The Problematic Changes in the RVG
Luis Vega
Initially irreverent Valera Bible detractors aim to ridicule the terminology, style and content of the Valera Bible, basically to undermine and devalue the position of the Valera Bible in the hearts and minds of the Spanish-speaking brethren with one sole objective: pave the way for their "new", "perfect", "improved", "corrected" Spanish Bible versions. The logic goes like this: Demolish and tear down the old building to construct a new one as a replacement. In my viewpoint this unreasonable zeal is absolutely unacceptable and utterly offensive.
Valera correcting "perfectionists" have fallen prey to the popular and seducing "Let’s-force-the-Valera-Bible-to-read-just-like-the-King-James" obsession. It seems as though these obstinately devoted Valera "perfecters" wedded to this profane and seducing "assumption" have a psychological need to have the Valera Bible flawlessly match word-for-word the English Bible for it to be acceptable or "up to standard" and be considered the Word of God. Since they have the "Authorized Version" in their possession, along with their already formed ideas, they assume they are "Authorized" to simply approach the text, style and language of the Valera Bible and "correct" Cipriano de Valera, "modernize" the pure Spanish, and of course "King James" the wording as much as possible. These men might hypocritically speak nice things about the genuine Valera Bible; but they in effect have an inner profound disapprobation of the text, style and language of the Valera Bible. Each and every one who is blindly attached to the "KJB-ing" the Valera Bible theory assumes it is perfectly acceptable and justifiable to change as many words in the Valera Bible as they want and still name it a "Valera Bible." Then again can I make 500 changes to the KJB and still call it a KJB? Or call it the King James & Vega Bible? Nothing can be more obvious.
In addition to all of this, is the fact that there seems to be a noticeable KJB people-pleasing concern and burden on the shoulders of many of these Valera Bible "perfecters." The pressure to satisfy the English-speaking King James brethren no doubt was one reason for the several forced KJB readings in the RVG.
The following are examples of only some problematic changes that Humberto Gomez (the 1909 SRV "perfecter") has made in the RVG:
John 1:18 – Changes the words "le declaró" (Valera), which the KJB renders "hath declared," to reads "ha dado a conocer" (RVG). But if the words are correct and do not need to be changed, why does Gomez decide to change them? I do not know, but in this verse the RVG does read exactly word for word like the 1960 Revision.
Romans 1:26 – The RVG changes the perfectly proper word "afectos" to "pasiones." But why? Even the KJB translators correctly used "affections." Ii is difficult to understand why Gomez would make this unnecessary change, although one thing is for sure: The 1960 Revision also makes this same exact change.
Romans 2:17 – The Valera reads "estás reposado en la ley" and the KJB reads "restest in the law." But the RVG reads "te apoyas en la ley" (identical to the 1960 Revision). I present various reasons why this change is simply a poor rendition. 1) It is a fact that "apoyar" and "reposar" are two very different actions in addition to taking on two different connotations. 2) By changing the word "reposar" to "apoyar" Gomez weakens the context of the verse. In the definition ‘pool’ of meanings, "apoyar" can denote, "to rest on" but in most cases does not. By using this word it ambiguously implies simply "receiving support" from the law and not "fully resting upon" the law. 3) If the KJB reads, "restest" and the Valera reads "reposar", why change it to merely "apoyar"? To match the 1960 Revision possibly? 4) The advantage of preserving the word "reposar" is evident; the word "reposar" is a stronger word, and in addition can simply mean one thing, therefore is contextually perfect.
Romans 6:4 – The Valera reads "Cristo resucitó de los muertos por la gloria del Padre" and the KJB reads "Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father." This very important verse powerfully explains a vital detail of the resurrection. But the RVG reads "Cristo resucitó de los muertos para la gloria del Padre." This is a horrible revision. This of course completely obscures the truth that "by the glory" of God, Christ was raised up from the dead. Even if Christ, being raised "for" the glory of God is true, the truth is that this is not what the preserved Word of God says in this verse. Future RVG readers when studying the RVG will never know how Christ was raised from the dead from Romans. The doctrine of the resurrection is spoiled in this verse.
Romans 6:7 – The 1909 reads "el que es muerto", the Valera says "el que está muerto", and the KJB says "he that is dead." The words "es", "esta" and "is" are all present tense. But the RVG reads "el que ha muerto." By changing one word ("es" to "ha") the tense is changed to past tense. Is this important? The context of the verse is talking about the Christian that "is" presently dead to sin, not "was" in time past. This interpretive change in the RVG changes the meaning of the verse.
Romans 12:11 – The 1909 reads "En el cuidado no perezosos", the Valera says "En los quehaceres no perezosos" and the KJB reads "Not slothful in business." All these renditions are fluent, coherent and complete phrases. But the RVG reads "Diligentes, no perezosos" (Also notice the newly added comma). This radical new change now says, in a choppy and non-fluent manner, two different things instead of one understandable and Godly-exhorting phrase. Why did Gomez insert an uncalled for new comma? This change alone reflects the sort of Bible revising each and every modern day obsessive Bible correctors are capable of.
Galatians 1:14 – The words "aprovechaba" (Valera) and "profited" (KJB) have long lasted in our Bibles, until now. Gomez decides to change this to read "adelantaba." This word simply means, "to advance or move forward."
Titus 2:1 – The expression "lo que conviene" (1909), which resembles the same language "las cosas que convienen" intact from the Valera, in this context means, "that which is suitable, appropriate or fitting" and also advantageously has a positive nuance that speaks of a "benefit in someway." The word "conviene" (1909) is now changed in the RVG to "lo que armoniza." Harmonizes? The invented word "armoniza" is a strange Gomez creation, given that it does not appear anywhere else!
Hebrew 1:4 – The words "alcanzó por herencia" (Valera) are reduced to "heredó" in the RVG. The KJB reads, "by inheritance obtained." This awful downgrade is probably the worst one out of all the interpretive changes that Gomez makes. In reality this is an omission and a new made-up word. Gomez omits the words "alcanzó por" and fabricates the new word "heredó." The 1960 Revision also does this exact change. Pure coincidence?
Hebrews 9:1 – Why on God’s great earth would Gomez change the word "mundano" (Valera) to "terrenal," if even the KJB renders this word "wordly"? The Greek word behind "mundano" appears only twice in the Bible and it is consistently rendered the same way twice in the 1909 SRV, and the KJB, and never once rendered "terrenal." In the RVG it is rendered here "terrenal" but inexplicably rendered "mundanos" in Titus 2:12. The word "mundano" is a perfect literal rendition, which of course is expected from the Valera Bible, whereas the word "terrenal" it is simply a rendition of secondary sense and to no surprise is an exact duplicate of the 1960 Revision.
Hebrews 10:22 – Gomez here changes the word "verdadero" (Valera) to "sincero." In the KJB this same word is rendered "true." This change is a perfect example of how far Gomez goes with his unnecessary changes, and how they create consistencies in the RVG. In the KJB the word "true" (Gr. alēthinos) appears 30 times, and it is rendered every single time as "true." This same thing is true in the Valera (and the 1909 SRV the supposed base text used for the RVG). The word "verdadero" also appears 30 times and is also rendered every single time as "verdadero." Absolutely consistent! But Gomez decides to change just this word in this one verse alone and leave all the other verses the same. If changing "verdadero" to "sincero" is accepted now, then will it by acceptable later on when Gomez decides to change in his "promised future changes" in Revelations 19:11 where Christ is called "Verdadero" to "sincero"?
James 2:22 – The word "obró" (Valera), along with the word "wrought" (KJB) are perfect words that brilliantly capture all the Greek. So why would Gomez decide to change the word "obró" to "actuó"? Why acted? The only other Revision to do this is none other than the 1960. Keep in mind that Gomez wants you to believe that it is simply a coincidence.
James 4:17 – The words "El pecado, pues, está en aquel" (Valera) and "to him it is sin" (KJB) are straightforward and very personal. But when Gomez decides to change the word order, remove the significant words "está en aquel", ends up rendering the original clear-cut expression into shady and weak phrasing. The whole verse is virtually word for word identical to the 1960 Revision.
1 Peter 2:4 – The words "elegida de Dios, preciosa" (1909), "elegida de Dios, y preciosa (Valera) and "chosen of God, and precious" (KJB) are ideal renditions. So why would Gomez rearrange the wording, changes "de" to "para", and eliminates the comma to simply read "escogida y preciosa para Dios" when the clear wording does not necessitate revision. This revision superficially might seem insignificant to the causal reader, but the truth is this new change downgrades the true meaning of the verse. The word "de" involves a special and personal choice made by God Himself. Now by changing "de" to "para" the "living stone" is not directly and individually chosen "of" God, it is now just simply "for." It is interesting to note that the 1960 Revision also eliminates the comma, changes "de" to "para" and rearranges the wording.
2 Peter 2:12 – The words "son hechas" (Valera) which in the KJB says "made" are perfectly rendered words. But in this new RVG it now shockingly reads simply "nacidas." Why born? When the verse in its context is directly referring to animals "made" by God for a purpose. Originally the words "son hechas" are perfect references to the creation of God. Logically by removing these words you take away this great reference. Is this a big deal? You decide, but I say this one bad change is good enough to completely dispose of the RVG. One more interesting thing worthy of mention regarding this change is that the only other Revision that renders this sort of change is the 1960 ("nacidos"). Could this be possibly related?
Can Perfect Include Possible Error?
The following is a direct quote by Humberto Gomez, after he sent me a list of changes he made in the RVG:
|
"Si tiene alguna opinión en contra y
me la quiere manifestar, se lo agradeceré; puede
que yo esté equivocado en algunos de estos cambios, y si así fuese me
gustaría que me sacara de mi error." – Humberto Gomez
|
The words "puede que yo esté equivocado" do not sound the least bit reassuring. If Humberto Gomez is entirely convinced that his Bible is "perfect", then why would he say, "it is possible" that he has made a mistake in some of the changes he has made? It should be evident that Humberto Gomez under the guise of humility is really setting forth an escape clause in the midst of his exaggerated claims just in case his "perfect" Bible is exposed for what it is: a another fatally flawed Spanish Bible version.
Semantics Blissfully Ignored in the RVG
In these last days, this emergent destructive Valera Bible negativism is being fueled by irreverent scholastic arrogance and self-reliance. I consider this crisis and curse the true Spanish Bible issue. I strenuously reject this modern-day approach to Valera Bible "correcting and perfecting" and the faith-destroying Valera Bible negativism it embraces. What is most disturbing about the approach taken by these Pharisaic "academics" cloaked in sheep’s clothing is that when trying to modernize older Valera language, in their mislead notions, commit common errors in exegesis and continuously fall prey to Semantic anachronism (reading a later use of the word back into earlier literature). It is obvious to any learned reader when examining the highly edited RVG text that Gomez frequently commits "sins" of interpretation.
The other fallacy that Valera Bible critics fall into is Semantic obsolescence. This occurs when on finds a word or phrase in older writings, and in this case the Valera Bible, and attempts to superimpose the meaning of that word or phrase onto later writing or our contemporary meaning. These pessimistic Valera Bible detractors, when overlooking Semantic obsolescence, fail to remember that a word or phrase in the Valera Bible had a meaning in earlier times which is no longer found within the live, semantic range of the word in our day. It is much more sound practice to determine what a word or phrase means in the era in which it is written. One begins studying a particular word or phrase by looking at its nuances in its original context and the surrounding literature to see how it was used by the normal speaker of the writer’s day. That becomes the semantic range for that word or phrase for that era (Not the Laodicean explanation). Sadly, every Valera Bible "corrector" appears to be blissfully unaware of these significant matters. I think this is grossly irresponsible, inexcusable ignorance and intellectual slothfulness.
May this generation, in some way, shape or form, learn to highly respect and value the genuine Valera Bible.