such a luxury since their work was before 1611.
However, Jeff McArdle disapproved.
In McArdle’s unsuccessful attempts to create a point against the idea of translating the Hebrew word into Spanish, he struggled to make sense. He insisted that translating Hebrew into Spanish was a bad thing for a SPANISH Bible. And in his failure to explain whatever it was he was trying to say, he claimed that it was wrong for Dr. Gómez to use the KJV as a guide to figure out how to translate the Hebrew word Azazel into Spanish.
McArdle said this was wrong because somehow the “advanced revelation” (hidden golden nuggets) of the Hebrew is lost in Spanish. Furthermore, he claimed that translating Hebrew into Spanish is “anglicizing” the Spanish Bible. What an interesting concept!
What’s even more ludicrous is that McArdle assumed that the native Spanish speaker would be just as confused as he was if this word was translated into Spanish (again, in a SPANISH Bible). He said:
“No Latino will ever understand “macho cabrio de escapatoria” as having anything to do with someone bearing guilt or atoning for sin.”
First off, when did Jeff McArdle become the spokesperson for the entire Spanish-speaking world and the authority as to what native Hispanics can or cannot understand in THEIR language? McArdle seemed to forget that Dr. Gómez is a native Spanish-speaker who was winning souls and starting his first church IN SPANISH back when McArdle was in grade school still learning how to read and write his A-B-Cs in English.
Secondly, was McArdle’s assumption true? I decided to put his theory to the test. I asked a couple of native Spanish-speakers, from Paraguay, South America, whether they understood the readings in Leviticus as it stood in their RVG Bible. They submitted their thoughts in writing. Let’s allow them to speak for themselves.
Here are Pastor Nelson Giménez’s comments concerning Leviticus 16:
“The arguments raised by McArdle on the grounds that no Latino will ever understand the way the RVG has rendered this verse are simply not true. As a Bible teacher, I would show that Scripture interprets Scripture. I would not appeal to people’s lack of understanding. For a Spanishspeaker, if they understood a transliterated Hebrew word, it should become even clearer when reading a Spanish word. And it is. Amen!
The word escape by itself means the same thing in English as well as in Spanish.
Escape (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)
1. To flee from and avoid; to get out of the way; to shun; to obtain security from; to pass without harm; as, to escape danger.
Also, the Law of first mention proves this very meaning given by Webster’s.
Genesis 14:13 “And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these [were] confederate with Abram.”
But when it comes to Scapegoat, the definition is given much more specifically in Bible terms, because it’s only a Bible word. So, the Bible will define for us in English and in Spanish what we are dealing with when we come to Leviticus 16.
According to Scriptural teaching, the Goat was to be a sacrifice for the sins of the people. This is known by Latinos.
But, the goat to be sent into the wilderness was going to escape death. But what for? The Bible say:
“To make an atonement with him” (Lev. 16:10)
McArdle probably missed it, but we see the purpose of the Scapegoat. In Spanish “macho cabrio de escapatoria” explains the purpose of the Goat. So, the twofold work of Christ is clearly seen!
McArdle’s problem is that he failed to STUDY, because the 1865 says to “try” or “strive” instead of “study” (estudia) in 2 Tim. 2:15, just like the modern English bibles. He wants us to go down to his level of ignorance. As a wannabe Hispanic, he thinks that because he can’t understand it “No latino will ever understand it” either. He’s wrong. We understand our Bible just fine.
Even Webster shows honesty when defining this word.
SCA'PE-GOAT, n. [escape and goat.] In the Jewish ritual, a goat which was brought to the door of the tabernacle, where the high priest laid his hands upon him, confessing the sins of the people, and putting them on the head of the goat; after which the goat was sent into the wilderness, bearing the iniquities of the people. Lev 14.
Did you see it? Escape and Goat! Yes, this is a compound word! They are only defined in biblical terms. Compound words are in Spanish as well as in English. So all we have to do to understand that “macho cabrio de escapatoria” in Leviticus is a picture of Christ making an atonement for our sins is compare scripture with scripture and read the passage in its context.
The RVG makes it clear on what was the purpose of the second goat.”
Thank you Pastor Giménez! So it looks like a native Spanish-speaking Pastor has no problem handling the same verses, in Spanish, that McArdle had a problem with. But what about the regular native Latino in the pew?
The following are the words of Brother Daniel Leiva, another native Paraguayan, who has never stepped foot outside of his country. He speaks ONLY Spanish. Therefore, he doesn’t even know what the Bible says in English concerning the “scapegoat”. Here is his commentary concerning the “scapegoat”.
(Note: His statements were submitted in Spanish. I have translated them into English. To read his comments in Spanish, see Appendix A towards the end of this article.)
“This is a picture of the sacrifice of Christ. Aaron was the mediator between God and the people. The congregation needed two male goats for atonement.
He had to cast lots on the two male goats. The one which must be killed would be for Jehovah and the other would be sent into the dessert.
Also, Aaron had to offer a bullock for atonement for him and his household, killing the bullock. He had to spread the blood of the bullock on the mercy seat. Also he had to kill the male goat for Jehovah and he had to do the same thing with the blood of the male goat. This was for an atonement for their uncleanness, rebellion, and for all their sins.
So far it seems to me joining with Hebrews 9. This is what Christ did when He sacrificed His life on the cross. He allowed that we could enter the most holy place without dying like the sons of Aaron did.
In no place [in the scriptures] is it said that the scapegoat returns back to the camp. God does the same with our sins when we lay them on Christ.”
So again we see that the common native Hispanic has no problem understanding his Bible. The context of the passage, comparing scripture with scripture, and the Holy Spirit was all Bro. Daniel Leiva needed to understand that the “scapegoat” (macho cabrio de escapatoria) was a picture of Christ atoning for our sins. No gringo was needed to explain anything. The Holy Spirit is well capable of communicating to Hispanic people through their language, in their Bible, without the intervention of Jeff McArdle and his Bible society.
Example #2
McArdle faulted the RVG for lining up with the KJV in Judges 3:7.
In Judges 3:7, it says:
KJV – “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God…”
RVG – “Hicieron, pues, los hijos de Israel lo malo ante los ojos de Jehová; y olvidaron a Jehová su Dios…”
1865 – “E hicieron lo malo los hijos de Israel en ojos de Jehová: y olvidados de Jehová su Dios…”
The KJV plainly says that Israel forgot the Lord. The RVG reads exactly the same in Spanish. However, the 1865 is rendered in a way that could either mean “forgotten of Jehovah their God” or “forgotten by Jehovah their God”.
McArdle argues that the reading as it stands in the 1865 could also mean that Israel forgot God. Even so, obviously both ways of interpreting the verse cannot be right. Either Israel forgot God or God forgot Israel. Plain and simple.
To clear up any confusion, Dr. Gómez decided to lean upon the wisdom of the 47 King James scholars by rendering the verse in a way that reads exactly like the KJV. The RVG eliminates any doubt as to who is forgetting who.
For some reason, McArdle called this an “erroneous reading” in the RVG. But he did a horrible job of explaining why the RVG is supposed to be wrong in this verse.
First off, McArdle forgot to tell his readers that the rendering in the RVG reads EXACTLY the same as the KJV. If this reading is wrong in the RVG then McArdle must have believed that it is also an “erroneous reading” in the KJV.
Secondly, if it’s wrong to revise the reading with the KJV, why did McArdle write:
“…we Bible Believers today know that whenever anyone takes his hand to improve any Bible in any language by lining it up with the King James Bible (in regards to omissions and additions), that Bible has received the greatest “authorization and endorsement” it could ever get. As the old preacher once said, “The King James Bible is the kiss of God on a sinner’s soul!” And we can likewise state, most emphatically, that the imprint of the King James Bible upon a Bible in any other language is the kiss of God upon that Bible and the culture that adopts it! Amen!”[12]
If McArdle really believed the things he wrote, why wasn’t he rejoicing with “joy unspeakable and full of glory” (like the rest of us are) that God used a native Spanish speaker like Bro. Humberto Gómez, in collaboration with other native Spanish-speakers around the world, to totally line up the Spanish Bible with the KJB in many verses like Judges 3:7, eliminating any doubt as to what the word of God says in this verse?
Example #3
McArdle tries to justify the omitting of Hell.
The KJB mentions the word hell 54 times. The RVG is the only Bible in Spanish that renders the word “hell” 54 times, each in the same place that the word is found in the KJB. The RVG and KJB are in perfect agreement on this important word.
However, the 1865 Valera only mentions hell 40 times. That’s 14 times in the 1865 that the word hell is missing. Just like the modern, Alexandrian bibles in English, the word hell in the 1865 is translated as sepulcher (grave), the deep, gehenna, tartarus, and even ossuary (a place to keep dead men’s bones).
McArdle justified the omitting of the word hell in his Bible by:
1. Claiming that all the places where the word hell is omitted in the 1865 are “advanced revelations” and…[13]
2. Furthermore, he stated, “In the OT the teaching of hell is more flexible, because the soul and the body BEFORE the cross are seen as one entity!”[14]
So there you have it. The 1865 Valera is a “flexible” Bible, especially when it comes to the teaching of hell. This appeal to “flexibility” is nearly identical to the same arguments that the Critical Text crowd use to justify the omission of hell in the 1960 RV. (Note: The 1960 only mentions hell 13 times.) For example, Calvin George, a proponent of the Critical Text based 1960 edition of the Reina Valera, wrote:
“All this data demonstrates how subjective the translation of sheol can be. It is not a black-and-white issue. Instead of attempting to interpret in an area where other translators have struggled and have sometimes been very inconsistent, the 1960 Spanish revisers decided to consistently transliterate the Hebrew word sheol every time it appeared in the Masoretic text.”
So again, McArdle adopted the arguments of the Alexandrian crowd to defend his Bible and criticize ours. In trying to justify the unjustifiable he became desperate.
Since we have already dealt with the translating of the word hell in the RVG in chapter 6 of my book, we will not go into those details here.[15] However, let’s look at one example to demonstrate the foolishness of justifying the watering down of hell in the 1865 on the grounds of “advanced revelation”.
Since McArdle was so concerned about losing “advanced revelation”, I’m amazed that he was not concerned with his Bible not translating the word hell as hell (infierno) in Ps. 16:10:
KJV – “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”
RVG – “Porque no dejarás mi alma en el infierno; ni permitirás que tu Santo vea corrupción.
1865 – “Porque no dejarás mi alma en el sepulcro: ni darás tu Santo para que vea corrupción.”
Here, the KJV plainly tells us that during the 3 days that Jesus was asleep his soul was literally in hell. Some have a hard time believing this Bible truth. To some, it sounds somewhat blasphemous to insist that the Lord actually went to hell. So rather than simply believing the Bible they try to explain away what the KJV clearly states here by claiming that the word hell in this case really just means the grave.
First off, our souls don’t go to the grave. Our bodies go to the grave (Ecc.12:7). But our souls separate from our bodies and either go to heaven or hell (see Gen. 35:18).
Secondly, if the Bible student would simply compare scripture with scripture he would find that believing what Ps. 16:10 plainly says is not so difficult. Yes, Jesus went to Hell. But he didn’t go to hell to burn as a sinner, nor could he, nor did he have to:
1. According to 1 Pet. 3:19, He went to Hell to preach to “the spirits in prison”.
2. According to Dan. 3:19-27, Jesus has the ability to be in the midst of fire and not burn. Why wouldn’t He? He’s God. So going into fire and not burning was nothing new for Jesus when He died on the cross.
However, all this Biblical truth is lost in the 1865 because it has Ps. 16:10 translated just like the NIV and other modernistic English bibles (made by modernists who also had a hard time believing the Bible so they decided to change it). In this verse, Mora and Pratt would have been wise to concede to the wisdom of the KJV translators in regards to the word Hell.
So much for advanced revelation.
Example #4
McArdle tried to defend the 1865 Valera with Cuban restaurant signs.
The Bible says in Ps 104:4:
KJV – “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire”
RVG – “el que hace a sus ángeles espíritus, sus ministros fuego flameante”
1865 – “El que hace a sus ángeles espíritus, sus ministros al fuego flameante.”
The 1865 reads literally “his ministers TO the flaming fire”. According to Spanish Bible scholar Dr. Carlos Donate the wording in the 1865 is “certainly very awkward”. The RVG made it clearer. Dr. Donate further explains, “The 1865 construct is quite obsolete as it lacks a simile in order to compare ministers as flaming fire.”
Jeff McArdle is so flexible in his defense of the 1865 that he even appealed to Cuban restaurant signs to explain his Bible:
“Gómez has destroyed the pure Spanish here by failing to understand the usage of the preposition “a”. This preposition facilitates the conversion of the ministers into flaming fire and ANY Spanish speaking person would understand this. It indicates the mode of the action! DRAE (Royal Academy Dictionary): 10. Denota el modo de la acción. This construction is so common in Spanish that you could not possibly walk down 8th street in Miami... You could not possibly walk down the streets of Miami and not see a restaurant that doesn't say, “a lo cubano”. Food turned into Cuban cuisine. Ministers turned into flaming fire! Got it?”
It’s interesting that McArdle would appeal to the Spanish of restaurant signs on the streets of Miami, FL to defend the renderings in his Bible after he declared Bro. Gómez unqualified to revise the Valera Bible on the basis of his Spanish ability. McArdle wrote:
“Umberto Gómez speaks what can only be described as a degraded form of street Spanish. It is as far removed from the Castilian of the Valera Bible as the Ebonics of Compton, CA is far removed from the Elizabethan English of the King James Bible.”
Now that stout statement sounded really tough until we read McArdle’s suggestion to walk down the streets of Miami to read Cuban restaurant signs in order to better understand the Castilian Spanish of the 1865 Valera. McArdle was a confused individual. One minute he was going hysterical against what he believed to be the “street Spanish” of a native Mexican, but the next minute he was encouraging us to walk down the streets of Miami to learn real Spanish.
Considering McArdle’s fondness of reading signs on the side of the road, perhaps we should just assume that McArdle’s objections against Dr. Humberto Gómez and his Spanish ability were just “tongue in cheek”.
Now all street signs and Cuban restaurants aside, let’s allow someone who has Spanish as his native tongue to explain what is more grammatically correct in the context of this verse. Pastor Nelson Giménez is not only an ordained minister in his native country of Paraguay, but being fluent in 3 languages he also makes a living as a professional interpreter and translator of legal documents. So if anyone should know about Spanish grammar, it is him. (Bro. Giménez was also one of Dr. Gómez’s collaborators in the RVG revision.) He says Jeff McArdle’s limited knowledge of Spanish prohibited him from seeing why the RVG rendering in Psalms 104:4 is superior to the 1865 Valera:
McArdle claims that “Gómez has destroyed the pure Spanish here by failing to understand the usage of the preposition “a”.”
But the truth of the matter is Dr. Gómez did not make a mistake here at all. The failure here is the lack of understanding of Spanish, and the Scriptures, on McArdle’s part. The problem here is McArdle is trying to apply English grammar to our Spanish Bible.
In John 4:24, the KJV says “God is a Spirit”. In Spanish we don’t translate the article “a”. It’s “Dios es Espiritu”. In Spanish, the article does not always need to be translated because it is already implied and understood. In this case the word is not translated as “a” in Spanish, which if it was it would be rendered “un” or “una”.
Valera expressly asked for his work to be revised. Psalm 104:4 is one example of a place that needed revision. And Dr. Gómez, using the KJV as a standard, did an excellent job.
As a Spanish teacher, I know the places where articles are needed and when it is made clear by the context. Here is one Bible example.
Exo 3:2 “And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed.” KJV
Exo 3:2 “Y le apareció el Ángel de Jehová en una llama de fuego en medio de una zarza: y él miró, y vio que la zarza ardía en fuego, y la zarza no se consumía.“ RVG.
We clearly see the need of “una” here. Another example is:
Job 41:21 “His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.” KJV
Job 41:21 “Su aliento enciende los carbones, y de su boca sale llama.” RVG
In this case, there is no need for an article. But, let’s also look at the 1865 Valera:
Lam. 2:3 “He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about.” KJV.
Lam. 2:3 “Cortó con la ira de su furor todo el cuerno de Israel: hizo volver atrás su diestra delante del enemigo; y encendióse en Jacob como llama de fuego, ardió en derredor.” 1865
Joel 2:3 “A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land [is] as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.” KJV
Joel 2:3 “Delante de él consumirá fuego, detrás de él abrasará llama: como el huerto de Edén será la tierra delante de él, y detrás de él, como desierto asolado: ni tampoco habrá quien de él escape.” 1865
Hosea 7:6 “For they have made ready their heart like an oven, whiles they lie in wait: their baker sleepeth all the night; in the morning it burneth as a flaming fire.” KJV
Hosea 7:6 “Porque aplicaron, como horno, su corazón asechando: toda la noche duerme su hornero: a la mañana está su horno encendido como llama de fuego.” 1865
Notice, this is not the RVG. The 1865 itself proves McArdle wrong. Where are all the articles? The problem in Psalm 104:4 in the 1865 is that “al” is a contraction of “a el”, which is interpreted “to the”. A good example is found in Genesis 6:16:
“Una ventana harás al arca, y la acabarás a un codo de elevación por la parte de arriba: y pondrás la puerta del arca a su lado; y le harás piso bajo, segundo y tercero.” RVG
“A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.” KJV
Also, the book of Psalms shows it.
Ps. 4:1 “To the chief Musician on Neginoth, A Psalm of David. Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress; have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer.” (KJV)
Ps. 4:1 “Al Músico principal: sobre Neginot: Salmo de David. Respóndeme cuando clamo, oh Dios de mi justicia; estando en angustia, tú me hiciste ensanchar; ten misericordia de mí, y oye mi oración.” (RVG04)
If we consult the KJV we see that the ministers (angels) are not made “to the” flaming fire, but they are made “a” flaming fire. So Dr. Gómez cleared up this verse by taking out the preposition “al”. The RVG now agrees with the KJV in Ps. 104:4.
The only difference is that in our language the article “a” is not necessary for grammatical reasons as I have already pointed out. In this case, the article is understood and does not need to be mentioned. But even if it was to be translated, it would have been translated “un”, not “al” like the 1865 has it.
So once again, we see the superiority of the RVG over the Spanish Bible of Jeff McArdle as demonstrated by a native Spanish-speaker. No restaurants or street signs were needed. The Bible and basic Spanish grammar was good enough.
Before moving on to the next point, let me go on record of saying that personally I have nothing against Cuban food. In fact I know a really good Cuban restaurant in Savannah, GA which is only about 45 minutes from my home in Beaufort, SC. The name of this restaurant is El Rancho Alegre and after dining there a few times I give it my full endorsement!
However, I’m not so sure if I am going to be using the menu of this fine Cuban establishment to defend the RVG any time soon. I won’t be walking down the streets of Savannah, GA to look for evidence in support of my position. It wouldn’t be worth the risk of being mugged which would be more likely to happen rather than discover any advanced revelations.
Example #4 – McArdle faults the RVG for lining up with the KJV in 2 Kings 2:9.
The KJV and RVG reads “double portion of thy spirit”. The 1865 Valera and other Spanish Bibles read “two parts of thy spirit”. It only requires a little bit of common sense for someone to see that there is a difference between “two parts” of a spirit and a “double portion” of one. “Two parts” can imply the division of something. A “double portion” implies one entity but double the size or amount.
Any student of languages understands that oftentimes there is more than one way to translate a certain passage, all of which can be somewhat acceptable. But there is a difference between something that is superior and something that is just acceptable. Since God magnifies His word above His very name (Ps. 138:2), we want the most superior rendering available by which to portray the holy Words of God. And when searching for such, the superior reading is the one that is:
1. Based in the pure Received Texts and not the corrupt Critical Texts.
2. After textual purity is determined, the superior rendering will be the one that is the clearest and allows for no confusion as to what exactly the Holy Spirit is saying through the Scriptures.
So what we are dealing with in this verse is a matter of clarity.
Now let’s allow the Bible, not McArdle’s society, or the street signs in Miami, to be its own final authority in this matter. In Deut. 21:17 we find that the Bible interprets itself:
KJV – “But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”
So the law of first mention shows us that a “double portion” simply means twice as much. The son was not just getting “two parts” or some of his father’s belongings but rather he was to receive a double amount.
Did Elisha ask for some of Elijah’s spirit or for twice as much (a double portion)?
The KJV and RVG make it clear what Elisha was requesting. The 1865 is not so clear.
Keep in mind that it was Valera himself that requested for his work to be further revised. So in this case, Dr. Gómez once again conceded to the wisdom of the King James translators on how to more clearly translate the Hebrew in this instance. So the RVG reads “doble porción” exactly like the KJV. In this case (and every other case) we are going to assume that the KJV translators knew more about how to translate Hebrew than Jeff McArdle did.
Example #5
McArdle didn’t understand the difference between the articles “a” and “the”.
Pastor Nelson Giménez already did a good job of demonstrating McArdle’s lack of understanding of when to apply the articles “a” and “the”. In McArdle’s attempt to justify the error of his Bible in Dan. 7:13, he makes this same mistake again. The Bible says in Dan. 7:13:
KJV – “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.”
RVG – “Miraba yo en la visión de la noche, y he aquí en las nubes del cielo uno como el Hijo del Hombre que venía, y llegó hasta el Anciano de días, y le hicieron llegar delante de Él.”
1865 – “Veía en la visión de la noche, he aquí en las nubes del cielo, como un Hijo de hombre que venía; y llegó hasta el Anciano de dias, e hiciéronle llegar delante de él.”
The issue here is simple. This is a clear reference to Jesus Christ. Therefore, He must be referred to as “THE Son” and not just “a Son”. To say “a Son” would put Christ in the same category as the false gods, which is exactly what the 1865 Valera does. The modernistic Revised Standard Version also does the same thing as the 1865 in this verse.
This is a modernistic reading in both the 1865 and the RSV that affects the deity of Christ.
The RVG maintains the deity of Christ in this verse, just like the KJB, by rendering it as “the Son”. Amen!
McArdle said a whole lot of nothing in his failed effort to defend this corrupt reading in the 1865. But in so doing, he tried to turn the tables by accusing the RVG of “blasphemy of the highest order” because the first letter in the word for “man” (Hombre) is capitalized in the RVG. Thus it reads “el Hijo del Hombre”.
There is nothing wrong with capitalizing the first letter in the word “Hombre” since in this case it’s part of a title in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. However, McArdle desperately claimed that by doing this Dr. Gómez has deified man.
Of course this is not true because again, everyone can plainly see that this is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. However, to put this silly argument to rest all we have to do is demonstrate McArdle’s hypocrisy in this matter. Because in his 1865 Valera Bible, he has in Isa. 7:14:
1865 – “Por tanto el mismo Señor os dará señal. HE AQUÍ QUE LA VÍRGEN
CONCEBIRÁ, Y PARIRÁ HIJO, Y LLAMARÁ SU NOMBRE EMMANUEL.”
KJV – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
RVG – “Por tanto el Señor mismo os dará señal: He aquí una virgen concebirá, y dará a luz un hijo, y llamará su nombre Emmanuel.”
Here we see that McArdle’s 1865 capitalized an entire word in reference to the virgin Mary. It also refers to Mary as “THE” VIRGIN instead of “a virgin” which insinuates deity. The Catholic bible does the same things so as to elevate Mary to the same status as God. If McArdle was going to accuse our Bible of blasphemy for capitalizing the first letter of a word in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, why wasn’t he shouting from the rooftops against his Bible capitalizing an entire word in reference to Mary? Is the 1865 Valera proCatholic?
Example #6
McArdle called it “blasphemy” to line up a word with the KJB.
In Hosea 4:12, the Bible says:
KJV – “…and they have gone a whoring from under their God.”
RVG – “…y se han dado a la fornicación dejando a su Dios.”
1865 – “…y fornicaron debajo de sus dioses.”
Here we see that the RVG lines up with the KJV by capitalizing the first letter in the word God. But yet again, McArdle objected and made wild statements:
“Once again Bro. Rodriguez has failed to interpret the Bible correctly, by failing to take into account the context of the passage, and therefore has committed blasphemy by turning Jehovah God into an idol.”
McArdle went on to say:
“And so, Gómez’ failure to interpret and study the Scriptures leads him to outright blasphemy by equating Jehovah with a heathen god.”
First off, if Bro. Gómez committed blasphemy by capitalizing the first letter in the word “God”, then so did the KJV translators because they did the same thing.
Secondly, McArdle tried to argue that in this particular verse the God being referred to here is not the true God but rather a false idol. Now the interpretation of this verse is debatable. But even if McArdle had the right interpretation; Bro. Gómez is still safe by simply conceding to the wisdom of the KJV translators on how to render this word in Spanish. Either interpretation is not “lost in translation” in this case. For as McArdle himself mentions, there are times when false gods are capitalized in the KJV (Dan. 11:38).
You see, this is what McArdle did not seem to understand. We can argue all day long about the proper interpretation of a verse, but at the end of the day if the RVG reads exactly like the KJV, you are going to have to fault the KJV for the same thing you call “blasphemy” in the Spanish Bible.
And if that is the route you have decided to take in life, quit calling yourself a Bible-believer. Quit claiming to stand for the KJV. Quit advertising yourself as “KJV-only” when speaking in KJV-only churches to raise money and solicit support as a Missionary. Quit making statements like the KJB can correct any Bible “on God’s green earth” and “the imprint of the King James Bible upon a Bible in any other language is the kiss of God upon that Bible and the culture that adopts it!” Stop saying things you don’t mean and admit that you have no real final authority.
Example #7
McArdle thought God was the author of confusion.
In Acts 8:16 and Acts 22:16 the word “Lord” is omitted in the original 1865. These are a couple of the problems that McArdle’s group at first fixed in their revision. But now they have voted to omit the word “Lord” and force everyone to use a Bible that has omissions. How did McArdle justify this omission? He says:
“The point is simple, when God wanted to produce His perfect word in English, obviously he had things He wanted to say in English that He did not say in Spanish.”
So when all else fails McArdle concluded that it is OK for the Spanish Bible to say one thing and the KJV to say another.
This reminds me of the Hispanic preacher at a Pastors Conference in California who was trying to defend the Critical Text readings in his 1960 RV. He was asked, “When your Spanish Bible says one thing and our KJB says something totally different, which one is right?” His answer was, “They both are.”
These people are insane! Now do you see why Bible-believers don’t take them seriously? They want us to believe that God is just as double-minded as they are. He isn’t. God is not the author of confusion. Like Dr. Mickey Carter said, “Things that are different are not the same.” To justify the 1865 Valera and still claim to be a Bible-believer, you have to lose all common sense.
Example #8
McArdle appealed to the Erasmus Greek NT as his final authority.
Over and over again, McArdle appealed to the Erasmus Greek NT as if it is the final authority:
“Valera is a perfect translation of Erasmus, who even Rodriguez says is part of the “pure line”.”
“Mr. Rodriguez make a big deal about the Erasmus text (as well he should): “Erasmus’ Greek text became the first in a pure line of revision of the Greek New Testaments that we now know as the Textus Receptus.” Ok, then why FAULT Reina and Valera for making a faithful translation of it?”
“Once again, for whatever reason the King James adds the word “Jesus” in place where Erasmus and other TR manuscripts omit it. An example is given below of Luke 9:43 in the Erasmus text.”
“Again, this word does NOT appear in the Erasmus text.”
“What’s more, the word ex- as a suffix does not appear in Erasmus”
“The word “Lord” (kuriou') does not appear in the Erasmus TR in Acts 8:16.”
“More importantly, Erasmus does NOT have the word.”
Now contrast all that with the statements we quoted earlier in which McArdle said the KJB could correct any Bible, including the Greek, on God’s green earth and it becomes increasingly evident that McArdle was confused as to what his final authority really was.
He warned us that Latin Americans were going to give an account to God for not using the KJB in the revision of the Spanish Bible. And then when Dr. Gómez did just exactly McArdle suggested, McArdle turned around and brought out Erasmus’s text to contradict readings in the RVG that were revised with the KJB. McArdle was a very strange individual.
He seemed to have missed the whole point of why I mentioned Erasmus’s Greek text in my book. The point was that God used Erasmus greatly to spark a movement of faithful Protestant translations so that the common man could resort to God’s word instead of the Catholic church. The point was to show what God was doing to provide the world a basis to work with to eventually get His Words into the respective languages of Europe.
We highly esteem Erasmus as a mighty man of valour in his own right. And we recognize that God used his work to encourage other men, such as Reina and Valera, to protest the Catholic church and translate the word of God.
But we never said Erasmus’s work was perfect. We never said it was to be considered the final authority. And to concede to it today OVER the KJB would be a step backwards, not forwards.
There are now about 30 different editions of the Textus Receptus. It was explained in detail in chapter 4 of the book that each of these TR editions was a “text in transition”. Each one was an effort to improve upon its predecessors. The goal was to arrive at the most accurate representation as possible of the original Greek words of the NT so that Bible translators, such as Reina and Valera, and eventually the KJV translators, could have a foundation to work with in translating the New Testament.
Erasmus’ text was not the “be all, end all”. Neither was the original 1602 Valera for the Spanish Bible. These men never intended for their work to be considered the final authority. They recognized that there was still more work to be done in their respective texts. They were honest men that only wanted what was best for their people.
It was also explained in chapter 4 that this is what made the KJB so special. When the 47 linguistic experts embarked upon their effort to translate God’s word into English, they culminated all the best editions of the Textus Receptus at that time, including Erasmus’s text. They also incorporated all the best traditional texts in other languages, such as the Old Latin texts of the Waldenses. In fact, the KJV translators even stated in their “translators to the readers” that they used Spanish texts as well.
As explained in chapter 4 of my book, this is why Dr. Edward Hills referred to the KJB as “an independent variety of the Textus Receptus”. The KJB is the finality of the Received Texts.
So what we have in the KJB is a marvelous culmination of all the best manuscript evidence resulting in a text so pure, so accurate, yea perfect, that today’s men of God like Dr. Humberto Gómez can use it as a standard in order to purify foreign translations in other languages that have been corrupted by the Critical Texts.
McArdle should had been rejoicing like the rest of us over what God has done for not only the English world but now the Spanish world. For we have done exactly what McArdle himself suggested:
“…whenever anyone takes his hand to improve any Bible in any language by lining it up with the King James Bible (in regards to omissions and additions), that Bible has received the greatest “authorization and endorsement” it could ever get. As the old preacher once said, “The King James Bible is the kiss of God on a sinner’s soul!” And we can likewise state, most emphatically, that the imprint of the King James Bible upon a Bible in any other language is the kiss of God upon that Bible and the culture that adopts it! Amen!”[16]
The Death of a Movement That Never Got Started
When McArdle and his friends rediscovered the 1865 revision of Mora and Pratt they tried to start a movement that would uphold this version as the answer to the Spanish Bible controversy. But this “movement” never got off the ground. Their efforts failed.
The 1865 Valera sat on the shelf for over 130 years. Almost no one knew it existed. And after all the efforts of the Valera Bible Society, today this Bible still remains in obscurity. Despite the handful of friends within McArdle’s society that are using this Bible, for the most part it is still sitting on the shelf.
In all of their ranting and raving against Dr. Humberto Gómez and the RVG, the Valera Bible Society has rendered itself insignificant in the cause for a pure Spanish Bible. Now, who knows? Perhaps God could have used them. It could be that they blew their chance to be the ones to provide an entirely accurate Spanish Bible when they decided to undo the 50 changes that they initiated. To turn a blind eye on the very real errors that exist in that revision is dishonest. And God never blesses dishonesty.
So when God wanted to use someone to provide the Spanish-speaking world with a completely accurate Bible, He walked right past the Valera Bible Society and instead chose a Mexican preacher, who was saved from a life of crime and poverty, to do the job. God did not choose a bunch of pseudo-scholars. He chose a common man to bring His pure words to the common people. God chose a Hispanic to provide Hispanics with the Bible instead of a bunch of gringos.
Where any amount of scholarship was needed, God sent it Bro. Gómez’s way. Like the late Jack Wood’s told his friend, Bro. Humberto Gómez, back in the 80s (when Bro. Gómez first considered taking on the task of revising the Spanish Bible), “Now is not the time but when the time is right God will send you everything you need.”
But it was not scholarship that God was looking for. God was looking for someone with a pure heart, a willing spirit, courage, determination, and the fortitude to withstand the attacks of critics like Jeff McArdle. Little did the world realize that the little Mexican boy selling gum and shining shoes on the streets of Mexico was one day going to be “that man” for the glory of God and the sake of the Hispanic world.
The 1865 Valera is a lost cause. Jeff McArdle’s few remaining disciples today are fighting a losing battle (Acts 5:39). They are now stuck with trying to sell a Spanish Bible that nobody wants. They are stuck with a Spanish Bible in which they have to explain away the errors as “advanced revelations”.
All the Valera Bible Society ever amounted to was a bunch of Internet articles against Dr. Gómez and the Reina-Valera Gómez Bible. Instead of fixing their flawed Bible they became more obsessed with the RVG. Just visit their website and you will see that well over 90% of their articles are devoted to the RVG.
Furthermore, the Valera Bible Society has no influence. McArdle didn’t even have much influence over those who came from the same Bible school that he graduated from. There are more PBI graduates that use the RVG than those who use the 1865. Today the only Spanish Bible sold in PBI’s bookstore is the RVG. Those from McArdle’s own alma-mater did not even listen to him.
Now we did not wish this demise upon the Valera Bible Society. May McArdle’s few remaining students take their flawed 1865 text to a lost and dying world and win souls with the part of their Spanish Bible that is not flawed just as 1960 RV soul winners have done for many years. If they would put as much time and energy into the work of God as they do trying to make themselves look smarter than Dr. Gómez and everyone else, multitudes would be saved!
You see, we do not feel threatened by the 1865 Valera or any of the other Spanish Bible revisions that others support. As stated earlier, some of us actually came very close to using the 1865 Valera. We would have been very happy for that Bible to be the answer if that was the one God chose. We recognize it to be better than the more popular 1960 revision in terms of purity. As a revision, it was a step in the right direction because many errors were corrected.
But it was not a perfect revision. There was still more work to be done. To ignore the errors in the 1865 by writing them off as “advanced revelations” is not the answer. The very few who are still promoting this revision by trying to present it as something it is not are only tarnishing the image of the Reina Valera Bible.
In regard to the loss of influence and credibility, the Valera Bible Society did it to themselves. They went so overboard in their promotion of the 1865 Valera with their personal attacks against anyone that did not agree with them that people got tired of their non-stop rants.
We wanted to use a purified Spanish Bible for our personal lives, to win souls, and do the work that God has called us to do. McArdle wanted to argue. The fact that no one is taking Jeff McArdle or his Valera Bible Society seriously is nobody else’s fault but their own.
The RVG – God’s Bible in Spanish!
Meanwhile, the RVG continues to grow and multiply!
During the course of this writing, God provided Victory Baptist Press of Milton, FL with 41,000 pounds of paper, worth over $31,000.00, to print over 25,000 Bibles many of which will be shipped to Juarez, Mexico, recently reported as the most dangerous city in that country. What a joy it will be to see some of the thugs wreaking havoc in that part of the country gloriously saved as a result of Mexican soul-winners preaching the RVG in Juarez!
Chick Publications, who in the past couple years have converted all their Spanish tracts and literature to the RVG, continue to publishing the RVG. They have reported that the RVG has taken their worldwide ministry to “a whole new level” as Christians across the globe are requesting RVG Bibles and Spanish literature (with RVG references in it) to win the lost.
Beacon of Truth Baptist Ministries now exclusively prints the RVG.
The RVG is being used by Hispanic Bible-believing nationals and missionaries all over the world in every Spanish-speaking country. Spanish ministries all over the Unites States are also using the RVG.
Souls are being saved. Saints are excited. Missionaries are being raised and sent out with the RVG. The next generation of Latin American preachers are being trained with the RVG and ordained into the Gospel ministry. Churches are being established. God is doing a great work!
And the information is getting out there. On our website (www.sociedadrvg.com) we have over 200 articles in Spanish and English. The RVG Bible Society has become the #1 leader online when it comes to good information on the Spanish Bible. I praise the Lord that so many, even our critics, have showed interest in my book – God’s Bible in Spanish. What a blessing to see God’s people informed about what He has done and is continuing to do for the sake of the Spanish-speaking world through the Reina-Valera Gómez Bible!
As stated before, I would love to see the Spanish-speaking world experience some true revival in these last days. When the KJB and other faithful Protestant translations first came out, revival broke out wherever those Bibles went. Europe was turned upside down through the preaching of the Protestant Reformers and non-conforming separatists like the Waldenses and others who were armed with God’s Words in their language. The one exception to all this was Spain, due to the stronghold of the Catholic church and the Inquisition being based out of that country. As a result, the rest of Latin America was affected and the influence of Bible-believing Christianity in the Spanish-speaking world was put on hold for many years.
Hispanic people have yet to experience a large revival like that of the Great Awakenings. But I believe our time is coming. I believe Europe and the United States have had their time. I believe now it is Latin America’s time. I believe Latin America is on the threshold of an amazing moving of God. I believe all this despite the teachings of McArdle and his extreme Laodicean doctrine. God is not dead! We are not discouraged. We are excited to know that God still wants to do great things! And I believe with all my heart that He will before He returns.
While Jeff McArdle’s handful of remaining students are still trying to figure out how to succeed in the Laodicean age, those using the RVG in their lives and ministries are experiencing Philadelphian age Christianity! Thank God for His Bible in Spanish, the Reina-Valera Gómez Bible! ¡Gloria a Dios!
Acts 5:39 “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
APPENDIX A
Los comentarios del Pastor Daniel Leiva en castellano acerca del “macho cabrio de escapatoria” en Lev. 16:
(Bro. Daniel Leiva’s commentary in Spanish concerning the “scapegoat” in Lev. 16.)
Esto es una figura del sacrificio de Cristo. Aaron era el mediador entre Dios y el pueblo. La congregación necesitaba dos machos cabríos para la expiación.
Debía echar suertes sobre los dos machos cabríos de los cuales uno seria para Jehová y debía ser degollado y otro que se le enviaría al desierto.
También, Aaron debía ofrecer un becerro para expiacion de el y de su casa, degollando el becerro. Debía esparcir la sangre del becerro por el propiciatorio, también debía degollar el macho cabrío para Jehová y debía hacer lo mismo que con la sangre de becerro. Esto era para expiación por sus inmundicias, rebeliones, y por todos sus pecados.
Hasta aquí a mi parecer uniéndolo con Hebreos 9 es lo que Cristo hizo cuando sacrifico su vida en la cruz, permitió que nosotros podamos entrar en el lugar santísimo sin morir como lo hicieron los hijos de Aaron.
El cabrío vivo que se le lleva al desierto, en ningún lugar dice que vuelve al campamento. Dios hace lo mismo con nuestros pecados cuando los cargamos en
Cristo.
APPENDIX B
THE 50 CHANGES IN THE 1865 VALERA MADE BY THE VALERA BIBLE SOCIETY
Sadly these good changes will not be reversed in future printings of the 1865 Valera. Printing ministries will be deceived into printing a Spanish Bible that says that Elhanan slew Goliath in 2nd Samuel 21:19 just like the NIV. Look at the good changes that were made in 2005 in the 1865 Valera in the following list:
1. Genesis 2:18 "de gracia" added
2. 2 Sam. 21:19 "al hermano de" added
3. Job 32:1 "propios" added
4. Psalm 139:24 "eterno" added
5. Prov. 8:17 "de mañana" added
6. Prov. 21:2 "propia" added
7. Matt. 24:2 "Jesús" added
8. Mark 6:44 "como" added
9. Mark 7:14 "a sí" added
10. Mark 8:19 "le" added
11. Mark 10:14 "a mi" added
12. Luke 2:4 "también" added
13. Luke 6:44 "propio" added
14. Luke 8:36 " también " added
15. Luke 9:43 " Jesús " added
16. Luke 13:34 "O" added
17. Luke 13:35 "de cierto" added
18. Luke 14:26 "propia" added
19. John 8:28 "mío" added
20. John 10:17 " mío " added
21. John 14:28 " mío " added
22. John 16:10 " mío " added
23. Acts 1:1 "en el primer libro" added
24. Acts 7:55 "parado" added
25. Acts 7:56 "parado" added
26. Acts 8:16 "el Señor" added
27. Acts 13:22 " también " added
28. Acts 17:26 "antes" added
29. Acts 19:37 "de iglesias" added
30. Acts 20:8 "alto" added
31. Acts 22:16 "del Señor " added
32. Acts 23:14 "nos" added
33. Acts 25:4 "mismo" added
34. Acts 27:11 "de la nave" added
35. Acts 27:19 "propias" added
36. Rom. 9:21 "sobre el barro" added
37. Rom. 11:24 "propia" added 38. Rom. 14:4 "propio" added
39. Rom. 15:17 "Jesu" added
40. Rom. 16:18 "propios" added
41. 1 Cor. 2:12 "de gracia" added
42. 1 Cor. 7:2 "propia" and "propio" added
43. 1 Cor. 15:23 "propio" added
44. 2 Cor. 11:33 "en una espuerta" added
45. Filipenses 2:25 "de milicia" added
46. Tito 2:7 "sinceridad"
47. Heb. 12:2 "capitán" changed to "autor"
48. James 3:6 "gehenna" changed to "infierno"
49. 2 Peter 1:20 "privado desatamiento" changed to "particular
interpretación"
50. 2 Peter 2:4 "tártaro" changed to "infierno"
APPENDIX C
More Problems in the 1865 Valera
List compiled by Dr. Carlos Donate
I. Of a textual type, affecting various doctrines.
A. It is difficult to teach the doctrine of the preservation of the words in Psalm 12:7, since it says “los guardarás” referring to the Jews. This is the position taken by modernists.
B. Revelation 19:8 mentions the fine linen as “las justificaciones de los santos” which contradicts Scripture which teaches that we have been clothed in the righteousness of Christ. In 1865, room is made to teach self-justification .
C. In 1 Corinthians 1:18 it teaches the error that we are being saved, since it puts the verb in the imperative: “se salvan”.
D. Something similar happens in Hebrews 6:12 where the 1865 translates the verb inherit in its present-imperative form: “are inheriting,” which gives rise to teaching salvation by works.
E. In Hebrews 10:39 the 1865 uses the phrase “ganancia del alma”, which is confusing because it should really be “salvación del alma”. Someone might say, “I gained my salvation.”
F. Apparently the 1865 affirms more the doctrine of salvation by works since it repeatedly uses the phrase “alcanzar” to refer to salvation. See 1 Peter 1:5. Interestingly, in this passage the word is in italics , which indicates a preference of translation.
G. The 1865 affects the doctrine of Inspiration by saying in 2 Peter 1:21 that men were inspired, when in reality the only thing inspired were the words of God.
H. 1865 emphasizes Sabbathkeeping, using this expression from Hebrews 4:9. What remains is “rest” in Christ—rest from Sabbath keeping!
I. Daniel 3:25 makes a mistake by translating the phrase “son of God” indefinitely.
J. Cry out to your “god”, instead of “God” in Jonah 1:6.
K. 1865 adds back what God had removed: the name Joacim in Matthew 1:11 (Jeremiah 24). This can be seen by the use of brackets in the text, which is an addition.
L. Omits the verb “sé” from “saber” in Genesis 18:19.
M. In Hosea 4:12, the 1865 uses the word “gods,” but it should be in the singular and capitalized, “God,” to refer to the fact that Ephraim abandoned the true God and gave himself to idols.
N. 1 Chronicles 28:12 in 1865 ascribes the wisdom to build the Temple to Solomon, and not to God, translating that the plan of all things was “in his will.” The 2nd edition of RVG corrected this serious error.
O. 1865, in Jude 3, does not call us to contend for the faith, but to “strive” in it. The problem is that contending is an act we must do toward those who seek to attack our faith, while striving in the faith is more passive, and does not take on the militant, fundamentalist role of defending the faith. It also sounds like trying to earn your salvation.
P. The 1865 weakens the doctrine of hell by translating the Hebrew word “ sheol ” as “grave.” See Psalm 16:10; 116:3 ; Proverbs 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; and 27:10. 2 Samuel 22:6; and Habakkuk 2:5.
Q. The 1865 incorrectly translates Psalm 138:2 by failing to magnify God's Word above ALL His name.
A. The 1865 apparently denies that 1 John 2:23b is inspired, since it puts the last sentence of this verse in italics , meaning that it is not part of the received text. Even the group publishing the 1865 does the same thing on the English side of the KJB. We must wonder if the 1865 translators believed this passage was an interpolation since they used italics . This is denying that this portion is inspired by God!
S. The 1865 uses the term “aplacamiento” instead of the word “propitiation” in Romans 3:25, 1 John 2: and 4:10. The problem is that the word propitiation in Scripture always refers to the shed blood of Christ. Substituting the word propitiation with “aplacamiento” misses this vital emphasis. It is an example of the feverish verb selection prevalent in the 1865.
T. In Leviticus 17:14 the 1865 does not translate this passage correctly by omitting the two words “su vida” after “carne”. Rather, it sounds like all flesh has a soul, which is incorrect. All flesh has life, but it does not necessarily have a soul. The verse does not teach that flesh has a soul, but that its life is in its blood. The problem is that it uses the first “soul” to refer to life, and so it becomes necessary to insert the two words “his life.”
II. In the 1865 there are some minor problems with the selection of certain words that may convey incorrect meanings; the 1865 also uses too many archaisms with little or no doctrinal value. However, we must clarify that some archaisms are good and should be retained in our Bibles.
a. Archaism- “cata.” Revelation 3:11, etc.
b. Archaism- “ item ”. Too many passages to list here.
c. It replaces “preach” with “announce” repeatedly. It weakens the ordinance to preach.
d. Eliminates the verb “impute” affecting the doctrine of the Imputation of God’s righteousness. Romans 4.
e. Something seems “ugly” to him-1 Corinthians 7:36
f. “He will eat his sons and his daughters” – an unnecessary case of cannibalism in Scripture: Jeremiah 5:17
g. Archaism - “ Triaca”— Jer . 8:22
h. Archaism - “ Tillas”—Ezekiel 27:5
i. Archaism - “ Naos”—Ezek . 27:25. Also in Jonah 1:4;5;13
j. Archaism – “ Aljanaya”—Habakkuk 1:15,16
k. Archaism - “ Ossuary”—Hab.2:5
l. The 1865 calls Habakkuk the prophet of ignorance in Hab.3:1.
m. Inappropriate use of the term “traditions” in 1 Thess . 2:15.
n. “That we may receive the chastening of prudence, justice, and judgment, and equity”? Prov. 1:2. The improper use of the word chastening here sounds like God only wants to punish us severely. “Instruction” is better. The same occurs in verses 3 and 8 of the same chapter, and in 8:10.
[1] God’s Bible in Spanish by Emanuel Rodriguez is available through www.chick.com.
[2] The Bible Believer’s Guide to Elephant Hunting, by Jeff McArdle, pg. 57-59, “…while their intentions may be admirable, can only produce a big mess. They are Laodicean age Christians trying to give the Spanish-speaking world what can only be, in the final analysis, a Laodicean Bible…” Also, “If a Spanish Bible is to be translated and printed, the work should be done by Spaniards. It should be done by Spaniards, on the continent and during the Philadelphia church period, because the Philadelphia church period is that period that KEPT the word of God.”
[3] See the article entitled 2 Sam. 21:19 – Who Killed Goliath? By Will Kinney. Bro. Kinney is a high school language teacher and in this article he explains elliptical languages and that the italicized words in the KJB are words that were not in the underlying Hebrew or Greek but didn’t need to be because they are implied and understood by those who spoke Biblical Greek and Hebrew at the time. He also gives many other examples in the Bible where this took place – http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2119goliath.htm
[4] The 1602 Purified or Purificada revision of Monterrey, Mexico also contains this error.
[5] Roll vs. Scroll by Daniel Arbaje - http://valera1865.org/en/vd/page45/page45.html
[6] Bible Study Charts and Outlines, by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, pg. 32
[7] The Bible Believer’s Guide to Elephant Hunting, by Jeffrey McArdle, pg. 61
[8] The Bible Believers Guide to Elephant Hunting, by Jeffrey McArdle, pg. 22
[9] God’s Bible in Spanish, pg. 82 (Note: Dr. Gómez made this statement at a Dean Burgon Society meeting.) 11 The Bible Believers Guide to Elephant Hunting, by Jeffrey McArdle, pg. 18
[10] Ibid. pg. 18
[11] Ibid. pg. 21
[12] Ibid, pg. 79
[13] In his critique of my book he refers the reader to another article entitled Inspired Teaching on Hell from the 1865
Bible by Jeff McArdle, in which he gives his defense of omitting the word hell from the Spanish Bible – http://valera1865.org/en/vd/page43/page43.html
[14] Ibid
[15] See God’s Bible in Spanish, by Emanuel Rodriguez, Chapter 6 – Removing Hell from the Bible – by Missionary Shane Rice
[16] Ibid, pg. 79
Yorumlar