New Spanish King James Bible

Dedicated Mind · #1 06-16-2011, 06:42 AM

The Reina Valera Gomez is a new spanish revision of the traditional Reina Valera bible that relies solely on the textus receptus and not the critical texts like the reina valera. It has the luxury of having the english king james to help in correcting the spanish version. Here is a chart comparing 220 RVG verses with the king james and various reina valera versions.

http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/node/38

Here is an article critical of the RVG, notice the personal attack and lack of focus on the actual revision.

http://en.literaturabautista.com/fil...lera-Gomez.pdf

Here is an article in support of the RVG.

http://wcbible.org/documents/rvgomez.pdf

can you help spread the word to spanish speaking friends?

seguidordejesus · #2 06-16-2011, 07:25 AM

This is cool, but I don't care for the idea of them using the King James to "correct" errors. I have used the RV many times in conjunction with the KJV to clarify meaning of vague words in the KJV. Thanks for the news.

Dedicated Mind · #3 06-16-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

This is cool, but I don't care for the idea of them using the King James to "correct" errors. I have used the RV many times in conjunction with the KJV to clarify meaning of vague words in the KJV. Thanks for the news.

glad to be of service sdj. the rv is a newer version than the king james, so it is understandable that you can use it to clarify, but the rv uses critical texts in its translation and can change the meaning of some verses as demonstrated by the chart. I personally am excited about this version. I hope it retains the best of both the rv and the kjv.

seguidordejesus · #4 06-16-2011, 02:47 PM

I wasn't aware that it used critical texts before now, so perhaps that's a good thing. Thanks again.

Dedicated Mind · #5 06-17-2011, 02:36 PM

the 1602 purified bible might be better than the reina valera gomez bible. still researching.

Dedicated Mind · #6 06-17-2011, 04:10 PM

I found that the 1602 purified uses old castilian instead of the modern spanish like the rv and the rvg. the 1602p uses lord instead of jehova in the ot and palabra instead of verbo in john 1. I think both versions are better than the rv 1960 but would use the gomez for its use of modern spanish.

seguidordejesus · #7 06-17-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I found that the 1602 purified uses old castilian instead of the modern spanish like the rv and the rvg. the 1602p uses lord instead of jehova in the ot and palabra instead of verbo in john 1. I think both versions are better than the rv 1960 but would use the gomez for its use of modern spanish.

Now that IS interesting.

Dedicated Mind · #8 06-17-2011, 09:40 PM

the one verse from the 1602p that I don't like is col 2:9. the 1602p uses divinidad while the rvg uses deidad.

Redenegue · #9 12-01-2011, 06:38 AM

I have been looking for a Spanish Bible. There is a lot of controversy over which one is the correct translation. The fact is, there is no "correct" translation of the Bible anywhere. Even the KJV has errors. The thing to keep in mind, is what the story is all about. If something does not fit the story, then you need to beware. I think the use of either the Gomez, 1865, or Monterrey versions would be satisfactory. Be sure to avoid the Catholic oriented ones. Nit-picking on exact words used for translation is a waste of time. Also, translation is not a word for word exchange. Anyone who understands translation, will tell you that the meaning of the translation is more important than exact word for word translation. I heard, I can not verify this, that once a minister translated white as snow, as sheep's wool for some Africans. It seems they never saw or understood what snow was. So, how do you convey understanding? This minister was correct. Even the worst of translations, still have the truth. You can not read a single verse of the Bible and create a religion. You have to read the whole thing. Remember too, that the men of the Bible quoted scripture not in our KJV. It was gospel for them, is it gospel for you? Furthermore, why did it take God over 1600 years to come up with a canon of the Bible? How were people saved during this time? They certainly did not have a book to argue over. The only real canon was the Old Testament compiled by the Jews. The fact is, that Jesus taught salvation from the Old Testament. So, prove to me you even need the NT! The NT has value, but the real value is that it is a witness of men for Christ. And these men did not agree with each other. But, they did not go off and start different branches of a church just because they had some differences. Peter and Paul were very different in their conduct as Christians but they were friends, respected each other and apparently died together.

FlamingZword · #10 12-04-2011, 12:57 AM

The Bible translations wars have been going on for centuries.

There is not translation that will ever satisfy 100% of the people.
Every translation has its defenders and detractors.
Whether it be in English or Spanish, or any other language.

For all those who adore the KJV 1611, I would like to ask a few simple questions,
Paul, Peter and all the Saints up to before the 1611 did not have the KJV, were they not saved?
(It is kind of hard to belive that for one thousand and six hundreth years no one was saved.)
What about the saints who do not understand a lick of English, are they not saved since they do not have the KJV?
Come on the KJV was created in 1611, did they have all knowledge at that point, were there no more Biblical discoveries and learning after that?

I could go on, but these questions should give some KJV worshipers something to think about.
I have written a 100 questions study about the KJV in my website, if anyone cares to learn more.