It is often suggested that the Gomez Bible (called «Reina Valera Gomez» by the publishers) is better than the «queen» of Bibles in Spanish, the Reina Valera 1960. While such claims are subject to criticism and careful consideration, there are a few ways that one could say that the Gomez is «better» than the Reina Valera 1960
The Gomez Bible has fewer Critical Text readings than the Reina Valera 1960
It is true that the Gomez Bible contains fewer readings based on the Critical Text than the Reina Valera 1960 contains. This is because, as far as the editorial process is understood, the individuals who contributed to the Gomez Bible made sure to check all of those various Bible verse comparison lists to make sure that their version didn’t fall afoul of men like Rex Cobb (Spanish link) or D. A. Waite (mentioned, no link to source) and their pre-selected lists of Bible verses to compare. Of course neither Waite nor Cobb speak Spanish, and even worse, apparently none of the Gomez Bible editors know enough Greek to make a reasoned investigation, which makes their «Received Text» claims completely baseless.
Obviously the Gomez Bible doesn’t make the same easily identified gaffes as the Reina Valera 1960, such as Matthew 5:22 in omitting the phrase «sin razón» («without a cause»), or calling Jesus’s blood «del Señor» («of the Lord») instead of «de Dios» («of God»), nor does the Gomez Bible follow the Critical Text in Revelation 22:14 in saying «lavan sus ropas» («wash their robes/clothes») instead of «guardan sus mandamientos» («keep his commandments»). But those examples are on every list of verses to compare published by every King James Bible believer since the polemic started.
Due to their lack of understanding of Greek, the Gomez Bible editors committed other errors and maintained other Critical Text readings that existed already in the Reina Valera Antigua, also known as the 1909, upon which the Gomez Bible was based. A detailed search of Critical Text readings in the Reina Valera 1960, Matthew chapters 1 through 5, done by comparing all variants in the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition Critical Apparatus uncovered 18 places where the 1960 follows the Critical Text instead of the Textus Receptus. However, in that same space of five chapters, the Gomez Bible follows the Critical Text thirteen times, including one reading where the 1960 actually reads along with the TR and the Gomez Bible doesn’t (Matthew 5:32).
What’s worse, is that those changes were introduced into the Gomez text despite NOT being in the 1909, with the two exceptions: Matthew 1:23 where the 1862, 1909, 1960, and Gomez Bible all say «llamarás» («thou shalt call») instead of «llamarán» («they shall call»), the reading in the Reina Valera 1865 and the King James Bible. The other exception is the very next verse, Matthew 1:24, where the Critical Text, the 1862, 1909, 1960, and the Gomez Bible all have the word «despertando» («waking/rising») in the active voice, whereas the Textus Receptus, Reina Valera 1865, and the King James Bible all have it in the passive voice, «despertado» («being wakened/raised»). It’s the little foxes that spoil the vines, remember?
So, in five chapters, the Gomez Bible has 23% fewer Critical Text readings than the Reina Valera 1960, and all but two of those readings was introduced into the text during the editorial process. Is that really the kind of reliability and dependability one expects from a so-called «Received Text Bible»? Full results will be published when the research is complete.
The Gomez Bible capitalizes pronouns referring to the Deity and the Reina Valera 1960 does not
In a certain manner of speaking, and according to the opinions of some, it would be a benefit to have pronouns referring to God capitalized both out of respect and to clarify certain passages where the subject/object relationship is unclear. In English several versions have helpfully capitalized pronouns referring to God, such as the Amplified Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the Modern English Version, NASB, and NKJV. Of course the King James Bible, which the Gomez Bible editors profess to believe, did no such thing, and neither did any of the predecesor Bibles (1569, 1602, 1862, 1909, 1960) in Spanish.
Despite their overwhelming piety, the Gomez Bible editors missed a few spots. As pointed out by the late Dr. Jeff McArdle (earned doctorate, by the way):
One of the changes made to the text was the capitalization of personal pronouns referring to Deity, exactly as they did with the NKJV! An example of this is the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. How very pious! But Señor Gomez NEVER took into consideration the unintended consequences of these unnecessary changes. By capitalizing the word he (él in Spanish) throughout the Bible, he left uncapitalized DOZENS of passages referring to Christ, leaving the Spanish reader confused as to Christ’s Deity! What a mess!
Dr. McArdle proceeds to indicate the prophetic error created in Genesis 49:10 by forgetting to capitalize the pronouns referring to Christ, «SILOH», the bringer of Peace that would come from the tribe of Judah. Apparently Bro. Gomez and the rest of the editorial board decided that Genesis 49:10 isn’t actually referring to Christ, OR they made a grave mistake and should instead market their version as the «New King James in Spanish» to be more honest. To clarify, in case someone wanted to lie about our position, it was an ERROR to capitalize pronouns in the Spanish Bible, just like it would be to reprint the King James Bible and change the capitalization rules.
The Gomez Bible calls Mary Joseph’s «esposa» (wife) instead of «mujer» (woman) like the Reina Valera 1960
One of the various complaints lodged against existing Spanish Bibles by the various groups that then went off and created their own versions is that Matthew 1:20 refers to Mary as «tu mujer» («thy woman») instead of «tu esposa» («thy wife»). Now the average English speaker that has never learned a second language to any level of fluency will assume that this is a serious problem, either insinuating some sort of extra-marital relationship or disrespect. Of course a native Spanish speaker, or a fluent Spanish speaker like the current author, knows that «mujer» can be a woman, a wife, or in this case, a betrothed.
The American influenced Mexicans behind the Gomez Bible didn’t like the use of the word «mujer» in every single Spanish Bible preceding the Gomez Bible, and they apparently felt their understanding of Spanish grammar to be superior to that of Casiodoro de Reina, Cipriano de Valera, Lorenzo Lucerna Pedrosa (1862), Dr. Ángel Herreros de Mora (1865), the BFBS/ABS committee behind the 1909, and the ABS committee behind the 1960, and changed the word to «esposa» (wife).
There’s just one small (or not so small) problem with that: in the Spanish Bible, the word «mujer» is more flexible and includes the espousal relationship, while «esposa» only refers to the woman after being wedded. In so many words, calling Mary Joseph’s «esposa» attacks the virgin birth of Jesus Christ by implying that they had already consummated their marriage relationship. I suppose de Reina, de Valera, Lucerna, de Mora, and the BFBS and ABS linguists understood that, but Bro. Gomez thought he knew better.
So, if you’re ok with attacks against the virgin birth, the Gomez Bible is «better» than the Reina Valera 1960, because not even that Alexandrian perversion was bold enough to commit this gross error.
Conclusion
Basically, if you want a Spanish Bible that is somewhat better in certain ways than the Reina Valera 1960, by all means get a Gomez Bible. Every little bit counts, right? But, if you’re interested in an actual Philadelphian church era Reformation text Spanish Bible, published before the advent of modern textual criticism, you’re already in the right place. Allow us to introduce you to the Reina Valera 1865, the last Philadelphian-era Spanish Bible, responsible for the closest thing to a «Great Awakening» ever experienced in Latin America, and (we believe) the final Bible God gave to the Spanish Speaking world.