By Luis Vega

Humberto Gomez, self-proclaimed "Reina-Valera translation reviser" (www.thervg.com/links.htm), with the help of his worldwide anonymous counselors, claims to have revised the 1909 SRV, thus, producing the "perfect" Spanish Bible, which has been called the "Reina Valera Gomez." Humberto Gomez self-confidently says to have corrected "every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV." In Gomez’s own words "our Bible is perfect" (www.thervg.com). But the question is, is this weighty assertion factual? The dictionary defines perfect as "the state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting."

I thoroughly examined this new revision to carefully sift all the way through the big claims made by Humberto Gomez. I present here my findings.

Humberto Gomez has found it necessary to change terminology long used in the Spanish Bible, and used by true conservative Valera Bible Believers to wording Gomez considers "the betterment of our language in our revision" (www.thervg.com). Gomez has flagrantly called older Valera terminology in the original 1602 Valera, the 1865 Valera, and the 1909 SRV, "the poverty of the translations of our Spanish Bibles." Of course Gomez then follows this faith assassinating assertion by the expected heroic proclamation, "Our Bible reads much better." In his most recent revision of RVG, Gomez attempts to modernize the Spanish language in several selected verses and for some unknown reason not the whole text. Gomez just leaves the reasoning to why this is so to the reader’s imagination. When Humberto Gomez attempts to "bring up to date" the Spanish language and text by reinterpreting the Spanish words and expressions, and to bring into conformity with contemporary trends of opinion, in fact obscures the original meaning of Scripture. Does Humberto Gomez, in his attempt to modernize the Spanish language, assume that the education level of the reader is such that he cannot understand and appreciate the older Valera terminology of the Castilian language? So Gomez takes it upon himself to interpret the Spanish language for them.

According to the "The Principles of Our Revision" (the RVG) the second principle for the RVG revision was, "To apply all the beauty of our Spanish language with all its romanticism, prose, and elegance." But why does Gomez say, "To apply"? This obviously implies that "the beauty…with all its romanticism, prose and elegance" was not there and needs to be applied. And of course the one apt to do such an educated task is none other than himself. If the base text already possesses it, why not say, "To preserve intact" instead of "To apply"?

Another problem is that the Spanish language that Gomez produces in his "RVG" translation, which he calls "perfect language" (probably to match his "perfect" Bible), is in reality a strange hybrid of Old Castilian vernacular (1909 words) and modern Spanish wording colored by the modern-day Bible revising theories.

"Our Bible will be greatly loved and appreciated by the ones who take a stand for the purity of the text and love the Castellano Antiguo (Old Castilian)." – Humberto Gomez

 

I asked Humberto Gomez myself about the changes being made to produce his translation. He sent me, via e-mailed, a partial list and also commented the following regarding the "improvement" he is convinced were made to the Spanish language:

"…muchas de las discrepancies son solo cuestiones de idioma y no de error. En la edicion que estamos por imprimir se ha mejorado el lenguaje enormemente." - Humberto Gomez

 

In regards to the change of the word "Magos", which also originally appears in the original Valera Bible in Matthew 2:1, 7, 16, Gomez says: "Magos es correcto, pero…" However if it is correct, there should not be a "pero."

Concerning the change of the word "salud", which also originally appears in the original Valera Bible, Gomez says: "Salud es correcto, pero…" So Gomez’s confesses that it is not Valera’s word "salud" that is wrong and I say it is Gomez’s word "pero" that is.

Pertaining to the change of the words "La paz de su siervo" in Psalms 35:27, which also originally appears in the original Valera Bible, Gomez says: "La paz de su siervo, no esta mal, creo que esta un poquito mejor la nuestra." What he really means is he thinks he can do a better job than Cipriano de Valera.

Concerning the changing of the words "por su gloria" in 2 Peter 1:3, which also originally appears in the original Valera Bible, Gomez says: "No es incorrecto "por su gloria" pero…" One more Gomez’s continuous rationalistic "pero."

In regards to the change of the word "voluntad" in Rev 4:11, which also appears in the original Valera Bible, Gomez confesses: "La palabra voluntad es 100% correcta, pero…" There goes the "pero" nonsense yet again! The letters "p" "e" "r" "o" on Gomez’s computer keyword will probably fade away if he types a list of all words he has decided to change.

Concerning the change of the word "mujer", which also appears in the original Valera Bible, Gomez confesses:

"Cambiamos la palabra "mujer por esposa"…no porque la palabra mujer fuese incorrecta, sino porque en muchos casos se oye mejor."

 

Regarding all the changes of Old Spanish words, Gomez says: "Quitamos solo palabra arcaicas." So if removing perfectly correct archaic Spanish words is acceptable, then removing Old English archaic words from the King James Bible is okay too? Even if Gomez considers himself authorized to change perfectly correct Spanish words, it nonetheless is outright upsetting, just like it would be changing perfectly correct English words in the AV would be to King James Bible Believers.

For all these reasons, Humberto Gomez stands convicted and found guilty of having intentionally rejected many words that are in the Valera Bible, by substituting them with made-up readings, which true Valera Bible Believers will utterly turn down.

Numbers 23:3 – Changes "Y así se fué solo" to "Y se fue a un monte." ¿Un monte? Even the KJB reads "And he went to a high place." If he wanted to ‘King James’ the wording why didn’t Gomez render it "Y se fue a un lugar alto." This inexplicable "monte" is more mysterious than "Space Mountain" at Disneyland.

Judges 16:9 – Gomez makes the insertion of the new words "el secreto de." This is not in the 1909 SRV, 1865 Valera, the original 1602 Valera, the KJB, or the Hebrew text. The reason to why Gomez adds these words might be unknown; however one thing that is known is the fact that the 1960 Revision also has inserted these words. This makes one wonder about the base text used for the RVG. This is corruption at its height, even if Gomez decided to set these words in italics. If we accept this alteration, we endorse the diluting of the holy Word of God, which will make us no different than all the new Bible version advocates.

Psalms 1:3 – Changes the word "arroyos" to "corrientes." The word "arroyo" means exclusively "stream or river", while the general word "corrientes" is not solely associated to water, since it only means "current." The KJB renders the same Hebrew word "rivers." It is interesting to see the 1960 Revision also renders it "corrientes." Purely coincidence? One thing is for sure - this unneeded change does away with other perfect cross-references (Eze 47:9; Deu 8:7; Joe 3:18).

Psalms 3:6 – Changes the word "cerco" to "sitio" which weakens the context in the text (KJB reads "round about"). The Hebrew word here means "circle, surroundings, around, (place, round) about, circuit, compass, on every side." Originally the Psalmist boldly proclaims his unwavering confidence in the LORD, even if thousands of people set themselves all around, on every side, or circling him in opposition. Removing the word "cerco", totally obscures the whole idea of the enemies setting themselves up all around him is and weakens the Psalmist confession of faith. This Hebrew word is rendered in the KJB also as "every side" (Num 16:27; Jdg 7:18; Jdg 8:34; 1 Sam 12:11; 1 Sam 14:47; Eze 19:8) and as "round about" (Gen 35:5; Deu 6:14; Deu 12:10). Another Bible version that uses the same word "sitio" is the Spanish NIV (NVI). The word "sitio" can mean a "place" or "site", which is far removed from the Hebrew and the original text Gomez started with.

"La palabra alma, es correcto pero el alimento no es para el alma, es para el cuerpo. La palabra <nephesh> es traducida en la KJV "alma," pero muchas veces es traducida como, persona, corazon, mente, asi mismo, etc." – Humberto Gomez

 

Guess what Revision removes this providentially preserved word in this verse? The 1960 Revision. If you read Gomez’s comment carefully you will see clearly that he really does not believe the Word of God the way it reads here, since he felt he needed to remove the providentially preserved word "alma" ("nephesh") from the text. Also notice Gomez’s use of the word "pero" twice, which reveals his rationalistic approach to the text. This Bible corrector tries to rationalize and justify his unfaithful and extremely interpretive changes, simply by trying to explain what he thinks it should say. You can really call this is "perfectly" pulling the covers on this "perfect" Bible.

Proverbs 6:35 – Changes the word "redención" to "restitución." Restitution? This stands in total contrast against the 1909 SRV, the 1865 Valera, the 1602 Valera, the Hebrew text, and the KJB which reads, "ransom." Not even the 1960 Revision uses this word. This is very interpretive on the part of Gomez.

Proverbs 15:31 – Makes an addition of "la" into the text, which is not in the 1909 SRV, the 1865 Valera, original 1602 Valera, or the KJB. This seemingly small addition is exceedingly interpretive and radically changes the original context. The context of this Proverb teaches us that any person that hears the reproof that leads to, gives life, or is according to the word of life, abides with the wise. Not that reproof which comes from life and its experience. What was originally a spiritual counsel and pious advice has been secularized to a simple worldly and mundane scope. As a result of this Gomez inappropriate reinterpretation many excellent cross-references are ruined (See Pro 1:13; Pro 10:17; Isa 55:3).

Proverbs 25:11 – Changes the word "figures" to "adornos." The Hebrew word, according to all the major Lexicons, means "figure, picture, sculpture or image." However by no means "adornos." The 1909, 1865, 1602, and even the 1960 render this word "figuras." The KJB renders this same word as "pictures."

Proverbs 31:25 – Changes the word "vestidura" (1909) to "vestidos" (plural). The original 1602 Valera, or the KJB do not render this word in plural. The 1602 Valera says "vestido" and the KJB reads "clothing." The context in the surrounding verses are obviously talking about one woman, therefore "vestidura" is the appropriate word. Why then does Gomez change "vestidos" to "vestidura" in Pro 27:26? This is another mistaken and pointless change.

John 2:2 –Changes the word "llamado" to "invitados." The KJB reads "called." Do you think Gomez decided to make this change due to that fact that the 1960 Revision also renders it "invitados"? It is worth noting that not only this one word, but the whole verse word-for-word is identical to the 1960 Revision.

John 2:17 – Changes the words "me comió" to "me consumió." The KJB reads, "hath eaten me up." The Greek word means, "devour or eat." Why did Gomez make this change? I do not know, but it is interesting to see that the word Gomez chooses is awfully similar to the 1960 Revision’s rendition "me consume."

Romans 3:15 – Changes "Sus pies son ligeros" to "Sus pies, prestos." Notice the addition of the comma after "pies" which disrupts the fluency and the omitted word "son" makes the reading garbled and incoherent. The KJB reads, "Their feet are swift."

Romans 3:24-25 – Changes the words "por la" to "mediante" (like the 1960 and the NVI), but in the next verse Gomez renders the same Greek word as "por medio" and "por la" (like the 1960). The KJB consistently renders in all three places as "through" and the Valera also consistently renders in all these places as "por la." Gomez gives three different renditions of the same Greek word identical to the 1960.

Romans 3:31 - Changes the word "establecemos" to "confirmamos." The KJB reads, "establish." Eve the Greek does not substantiate this change. But guess which two versions also change the word to "confirmamos"? None other than the 1960 Revision and the Spanish NIV. This is absolutely shameful.

Romans 4:4 – Changes twice the word "por" to "como." The KJB renders this same word as "of." After being puzzled to why these changes were made by Gomez, I soon discovered that this whole verse reads word-for-word identical to the 1960 Revision. It must be noted that the Spanish NIV also does this same change. These changes are also to some extent interpretive and not contextually ideal.

Romans 4:15 – Changes "obra" to "produce." The KJB reads, "worketh" not "produces." You can work and not produce. The 1960 Revision makes the same exact change!

Romans 6:7 – In Gomez’s tedious attempt to make the wording of the KJB ("freed from sin"), here changes the "justificado es del pecado" to "libre es del pecado." However the wording chosen is entirely wrong. The correct word for "freed" in Spanish is not "libre" as Gomez assumed, it is "liberado."

1 Thessalonians 3:3 – Changes the word "conmueva" to "inquieta," which matches also the 1960 Revision. If the word "conmueva" is perfectly correct, why change it? And why change it to match the 1960?

1 Thessalonians 3:6 – Changes the perfect expression "buena memoria" to the interpretive phrase "gratos recuerdos," when even the KJB reads "good remembrance." The Spanish NIV chooses these exact words!

1 Thessalonians 5:4 – Changes the word "sobrecoja" to "sorprenda." The KJB reads "overtake" and the original Valera Bible reads "agarre." Even the Greek word means "take eagerly, lay hold of, seize, apprehend, taken, obtain or come suddenly upon." The enormous contrast between the original meaning of the Greek word and the Gomez reinterpretation is so vast, in addition to the fact that the 1960 Revision and the Spanish NIV also use this same word ("sorprenda"), speaks for itself.

Gomez, as with most Bible correctors which attempt to take the Valera Bible’s place of authority by means of their "perfect" revisions, attempts to repair things that are not broken. There are a number of occasions in which the "Reina Valera Gomez" loosely makes use of capitalicization in words, and does not capitalize when required and also changes numerous Spanish words of the 1909 SRV for no apparent reason.

I examined only 13 Chapters of Matthew and these are examples unnecessary changes:

Mt. 1:1 – Changes "generación" to "genealogía." Even the KJB has "generation." Why does Gomez decide to change this perfect word?

Mt. 1:11 – Changes "en la transmigración de Babilonia" to "en el tiempo en que fueron expatriados a Babilonia."

Mt. 1:12 – Changes "después de la transmigración de Babilonia" to "después que fueron traídos a Babilonia" (The same Greek word as in Ver 11)

Mt. 1:17 – Changes "transmigración" to "expatriación"

Mt. 1:21 – Changes "parirá un hijo" to "dará a luz un hijo" (Like the 1960 and the Spanish NIV) Decides to capitalicize "él" to "Él" however does not capitalicize "su." The casual use of capitalization, which neither the Greek or Hebrew texts use, is careless and interpretive. Not even the KJB capitalicizes the word "his."

Mt. 1:22 – Changes "lo que fué dicho por el Señor" to "lo que fue dicho del Señor."

Mt. 1:23 – Changes again "parirá un hijo" to "dará a luz un hijo" (Like the 1960 and the Spanish NIV).

Mt. 1:25 – Changes the word "Y" to "Pero." Even the KJB has "And." Changes again "parió" to "dio a luz" (Like the 1960 and the Spanish NIV).

Mt. 2:2 – Changes "Judios" to "judios." Even the KJB reads "Jews." Gomez capitalicizes when he should not and when it is required he does not.

Mt. 2:19 – Changes "Mas" to "Y." Even the KJB reads "But." In Ver. 22 he changes the same Greek word back from "Y" to "Mas."

Mt. 2:20 – Changes "que muertos son" to "porque han muerto" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 2:22 - Changes "Y" to "Mas." But in Ver. 19 Gomez changes the same Greek word from "Mas" to "Y."

Mt. 2:23 – Changes the Lord’s title "Nazareno" to "nazareno." KJB reads "Nazareth."

Mt. 3:3 – Changes "veredas" to "sendas" (Like the 1960 and the Spanish NIV).

Mt. 3:4 – Changes "vestido de pelos," y "cinta" to "vestidura de pelo," and "cinto."

Mt. 3:7 – Changes "viendo él" to "al ver él. Changes "Saduceos" to "saduceos." Changes "quién os ha enseñado" to "quién os enseñó."

Mt. 3:9 – Changes "despertar" to "levantar."

Mt. 3:10 – Changes "no hace" to "no da."

Mt. 3:12 - Changes "aventará" to "limpiará" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 3:14 – Changes "Yo he menester" to "Yo necesito" (Like the 1960). The KJB even reads "I have need," not "I need."

Mt. 3:15 – Changes just about the entire verse "Empero respondiendo Jesús le dijo: Deja ahora; porque así nos conviene cumplir toda justicia" to "Pero Jesús respondió, y le dijo: Deja ahora; porque nos es preciso cumplir así toda justicia."

Mt. 4:4 – Changes "No con solo el pan" to "No solo de pan." Changes "mas con toda" to "sino de toda." Both changes are also done in the 1960 Revision and the Spanish NIV.

Mt. 4:10 – Changes "él" to "Él." The KJB reads "him." Gomez’s constant use of capitalization, which neither the Greek or Hebrew texts use, is interpretive.

Mt. 4:12 –Changes "Mas oyendo Jesús que Juan estaba preso" to "Y cuando Jesús oyó que Juan había sido encarcelado" and also "se volvió a Galilea" to "se fue a Galilea." Notice the added conjunction "Y", which the Valera or the KJB do not have.

Mt. 4:14 – Changes "lo que fué dicho" to "lo dicho" and omits "que fué" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 4:17 – Changes "que" to "porque" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 4:23 – Changes "rodeó" to "recorrió" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 5:1 – Changes from plural "las gentes" (1909) to singular "la multitud" (Like the 1960). The renditions in the original 1602 Valera, 1865 Valera, 1909 are in the plural, and even the KJB which reads "the multitudes," obviously specifying many groups or assemblies of people, while "la multitud" only means one group. The greatest sermon in the whole New Testament by our Teacher is about to be taught and according to the Gomez translation only "one group" of people show up. Also changes "se llegaron á él" to "vinieron a Él."

Mt. 5:6 – Changes "hartos" to "saciados" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 5:13 – Changes "no vale más" to "no sirve más" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 5:18 – Changes "perezca" and "perecerá" to "pasen" and "pasará" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 5:22 – Changes "con su hermano" to "contra su hermano." Even the KJB reads "with his brother" (not against). Again, the RVG reads exactly word for word like the 1960 Revision "contra su hermano."

Mt. 5:24 – Changes "presente" to "ofrenda" (Like the 1960). Changes "ofrece" to "presenta" (Like the 1960). Even the KJB reads, "offer."

Mt. 5:25 – Changes "en prisión" to "en la cárcel."Even the KJB reads "prison." This reads exactly like the 1960 Revision "en la cárcel." Changes "Pónte de acuerdo" to "Concíliate."

Mt. 5:29 – Changes "echado" to "lanzado." But in the following verse 30, the same Greek word is rendered in the RVG as "echado." This type of inconsistency is a norm in the RVG.

Mt. 5:40 – Changes "tu ropa" to "tu tunica" (Like the 1960). Also adds the word "tomar."

Mt. 6:23 – Changes "tu cuerpo será tenebroso" to "tu cuerpo estará en oscuridad." The 1960 Revision uses the exact same words - "tu cuerpo estará en oscuridad." If Gomez wanted to anglicize the Spanish words to match the KJB, which reads, "body shall be full of darkness," he would have rendered it, "estará lleno de oscuridad," not "estará en oscuridad" like the 1960 Revision.

Mt. 6:24 – Changes "o se llegará al uno" to "o apreciará al uno." Appreciate? You can appreciate someone without coming to someone! You can appreciate at a distance. This change ruins the full meaning of the verse. The KJB reads "or else he will hold to one."

Mt. 6:25, 27, 28, and 34 – in ver. 25 Changes the word "congojéis" to "afanéis" and in ver 27 the word "congojándose" is changes to "afane." But in ver. 28 and 34 the same word "congojáis" is changed to "preocupáis." In the Valeran, the same Greek word in ver. 25, 27, 28, and 34 is rendered consistently, but in the RVG it is rendered in a different way in ver. 28 ("preocupáis") and in ver. 34 it is rendered two different ways in the same verse - "preocupáis" and "afán". Why? Your guess is as good as mine. Superficially this might seem acceptable, but the cross-references are evidently ruined here. Have fun doing a serious word study with the RVG!

Mt. 8:4 – Changes "ofrece el presente que mandó Moisés" to "presenta la ofrenda que mandó Moisés" (Like the 1960). The truth is you can present a gift without offering it! Someone can present a gift, and not be from the heart. The word "ofrece" involves a willful sincere gift; while "presenta" is simply means to just show up with a gift to present it. Even the KJB reads, "offer the gift." And why would Gomez change the word "ofrece" in this verse and not in Mar 1:44 & Luk 5:14?

Mt. 8:9 – Unnecessarily adds the word "puesto." The centurion only says he was a man "under authority," never mentioning that he was "placed" or "put" under authority. The Gomez translation has the centurion saying something that the Bible never mentions. Even the KJB reads, "I am a man under authority" (Not "placed"). Another unnecessary addition. This is a perfect example of trying to repair something that is not broken.

Mt. 8:18 - Changes "muchas gentes" (1909) to "una gran multitud." But this change now makes the text say only one group, (although great but still only one), when in fact the text mentions a plurality of groups. The KJB even reads "great multitudes." The 1960 also renders this word singular.

Mt. 9:8 – Again changes the plural "gentes" to a singular "multitud," when in fact the text mentions a plurality of groups. The KJB reads "multitudes." The funny thing is that in ver. 36 Gomez renders the same Greek word as "las multitudes." The 1960 Revision also renders this same word as singular.

Mt. 10:22 – Changes the word "soportare" to "perseverare." The word "perseverare" is identical to the 1960 Revision rendition. The KJB reads, "endureth" not "perseveres."

Mt. 10:27 – Changes the word "predicádlo" to "proclamadlo." The KJB reads, "preach." If the Valera and the KJB reads "preach", why change it? I do not have the answer to that, but I do know something. The RVG and 1960 Revision both read identically word-for-word "proclamadlo desde las azoteas."

Mt. 12:45 – Changes the word "mala" to "perversa." Even the KJB reads "wicked."

Mt. 13:2 – Changes the clear reading "se allegaron a él muchas gentes" (Notice the plural word "gentes") to "se le juntó una gran multitud" (singular). The KJB reads as plural, to no surprise. The 1960 renders this singular also. Coincidence?

Humberto Gomez sent me an email where he promises the following:

"Hay muchos cambios mas que poco a poco los vamos a ir anexando. No todos los cambios son por causa de la pureza de texto, muchos de ellos son porque creemos que es mejor traduccion." – Humberto Gomez

 

But if Gomez said that he already has a "perfect" Bible, why does he say that many changes will be made? Remember the dictionary defines perfect as "the state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting." One dictionary even defines perfect as "Carried through to completion in every detail; complete; in a state of excellence faultless." (New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1976). Gomez will need to redefine the definition of perfection or stop making false and exaggerated claims to win RVG supporters.

One would think that a revision of the 1909 SRV would not omit words, which are found in the Greek text, and are preserved in the 1909 SRV. Question: Can "perfection" have omissions?

Mt. 2:3 – Omits the conjunction "Y" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 3:11 – Omits "yo." Even the KJB has "I." Also changes "los zapatos del cual yo" to "cuyo calzado."

Mt. 4:6 – Omits the word "nunca" (Like the 1960) Even the KJB has the word "lest at any time." According to the RVG, Jesus can potentially still dash His foot, however the Valera Bible makes it absolutely clear that Jesus never ("para que nunca") dashes His foot. Also changes "mandará por ti, Y te alzarán en las manos" to "mandará acerca de ti, y en sus manos te sostendrán" trying to match the KJB word choices.

Mt. 4:15 – Omits "La" and "la" (Like the 1960). Even the KJB has "The." Changes "de la otra parte del Jordán" to "al otro lado del Jordán."

Mt. 4:18 – Omits "que es" (Like the 1960) and changes "en la mar" to "en el mar."

Mt. 4:24 – Omits "la" (Like the 1960) and omits twice the conjuntion "y" between "tormentos; los endemoniados, los lunáticos." Also changes "los que tenían mal" to "los enfermos" and changes "los tomados" to "que eran tomados."

"We added all the words that were omitted, and we have removed all the words that were added, and we feel we have a perfect text." – Humeberto Gomez

 

 

Humberto Gomez, who apparently has been also seduced by the new Anglicization of the Spanish Bible philosophy, pointlessly attempts to Americanize countless 1909 SRV readings, unnecessarily leaving out words, substituting, adding and introducing words which are not in the original Valera Bible or the original languages strictly on the basis of the "RVG" translation committee’s judgment. Gomez rearranges sentences, phrases and changing the word order in verses, and goes out his way to identically match the word choice of the King James Bible.

Humberto Gomez, by way of e-mail, wrote to me to me the following:

"Cambios en los que seguimos la lectura de la KJV; no porque estuviesen incorrectos sino porque añade otro matriz, otra verdad que enriquece."

 

By Gomez’s here admits to the fact of not only attempting to "King James" the wording of the 1909 text, but admits that the words that were changed were originally not wrong.

There are a number of verses in which this so-called perfect "RVG" translation anglicizes the wording of the 1909 SRV to match word for word the King James Bible readings. Examples of this endeavor are:

Mt. 1:16 – Changes "marido" to "esposo."

Mt. 1:19 – Adds the word "hombre" in italic trying to match the KJB italic "man."

Mt. 1:24 – Changes again the word "mujer" to "esposa."

Mt. 2:1 – Changes "magos" to "hombres sabios" trying to match the KJB "wise men." Cipriano de Valera in his marginal notes in this verse says the following regarding the word "magos": "Personas ilustres de una de la Provincias de Media cuya gente se llamaban Magos Herod. li. I y 3." By removing the word magos you lose the cross-reference to the book of Daniel. These wise men, from the east, had access to the writings of Daniel and Jeremiah, which give the timing of the Messiah’s birth. Daniel left his writings to these magos in their language.

Mt. 2:6 – Changes "No eres muy pequeña" to "no eres la más pequeña" trying to match the KJB word choice.

Mt. 2:7 – Changes "magos" to "sabios," and in Mt. 2:1 inconsistently rendered as "hombres sabios". Also changes "entendió" to "inquirió" trying to match the KJB "inquired."

Mt. 2:8 – Changes "Andad allá" to "Id" (Like 1960 Revision)

Mt. 2:9 – Changes "se puso" to "se detuvo" (Like 1960 Revision)

Mt. 2:11 – Changes "con su madre María" to "con María su madre" trying to match the KJB word order.

Mt. 2:12 – Changes "avisados por revelación en sueños" to "avisados por Dios en un sueño" trying to match the KJB word choice "being warned of God in a dream."

Mt. 2:15 – Changes "lo que fué dicho por el Señor" to "lo que fue dicho del Señor" trying to match the KJB.

Mt. 2:16 – Changes twice "magos" to "sabios." The same word "magos" was inconsistently rendered "hombres sabios" in Mt. 2:1. Changes "se enojó mucho" to "se llenó de ira." Changes "y envió" to "y mandó."

Mt. 2:16 – Changes "en todos sus terminos" to "en todos sus alrededores." Changes "que había entendido de los Magos" to "que había inquirido de los sabios" trying to match the KJB.

Mt. 3:2 – Changes the word "que el Reino" to "porque el Reino" trying to match the KJB "for the kingdom"

Mt. 3:5 - Changes "provincia" to "región" trying to match the KJB "region."

Mt. 3:17 – Changes "de los cielos" to "del cielo" trying to match the KJB word choice, however inconsistently leaves "de los cielos" in Genesis 1:14 and 15.

Mt. 4:5 – Changes "le pasa" to "le lleva"and changes "las almenas" to "el pináculo" trying to match the KJB word choice.

Mt. 4:8 – Changes "le pasa" to "le lleva." Changes "y su gloria" to "y la gloria de ellos" to match the KJB word choice.

Mt. 4:19 – Adds the word "yo" trying to match the KJB translator’s word choice.

Mt. 5:4 – Changes "porque ellos recibirán consolación" to "porque ellos serán consolados" to match the KJB translator’s word choice.

Mt. 5:5 – Changes "porque ellos recibirán la tierra por heredad" to "porque ellos heredarán la tierra" trying to match the KJB translator’s word choice.

Mt. 5:32 – Changes "fuera de causa de" to "salvo por" trying to match the KJB reading "saving for."

Mt. 6:3 – Adds the word "mano" twice trying to match the KJB translator’s word choice.

Mt. 6:8 – Changes "No os hagáis" to "No seáis" trying to match the KJB translator’s word choice.

Mt. 6:11 – Changed the whole verse and reads word for word like the 1960 Revision.

Mt. 6:13 – Changes "por todos los siglos" to "por siempre."

Mt. 6:17 – Changes "Mas tú" to "Pero tú" (Like the 1960) and possibly trying to match the KJB translator’s word choice.

Mt. 12:31 – Gomez adds the word "Santo" in italics in a lame AV Anglicization attempt to match word-for-word the AV text. The KJB translators considered necessary the word "Holy" in italics solely for elucidation; which the Spanish as not need for.

Mt. 13:24 – The word "simiente," which is quoted in Galatians 3:16 in relation to Christ and the entire force of many more Bible cross-references (Gan 3:15; Gan 13:15; Rom 1:3; Heb 2:16; 1 Ped 1:23) is completely wiped out by changing it to simply "semilla" (Like the 1960).

Mt. 13:47 – Changes the word "coge" to "atrapó." The KJB reads "gathered."

It is difficult to understand why the "perfect" Reina Valera Gomez matches identically word-for-word the 1960 Revision here in this verse, if the base text used was the 1909 SRV, which originally preserves the essential conjunction "y" (Greek και) between "espíritu" and "alma". This seemingly small omission might look unimportant, but this causes a huge doctrinal hindrance, since it fully obscures the essential and Biblical distinction between the human spirit and soul, and of course omits from God’s holy Word. So why is it missing in the "Reina Valera Gomez"? Only Humberto Gomez and the Lord know the truth. But this verse (together with all the other verses) certainly seems to tell us that the base text really was not solely the 1909 SRV, but also the 1960 RV.

Also notice the addition of the word "ser", just like the 1960 RV. The KJB does not have a similar or correlating word in the English text for "ser", and even worse the Valera Bible does not either. Italics were added in the Bible only for clarification purposes. But this "Reina Valera Gomez" addition of "ser", which is one of many, is more of an unnecessary interpretation or uncalled for commentary inserted in this verse. I guess Gomez thinks this added word "perfects" the text.

Can "perfection" have omissions and additions? The answer to this question is of great importance, since some are jumping on Gomez’s "perfect" RVG bandwagon and trusting in Humberto Gomez’s claims. Humberto Gomez’s had to collect $80,000 thousand dollars, according to his website, for the printing thousands of copies of the so-called perfect "Reina Valera Gomez."

"God has provided 70% of the money needed, and I know that he will provide the rest." – Humberto Gomez

 

God would never provide money for a second-rate revision of the 1909 SRV. Could you imagine what the Spanish speaking brothers, who contributed with their hard earned money to put this project translation in print, will feel like after they find out that this project translation is chock-full of constant willful errors? It is a shame that a man can throw away 5 years of his life going through the whole 1909 SRV text, verse by verse, fruitlessly attempting to "perfect" every verse, raising up $80,000 dollars from Christian churches for printing, to sadly end up with an exceedingly error-stricken under par translation, which only echoes the erroneous ideas that several Spanish Bible correctors have adopted.

Am I defending the 1909 SRV? Or do I think it the 1909 SRV the correct Spanish text? No. Although the 1909 SRV does still contain original Valera words. What I am doing is simply exposing this distasteful new approach by Valera critics that pretend to be better than Cipriano de Valera, while under the pretext of "perfecting" the Spanish Bible.

As you can clearly see, by means of this article, many of the word choices made by Humberto Gomez are identical to the 1960 Revision word choices and readings. Gomez told me, by e-mail, the following regarding this extraordinary and accidental coincidence:

"Todos estos cambios atinadamente los habian hecho los revisores de la 1960."

Humberto Gomez wants you to believe that many words chosen in the RVG that constantly duplicate the 1960 Revision, are nothing more than a coincidence, and have absolutely nothing to do with the word choices in the 1960 Revision, even though they identically match. Even if by accidental chance, Humbreto Gomez and Eugene Nida came up with the same exact matching word to render in the same verse, maybe it is because both they think alike? Or could it be that Gomez behind closed doors consulted the 1960 Revision for contemporary Spanish words renditions? If Gomez did not consult the 1960 Revision, how is it that he constantly provides the same identical word choice and exact rendition as the 1960 revisers do in numerous verses? Coincidence? Or cozy convenience? You decide!

It took Cipriano de Valera 20 years to revise the Bear Bible to bring into being the original 1602 Valera Bible, and Humberto Gomez thinks that in 5 years he can flawlessly revise the 1909 SRV to produce the "perfect" Bible. To compare Cipriano de Valera and Humberto Gomez is almost comical. So the question remains: Is the "Reina Valera Gomez" perfect as Humberto Gomez’s claims? You decide! But I say if anybody takes the text of 1909 SRV modernizes the Spanish language, omits, fabricates readings and substitutes (or better yet rejects) thousands of Valera’s words, makes unnecessary changes to Valera’s words, and Americanizes the wording by changing the terminology to line up with the KJB translator’s word choices, is not a Valera Bible. Does anyone honestly expect to get a "perfect" Spanish Bible, if the wrong person takes the wrong Spanish Bible text, at the wrong time, with the wrong "Bible correcting" frame of mind? Should the name "Gomez" even be placed along side of "Reina" and "Valera"? Nothing can be more obvious. The "Reina Valera Gomez" which constantly shows signs of substandard erudition, has significant grammatical and translational problems and is not a complete and adequate improvement upon the 1909 SRV, and much less to the excellence and authority of the original Valera Bible. One thing is for certain: The "Reina Valera Gomez" does not, cannot, and will not have the influence or weight as held by the original Valera Bible; God’s Word in the Spanish language. What modern day version could possibly match the grand eloquence and majesty of language and style found in the pages of the ‘original’ Valera Bible? I dream of a multitude of Spirit-filled and knowledgeable Valera Bible Believers making a fresh impact on our land. But that dream cannot be realized unless we recognize, value and study the Valera Bible as God’s Word, while making wise use of the tools of intelligent Bible study