38 Biblical Reasons why I cannot use the Reina Valera 1960 Bible

By: Timothy Urling

Missionary sent to Mexico since 1998
Although I know that I am in the minority of independent Baptist missionaries and Spanish-
speaking ministries that do not use the 1960 version of the King James Version, I felt it was
necessary to write a summary of my convictions regarding this matter. My pastor also
encouraged me to write about it as long as I did so in the right spirit, which has been my
intention. I hope this study is useful for you too.

There have been a large number of writings, some for and others against this revision. Almost
all have been done with great zeal but little biblical support. What follows are 38 reasons why I
cannot use the Reina-Valera 1960 revision.

I admit that I am not a scholar when it comes to Greek, Hebrew, English or Spanish. I believe
that erudition is not a requirement to understand the subject. The 54 men who translated the
King James Bible into English were experts in these and more languages. Some were so expert
that they wrote dictionaries and grammar books in their respective languages. It is doubtful that
any of the “experts” today compare to one of them.
These men gave us an English translation (the King James) that was undoubtedly correctly
translated from the manuscripts of the text received. They used all the editions of the text
received and also compared it with thousands of manuscripts that existed at that time (even
some in Spanish) to give us the most accurate translation of all time.

The most incredible (if not miraculous) thing about this English translation is that there had to
be unanimous agreement among all the translators regarding each text, reading, passage and
translation.

I believe that any Bible in any language can and should agree as closely as possible with the
King James because there is no argument as to its textual basis or the accuracy of its
translation.

Do I think English is superior to Spanish? No. Do I think the King James corrects Hebrew or
Greek? No. Were the translators inspired? No. Could there be a mistake? Possibly. Did God
preserve his English word in the King James? Yeah.

The King James is the only English translation that is 100% faithful to the text received. In my
opinion, it will be a foolish waste of time and resources to go back to the original languages to
have a translation (or revision) that is faithful to the text received. It has already been done by
real experts.
Some will say that this King James argument does not make the standard for judging the
Spanish. No, the standard is Textus Receptus. Which edition? The King James does not match
100% with a single edition of the text received. Then we will be sure not to make a mistake
about the text if we follow the expert opinion of the King James translators.

Some will say that this issue of the Bible text did not originate with the Spanish-speaking
church. This is true; Although as a missionary to a Spanish-speaking people, I, even with other
missionaries and pastors, have the duty to teach about this matter. It is part of the mandate we
have in II Timothy 2:2. Without making comparisons with other languages it will be impossible
to find the discrepancies. Only knowledgeable bilinguals can find these types of discrepancies!
I have taught this topic for about 4 years at Bible school and my students have always seen the
differences very quickly and have been grateful for having learned the truth about the texts.
I have studied this topic very carefully for some 12 years . I have concluded that I cannot use
or endorse the Reina-Valera 1960 Bible . My hope is that before you make a conclusion, you
honestly and carefully study these 38 reasons.
Finally remember the words in Revelation 22:18-19: “…If anyone adds to these things, God will
add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of
the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the book of life, and from the holy
city, and from the things that are written in this book.”

Yes, it is a matter of utmost importance!

I cannot use the Reina-Valera 1960 because:

1) says that man became a “living being” instead of a “soul” in Gen 2:7.
2) contains false and contradictory words regarding who killed Goliath in II Sam. 21:19.

3) says the opposite of the King James and other earlier Spanish Bibles in Isaiah 9:3 when it
says “you increased joy.”
4) in Dan. 3:25 Nebuchadnezzar declared the appearance of the fourth man in the fire a “son of
the gods.”
5) in Matthew chapter 1 the word “begot” was removed 22 times against Apoc. 22:19.
6) in Matthew 5:22 the words “without reason” were removed thus making Christ a sinner
when he became angry in the temple. (John 2:14-15).
7) in Matthew 6:1 the word “alms” was replaced with “righteousness.”
8) the phrase “This people draw near to me with their mouth” has been removed from Matthew
15:8.

9) “they did not find it” was removed from Matthew 26:60.
10) in Mark 1:2 “in the prophets” was changed to “in Isaiah the prophet . ”
11) the words “to repent” were omitted at the end of Mark 2:17.
12) in Mark 11:10 the words “in the name of the Lord” were omitted.
13) the word “the” was removed from the phrase “this man was the Son of God.” in Mark
15:39.
14) Luke 2:22 says “when the days of their purification were fulfilled” (Mary and Jesus)
According to the law, Christ did not have to be purified.
15) The words “in spirit” do not appear in Luke 2:40 where they should be.
16) the word “hades” was put instead of “hell” in Luke 16:23 and other verses. The word hell
is found 54 times in the King James and only 13 times in the RV 1960.
17) the repentant evildoer does not recognize Christ as “Lord” in Luke 23:42.
18) in John 6:22 the words “but that into which his disciples had entered” were not
included.
19) the word “guard” was replaced by “believe” in John 12:47.
20) in Acts 6:8 the word “faith” was changed to “grace” .
21) The words “of the Lord” were not included when Stephen was talking about the burning
bush in Acts 7:30.
22) the words “and the Lord said” were omitted in Acts 9:5
23) “All his works are known to God” was completely changed to: “Says the Lord, I will
make all this known” in Acts 15:18
24) in Acts 18:5 “Paul, constrained in spirit” was changed to “Paul was completely
devoted to preaching”
25) Romans 1:16 does not have the words “of Christ” when it speaks “of the gospel of
Christ.”
26) Romans 10:9 says “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord…” instead of
saying “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus…” This contradicts Matthew 7:22
and either one or the other is correct. Biblical salvation is not obtained that way.
27) The words “believed, unbelief, and believed” were changed to “disobedient and
disobedience” in Romans 11:30 – 32.
28) in I Corinthians 7:3 the word “benevolence” is changed to “conjugal” .
29) in I Corinthians 7:5 “fasting” is removed where it speaks of prayer and fasting.
30) the words “through Jesus Christ” are not found in Ephesians 3:9.
31) in I Thessalonians 4:4 the translators changed the word “vessel” to “wife.”
32) “But to the Son it says” was changed “but to the Son” in Hebrews 1:8.
33) I Peter 2:2 was changed “so that by it you may grow;” by: “so that through it you
may grow to salvation.” It is also not mentioned that milk is from the “word.”
34) Jude 22 has been completely changed to read “Convince some who doubt” instead of
reading “And have compassion on some, making a difference”
35) “which had his name” was added to Revelation 14:1.
36) A comma was added between “holy apostles” thus creating another category of people
“saints” in Revelation 18:20
37) in Revelation 22:8 “And the Lord God of the holy prophets…” was changed to “the God
of the spirits of the prophets…”.
38) Revelation 22:14 was changed to read “Blessed are those who wash their clothes”
instead of “Blessed are those who keep his commandments.”
These changes, additions, and extractions were made when the United Bible Societies
organization wanted to change from the received text to the critical text. But they realized that
due to the conservative nature of the Hispanic church they could not change the text in one fell
swoop. So they didn't completely change the critical text, they only changed it in some verses.
All of this has been well documented by Bible society.
That is to be expected from Bible societies. But what I do not understand is how the brothers
who defend the King James and the text received in English can accept and even defend these
changes to the critical text in Spanish.

If there was no alternative to the 1960s this would have been little more than a criticism. But
there is a good alternative in the revision of the old version of the Reina-Valera (1909) made by
Dr. Humberto Gómez ( RVG ). It is now available in its 2nd printed edition in August 2007.
Every verse examined in this study, and thousands of other verses were examined and corrected
in this revision ( NKJV ). Hundreds and perhaps thousands of brothers have been using the first
edition of this review and any possibly erroneous areas were re-examined by Dr. Gómez et al. If
it was incorrect, it was corrected.
I hope you now understand my convictions better. My intention is not to offend anyone or any
ministry but only to explain my convictions regarding the Word of God in Spanish.

Reina-Valera Bible of 1960: Falsehood and Deception in

Spanish!
Posted on September 4, 2010 by Unidoscontralaapostasia
 10 simple reasons why no Spanish-
speaking believer should use the 1960 Reina-Valera BibleBy: José Almeida
Translation: Allen Johnson (MA)

1. Because those who produced that corrupted Bible were the apostates of the
United Bible Societies.

The United Bible Societies are the worst there is in terms of fidelity to the Holy
Scriptures. In 1943, 13 apostate Bible Societies joined together to form the United
Bible Societies (UBS) which is nothing more than a council of liberal and
ecumenical vultures who corrupted the pure Word of God in every possible
language. In English, they produced everything that is worthless through the
American Bible Society (ABS), including the diabolical Today's English Version
(also known as the Good News Bible).
In Portuguese, they are represented by the Bible Society of Brazil, a scandal of
ecumenism and Biblical infidelity. In Spanish, they are represented by the “Bible
Societies in Latin America” which produced that revised Reina-Valera of 1960.
Look at the apostate team of the United Bible Societies, which even had a Catholic
cardinal. Is it possible that a fundamentalist is so naive that he does not perceive
this and still wants to buy that Bible?

2. Because they use the name Reina-Valera deceptively, in order to use the prestige
of those people.

The names Reina and Valera for Spanish-speaking believers are equivalent to the
name João Ferreira de Almeida for Portuguese-speaking believers. In the case of
Spanish, they used texts from the Protestant Reformation and produced their
translations that have nothing to do with the theological modernisms and apostate
textual criticism of the 20th century.

3. Because Casiodoro de Reina (1569) and Cipriano

de Valera (1602) would never publish that Bible.
Casiodoro de Reina (1520-1594) is considered the first translator of the Bible in
Spanish; His work took 12 years at the cost of much personal sacrifice. He was born
in Seville and became a Roman Catholic monk. When he was in the monastery of
San Isidro in Seville, he heard the preachings of the Superior, Dr. Blanco García
Arias, who had been influenced by the preachings of the Albigensians. Reading the
writings of the Reformers and the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses, Reina
converted to Protestantism. He would never associate with the Jesuit inquisitors,
who today dominate the United Bible Societies and who usurp his name. Cipriano
de Valera (1531-1602) was a disciple of Casiodoro de Reina and continued his work
revising the errors of the 1569 edition resulting in the revision of 1602, eight years
after the death of Casiodoro de Reina. Valera is considered a hero of faith. Their
relationship with the Catholic Church was one of separation. They had to abandon
Spain in 1557 and publicly denounced the heresies of the mass and popery. The text
they used was the Textus Receptus. They would have had nothing to do with the
SBU, much less with the corrupt Greek text they used to corrupt the Reina-Valera
Bible.
4. Because every time someone buys that Bible, they are supporting the United
Bible Societies and helping these apostates spread corrupt seed and increase the
publication of false Bibles.

United Bible Societies are supported by donations or offerings and by sales of

Bibles. Every penny that a believer invests in these corrupt Bibles will be used for
the advancement of ecumenism and the production of more apostasy. The
believer's money must be used wisely. This is called stewardship, or wise
stewardship of the resources God graciously grants us. One day we will realize
everything we invested. This will take place at the Court of Christ (Bema). Is it
possible that someone could be so naïve as to think that support for apostasy and
liberal vultures will not be rebuked by the Lord? Each one to answer for himself.
The fact however remains: “…the fire will prove it.” (1Cor. 3:13) Do you want to
take a risk, dear brother?

5. Because that Bible does not use italics, which is dishonest to the reader.

The use of italics as does the King James Bible and all those who use the method of
formal equivalence, is a sign of transparency and high consideration of the
translators for the reader. Now comes the revelation: The false Reina-Valera (1960)
does not use italics. They hide the words they inserted, so the reader thinks
everything reflects the original. They are not transparent and the reader is left
hostage to the literary arrogance of heretics and liberals.

6. Because that Bible is based on the Greek Critical Text of the United Bible
Societies, which is the biggest fraud in bibliology.

Dr. José Flores himself, a member of the revision committee of that 1960 Bible,
reports that 10 thousand changes or textual changes were made following the
Revised Standard Bible (1946), the American Standard (1901) and the English
Revised Version of 1885 . The 3 English Bibles mentioned are based on the Critical
Text. The clever ones did not rely entirely on the Critical Text, but maliciously
mixed it with the Textus Receptus so that people would not notice it so obviously.
Let's see what the Critical Text is: It is a falsified text of the New Testament,
manufactured in 1881 based on the worst Greek manuscripts: basically the Codex
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, resulting in 2,886 fewer Greek words and a total of 9,970
altered words between omissions, additions or modifications! Let's see who
produced the Critical Text: Westcott and Hort, the “vessels of dishonor.”

Let's look at the false theory behind the Critical Text: God did not preserve His
Word. Let's see just 30 clear and simple examples of the corruptions of the “Reina-
Valera” 1960 in the table below: In the left column we have the verses. In the
middle column we see the Spanish reading of the True Valera (1602-R) which is
based on the Textus Receptus (TR) with the marking in gray (example) meaning
where the scissors of the corrupters mutilated the original, and with the original
Greek transliteration below. In the right column we see where the Spanish reading
of the false Reina-Valera (1960) was based on the Critical Text (CT) and with the
respective transliteration of the corrupted and mutilated Greek below. This proves,
without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that the 1960 Reina Valera has many
eclectic readings (self-service to the taste of heretics) inserted from the Critical
Text, the ferment of the liberal Pharisees. In short: they were not faithful or
consistent with anything (not totally TR, not totally TC) except with their own
madness. Let's see:

 30 VersesValera Truea (1602-R)

 Received Text (TR)False Reina-Valera (1960)
 Critical Text (TC) WH
 1Matthew2:12“…being warned by God in a dream…”“…being warned by
revelation in 1Matthew2:12 dreams…”
 chrematisthentes kat onarchrematisthentes kat onar
 2Matthew 5:22“…whoever is angry with his brother without reason will
be…”“whoever is angry with his brother will be…”
 eike enochosenochos
 3Matthew 5:27“You have heard that it was said to the ancients…”“You have
heard that it was said…”
 errephe tois archaioiserrephe
 4Mark 1:2“As it is written in the prophets…”“As it is written in Isaiah the
prophet…”
 en tois prophetesen to hesaia to prophete
 5Mark 2:17“…but sinners to repentance”“…but sinners.”
 hamartolous eis metanoianhamartolous
 6Mark 9:24“…Lord, I believe: help my unbelief.”“I believe; Help my disbelief.”
 pisteuo kurie boetheipisteuo boethei
 7Mar. 11:10“…father David, who comes in the name of the Lord…”“…father
David who comes!”
 on onomati kuriou- – -
 8Mar. 14:22“Take, eat, this is my body.”“Take, this is my body.”
 eipen labete phagete toutoeipen labete touto
 9Luke 2:22“…of her purification…”“…of their purification…”
 katharismou auteskatharismou auton
 10Luke 2:40“…of her purification…”“…of their purification…”
 taiouto pneumatiTaiouto
 11Luke 4:41“…You are Christ, the Son of God…”“…You are the Son of God…”
 su ei or christos or uiossu ei or uios
 12Luke 9:43“…of all the things that Jesus did…”“…of all the things that he
did…”
 epoiesen or iesusEpoiesen
 13Luke 23:42“And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me…”“And he said to
Jesus, Remember me…”
 elegen to iesou, mnestheti mou kurieelegen iesou, mnestheti mou
 14John 6:65“…given from my Father…” “…given from the Father…”
 tou patros moutou patros
 15John 8:28“…my Father taught me, this is what I speak.”“…the Father taught
me…”
 o pater muoo pater
 16John 8:38“…I have seen with my Father;…”“…I have seen near the Father…”
 to patri mouto patri lalo
 17John 14:28“…because my Father…”“…because the Father…”
 oti ho pater mouoti ho pater
 18John 16:10“…because I go to my Father…”“…because I go to the Father…”
 pros ton patera mou upagopros ton patera upago
 19Acts 3:26“…he sent his Son Jesus…”“…he sent his Son…”
 ton paida autou iesounton paida autou
 20Acts 6:8“…And Stephen, full of faith and power…”“And Stephen, full of grace
and power…”
 pisteos kai dunameoscharitos kai dunameos
 21Acts 7:30“…the angel of the Lord appeared to him…”“…an angel appeared to
him…”
 aggelos kuriou in phlogiaggelos in phlogi
 22Acts 9:29“…in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed…”“…in the name of
the Lord, and disputed…”
 kuriou iesouelalei elalei
 23Acts 22:16“…calling on the name of the Lord.”“…calling on his name.”
 to onoma tou kuriouto onoma autou
 24Rom. 1:16“…I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; because…” “I am not
ashamed of the gospel, because…”
 to euaggelion tou christou dunamisto euaggelion dunamis
 25

Does Jehovah God approve of the errors in the Reina-

Valera version of the Bible?
1)The inconsistency with the word soul.
The use given in the biblical context to the original terms in Hebrew is né•fesch [ׁ‫ ]ש‬and in Greek is
psy•kjḗ [ψυχή] and shows that the word “soul” referred to both a person and an animal or the life
that is in both. The Reina-Valera version of the Bible is inconsistent in rendering the word ψυχή for
soul, it plays with its meanings, look at its interlinear version:

In MATTHEW 10:28 the Greek word ψυχὴν appears and it is rendered as “soul” this is fine, but
what about other texts like ACTS 20:10; 27:37 and REVELATION 16:3?

In ACTS 20:10 Reina-Valera renders ψυχὴ = living, ACTS 27:37 ψυχαί = people and REVELATION
16:3 ψυχὴ = being, we are going to compare it with The Holy Bible Spanish Version of the
Septuagint.

MATTHEW 10:28: “soul”, ACTS 27:37: “souls”, ACTS 20:10: “soul” and REVELATION 16:3: “soul”.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is also consistent because it translates soul or souls.

2)The error of Romans 9:5.

ROMANS 9.5: “of whom are the patriarchs, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came,
who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

Is this text spelled correctly? Let's look at other versions:

ROMANS 9:5,6a, New Spanish Bible: “theirs are the Patriarchs, and from them in the human
aspect the Messiah was born, theirs is the Sovereign God blessed forever. Amen."

ROMANS 9:5, The Holy Bible Septuagint Spanish Version: “of whom, the fathers, and of whom, the
 Christ, as to the flesh. The one who, above all things, God, blessed forever; amen."

3)The wavering with the word Hades and Gehenna and hell.

Notice how these words change these subjects:

ACTS 2:27, King James Version of 1960: “For you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you
allow your Holy One to see corruption.”

ACTS 2:27, King James Version of 2000: “You will not leave my soul in hell, nor will you give your
Holy One to see corruption.”

The interlinear version of Reina-Valera of 1960 renders the Greek word ᾅδου and translates it
Hades, and then hell, that is, according to them hell = Hades, but it happens that the interlinear
version of Reina-Valera 1960 uses the word γέενναν in MATTHEW 5: 22 and translates it hell. That
is, according to them hell = Hades = Gehenna.

ACTS 2:27, Jerusalem 1976: “that you will not abandon my soul to Hades nor allow your saint to
experience corruption.”

ACTS 2:27, Nacar-Colunga Bible: “For you will not abandon my soul in Ades, nor will you allow your
Holy One to experience corruption.”

MATTHEW 5:22, Jerusalem 1976: “For I say to you: Anyone who is angry with his brother will be
liable to judgment before the court; but whoever calls his brother an “imbecile” will be convicted
before the Sanhedrin; and whoever calls him “renegade” will be guilty of Gehenna fire.”

MATTHEW 5:22, Nacar-Colunga Bible: “But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother
will be subject to judgment, whoever calls him “raca” will be held accountable before the Sanhedrin,
and whoever calls him “crazy” “He will be guilty of Gehenna fire.”

Which Bible translation do you prefer: one that hesitates and changes its words over and over,
confusing the reader, or one that is honest in its delivery?

 2 years ago
 Report abuse
Additional details
Another error, 2 Peter 3:10 in Reina-Valera, does not harmonize with the Codex Sinaiticus, which
dates back more or less to the 4th century, nor other Codices nor with the texts above and is
symbolic, because what effect would fire have on hot elements such as Sun?
 The Holy Bible Reina-Valera, yes
it is the Word of God
By Dr. Tommy Ashcraft

Foreword
Before starting this study, we need to clarify several things. First,
it is not the purpose of this study to attack or accuse anyone. We will
try to maintain an objectivity isolated from the emotional
manifestations that could very easily accompany this topic.

A few years ago two men whom I had respected for a

long time came to my house. There are many, many areas
in which they and I are in perfect agreement. The purpose
of his visit, however, was about something we DO NOT
agree on. They came in order to make me see some
“errors” in the Bible that I use - the Reina-Valera Bible
1960 -. When I understood the nature of their visit, I told
them that I was not interested in talking about that topic.
They stayed for an hour, trying to convince me to examine
material that would convince me of the falsity of my Bible.
I told them I wasn't interested, because every time I had
read or examined such material, I had come away with a
stronger confidence that my Bible was the Word of God.

When those two brothers came to my house in 1997 to present

“irrefutable evidence” of the invalidity of my Reina-Valera 1960
Bible, I asked them several questions that I believe clarify the
issue of this controversy. Corrupt seed does not produce healthy
plants. If the seed is corrupt, the plant must be corrupt. If the
plant is healthy, it means that its seed was healthy.

I challenged these brothers to show me a single independent

fundamental Baptist pastor or preacher who is teaching false
doctrine or corrupt doctrine based on this Bible. I named several
of his heroes, including the pastor of one of them. Name the
Hispanic pastor of the church where the missionary comes from.
I asked them if they knew of a single false doctrine that those
men who used the Reina-Valera Bible 0 1909 or 1960 taught or
preached or maintained.

The charismatic movement emerged before 1960. Russellism

began before 1960. Secular humanism began before 1960.
Mormonism began before 1960. There were liberal Baptists
before 1960. There were modernist Baptists before 1960. There
were free will Baptists (who believe salvation is lost) before.

In short, they could not name a single independent

Fundamental Baptist pastor or preacher who based a single false
doctrine on this Bible. I doubt they've found it since 1997.

That has been my experience. But my experience is not the

measure we should use to conclude whether or not we have the
Word of God in Spanish. The facts must discover or deny that.
It's what we want to do. See the facts.
 Introduction
This material is not original. It is a compilation of information
derived from many sources. Recently, there has been an attack
on the Bible in Spanish. Some Fundamental Baptists have dared
to take the extreme position that we really do not have the Word
of God in Spanish. Most, if not all, of this controversy has
originated with men whose first language is not Spanish.

My mother tongue is English. I do not claim to be an expert in

any linguistic field. But I have seen God use the Reina-Valera
Bible, both the 1909 and 1960 versions to produce the only thing
resembling a revival that has ever occurred in the Hispanic
world. I hope that, whichever version you use, the 1909 or the
1960, you will finish this study appreciating the Great Work of
Grace that God has done in giving us His Holy and Divinely
Inspired Word in the Cervantes Language.

Fundamentalist Baptists use two editions of the Reina-Valera

Bible: 1909 and 1960. These Bibles have not undergone the
changes that produce doctrinal alterations as has happened with
modern revisions in English, and with other versions in Spanish,
such as “God Comes to Man” and the “Reina-Valera Updated”,
etc. It is not our purpose to divide people over which of these two
versions (the 1909 or the 1960) they should use. Most
Fundamental Baptists I know use the 1960. In our examination
of the Reina-Valera Bible we have made comparisons with the
King James Bible (KJV Bible) in English, and then with the
Received/Masoretic Text. Most of the accusations against our
Bible come from English speakers who have only made a
superficial comparison with the KJV Bible, and have not taken
the time to compare the Spanish Bible with the Textus Receptus.
Please understand that I consider the KJV Bible to be the word
of God for the English speaking world. In my English Bible
study, in my English preaching, in my personal devotions, I only
use the KJV Bible. In no way do I want this material to come
across as an attack or criticism of the KJV Bible.

We do not claim that this study or its author is the final

authority on this topic. We just want to clear up some confusion
that has arisen among some Fundamental Baptists about this
matter. I don't expect everyone to agree with all my conclusions.
That is the blessing of being an Independent Baptist, and of
having Christian freedom. We can have disagreements without
taking destructive positions.

QUESTION: Was the Reina-Valera Bible

translated from the Received Text?
Absolutely! There is an abundance of evidence that proves
beyond a doubt that the New Testament translation of the Reina-
Valera Bible was based on a source from the Received Text. The
greatest evidence of this is the text itself. Erasmus published the
first edition of the Texto Recibido in 1516, 53 years before
Casiodoro de Reina published the first complete Bible in Spanish
in 1569. All subsequent editions of the New Testament of the
King James Version (including the 1960 edition) used the Textus
Receptus as their foundation. Contrary to common belief, there
is no such thing as “the” Received Text. There have been many
editions (e.g., Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, and Scrivner). As you will
see, there are some minor textual differences between the KJV
and the KJV Bible. What complicates matters further is that
neither the RV nor the KJV translators limited themselves to a
single edition of the Received Text. Reina y Valera probably used
older editions than the KJV Bible translators.

For his Old Testament translation, Reina based his work on

the Ferrara Spanish Bible (1553, Old Testament only), which, by
the way, was also used by KJV Bible translators. There is a copy
of the Ferrara Bible in the library at Oxford University that has
marginal notes and observations written by one of the
translators of the KJV Bible that he made in the process of his
work translating the Bible into English. Reina used other sources
as well, but this was the most important. This Bible traces its
own “ancestral” history to the excellent tradition of the
“pastoral” (“Sephardic”) Jews, both in the Romanceated Bibles
and in its own Masoretic texts.

QUESTION: Was the Reina-Valera Bible

translated by Catholic monks?
No! The translators were certainly not Catholic monks at the
time they made their translation. The fact is that the effigies of
Reina y Valera were burned at the stake by the Catholic
inquisition! They were originally monks at the monastery of San
Isidoro de Campo, near Seville in Spain. In 1557 they fled for
their lives after seeing the Light, and were gloriously saved.
Later they denounced the Catholic Church in their writings.
Reina finished her Spanish Bible translation 12 years after
escaping to Geneva.

QUESTION: “Was the corrupt Latin

Vulgate used in the translation of the
Reina-Valera Bible?
There is no doubt that Casiodoro de Reina consulted the Latin
Vulgate on occasions. The Latin Vulgate was also consulted by
the translators of the KJV Bible, according to Dr. Miles Smith's
preface to the KJV Bible:

· “Nor did we stop to consult Chaldean, Hebrew, Syrian,

Greek or Latin, or Spanish.” (Preface to the KJV Bible Version
of 1611, “From Translators to Reader.”

There is irrefutable proof that these translators (Reina y

Valera) did NOT use the Latin Vulgate as the BASIS of their
translation. Casiodoro de Reina was severely criticized for this
according to Enrique Fernández, author of “The Castellan
Bibles”. The order of the books of the RV 1569 is the same as
that of the Latin Vulgate. However, it was more form than
content that Reina's work had in common with the Latin
Vulgate. Those who have accused the RV of being a translation
of the Latin Vulgate have not told the whole truth. Reina was
well aware of the problems related to this Catholic translation.
The following is a translation of part of the introduction to the
1569 edition of Reina:

· “First of all, we declare that we have not completely followed

in this translation the old Latin translation, which is in common
use. Although its authority based on its antiquity is considerable,
neither of these realities excuses the flaws it contains, completely
deviating from the truth of the Hebrew text numerous times; At
other times, he adds something to it; and in others it transfers
from one place to another. Although this can be disputed, it
cannot be denied. Therefore, seeking to provide the pure Word
of God in every possible way, it was necessary that such a
translation (the Latin Vulgate) not be the common rule.”

· Reina adds another observation about the New Testament:

“The Latin version adds to its content without the authority of
the Greek text.”

The former Catholic priest, and now Baptist preacher,

Cipriano Valdés says: “It is absurd to think that the Bible in
Spanish (Reina-Valera) is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. If
the Reina-Valera Bible came directly from the Vulgate, the
Catholic Church would not have attacked this work of the
evangelicals with such hatred, and would not have prohibited the
reading of the “Protestant Bible” under penalty of
excommunication.

QUESTION: “Why wasn't the Reina-

Valera Bible translated directly from the
King James Bible?”
The Reina-Valera Bible could NOT be translated from the
KJV Bible, because that Bible did not exist when these men did
their work. The Queen's Bible (1569) was published 42 years
BEFORE the KJV Bible (1611), and its first revision (1602) was
published nine years before the KJV Bible.

Furthermore, any bilingual person with translation experience

would agree that the original language should always be used in
any translation. If not, it is very easy for the translation to
become diluted and lose its original meaning. A translation of a
translation would be absurd. Bilinguals do not struggle to
understand. Only “unilinguals” would not see or understand this
case.

There is a New Testament in Spanish that was translated

directly from the KJV Bible a year ago. It has not been accepted
by Spanish-speaking believers. I saw a copy 15 years ago, and in
the short time I had to examine it, several errors were obvious. I
have never seen a copy of this New Testament in any Christian
bookstore. This New Testament was translated by a man named
McVey. It has been described as “a faithful word-for-word
translation of the Holy Bible commonly called 'the Authorized
Version.' Bill Kinkaid, missionary to Mexico, examined this New
Testament in detail, and came to this conclusion in an article he
wrote called “Valera vs. McVey”:

· “In this version McVey changed every verse in the New

Testament (King James Version), and displayed “not only his
ignorance of Spanish on every page, but also his ignorance of
English. Neither McVey himself nor those who recommend it
claim to be error-free.

Mr. Kinkaid mentions several examples of changes McVey

made that are certainly questionable. Notice two of these
examples:

· Colossians 3:9: “Having put off the old man” changes it to

“you have put off the old man.” The impression is, whoever the
old man is, he is naked.

· McVey tries to duplicate the expression “Holy Ghost” in

reference to the Holy Spirit. It translates as “Holy Ghost”. And
Baptists criticize Catholics for believing in their “apparitions”?

McVey's New Testament has not been accepted by Hispanics

so much so that it is not found in Christian bookstores, if it is still
published.

QUESTION: “Isn't the Enzinas Bible

better than the Reina-Valera?”
To begin with, it is just a New Testament. It is not the entire
Bible. It was originally translated by Francisco de Enzinas in
1543. Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36 and Acts 16:7 were completely
excluded from this translation. It is very likely that Enzinas did
the best he could with the manuscripts he had. He was not a
heretic. But anyone who has compared the two translations
would say that the Reina-Valera is much better.

QUESTION: “What about the Enzinas

Bible revision?”
A group of brothers from Broken Arrow Baptist Church in
Pearce, Arizona, USA, reportedly completed a revision of
Enzinas' New Testament in 1996. They printed 1,000 copies and
are distributing them free of charge. Since this group maintains
that the King James Version is incorrigibly corrupt, will they
expect us to accept the “corrupt” Old Testament aside from their
Enzinas New Testament Revision? Do you hope to make a big
impact with only 1,000 copies? From the preface to Enzinas's
review, we read:

· “For these reasons it is necessary that this work of Enzinas be

carefully examined by New Testament believers before it can
truly be called 'The Word of God' in Spanish…”

With this statement it seems that those at “Broken Arrow” are

not sure whether their review should be called “The Word of
God” or not. There is more:

· “...so that one day we can rejoice in the Word of God in

Spanish.”

Are you implying that we have never had the Word of God in
Spanish?

Note this observation by Mr. Kinkaid in his article “Notable

Errors in the 'Faithful Reproduction' of the 1543 Enzinas Bible
(New Testament)”: “On page 376, I John 4:2 and 3, the words
are missing “...is from God...and every spirit that does not
confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh....” But in the
original, these words are not missing.

The Broken Arrow brothers have made serious mistakes in the

past. They have presented at least three different positions
regarding the origin of the Spanish Bible that they themselves
would produce. First, they said it would be translated directly
from the English King James Bible. The now deceased Pastor
Thacker visited churches in the United States of America raising
funds for this project (McVey's Bible). He assured everyone that
the Reina-Valera Bible is corrupt, and therefore, we needed a
new translation. But when they completely rejected the concept
of translating directly from the KJV Bible (see “Double
Exposure”), they then promoted a supposedly Enzinas Bible.
Only later a Spanish-speaking missionary explained that it was
nothing less than a Reina-Valera Bible revised 1865 and printed
in 1945! They subsequently retracted this proposition, and
decided to print the Enzinas New Testament of 1543. This is
what Pastor Tim Thacker is currently printing.

The Broken Arrow brothers do not promote the Enzinas Bible

as the Word of God in Spanish, but they do mention that they
think it is better than the Reina-Valera. In truth, it is BETTER
than Enzinas' original work, because they added the three verses
that were completely missing.

QUESTION: 'What was the oldest edition

(1569) of the Reina-Valera Bible like?
This Bible is known as “The Bear Bible,” because on its cover
you can see the figure of a bear looking for honey on the trunk of
a tree. It was published in Basel, Switzerland, by Thomas
Guarinus. The inquisition soon seized all possible copies and
destroyed them, calling this Bible “the most dangerous edition of
the Bible.” (The Cambridge History of the Bible by Dr. S. L.
Greenslade. Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 126). The
Catholic Church issued a decree declaring the following: “The
Bible in Spanish, or in any other vulgar language, is strictly
prohibited…” (Ibid. p. 125). This order came from the Council
of the Holy General Inquisition. Consequently, few copies of
Reina's original version reached Spain. However, it was largely
used by refugees who fled Spain because of persecution. Only
2,600 copies of the first edition were produced, almost all of
which have been lost due to the deterioration of time and the
destruction of the Holy Inquisition.

QUESTION: “What is wrong with the

1569 version of the Reina-Valera?”
According to the “Historical Catalog of the Printed Editions of
the Holy Scriptures,” Hebrews 12:29 was completely eliminated.
In Romans 3:28, the words “by faith” were eliminated. These
omissions may be because early editions of Erasmus's Greek text
were also missing entire verses. It might also explain why
Enzinas' 1543 edition omits three verses.

The 1569 edition is no longer printed, with the exception of an

interesting and expensive facsimile. It would be almost
impossible for the average person today to read and understand
it. It was written in a classic style of its time, which only those
with a lot of training used. Spanish spelling and grammar have
changed a lot in the more than 400 years since its production.

Many Christians are unaware of the fact that the “1611” King
James Bible used by English speakers today is not an identical
version to that of 1611. The original 1611 contained the
Apocrypha, as well as the RV 1569-1602, Spanish version of the
Bible. The 1611 has gone through several adjustments. Aside
from spelling and punctuation changes, there have been more
than 400 textual changes. Some say that all these textual changes
were to correct printing errors, which is highly doubtful. The
changes that were made to the Spanish Bible as well as the KJV
Bible (at least until 1769) were much needed.

QUESTION: Why don't we accept the

Apocrypha as part of the Word of God?
· to. It is not mentioned anywhere in the New
Testament.
· b. Jesus does not mention them or quote part of
them.
· c. Early church leaders excluded them from the canon
of Scripture.
· d. The great historian, Josephus, did not recognize
them.
· e. The biblical translator, Jerome, did not accept
them, although the Pope forced him to include them in the
Latin Vulgate Bible.
· f. None of these books claim to be inspired. What's
more, some openly deny it.
· g. Some books contain historical and geographical
errors.
·h. Some books teach false doctrine, such as praying
to the dead.
· Yo. No apocryphal book is found in any catalog of
lists of canonical books composed during the first four
centuries AD. c. Furthermore, it was not until 1546 (?) at
the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church
officially recognized these books, basically in an attempt
to strengthen its position that had been severely
weakened by the great reformer, Martin Luther. (Adapted
from “Guide to the Bible” by Willmington, p. 805.)

Although the Apocrypha is certainly not the Word of God,

some parts contain very interesting reading. For example, the
book of Tobit contains the story of a pious Jew (Tobit) who was
accidentally blinded by sparrow dung. He is then healed by an
angel named Raphael, who applies a mixture of fish heart, liver
and gall to his eye.

The following three questions should not be understood as an

attack on the 1909 revision. We have decided to include them to
inform the reader of some of the reasons why most Fundamental
Baptists prefer 1960 to 1909.

· What about the word “health” used in older translations?

There are several terms used in various editions of 1569-1909

that have caused some confusion. They include the word
“health” instead of “salvation,” and the verb “raise” instead of
“create.” Let's examine the word “health.”

The fourth edition of the Spanish-English, English-Spanish

Dictionary defines this word in this order: physical condition,
well-being; salvation. The older editions use both words,
“health” and “salvation,” and this adds to the confusion.
“Health” appears 8 times in the RV1960, but is only used in
reference to physical condition, which can be determined by
looking at the context in which the word is found. Here is a
breakdown of how frequently these words are used in different
translations:

RV1909 RV1960 KJV Bible

· health 172 8 17 (health)

· salvation 19 165 163 (salvation)

The word “health” can mean salvation, especially in the vulgar

form of the past tense. The problem lies in the fact that the vast
majority of Spanish-speaking people today do not understand
that the word 'health' has two meanings. It is an outdated term
that the editors of the RV1960 prudently decided to replace with
the word “salvation.” This is one of the main reasons why many
of us Fundamental Baptists use the RV1960.

Those who continue to use the older versions will continually

have to emphasize the true meaning of this particular word.
There are many pamphlets and other Christian literature in
which the word “health” in some verse is followed by the word
(salvation) in parentheses.

· What about the word “breed” in old reviews?

The verb “raise” is another old-fashioned word that has

changed its meaning. It is present in the editions of 1569-1909.
The Chicago Spanish-English Dictionary defines this word as
follows: instruct, educate, develop, mature, give milk.” In
present-day Spanish, the word “criar” does not have the
meaning of “creating from nothing,” of producing life without
any substance. A problem with the present use of the word
“breed” instead of “create” is that it implies a process of time,
which has even been used to try to verify theistic evolution. The
word “breed”, in the moments in which it means “to create”, was
replaced with the word 'create'.

· Are there other examples of outdated language in older

versions?

Yeah. There are many more. However, due to time and space
limitations, we will only mention the most important moments in
which the Spanish language has undergone enormous changes.
All of these examples mentioned have been duly corrected in the
RV 1960 Bible.

· Meaning of words in special contexts:

In Romans 8:32, “he did not spare his son” was changed to “…
he did not spare his own Son…” “…he did not spare his son”
implies that the Son of God was to be forgiven of some sin. In II
Corinthians 5:21 “…he committed sin…” could be understood as
saying that Christ committed sin. A careful examination of the
grammatical structure reveals that even in the ancient revisions,
it is NOT saying that Christ made sin. But the change to “…
made it sin…” does clarify the true meaning much better.

Word Order:

In ancient revisions, Romans 8:20 says “…the creatures were

subjected to vanity…” was changed to “…For the creation was
subjected to vanity…” II Samuel 24:23 says “...As a king
Araunah gives everything to the king...” in the ancient revisions.
“All this, O king, Araunah gives to the king.” It is much more
understandable.

· Words with new meanings.

“Debuff” gives almost the opposite impression of “put to

death” in Colossians 3:5. “Buffer” has come to mean “soften” or
“lessen the blow.”

“Charity” carries the impression of asking for alms. It is what

many beggars on the street use to ask for alms: “A charity,
please”, appealing to the religious feelings of their prospective
donors, asking for a “charity” in the name of the virgin or some
saint.

“High priest” as used in Hebrews 4:14 was changed to “Great

high priest.” The word “pontiff” is used almost exclusively in
reference to the Roman Pope.

There are several other terms we could mention: “Expedient”

and “necessary” - Matthew 16:21; “guest” and “stranger,”
Matthew 16:21; “Unfaithful” and “non-believer” – I Corinthians
7:13-15; “give birth” and “give birth”. “Scold” and “rebuke.”

What about the verses missing from the old editions?

The only exclusion in the older editions is Hebrews 12:29,

which does not appear in the 1569 edition. For some unknown
reason, the numbering of verses in the Old Testament in the
1569-1909 editions was changed in books such as Kings,
Numbers, Samuel and Job. In some cases it appears that some
verses are missing or transposed when compared to other Bibles.
Many printers prefer the format of the 1909 Bible printed by the
Trinitarian Bible Society because it corrects this situation. The
KJV follows the exact arrangement of chapter and verse
divisions that the KJV Bible follows. However, it would be wise
to note that there is a slight difference in the division of the
verses in Matthew 28:8-9. Also all RV Bibles divide III John 14
into two verses.

QUESTION: Why does the Reina-Valera

1960 have rights reserved?
This is a delicate matter. Good men have made statements like,
“If it is copyrighted, it is the work of man, and it cannot be the
work of God.” What about the languages in which the only good
translation of the Bible has its rights reserved? It is true that a
Bible translation should not be copyrighted, if the motivation is
monetary. But is reserving rights always motivated by the
purpose of making money? Not necessarily. It can serve as a
hedge against all the time and effort required to produce a book.
That way no one else can copy it and make whatever changes
they want. It keeps the original work intact and without
corruption.

Most churches that print Bibles as missionary work have set

aside the RV 1960 due to copyright limitations. According to
“Which Bible in Spanish,” by Lonnie Smith, permission to
publish the RV 1960 has been given to those who request it. The
only requirement is a payment of 5% of the production cost, for
those who distribute it for free. If the Bibles are sold, 5% of the
profits are collected. Ministries like Bearing Precious Seed have
taken the position of wanting to be “delivered from the error of
holding modernist biblical societies.” This sounds good, but by
purchasing printing machines, paper and ink, aren't you
“supporting” ungodly corporations?

QUESTION: Was the King James Bible ever copyrighted?

Gustavus Paine, in “The Men Behind the King James Version

of the Bible,” addresses the issue of printing and copyright of the
KJV Bible.

· “There was no competitiveness in the task of printing the new

Bible. This work was awarded to Robert Barker, the royal
printer, who published it. His father, Christopher Barker, had
received from Queen Elizabeth the exclusive right to print
English Bibles, prayer books, statutes and proclamations. When
Christopher Barker died in 1599, the queen gave her son, Robert
Barker, the office of “Queen's Printer” for life, with the same
monopoly. The Barkers and their heirs would retain the right to
publish the King James Bible for one hundred years.

For more than 100 years the Barkers had the exclusive rights
to the printing of all English Bibles, as Teder informs us - “The
Bible patent remained in the family from 1577 to 1709, or 132
years (p. 94, 1128).

But the exclusive rights to print the King James Bible did not
expire after barely 100 years, when the Barker rights passed into
other hands. :Philip Schaff, in “The Companion to the Greek
New Testament and the English Version,” wrote of other matters
regarding the copyright of the KJV Bible. He observes that “No
English Bible was printed in America until after the Revolution,
in 1782. Before this, the rights reserved by the English prevented
its printing.” (p. 329, note 1).

It is evident, then, that the KJV Bible was under license, and
its limitation was limited to a certain publisher, at least in the
countries governed by the British Empire, during its publication
between 1611 and 1782, or 171 years. This license lasted much
longer than any of the English Bibles published from 1881 to the
present. Apparently God does use copyrighted Bibles, as the
Great Awakening Bible - the Bible of Edwards, Whitfield, the
Wesley Brothers, Brainerd, Rice, Hyles, Roberson and Norris -
was copyrighted for its first 172 years of existence. publication.
What does copyright have to do with whether God uses a
translation or not? Apparently, nothing.

QUESTION: Was the 1909 version ever under a copyright

license?

Lonnie Smith, in “Which Spanish Bible?” says, “When the

1960 revision was introduced, the 'Old' version was placed in the
'public domain', and thus could be reproduced…” This infers
that he had been on leave at one time. In the Online Bible, in its
reading archive, that company says that it had to pay the United
Bible Societies for the use of its text to make it available for free.
Interesting.

QUESTION: Who was Casiodoro de Reina?

The translator of the first complete Bible in Spanish. He was

born in Montemolín in Spain in 1520. Reina left the Jerónimo de
San Isidoro del Campo Monastery in 1557, along with several
other monks, including Cipriano de Valera. Along with ten of
her friends, Reina arrived in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1557. Two
years later he went to London where he became pastor of a
group of Spanish Protestants who had also escaped the
Inquisition in Spain. In 1563, false accusations of heresy and
crime (of which he was later exonerated) forced him to flee once
again, first to Antwerp, and then to his “true home,” Frankfurt-
am-main. After the publication of his Bible, Reina organized a
church that became known for its zeal in its evangelistic
outreach, preaching on the streets of Frankfurt. He remained
pastor of that church until his death on March 16, 1594. Some
groups that use the Reina-Valera Bible call it “The Valera
Bible.” Some missionaries insist on discrediting Reina by
omitting her name from the “Reina-Valera” because they think
that her 1569 Bible was corrupt. It is an insult in light of the
great contribution that Reina made to part of the history of the
Bible in Spanish. For Spanish-speaking Christians, Reina is
more than a Bible translator. He is a hero of faith.

QUESTION: Who was Cipriano de Valera?

Reviewer and editor of the Bible in Spanish. He was born in

Valera la Vieja, Spain, in 1532. After graduating with a degree in
philosophy, Valera enrolled in the Monastery of San Isidoro del
Campo near Seville. In 1557 he fled to Geneva(?), along with
Casiodoro de Reina and other monks, because of his
“Protestant” views, which were considered criminal. The
Inquisition was at its height at the time, and an effigy of him was
burned at the stake in 1562.

From Geneva, Valera went to London, where he lived the rest

of his life, with the exception of a short stay in Amsterdam, while
the Bible he had edited was being printed. In London he had a
family, and taught at both the University of Cambridge and
Oxford. He published several books, several of which attacked
the authority of the Pope, and exposed the erroneous doctrines of
the Catholic Church. One of these books was titled “The Pope
and the Mass.” In this book, he condemns the liturgy of the mass,
calling it pagan in origin. He also translated “The Institutes of
Calvin” into Spanish.

He is best remembered for his work as a reviewer and editor of

the first Spanish translation of the Bible, which Casiodoro de
Reina completed in 1569. In 1582, Valera began to review
Reina's work. His revision was slight, but complete. At the age of
70, after 20 long years working on its revision, Valera published
what has come to be called “The Reina-Valera Version.” Valera
wrote these lines:

“What motivated me to make this edition was the same thing

that motivated Casiodoro de Reina. “He was motivated by the
Godly Person, the Lord Himself, and wanted to spread the glory
of God and do clear service to his nation.” (Translated from
“Spanish Versions of the Bible”, page 38-39)

Cipriano de Valera died in 1602, the year his revision of the

Reina Bible was published.

QUESTION: What about the words or phrases that are

missing in some Reina-Valera Bibles, like in the following
examples?

The answer is simple. The words or phrases missing here are

written in italics in the KJV Bible, showing that they did not
appear in the original Hebrew and Greek texts. When
translating from one language to another, sometimes it is
necessary to add a word from time to time so that it makes sense,
and is grammatically correct. It is often impossible to express the
meaning originally understood in another language without
certain additions. This is why words in the KBJ appear in italics.
The cursive letters are an effort to be correct but at the same
time honest. It is an attempt to express the precise meaning of
the text.

QUESTION: Why in Genesis 1:1, in the KJV Bible it says

“...God created the heaven...”, (“heaven” - singular) while in the
King James Version it says “...God created the heavens…” -
plural?

This complaint is frequently made because people have a

tendency to begin their comparisons with the first verse of the
Bible. The answer to this accusation is simple. The Hebrew word
for “heaven” is (Shamayim), which has a plural ending. The
KJV Bible frequently translates this word as plural, as in
Genesis 2:1: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished…”

QUESTION: In Genesis 3:5, why does the King James Version

say “as God,” instead of “as gods” as in the KJV Bible?

1960 - “...and you will be like God...” - KJV Bible 1769 - “...ye
shall be as gods...” - KJV Bible 1611 “...yee shall be as Gods...

The word used is elohim, and as we already explained, Hebrew

does not distinguish between The Almighty God and a false god.
The answer lies in the context. When the translator translates
this verse, he is subject to his translation. The meaning of this
verse has been emotionally debated by theologians of every
generation.

THE REINA-VALERA
BIBLE: A DREAM COME
TRUE
by Jorge A. Gonzalez

The Spanish Bible most used by Hispanic Protestant churches,

the Reina y Valera Version, owes its name to Casiodoro de Reina
and Cipriano de Valera, two Spanish reformers of the 16th
century. She was Queen who published “The Bear Bible” in
Basel in 1569. Valera edited a revised version of the Reina y
Cipriano de Valera New Testament in 1596, and six years later,
in Amsterdam in 1602, he published the complete Bible. Without
distracting from the recognition that these two men deserve, this
article points out the fact that the Reina-Valera Bible is actually
the collective product of the efforts of a larger group of people
who were obsessed with a dream: to provide Spain with the
Scriptures in the language of the common people.

Both Casiodoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera were part of

a group of twelve monks from the Monastery of San Isidoro del
Campo, in Santiponce, near Seville, who fled to Geneva in 1557,
when the Inquisition unleashed its anger against the
“Lutherans.” "of Sevilla

Others had preceded them. Among them was Dr. Juan Pérez
de Pineda, head teacher of the Colegio de los Niños de la
Doctrina in Seville, who later became a member of the company
of pastors in Geneva with Calvin. From 1556 to 1560, Juan Pérez
published in Geneva, with Jean Crispin's press, a good number
of works designed to introduce “Protestant” ideas to Spain.
Among these were “The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior
Jesu Christo” (1556) and “The Psalms of David” (1557). These
works were his first steps toward the eventual publication of the
Bible in Spanish. Pérez did not see most of his works personally,
because it was during this period that he was absent from
Geneva for almost two years, due to problems that arose in the
French church of Frankfurt-am-Main, regarding the way of
observing the Holy Communion. By September 1556, the crisis
had reached the point that it was necessary for John Calvin and
a group of church notables in Geneva to go to Frankfurt to
arbitrate the disagreement between the minister, Valerand
Poullain, and the Consistory which was led by the French
merchant, Agustín Legrand. Perez was a member of the
delegation, and when the others returned to Geneva, he
remained in Frankfurt until June 1558. It was during his stay
there that he established a fund that would be used for the
publication of the planned Spanish Bible. The money was
deposited with Agustín Legrand, who served as administrator
and main trusted official.

The Isidorian monks arrived in Geneva while Juan Pérez was

in Frankfurt. In his absence, Casiodoro de Reina became the
spiritual guide of the small community of exiled Spaniards. His
leadership was so influential among the group that he became
known as “The Moses of the Spanish.” But he soon ran into
trouble due to his commitment to ironic conciliatory principles,
which were not highly appreciated in the 16th century. From the
moment of his arrival, he had raised his voice of protest and
censure against the judge of Geneva for having sentenced
Servetus to be burned at the stake. In 1558, Reina declared that
Geneva had become “the new Rome,” and, followed by several of
his companions, former monks of Saint Isidore, he set out for
Frankfurt. Almost at the same time, Juan Calvino sent for Juan
Pérez back to Geneva, probably to calm the Spaniards who had
been provoked by Reina. It is not very clear whether Reina and
Pérez met at this time in Frankfurt or Geneva. It is more likely,
however, that they discussed during this period the possibility of
publishing the Bible in Spanish, because it is from this time that
Reina dates the beginning of his work in translating the
Scriptures, as can be seen in the preface of his “Bear Bible,” and
the autographed dedication of the copy he donated to the
University of Basel.

Upon Elizabeth's accession to the throne of England,

Cassiodorus went to London, where he continued his work
translating the Bible. There is clear evidence that at this time the
plans for the publication of the Bible were the subject of a
collective project. For example, in the letter that Bishop Álvaro
de Quadra, the Spanish Ambassador to England, wrote to King
Philip II on June 26, 1563, he reports the arrival in London of
Don Francisco Zapata, who was living in the Queen's house, and
that he had arrived in England with the purpose of working with
Casiodoro de Reina “and others” on the translation of the Bible
into Spanish.

A manuscript found in the Bodleian Library offers further

evidence of the fact that the Spanish Bible was a collective
project. This manuscript consists of 613 pages written on both
sides, two columns per page. The column on the left, written in
several hands, has the “Ferrara Bible” text from Genesis 1 to I
Kings 15:22, where it suddenly ends before the last word of the
verse. The column on the right, also the product of several
different hands, which are not the same as the column on the left,
is evidently a draft for a new translation of the Bible. The
column on the right appears only from Genesis 1 to Exodus 23, is
blank until the end of Leviticus, and at that point, the text
reappears from Numbers 1 to 27. This manuscript has been
identified as “an initial draft of the Bible that Valera published
in 1602, and it is very different than the final product.” While a
definitive statement of the manuscript will have to wait until it is
fully studied, it should be noted that Valera's Bible was a
revision of Reina's, and was not an original work. But the
manuscript written in different hands may be representative of
the type of collective work that Quadra was referring to in his
letter.
 A third evidence of the thesis that the Bible was a community
project comes from the letter that Antonio del Corro wrote to
Casiodoro de Reina from Teobón on Christmas Eve 1563. Corro
was an Isidorean monk who became a minister in France, and
who also appears in the records of the French church under the
name “Bellerive.” In this letter, he informs Reina that he has
made arrangements for the printing of the Bible with a printer
who had offered to print 1,200 copies with the divisions of the
verses, in “folio” size, for four and a half reales, if they
themselves would provide the paper, and six reales each if the
printer provided the paper. He assures Reina that there would
be no difficulty in getting the paper, because there were three or
four paper factories nearby. As for where to place the printing
machine, the Queen of Navarre had offered one of her castles.
The only difficulty would be, he says, with the final exam and the
correction of the text, and for that purpose, he suggested that
Cipriano de Valera be brought in to help him in the final
correction of the text.

Reina never received the letter. The letter arrived in London

after Queen had fled England under accusations of heresy and
sodomy. With a price on his head from the Spanish authorities,
Casiodoro sought refuge in Antwerp, Frankfurt, Orleans and
finally in Bergerac, where his friend, Corro, was a shepherd.

Later, when Princess Reneé of France took Corro to her castle

in Montargis to serve as her chaplain, Reina accompanied him.
There the two had ample time to discuss plans for the Spanish
Bible with Juan Pérez, who at the time was also serving as
Reneé's chaplain. Perhaps the Princess expressed some interest
in the project, since “The Bible of Ferrara” was published eleven
years earlier, by the “crypto-Jews, Yom Tob and Levi Atías
(Jerónimo de Vargas) and Abraham Ben Salomón Usque
(Duarte Pinel), and was dedicated to her husband, Ercole II
d'Este, Duke of Ferrara. When Reina published his own Bible in
1569, he used as one of his main sources this Jewish Bible that he
himself calls “the ancient Spanish translation of the Old
Testament provided at Ferrara.” Reina would not have called a
book printed just four years before beginning her own
translation “old” unless she was referring not to the time it was
printed, but to the age of the translation itself.

Furthermore, this version is one that had long been circulated

among the Jews of Spain, and we can find previous evidence
from the Polyglot Pentateuch published by Eliezer B. Gerson
Soncino in Constantinople in 1547. This Pentateuch includes a
Spanish text printed in Hebrew letters as was the custom of the
Sephardic Jews. A comparison of this Ladino text with the
Ferrara Bible indicates that both are representative of the same
textual tradition.

Reina concentrated his work on the translation of the Old

Testament. He had plans to use Perez's New Testament, which at
the time was being printed in Paris. On the morning of October
20, 1566, Juan Pérez died in the arms of his friend, Antonio del
Corro. Corro left the matter of the publication of the New
Testament in the hands of Pérez's assistants, Bartolomé Gómez
and Diego López. Pérez died without leaving a will, but
according to Corro, on his deathbed, he made his wishes known:
that Reneé would be his universal heir. She was to see that the
New Testament was published using funds derived from the sale
of her belongings. Gómez and López opposed such an
arrangement. They wanted the money that Pérez had deposited
with Agustín Legrand to also be applied to their project. Corro
was opposed to such use of funds, since they were to be used for
the publication of the entire Bible. The Consistory of Paris was
agreed to intervene in the somewhat unpleasant disagreement
which arose, and decreed that the sum of 300 crowns should be
given from the fund in Frankfurt to Gómez y López for the
publication of the New Testament, while the balance of the
thousand "escudos" ” that Legrand had in his confidence, were
to be used for the publication of the Bible.

The Paris New Testament was never published. On April 6,

1568, Philip II wrote to his ambassador in France, Don Francisco
de Avala, ordering him to confiscate the original draft and burn
the portions that had been printed. Thus, Reina had to prepare
her own translation of the New Testament. The “Perez fund”,
however, was set aside for the publication of the Bible, and it was
with that money that he hired the famous printer Oparino for
the printing work. Unfortunately, Oparino died after he had
collected the money, but before he could fulfill the contract. The
money was lost. But again friends and funds from Frankfurt
came to the rescue, and the first edition of the Bible in Spanish,
the culmination of the dreams, hopes and aspirations of a group
of banished wandering Spaniards, saw the light of day in Basel,
Switzerland. , in 1569.

Summary:
 Casiodoro de Reina's Bible is actually the result of the
joint effort and work of a group of people, and not of
Reina individually. The author outlines part of Casiodoro
de Reina's odyssey in his project to translate the Bible,
and shows the help he obtained from others. As evidence
that the Bible in Spanish was a joint project, he cites the
correspondence between Philip II and his ambassador in
England, a letter from Antonio del Corro to Casiodoro de
Reina, and a manuscript from the Bodleian Library in
which portions of the Old Testament appear. translated
into Spanish and written by different people. The author
promises us other works on such an interesting subject.

Notes based on a thesis published in:

The Spanish Fountain: A History and
Review of the Reina-Valera Version
By Thomas Holland, Th. d. (Email:
Logos1611@aol.com)
“Nor did we have to think about consulting the translators or
commentators of Chaldean, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Latin,
Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch. Nor did we refuse to review
what we had made and return it to the anvil on which we had
forged; but having used as many great aids as were necessary,
and without fear of any reproach for tardiness, nor desiring
adoration for speed, we have at last, by the good hand of the
Lord upon us, brought the work to its end that you see. here."
From the Translators to the readers.

The royal translators recognized several sources that

they used to produce the “Authorized Version” – the
English King James Bible. These helps were given “by the
good hand of the Lord.” Aside from the basic tools used
by translators, the men of the King James Bible used
earlier English translations and translations from other
languages. Among these was the Reina-Valera version of
1602, and with good reason. There is a close relationship
between the King James Version and the KJV Bible. Not
only because they are “historical cousins,” based on the
same textual manuscripts, but because they are equally
respected among their respective peoples. Therefore, it is
not surprising that the “American Bible Society” refers to
the Reina-Valera as “the version of King James for the
Spanish-speaking world,

(Remembering Casiodoro De Reina, Bible Society Record,

1969).

The temptation to compare these two Bibles is understandable,

and anyone who has studied the Reina Valera Bible would be
forced to do so. Dr. Wilton M. Nelson, formerly a missionary to
Costa Rica, noted that the year 1969 “marked the 400th
anniversary of the Reina-Valera version of the Bible in Spanish,
which can be considered the counterpart of the King James Bible
in English. (New Light from the Old Lamp, Latin America
Evangelist [American Bible Society Publication, Jan./Feb., 1970],
p. 9).

This doesn't mean the two are identical, but they are closely
close. Despite the several revisions that the Reina-Valera has
gone through, it remains the Bible in Spanish closest to the
“Authorized” Version in its text, style and historical impact.

The first scriptures translated into Spanish appeared in 1490

and consisted of the Gospels, and were translated from the Latin
Vulgate. In 1512, this version was revised and expanded to
contain the New Testament Epistles, translated by a Catholic
monk named Ambrose de Montesino. This was later revised by a
Benedictine monk, Román de Vallezillo. His work, however, was
not intended for public use, and the need for a Spanish Bible
remained.

In 1543, Francisco de Enzinas, a Protestant, translated a

complete New Testament into Spanish, and attempted to
introduce it into circulation. Enzinas had sought royal approval
of his work and on 24 November presented a copy of his New
Testament to the Emperor, Charles. The Emperor, however, did
not favor Enzinas's work, and he was arrested on December 13
of that year for what was considered "perverse readings" in his
version, which emphasized justification by faith. The specific
portions they cited against Enzinas were Romans 3:22, 28; I Cor
3:11, Col. 3:5, and I Tim. 6:10, all of which were written in
capital letters. Enzinas escaped on February 1, 1545, thus at the
hands of the Spanish Inquisition.

Juan Pérez de Pineda, a Protestant theologian, translator and

Reformer, also translated the New Testament into classical
Spanish, around 1553. He also translated commentaries into
Spanish in opposition to the teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church.

The first New Testament in Spanish was published in 1553 and

was known as the Ferrara Bible. It was addressed to Spanish-
speaking Jews, having been arranged according to the Hebrew
canon. The title sheet states that this version was approved by
the Inquisition, and was therefore not affected by its
condemnation of the other translations of the Bible.

Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) was the first to translate the

entire Bible into Spanish. His work took twelve years to
complete. It cost him a lot of personal sacrifice. Like English
translators such as John Wycliff and William Tyndale, Reina
suffered persecution for her desire to give her countrymen the
Word of God in their own language.

Casiodoro de Reina was born in Seville, Spain, and was raised

Catholic (again, like Wycliff and Tyndale). He grew in his studies
and became a monk at the monastery of San Isidoro del Campo
near Seville. That's where his life began to change.

The Director of the monastery was Dr. Blanco García Arias,

who had been influenced by the Old Latin Bible of the
Waldenses, and by his preaching, which had infiltrated the iron
hand of Rome in Spain. Arias became a believer and began
reading the writings of the Reformers to his students. Reina
listened intensely to the reformist teachings, and was converted.
At this point in his life he began to publicly proclaim the theme
of the Reformation: “Justification by faith.” Obviously, this did
not go well with the Roman Catholic Church. The persecution
fell, and Reina fled her homeland, never to return.

In 1557 Queen and ten of her friends went to Frankfurt,

Germany, and joined the Huguenot church. There he became
pastor of a small group of Spanish Protestants, who, like him,
had escaped the clutches of the Spanish Inquisition. However,
the hand of Rome once again threatened him, so he and his wife
(who disguised herself as a sailor) fled to Antwerp in Holland. In
1564, King Philip of Spain put a price on the Queen's head,
forcing him to return to Frankfurt. It was during her second
escape to Frankfurt that Reina began her work translating the
Bible into Spanish.

Five years later, in 1569, he published 2,600 copies of the entire

Bible in Spanish. This edition is known as “The Bear Bible,”
because its symbol was that of a bear taking honey from a tree.
The Inquisition soon grabbed as many copies of Reina's version
as it could, and destroyed them, calling it a “very dangerous
edition of the Bible” (Dr. S. L. Greenslade, The Cambridge
History of the Bible - Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univesity
Press, 1983 - page 126).

The Inquisition had already issued an edict in 1551 prohibiting

“the Bible in Spanish, or any other vulgar language. The decree
further stated:

The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Gospels, the

Epistles and the prophecies, and all other books of Holy
Scripture in the Spanish, French, or any other language, which
contain prefaces, notes, or glossaries that reveal erroneous
doctrines , repugnant or contrary to our holy Catholic faith, or
to the sacraments of the Holy Mother Church, and because there
are some portions of the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, and
other parts of the New Testament in the common language, in
print and in the form of manuscript, which contain certain
questionable consequences, we order that such books and
treatises be demonstrated and delivered to the Holy Cede,
whether or not they bear the name of the authors, until the
Council of the Holy General Inquisition determines otherwise.

Consequently, few cups of Reina's Bible ever reached their

native land. However, she was roasted by Spanish-speaking
refugees who had fled Spain because of the Inquisition. After his
Bible was published in 1569, Reina organized a church in
Frankfurt, which he pastored until his death on March 16, 1594.

Cipriano de Valera was born in 1531, and his life was almost a
reproduction of that of the Queen. He was also a monk at the
Monastery of San Isidoro near Seville, and studied under Dr.
Arias. What's more, Valera was one of the ten who fled with
Casiodoro de Reina in 1577. Later, Valera went to Geneva where
he became a follower of the famous reformer, John Calvin. He
became interested in personal evangelism, and had an intense
desire to increase his understanding of the gospel. He moved to
England to study at the University of Cambridge. Later, he
became a professor at the University of Oxford.

While in England, Valera translated “The Institutes of

Calvin” into Spanish, and wrote a book with the title: “The
Pope and the Mass.” In that book, he condemned the
liturgy of the mass, and condemned the authority of the
Pope as the Supreme Bishop. It was during this time that
Valera married, and began expanding his personal
ministry, which included reaching out to sailors and those
in prison.

In 1582, he began his review of Queen's work. At the age of 70,

in 1602, after 20 long years of work, Valera finished his revision
and published what has come to be known as “The Reina-Valera
Version.” In his own words, Valera made the following
proclamation about his and Reina's work:

· The reason for my motivation in making this edition was the

same as that motivated Casiodoro de Reina, who had properly
been motivated by that Sanctified Person, the Lord Himself. He
desired to proclaim the glory of God and render clear service to
his nation. Therefore, he began to translate the Holy Bible into
Spanish.” Holy Bible (into Spanish). (Dr. Hazael T. Marroquim,
editor, Spanish Versions of the Bible, [Mexico: Casa De
Publicaciones El Faro], p. 139)

Valera believed that his revision of Reina's work had produced

the pure word of God for the Hispanic world. Dr. Henry C.
Thompson agreed and declared that “…these two precious saints
penetrated the depths of the Holy Scriptures and perfectly
translated the Hebrew and Greek languages.” (Ibid., 19).

Like Reina, Valera suffered greatly for Christ. In his book

about the history of Spanish Bibles, “Versiones Castellanas de la
Bible,” Dr. Alejandro Clifford writes:

“Valera suffered great misery. . . May the Lord reward his

servants. Cipriano de Valera will receive a very great reward
from the hands of his Savior.” (Ibid., 39).

VARIOUS REVISIONS AND EDITIONS OF THE REINA-VALERA VERSION OF THE BIBLE

Here follows a list of most revisions and reprints of the Reina-

Valera Bible. It is offered as historical information. Contrary to
what some believe, some of the editions of the Reina-Valera were
produced with the purpose of reestablishing the historical link
that the translation has with the Greek Received Text.

For the last years of the 19th century, the editions of the Reina-
Valera were strongly influenced by the “discoveries” of Westcott
and Hort. However, the 1909 edition was produced with the
purpose of returning the Reina-Valera to its traditional roots,
and thus making it closer to the King James than the editions
produced in the middle and late 19th century.

1569 - The translation of the complete Bible was

completed by Casiodoro de Reina. He used the Masoretic
Hebrew text for the Old Testament, as well as the Ferrara
Bible. For the New Testament, he used the Greek Textus
Receptus, comparing it with, but not using as a basis, the
ancient Latin and Syriac manuscripts known to him. It
contained the apocryphal books interspersed between the
books of the Old Testament, in the same order that the
Latin Vulgate followed. He mistakenly omits the phrase
“by faith” in Romans 3:28, and the entire verse of
Hebrews 12:29.
1596 - Reina Valera's revision of the New Testament
was published.
 1602 - The entire Reina Bible revised by Cipriano de
Valera was published. Changes were made to bring it
closer to the Greek Textus Receptus, and the language
was revised. The Apocrypha was removed from the Old
Testament, and placed between the two Testaments, just
like the Protestant Bibles of that time. Valera also added a
clarification, as did the Geneva Bible, declaring the
historical importance of the Apocrypha, but denying its
divine inspiration. Phrases that were omitted from Reina's
edition of 1569 were restored by Valera. However, in
Romans 1:16, the phrase “of Christ” continued to be
omitted.
1622 - A reprint of the Queen's Version was made,
without Valera's changes.
1625 - A reprint of the Reina-Valera 1602 was made. No
changes were made.
1831 - A revision of the Reina-Valera New Testament
was made by the Glasgow Bible Society. Spelling and
handwriting checks were made.
1845 - A reprint of the 1831, with some minor revisions
to certain outdated words.
1849 - A reprint of the 1945 edition. No additional
changes were made.
1857 - A publication of the Gospel of Matthew solely for
use in evangelistic work among the Jews of Latin
America.
1858 - A revision of the New Testament by the British
and Foreign Bible Society. Revisions were made to
spelling, handwriting, punctuation, and some minor
textual changes.
 1860 - A reprint of the New Testament of 1858
1862 - The Holy Bible, a revision of the complete Bible.
The review was done by Dr. Lorenzo Lucena, professor at
the University of Oxford. His changes included additional
spelling revisions and a modernized pronunciation was
added. The Apocrypha, which had been placed between
the Old and New Testaments, was removed.
1863 - A reprint of the 1862 edition
1864 - A reprint of the 1858 edition
1865 - An additional reprint of the 1858 edition. A reprint
of the 1831 edition of the New Testament. A new revision
of the Reina-Valera by the American Bible Society. Dr.
Ángel H. de Mora and Dr. H. b. Pratt (American
Presbyterian missionary in Bogotá, Colombia) worked on
this major revision. Dr. Pratt made most of the textual
changes based on the then recently discovered Vatican
and Sinaitic Codes by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf.
Therefore, of all Valera's revisions up to that date, this one
had the most changes in its textual base. Approximately
100,000 spelling and calligraphic changes were made, and
60,000 editorial changes were made. The work began in
1861 and finished in 1865.
It was because of this radical revision that the need
arose for a Reina-Valera that reflected the original text.
The movement to restore the King James Version to its
earlier textual roots occurred in the 1909 edition.
1866 - A reprint of the 1862 edition
1867 - A reprint of the 1958 edition.
1869 - A revision of the 1862 with minor changes, none
of them being textual changes. A reprint of the 1865
edition of the SBA (American Bible Society) revised text
published in the New Testament and the New Testament
with Psalms. These editions were published to promote
the work of Mora and Pratt.
1870 - A revision of the 1862 edition. This review was
conducted by Dr. E. b. Cowell of the University of
Cambridge. Apparently no textual changes were made.
The changes were limited to spelling and punctuation.
Additionally, references were added by Dr. George Alton,
a Wesleyan (Methodist) missionary to Spain. In the same
year, the SBA issued a reprint of its version of the 1865
revision of the entire Bible.
1871 - A reprint by the SBA of its 1865 edition, in New
Testament only.
1872 - An additional reprint of the 1865 SBA, New
Testament.
1875 - An additional reprint of the 1865 edition of the
SBA, New Testament.
1876 - A reprint of the 1865 edition, the entire Bible, by
the SBA. A reprint of the 1862 edition by the Trinitarian
Bible Society (SBT).
1877 - A reprint of the 1865 edition by the SBA. This
reprint was of the entire Bible. A new revision of the
Gospel of Matthew by Dr. Pratt, only the Gospel of
Matthew edition. Some textual changes and the text was
based on Dr. Tischendorf's Greek New Testament. No
further editions of this review were published.
1878 - A reprint of the 1865 published by the SBA.
1879 - A revision of the book of Psalms by Dr. Pratt.
1883 - A reprint of the 1862 edition. The changes made
by Pratt to the Psalms in 1879 were made.
1884 - A reprint of the 1865 edition, the New Testament
only. This edition contained a parallel edition with the
King James Version in English.
1885 - A reprint of the 1877 edition of the Psalms.
1886 - A revision of the Gospel of Luke. This review
was done by Dr. E. Reeves of the British and Foreign
Bible Society (SBBE), who served as a missionary to
Spain. His revisions were made on the basis of the Greek
Textus Receptus, with additional notes and references to
the various works in Greek by Tischendorf, Alford, as well
as Westcott and Hort.
1887 - A revision of the New Testament by Dr. Palmer,
with additional annotations by the aforementioned textual
scholars.
1888 - A reprint of the 1865 edition, the New Testament
only. A reprint of the 1879 edition of the Psalms.
1889 - Another reprint of the 1879 edition of the
Psalms. A reprint of the 1865 SBA Gospels and Acts only.
1890 - A reprint of the 1865 edition, the entire Bible, by
the SBA.
1891 - A reprint of the 1865 edition, New Testament
only.
1893 - A reprint of the entire Bible by the SBA from its
1865 edition. A revision of the Gospel of Matthew by the
SBBF, with some minor changes.
1895 - A reprint of the entire 1865 Bible by the SBA.
1896 - A reprint of the 1879 edition of Pratt's Psalms.
1897 - A reprint of the 1865 edition, the New Testament
only.
 1899 - A reprint of the 1893 edition of the Gospel of
Matthew.
1901 - A revision of the Spanish New Testament that
was later included in the entire Bible of the 1909 edition.
This revision was made to return the King James Version
to its traditional roots of the Received Text in Greek.
1902 - A reprint of the 1865 edition by the SBA.
1903 - A reprint of the 1865 edition by the SBA.
1905 - An additional reprint of the 1865 edition by the
SBA. A revision of the Old Testament in Spanish that was
included in the 1909 edition.
1909 - A revision of the entire Bible. This edition was
made by the SBBF and the SBA. The review was done by
Drs. Victoriano D. Baez, Carlos W. Dress, Enriue C.
Thomson, Juan Howland, and Francisco Diez. Several
Latin American nations were represented by this
committee: Mexico, Puerto Rico, Chile, and Argentina.
This revision made changes to the 1865 edition to bring it
into closer agreement with the Greek Receptus Text. This
made the 1909 edition of the Reina-Valera the closest to
the King James Bible since its production in 1602.
According to Dr. Eugene Nida of the SBA, this edition of
the Reina-Valera was produced in response to concern
with the revisions that had occurred between the years of
1865 and 1899 (“Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960,”
The Bible Translator [New York: ABS, Vol. 13, No 1, Jan.
1962], p. 113). Not all textual changes made by the 1865
edition were changed. For example, in Mark 1:2 the phrase
that appears in the Received Text, “the prophets,”
remains as it reads in the 1865 edition, “The Prophet
Isaiah.”
1960 - A review by the SBA. Below is a brief comparison
between this and other editions. It achieved great
popularity after its production and the 1909 edition. Until
1978, the only two editions that were printed were the
1960 edition and the 1909 edition. This edition (1960) of
the Reina-Valera is the one most commonly used today
throughout the Spanish-speaking world.
1978 - The SBA offered a revision of its 1960 edition
with some additional minor modifications to the text.

The revisions of a1909 and 1960. Since 1909, the emphasis on

Spanish Bibles has been to revise them, NOT so that they agree
with the discoveries of modern textual criticism, but so that they
agree with modern textual theories. Therefore, translations such
as the Revised Standard Version and the Popular Version and
others were constructed.

While the King James Version varies in some points

from the KJV Bible, it is obvious that the two Bibles are
closely related to each other. Furthermore, we have to
recognize that the Reina-Valera Bible, whether 1909 or
1960, is the Spanish Bible available that is based on the
same Greek text as the KJV Bible. Furthermore, the Reina-
Valera Bible has won the hearts of the Spanish-speaking
world in a similar way that the KJV Bible has done in the
English-speaking world. This is due not only to its roots in
the Greek text, but also due to its classical style and
antiquity.

The 1960 Bible was not fully accepted at the beginning of its
production. There was great devotion deep in the hearts of
Spanish speakers to the 1909 version. Some rejected the changes
made in the 1960 edition, asking that Spanish-speaking
Christians remain faithful to the 1909 Reina-Valera.

Dr. Eugene Nida, a textual expert who helped with the 1960
revision, comments on the objections he encountered. Nida
writes: “Part of the difficulty in advising were desirable, if the
Christian community were to be served and satisfied, was the
fact that despite this desire for a limited number of changes,
Latin American Christians were predominantly conservative in
matters of biblical interpretation. ...”

As we think about these revisions, we must remember that

“the words of God” were not changed. The words of a
translation are the words of the translator. Changing the
translator's words is not the same as changing the Word of God.
As we contemplate this, it would be wise to remember the words
of the translators of the King James Bible in English. Regarding
the previous editions in English and other languages, the
translators wrote the following:

“Everything we have edited is reliable. The worst of ours is

better than its 'authentic vulgar'...the simplest of the Bible
translation in English (or in Spanish, we might add), contains, or
rather IS, the Word of God.”

Some examples of textual and translation

differences.
 Those who would like to propose that the Reina-Valera Bible is
a King James Bible in Spanish will be greatly disappointed. It is
not completely identical to the KJV Bible, neither in its text nor
in its translation, nor CAN it be. Even if the texts were 100%
identical, the translation would not be due to certain idiomatic
expressions that occur in the three languages (Greek, English
and Spanish). However, the Reina Valera is closer to the KJV
Bible than any other Spanish version on the market, and in a
certain sense could be considered the EQUIVALENT to the King
James Bible in Spanish.

There follows a list of seventy textual differences between the

King James Bible (KJV) and the New International Version
(NIV), which is completely rejected by most English-speaking
Fundamental Baptists. These in turn are compared with the 1909
and 1960 editions of the Reina-Valera Bible in Spanish, as well as
the Revised Standard Spanish Version of 1952 (VRS), and the
Popular Version (VP) of 1966. Readings that agree with the
Received Text are indicated with “TR”. Readings that agree with
the critical text are indicated with a “C”.

KJV NIV 1909 1960 VRS VP

Matthew

5:22 TR C TR C C C
5:27 TR C C C C C
5:44 TR C TR TR C C
9:13 TR C TR TR C C
12:47 TR C TR TR C TR
16:20 TR C TR TR C C
18:2 TR C TR TR C TR
18:11 TR C TR TR C C
20:16 TR C TR TR C C
20:22 TR C TR TR C C
21:44 TR C TR TR C C
22:30 TR C TR TR C C
23:14 TR C TR TR C C
25:13 TR C TR TR C C
27:35 TR C TR TR C C

frames

1:2 TR C C C C C
1:14 TR C TR TR C C
6:11 TR C TR TR C C
7:27 TR C TR TR TR TR
9:44 TR C TR TR C C
9:46 TR C TR TR C C
10:7 TR C TR TR C C
10:21 TR C TR TR C C
11:10 TR C C C C C
11:26 TR C TR TR C C
12:23 TR C TR TR C C
5:28 TR C TR TR C C

Luke

2:33 TR C TR TR C C
2:44 TR C TR TR C C
4:4 TR C TR TR C C
4:8 TR C TR TR C C
9:56 TR C TR TR C C
9:57 TR C TR TR C C
11:2 TR C TR TR C C
12:31 TR C TR TR C TR
17:36 TR C TR TR C C
3:17 TR C TR TR C C

Juan

4:42 TR C TR TR C C
5:4 TR C TR TR C C
8:1-11 TR C TR TR C C
8:29 TR C TR TR C TR

Facts

2:30 TR C TR TR C C
4:24 TR C TR TR C C
8:37 TR C TR TR C C
15:18 TR C TR C C C
16:31 TR C TR TR C C
17:26 TR C TR TR C C
24:7 TR C TR TR C C
28:29 TR C TR TR C C

Romans

1:16 TR C C C C C
8:1 TR C TR TR C C
11:6 TR C TR TR C C
15:8 TR C TR TR C C
16:24 TR C TR TR C C

1 Corinthians

5:4 TR C TR TR C C
6:20 TR C TR TR C C
9:1 TR C C C C C
10:28 TR C TR TR C C

Galatians

6:15 TR C TR TR C C

Ephesians

3:9 TR C C C C C
5:30 TR C TR TR C C

Colossians

1:14 TR C TR TR C C

1 Thessalonians

1:1 TR C TR TR C C

1 Timothy

3:3 TR C TR TR C C
3:16 TR C TR TR C C

1 John

5:7 TR C TR TR C C
 Apocalypse

1:6 TR C TR C C C
1:8 TR C TR TR C C
1:11 TR C TR TR C C
21:24 TR C TR TR C C

Variations 0 70 6 9 69 65
with the text
Received:

In his book “An Evaluation of the New Testament Versions,”

Everett Fowler compares the various English versions with the
Greek texts. Set up a series of tables and note the number and
percentages of textual variations (the book is published by
Maranatha Baptist Press in Watertown, WI.). In each case, the
King James Bible is used as the measure. Here the final result of
these tables has been adapted to indicate the textual variations
between the New American Standard (NASV), the New
International Version (NIV) and the Reina Valera 1909. This
establishes the fact that the Reina-Valera 1909 is an equivalent to
the King James Bible.

Table 1 - Entire verses that were omitted (or placed in

parentheses, indicating that they are not authentic): NASV - 16;
NIV - 17; 1909 - 0
Table 2 - Significant portions of verses that were omitted: NASV
- 185; NIV - 180; 1909 - 14.
Table 3 - Omissions from the Names of the Lord God: NASV -
210; NIV - 173; 1909 - 21Table 4 - Omissions of substantial
significance: NASV - 237; NIV - 229; 1909 - 6

There are certain fundamental doctrines that have been

affected in some places in the unreceived Greek texts, and
consequently in their respective English translations. The Reina-
Valera Bible, both 1909 and 1960, were based on the Traditional
Greek text, and maintain the integrity of these verses, as well as
the King James Bible also in Spanish. Some examples of these
are:

Passage KJV Queen valera

Matthew
“to repentance” "repentance"
9:13
“For the Son of man is “For the Son of man came to
Matthew
come to seek and to save seek and to save that which
18:11
that which was lost.”
Mark “Where their worm dieth “where their worm dieth not,
9:44 and not, and the fire is not and the fire is never
9:46 quenched.” quenched.”
Luke
"Joseph" "José"
2:33
John
“only begotten Son” “the only begotten Son”
1:18
Acts
“blood” "blood"
17:26
Col 1:14 “through his blood” “by his blood”
1 Tim.
"God" "God"
3:16
1 John “For there are three that “For there are three that
5:7 bear record in heaven, the bear witness in heaven: the
Father, the Word, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these Holy Spirit: and these three
 three are one.” are one.”

Below is a comparison that reflects translation differences.

Here the differences between the King James Bible (KVJ) are
compared to the NKJV (New King James Version) and the 1909
Reina Valera.

Reference KJV NKJV 1909 Agreement

Matthew 20:20 worshiping kneeling down KJV
Mark4:19 lusts desires covets KJV
Luke 6:40 perfect perfectly trained perfect KJV
John 1:3 by through by Both
John 4:24 a Spirit Spirit is Spirit KJV
Acts 4:27 child servant son KJV
Acts 8:9 bewitched astonished magical KJV
Acts 12:4 Easter Passover Passover Both
Acts 17:22 Mars Hill Areopagus Areopagus NKJV
Romans 1:18 hold the truth suppress the detain KJV
truth
1 Cor. 1:22 require request Both request
2 Cor. 2:17 corrupt peddling merchants NKJV
2 Cor. 5:17 I am crucified I have been together- KJV
crucified mind crucified
1 Thess. 5:22 appearance form depart KJV
1 Thess. 5:23 unto at for the coming KJV
2 Thess. 2:2 is at hand had come near KJV
1 Tim. 6:10 the root a root KJV
1 Tim. 6:20 science knowledge KJV
2 Tim. 2:15 study be diligent NKJV
2 Tim. 3:12 all who will all who desire and also all KJV
Titus 1:16 disqualified disqualified reprobates KJV
Heb. 4:8 Jesus Joshua Joshua NKJV
1 Peter 1:7 trial genuineness test Both
2 Peter 1:3 to by Both
1 John 3:4 law lawlessness law KJV
Rev 1:6 God and His His God and God and His Father KJV
Father Father

SUPPOSED BAD TRANSLATIONS IN THE REINA-VALERA

Over the years, attacks against the Reina-Valera have

been published, proposing bad translations in the
Spanish text. Most of these attacks have come from
sincere individuals who want a Spanish text identical to
that of the King James Bible in English. However, the very
nature of language makes that proposition impossible.
The Reina-Valera is the Bible in Spanish that comes
closest to matching the text of the King James Bible in
English, in its authenticity, its history and its eloquence.
However, there are those who criticize the Reina-Valera,
but they are incapable of providing the Hispanic world
with a viable alternative. Unfair criticism is neither
Christian nor intellectually valid.

Here are some examples of such criticism.

Matthew 5:22 - The accusation is that the King James Version

eliminates the phrase “without a cause.” It is true that in 1960
that phrase did not appear. But in 1909, the word “madly”
appears, which means “without reason” or without cause.
Luke 1:35 - In 1909, here it says “the Holy”, which sounds
different than “Holy Thing” in English. However, the translation
“Holy Being” in the 1960s is unequivocally Deity.
John 1:1 - Some object to the use of “Verb” instead of
“Word.” Both can mean “word.” To the Hispanic mind, the
Word is no less than the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no end to the objections that lovers of the King James

Bible could present as differences in their excellent Bible and the
King James Version. Here we have mentioned just a few. John
3:16 - “only begotten”, instead of “only begotten”. John 1:15 “is
before me,” instead of “preferred before me.” John 3:16 “should
not perish” instead of “should not perish.”

There are other examples, but most of them have to do with

grammatical structure, like the ones above. We have to
understand that one cannot always say word for word in one
language what is said in another. There are some differences that
we simply cannot explain at this time, with the information we
have available. That doesn't mean there IS no explanation. Only
at the moment we don't have the explanation.

Some of the differences between the Reina Valera and the

King James Bible are due to changes that were made in the 1865
edition. Others are due to varied readings in the majority text.

Conclusion: The Bible-believing Christian must

remember that God is the Author of the Scriptures. It is
HIS obligation to provide His people with the words He
wants them to have. As we are reminded in Psalm 68:11:
“The Lord gave word; “There was a great multitude of
those who brought good news.” To the Spanish-speaking
world, the Lord has given the Reina Valera Bible. It
remains faithful to the Traditional Greek Text, it is the
closest translation of the King James Bible, and it is the
most loved by the Hispanic people. If anything could
replace it, it would take the direction and hand of the Lord.

Until this time, we can confidently say, “Being born again, not
of corruptible seed, but of imperishable, through the word of
God, which lives and abides forever.” 1 Peter 1:23 Glory to God!

BET-EL BAPTIST
CHURCH
Av. Francisco de Aguirre N° 2050
c. P.: 4000 - San Miguel de Tucumán
Tucumán - Argentina
Pastor: Lorenzo Owens - Telephone:
(0381) 4616374
E-mail:
IglesiaBautistaBetel@yahoo.com.ar