Spanish Bible

[Guest Guest]

Which Spanish Bible is the preserved Word of God?

Did the interpretaion come from the TR translation or the English KJV?

[Guest Guest]

Hi

I have been told that there isn't a Spanish Bible that comes from the Textus Receptus. It is sad. One of my friends is a native Spanish speaker and he finds he has to read his King James Bible. There is no Spanish translation as good as the King James Version.

katy-anne

[Jerry]

Maybe no one as good as the KJV - but the 1909 (or earlier) Reina-Valera is based on the TR. The 1960 adopts some critical text readings.

[sweetwaterdog]

[quote="Wildflower"]
Which Spanish Bible is the preserved Word of God?

Did the interpretaion come from the TR translation or the English KJV?
[/quote]

Cathy, this subject was covered extensively in the thread:

http://onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/ ... highlight=

The 1602 Reina Valera is probably the closest to the King James. There is an effort underway to "restore" it and the New Testament is available now. I'll send you a copy if you PM me your mailing address. They are still working on the Old Testament.

The 1909 is good but not wholly based on the TR despite claims to the contrary....usually from people who don't know a word of Spanish and are just parroting what they've heard elsewhere. The 1865 is truer to the TR but the language is "clunky" in terms of today's idiom....."clunkier" than the 17th century English of the King James.

[pneu-engine]

Hey SWD, glad to have you back. :D :D

Missed you there for a while. :(

[Guest Guest]

So why doesn't someone translated it from the TR to Spanish? Are there not any Christian linguits out there?

[sweetwaterdog]

[quote="Wildflower"]
So why doesn't someone translated it from the TR to Spanish? Are there not any Christian linguits out there?
[/quote]

I am aware of this one group in Mexico who are working to "restore" the 1602 Bible and bring it fully into alignment with the TR. I have been told that at least one other group is doing the same kind of work.

Here are some links where you can study the issues involved. It [i]is[/i] complex and there is a lot of emotion involved. These people working on such a project need our prayerful support.

http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/spanish_bible.htm

http://www.robertbreaker.com/honduras/h ... _issue.htm

[Guest Guest]

[quote]
The 1909 is good but not wholly based on the TR despite claims to the contrary....[i][u]usually from people who don't know a word of Spanish and are just parroting what they've heard elsewhere.[/u][/i] The 1865 is truer to the TR but the language is "clunky" in terms of today's idiom....."clunkier" than the 17th century English of the King James.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more.

The 1865 is not better than the 1909 or the 1960 if you desire to use the KJB as the ultimate standard. I have read several articles that show very clearly that Pratt (the man who worked on the 1865) was in fact influenced in a big way by the mss. that surfaced in his day. All Alexandrian.

The 1909 was an attempt to restore the TR readings that had been long laid aside.

The 1960 is still better then the 1865 by far. It aligns itself with the KJB some 40% more than the 1865.

Unfortunately, many still insist upon parroting their ignorance.

I believe we will see no progress in the issue until the spanish speaking pastors believe there is a problem. The american Christian who is a KJB advocate has done much to harm the progress. He insists that the spanish Bible align itself with the KJB, then others yet claim it must be in accord with the TR. The spanish pastor who has done his homework, knows that his 1909, his 1960 are in fact TR based Bibles. Yet the american Christian continues to spread alarm and false claims.

Just because the 1909 or the 1960 do not line up word for word, does not mean they are not faithful TR based foriegn Bibles.

Are there readings that need to be changed? I would have to say yes. Are american Christians the ones who should do this work? I would have to say no.
Face it, the Lord God has not laid his hand upon any american attempt to "give the spanish world a Bible". What he has done, in spite of what we think he ought to have done is bless the 1960 beyond what any man could do. This Bible has brought great revival, great numbers to Christ and has established thousands of IFB churches in the spanish speaking world. Something the 1865 never did. Or for that matter the 1602.

When the Lord does the same with Robert Breaker, James Pitts, MkVey, Parker Memorial, David Waite, then we will have to say, amen. Until then, it would be best to continue to use the weapon of choice. God's choice, not mine.

I know, I know, I am just some lousy trouble maker who doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Hopelchen"]
The spanish pastor who has done his homework, knows that his 1909, his 1960 are in fact TR based Bibles. Yet the american Christian continues to spread alarm and false claims.
[/quote] Mark 1:2 "Como está escrito en [i][b][u]Isaías[/u] el profeta[/b][/i]: He aquí yo envío á mi mensajero delante de tu faz, Que apareje tu camino delante de ti."

The reading "Isaias el profeta" is found [i][b]only[/b][/i] in the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate based on the partially corrected Alexandrian manuscripts usually called "Western" texts.

It is, in my opinion, an error to claim the RV is based solely on the TR. It is much more likely based on many texts available to de Reina at that time including the Alexandrian texts. The only Spanish bible that consistently follows the TR is the 1543 Enzinas text and that is so archaic that it is almost impossible for a contemporary Spanish speaker to understand it. It is written in old Castilian which was the predecessor to modern Spanish.

However, it must also be noted that Casiodoro de Reina stated in his introduction to the 1569 Bible: "First, we declare that we have not followed at all the old Latin translation (Vulgate), which is in common use, in this translation because, even though its authority, in view of its antiquity, may be great, it does not excuse the many errors that it contains; straying often from the true Hebrew text and in other places, adding, transposing...Therefore, in order to give you the pure Word of God as much as is possible, it was necessary that this (the Vulgate) not be our common rule. . . . The Latin Version adds without authority of the Greek Text, and we would not tolerate this."

So, it would appear that de Reina used a text other than the TR in some places in his 1569 edition and those differences were carried forward to the RV 1602, 1909 and 1960 editions.
[quote]
Just because the 1909 or the 1960 do not line up word for word, does not mean they are not faithful TR based foreign Bibles.
[/quote] For the most part you are correct. In fact many Spanish speakers will attest to the fact that the Spanish RV has wording that is even better than the KJV in places, largely due to the fact that both Spanish and Greek are Synthetic languages and English is an Analytical language so Greek translates into Spanish better than into English. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the KJV, only that it is easier to translate from Greek to Spanish than from Greek to English.[quote]
Are there readings that need to be changed? I would have to say yes.
[/quote] Some, yes, but a lot fewer that most people think.[quote]
Are american Christians the ones who should do this work? I would have to say no.
[/quote] Again, I agree. The Spanish Bible is the responsibility of the Spanish speaking church, not a bunch of gringos who can't say more than "hola" in Spanish![quote]
Face it, the Lord God has not laid his hand upon any american attempt to "give the spanish world a Bible". What he has done, in spite of what we think he ought to have done is bless the 1960 beyond what any man could do. This Bible has brought great revival, great numbers to Christ and has established thousands of IFB churches in the spanish speaking world. Something the 1865 never did. Or for that matter the 1602.
[/quote] I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it![quote]
When the Lord does the same with Robert Breaker, James Pitts, MkVey, Parker Memorial, David Waite, then we will have to say, amen. Until then, it would be best to continue to use the weapon of choice. God's choice, not mine.
[/quote] Amen! And notice there isn't a Gonzales, Rodriguez, or De La Mora in that list of names! :)[quote]
I know, I know, I am just some lousy trouble maker who doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground.
[/quote] Maybe so but you seem to have a good handle on the Spanish bible issue! :D

[Guest Guest]

Doctor Cassady said,

[quote]
Mark 1:2 "Como está escrito en Isaías el profeta: He aquí yo envío á mi mensajero delante de tu faz, Que apareje tu camino delante de ti."

The reading "Isaias el profeta" is found only in the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate based on the partially corrected Alexandrian manuscripts usually called "Western" texts.

[u]It is, in my opinion, an error to claim the RV is based solely on the TR. [/u]
[/quote]

I would also have to agree with any one claiming that the R/V is "based solely on the TR" has stated an error.
For that reason I call your attention to my actual words. I said "based", which as I understand to have as its foundation a TR text.

As far as the Enzinas of 1500's it was only ever a New Testament, as the OT was never done. As far as the "Castillano" style of Spanish, the truth is that the 1909 and the 1960 are fair examples of that style of Spanish. When I read the Bible in Spanish, I am aware of its majesty, its careful wording, its poetic and fluent style that lends to easy memorization. It is very rythmic, very "strofa" in its style.

I read (past tense) the New Testament of the 1865 and I found it very stilted, very stiff, very hard for its lack of reflexive verbs.

But any ways. I know enough about the Spanish issue to know that we better let God handle it for now. Even very non Ruckamintes are now embracing the KJB extremist view. Though they do it in ignorance.

I can't honestly say if I would favor another revision at this time. Even being aware of the failings, as you said they are much fewer in number than folks think, I would hesitate to get on board with any one claiming to give us a "perfect" Bible in Spanish. I am still not convinced we don't have one. :|

Que Dios le bendiga,

Pastor in Mexico.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Hopelchen"]
As far as the Enzinas of 1500's it was only ever a New Testament, as the OT was never done.
[/quote]
I know. I have one. But it reads even harder than the later versions. And has just as many doubtful readings as any other version. It is not the "perfect bible in Spanish" many people try to claim it to be.
[quote]
I read (past tense) the New Testament of the 1865 and I found it very stilted, very stiff, very hard for its lack of reflexive verbs.
[/quote]
As I understand the history of the 1865 it was the work of an American Presbyterian Missionary to Columbia named Pratt who was not a native Spanish speaker and, as with most English speakers, didn't fully understand reflexive verbs. The original draft of 1861 was so bad the publishers, the American Bible Society, called in a man from Spain, Angel Mora, who was a native Spanish speaker to revise the first draft and make it more readable. As I understand it, he did not have sufficient time to do the kind of job that was really necessary because the new version was scheduled to go to press in 1864 and to be in the book stores in 1865. (By the way, I have tried to find information on Mr. Mora but have not been able to find much. The reason I would like to know more about him is that my grandfather's name was Francisco De La Mora. He and his parents moved from Castilla to Durango, Durango, Mexico in the 1880s and established a rather large cattle ranch. I have often wondered if there was some family relationship.)
[quote]
But any ways. I know enough about the Spanish issue to know that we better let God handle it for now. Even very non Ruckamintes are now embracing the KJB extremist view. Though they do it in ignorance.
[/quote]
Amen!
[quote]
I can't honestly say if I would favor another revision at this time. Even being aware of the failings, as you said they are much fewer in number than folks think, I would hesitate to get on board with any one claiming to give us a "perfect" Bible in Spanish. I am still not convinced we don't have one.
[/quote]
I agree. Let's win the Spanish speaking world to Christ with the tools God has given us and let the nay-sayers stay on the porch and complain about it. :)
[quote]
Que Dios le bendiga,
[/quote]
And may God richly bless you and yours too. :)

[Guest Guest]

It would be intersting to see if you were relatde to Mora. Until now, I had never heard of him. Pratt yes, Dr T Holland mentions him as taking the spanish Bible back to the alexandrian mss. But I have never seen any proof for that. Dr Holland never responded to my e mails as to the source of his info, although his comparison chart was pretty thorough.

Calvin George sent me a letter a while back that seemed to indicate that the 1865 was an attempt to make it align with the KJB. But it was a short quote, so as for the context I couldn't say.

En todas maneras, it has been nice meeting you. Maybe some day when I am in San Diego we can have coffee. Although I must say, I would avoid all topics of Calvinism with you so that we might part friends. :mrgreen:

God bless.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Hopelchen"]
It would be intersting to see if you were relatde to Mora. Until now, I had never heard of him. Pratt yes, Dr T Holland mentions him as taking the spanish Bible back to the alexandrian mss. But I have never seen any proof for that. Dr Holland never responded to my e mails as to the source of his info, although his comparison chart was pretty thorough.
[/quote]
I'll give Tom a call and ask him. If you have his book "Crowned With Glory" look at the recommendations and you will see my blurb at the very top. Tom is a pretty thorough researcher and I have found that most of the time his information is quite accurate.
[quote]
Calvin George sent me a letter a while back that seemed to indicate that the 1865 was an attempt to make it align with the KJB. But it was a short quote, so as for the context I couldn't say.
[/quote]
I have chatted with Brother Calvin on several occasions too and he seems to have a pretty good handle on the issue. I will ask him if he has more information the next time I talk to him.
[quote]
En todas maneras, it has been nice meeting you. Maybe some day when I am in San Diego we can have coffee. Although I must say, I would avoid all topics of Calvinism with you so that we might part friends.
[/quote]
LOL! I see! "In all ways" except the subject of Calvinism! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't tell anybody, this is just between you and me, but I am not a Calvinist. I just like to educate people on subjects they think they are experts in but, in reality, don't know anything about. :D :D

[Jerry]

[quote="DocCas"]
Don't tell anybody, this is just between you and me, but I am not a Calvinist. I just like to educate people on subjects they think they are experts in but, in reality, don't know anything about.
[/quote]

Yes, he is - he just doesn't like anyone calling him that. He prefers to identify himself as believing in [i]"particular redemption"[/i] (according to his other posts on this MB), which is [b]Calvinism [/b]by whatever color you want to paint it.

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Jerry"]
Yes, he is - he just doesn't like anyone calling him that. He prefers to identify himself as believing in [i]"particular redemption"[/i] (according to his other posts on this MB), which is [b]Calvinism [/b]by whatever color you want to paint it.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, Jerry, but once again you have shown that you just don't know what you are talking about.

I am not a Calvinist. I have never been Calvinist. I am a Baptist. Historic, Particular, Fundamental, standing in the Baptist faith that has been handed down from generation to generation based solely on God's inspired, infallible, word. I am so sorry that you are so offended by the fact that I am a Baptist and actually know what Baptists have believed and taught right from the beginning. But that is just the way it is.

Why not just let it go? All this animosity is eating you up.