Problems with the Spanish GRV
Posted: 26 May 2014, 22:39While the Gomez Spanish Version is probably the best Spanish Bible that there now is, yet there are some serious problems involved with it.
1. It rejects the King James Bible is the final form of the received text.
They write, “First of all, the objective of the RVG project has not been to conform it to all the wording of the KJV.”
Textually and translationally it does not fully exactly, word-for-word, sense-for-sense match up to the King James Bible.
2. It rejects that it is perfect. (Not that the Word of God is imperfect, but that the version-text and translation are, or at least might be, imperfect.)
Dr Waite says, “Dr. Gomez knows that there might be places in his translation where further correction is needed, and he is humble enough and honest enough to welcome suggestions in this regard from whatever quarters. When such suggestions are received, I am certain that Dr. Gomez will weigh them carefully, and if he feels they have merit, he will make the changes in his next printing.”
Dr Gomez himself wrote, “But here it is for you to read and examine; if you can find anything in it, that is not Textus Receptus, or if you can find anything that is not written in a good and perfect Spanish, we will immediately correct it, for the good of our people and for the glory of the Lord. If any of you come up with a revision that proves to be better than ours, more perfect, more accurate, we will move aside and rally around it because this issue is not about me, or you.”
And again, “In our opinion, our Bible is perfect and ready to be preached from. However, we have an open heart and mind: If a godly person has an opinion regarding the text or grammar, we will take it into serious consideration because we want the best for our people."
3. It has the wrong standard for perfection. Version-text perfection is not found in any extant edition of the Textus Receptus. Translational perfection is not found in any Bible but the King James Bible. While it is good that there is a movement toward the final form of the received text, and toward the sense of the Scripture as presented by the King James Bible, there is no absolute concordance between the Spanish and the English, because it would seem that the Spanish is incapable of total perfection. In other words (and this is no triumphalist or jingoist claim) God has set up the English language as the medium for getting the final form of His Word to the world. While we cannot deny that the Bible is in Spanish, just as it is in many English Bible versions (e.g. Geneva, etc.), we do see that one Version reigns supreme, and that one has the supersuccessionary power above them all. Therefore, perfection would be in having the King James Bible itself come to the folk of Spanish nations.
4. It is not fully in line with the providentially appointed movement that is setting up English as the global language. That is, that time, money and resources have been and are expended on a project which is less than what could be, namely, teaching the natives and foreigners English in line with the King James Bible. The point of this is because the perfect King James Bible should be then believed upon in the world. However, now that the Gomez Version exists, it might be acceptable to use it and the parallel King James Bible to help such people to learn the English.
5. The Gomez Spanish Version is based on a faulty view of the history of the King James Bible.
They state, “Besides, if the KJV went through a purifying process, and did between 1611 and 1769, why shouldn't the RVG or any other Bible?”
The purification process of the King James Bible, which did not end in 1769, was to deal with internal issues, such as typographical errors, standardisation of the spelling and so on, NOT textual or translational so-called “errors”. It is quite proper for people to do that kind of correcting in any work, but it is clear that Gomez and others are speaking of correcting textual and translational errors.
Also, while Gomez’ work is validly called a Bible, and Scripture, yet in the primary manifestation, the prophecy of seven purifications has been chiefly and providentially intended in the English Bible, not in just “any other Bible”. In other words, total purity, flawlessness, perfection and so on would seem to be impossible to achieve for the Spanish Bible, in that such a state of things is already manifested in the English Bible.
6. This Spanish Bible is new. The King James Bible is old. It is better to receive from tradition, and to know its course. Since Spanish is not the pure language of Zephaniah 3:9, the Spanish Bible does not seem to have the endurance to go forth in power.
7. The Gomez Spanish Version is not exactly in line with the providential attitude of Edward Hills.
Dr Hills wrote of the universal priesthood of believers. At the moment, there is no general consensus, but that of what appears to support that English should become known throughout the world, at least as a second language, and that the King James Bible has been so much already spread abroad and is linked with the highest form of Christianity (yes, the best doctrines since the days of King Henry VIII have always come forth from English-speakers). At the moment, a faction of people may be inclined to use the GSV, however, it is better to support the KJB for the countries where they have been speaking Spanish, because this latter design would seem to be the long term way for numerous natural and spiritual reasons, including that this is growing in universality of true believers. (That Gomez moved the Spanish toward the KJB shows that, in fact, the authority actually is the KJB, and that the true universality actually regards the KJB, so the idea of having the Word yet in Spanish becomes like the idea of using the Geneva Version today, that is, all these things are superseded by the King James Bible.)
Secondly, Hills suggested that a revision of the King James Bible might take place. However, he was uncertain on this, and would rather defer to providence, and create an environment for acting according to that providence as concerning these issues. Since the King James Bible is being recognised now (at least by some) as not just an independent form, but the final form, of the received text, and in line with other factors mentioned above, it would be better to lay hold on the King James Bible as it is, and maintain, keep and protect it, and bring it forward as is to the “many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” (Revelation 10:11b).
1. It rejects the King James Bible is the final form of the received text.
They write, “First of all, the objective of the RVG project has not been to conform it to all the wording of the KJV.”
Textually and translationally it does not fully exactly, word-for-word, sense-for-sense match up to the King James Bible.
2. It rejects that it is perfect. (Not that the Word of God is imperfect, but that the version-text and translation are, or at least might be, imperfect.)
Dr Waite says, “Dr. Gomez knows that there might be places in his translation where further correction is needed, and he is humble enough and honest enough to welcome suggestions in this regard from whatever quarters. When such suggestions are received, I am certain that Dr. Gomez will weigh them carefully, and if he feels they have merit, he will make the changes in his next printing.”
Dr Gomez himself wrote, “But here it is for you to read and examine; if you can find anything in it, that is not Textus Receptus, or if you can find anything that is not written in a good and perfect Spanish, we will immediately correct it, for the good of our people and for the glory of the Lord. If any of you come up with a revision that proves to be better than ours, more perfect, more accurate, we will move aside and rally around it because this issue is not about me, or you.”
And again, “In our opinion, our Bible is perfect and ready to be preached from. However, we have an open heart and mind: If a godly person has an opinion regarding the text or grammar, we will take it into serious consideration because we want the best for our people."
3. It has the wrong standard for perfection. Version-text perfection is not found in any extant edition of the Textus Receptus. Translational perfection is not found in any Bible but the King James Bible. While it is good that there is a movement toward the final form of the received text, and toward the sense of the Scripture as presented by the King James Bible, there is no absolute concordance between the Spanish and the English, because it would seem that the Spanish is incapable of total perfection. In other words (and this is no triumphalist or jingoist claim) God has set up the English language as the medium for getting the final form of His Word to the world. While we cannot deny that the Bible is in Spanish, just as it is in many English Bible versions (e.g. Geneva, etc.), we do see that one Version reigns supreme, and that one has the supersuccessionary power above them all. Therefore, perfection would be in having the King James Bible itself come to the folk of Spanish nations.
4. It is not fully in line with the providentially appointed movement that is setting up English as the global language. That is, that time, money and resources have been and are expended on a project which is less than what could be, namely, teaching the natives and foreigners English in line with the King James Bible. The point of this is because the perfect King James Bible should be then believed upon in the world. However, now that the Gomez Version exists, it might be acceptable to use it and the parallel King James Bible to help such people to learn the English.
5. The Gomez Spanish Version is based on a faulty view of the history of the King James Bible.
They state, “Besides, if the KJV went through a purifying process, and did between 1611 and 1769, why shouldn't the RVG or any other Bible?”
The purification process of the King James Bible, which did not end in 1769, was to deal with internal issues, such as typographical errors, standardisation of the spelling and so on, NOT textual or translational so-called “errors”. It is quite proper for people to do that kind of correcting in any work, but it is clear that Gomez and others are speaking of correcting textual and translational errors.
Also, while Gomez’ work is validly called a Bible, and Scripture, yet in the primary manifestation, the prophecy of seven purifications has been chiefly and providentially intended in the English Bible, not in just “any other Bible”. In other words, total purity, flawlessness, perfection and so on would seem to be impossible to achieve for the Spanish Bible, in that such a state of things is already manifested in the English Bible.
6. This Spanish Bible is new. The King James Bible is old. It is better to receive from tradition, and to know its course. Since Spanish is not the pure language of Zephaniah 3:9, the Spanish Bible does not seem to have the endurance to go forth in power.
7. The Gomez Spanish Version is not exactly in line with the providential attitude of Edward Hills.
Dr Hills wrote of the universal priesthood of believers. At the moment, there is no general consensus, but that of what appears to support that English should become known throughout the world, at least as a second language, and that the King James Bible has been so much already spread abroad and is linked with the highest form of Christianity (yes, the best doctrines since the days of King Henry VIII have always come forth from English-speakers). At the moment, a faction of people may be inclined to use the GSV, however, it is better to support the KJB for the countries where they have been speaking Spanish, because this latter design would seem to be the long term way for numerous natural and spiritual reasons, including that this is growing in universality of true believers. (That Gomez moved the Spanish toward the KJB shows that, in fact, the authority actually is the KJB, and that the true universality actually regards the KJB, so the idea of having the Word yet in Spanish becomes like the idea of using the Geneva Version today, that is, all these things are superseded by the King James Bible.)
Secondly, Hills suggested that a revision of the King James Bible might take place. However, he was uncertain on this, and would rather defer to providence, and create an environment for acting according to that providence as concerning these issues. Since the King James Bible is being recognised now (at least by some) as not just an independent form, but the final form, of the received text, and in line with other factors mentioned above, it would be better to lay hold on the King James Bible as it is, and maintain, keep and protect it, and bring it forward as is to the “many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” (Revelation 10:11b).