Is this the correct position on the Spanish Bible?

[Logos1560]

The Bible translation issue involves more than just the KJV. Believers who speak other languages can be affected by this issue. Here are some quotations from a book I recently read that demonstrate this.

In his book entitled THE BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, Jeff McArdle wrote: "There is only one correct position to start from when dealing with Spanish Bibles. The correct position is this: If the King James Bible is superior to even the Greek text in regards to omissions and additions (and by 'the Greek text' we mean any Greek NT extant), then certainly it is superior to any Spanish Bible" (p. 18).

McArdle added: "as one brother once pointed out, 'If the King James can correct the Greek, it can certainly correct the Spanish'" (p. 18).

Jeff McArdle asserted that "the KJV should be the standard also for Latin Americans" (p. 21).

McArdle wrote: "the standard Bible not just for the English-speaking world, but also for the Spanish-speaking world, was, is, and always will be the King James Bible" (p. 76).

McArdle maintained that "the King James Bible must be the standard Book by which any Spanish Bible is judged" (p. 78).

McArdle wrote: "the obvious truth is that there would be no controversy over the Spanish Bible if it weren't for the English Bible" (p. 9).

Do the Scriptures actually teach that this man's position is the correct position on the Spanish Bible?

[twistedsketch]

They're all Catholics anyway, so they use heathern Catholic Bibles. :P

Boy, this debate has gotten ridiculous. You'd think fundamentalists would want to focus on useful things like how to reach the lost.

[arunma]

They're all Catholics anyway, so they use heathern Catholic Bibles. :P

Boy, this debate has gotten ridiculous. You'd think fundamentalists would want to focus on useful things like how to reach the lost.

Personally I think it's important to address this issue. KJV-onlyism is a lie. And it sets a bad precedent for us to start compromising with lies. While I love our brethren who have succombed to this falsehood, I don't think there should be room in the church for KJV-onlyism to be taken seriously.

But you are absolutely right. Reaching the lost is the mission of the church. As such, I wonder why people waste time inventing doctrines like KJV-onlyism, drinking/dancing prohibitions, etc.

[B®ent]

I believe the KJV to be the most literal, honest translation available in the English language. Yes, it is feasible that another trustworthy translation could be produced; however, I do not believe this has been accomplished yet. (With possible exception to the KJ3-Literal Translation). Therefore, KJV is the Bible upon which I rely for personal study and teaching.

Interestingly, the KJV translators compared their work to other texts, including the Reina-Valera Version, which is a Spanish translation of the Bible. Spanish-speaking Fundamentalists view the Reina-Valera Version as the Authorized Version in the Spanish language.

[No Swansong]

They're all Catholics anyway, so they use heathern Catholic Bibles. :P

Boy, this debate has gotten ridiculous. You'd think fundamentalists would want to focus on useful things like how to reach the lost.
I couldn't agree more.

[No Swansong]

Personally I think it's important to address this issue. KJV-onlyism is a lie. And it sets a bad precedent for us to start compromising with lies. While I love our brethren who have succombed to this falsehood, I don't think there should be room in the church for KJV-onlyism to be taken seriously.

But you are absolutely right. Reaching the lost is the mission of the church. As such, I wonder why people waste time inventing doctrines like KJV-onlyism, drinking/dancing prohibitions, etc.
I think using the word lie is a bit harsh. This of course implies that those who take an educated KJO stance are purposely involved in perpetuating a known falsehood. I do not believe that most KJO people I have ever met believe they are perpetuating a falsehood. I would also point out that most KJO people I know; know the Bible much better than most of those who aren't. This is getting to be ridiculous in my opinion. There hasn't been a KJO issue on this board for quite some time and it is getting tiresome watching them "dragged" into debate after debate.

I'm leaving to wash my dishes now.

[Logos1560]

Interestingly, the KJV translators compared their work to other texts, including the Reina-Valera Version, which is a Spanish translation of the Bible. Spanish-speaking Fundamentalists view the Reina-Valera Version as the Authorized Version in the Spanish language.

The KJV translators did mention the Spanish Bible in their 1611 preface as one of the translations they consulted. They could have had the 1569 Spanish Bible by Reina or the 1602 Valera Spanish Bible [Valera's revision of the 1569) or both.

In his chapter ten entitled "The RV1960 Revision Based on the Critical Text," Jeff McArdle claimed: "The RV1960 Bible is probably the worst Bible ever produced with the name Reina-Valera on it" (Bible Believer's Guide to Elephant Hunting, p. 66). McArdle also claimed: "The RV1909 and RV1960 both represent an attempt to destroy the original 1602 Valera and bring it in line with the work of the 1881 English revision committee" (p. 69). McArdle added: "Both Bibles were produced in the Laodicean church age after the Alexandrian cult had taken control of the schools and universities" (p. 69).

McArdle wrote: "If they truly believe the King James Bible--and they all profess to believe it--then why do they have anything to do with an RV1960, which is documented to read against the King James Bible in hundreds of places" (p. 8).

McArdle admitted: "The RV1960 is the Spanish Bible that is most readily available. Just about any bookstore carries the RV1960 and 90% of the Spanish Bibles used today are RV1960's" (p. 7).

McArdle's book is not the only KJV-only book that attacks the present Spanish Bible. Mickey Carter, another KJV-only author, edited a book critical of the 1960 Spanish Bible that includes chapters by other leading KJV-only authors such as Gail Riplinger and David Cloud.

[mothcorrupteth]

According to my sources, RV1909 is the last "acceptable" revision, and I must admit, it's better than at least the Nueva Versión Internacional (published by Zondervan), the other translation I have, but I can't vouch for it over the slew of other Spanish translations I'm probably not even aware of.

[twistedsketch]

I couldn't agree more.

The other half of this of course, is the KJV-onlyists that spend more time trying to spread KJV-onlyism than reaching the lost.

[TwinCrier]

La traducción de la biblia del corecto de la palabra del dios para la gente de habla hispana es Santa Biblia Reina Valera Revisada. Sin embargo, no dudo que el poste original no buscaba verdad una biblia española de la lengua, pero lo estoy intentando simplemente desacreditar a los que sostengan que el rey James 1611 es la palabra del dios infalible inspirada.

[cubanito]

Por favor, si van ecribir mi lengua nativa, apre'ndanla. Abochorna el atento.

Trans: if you're going to write in my native toungue, learn how to do it. The attempt is embarrasing.

As for me, I basically agree w logos, but the non-stop multithreaded conversation is tiresome. I don't read any of the Spanish translations because, while it is my native toungue, the old version uses even more archaic Spanish than the KJV english (to my eyes) and the newer versions are not as widely available. Plus I've not the willingness to research the matter.

When it comes to woodenly literal translations, I'll match my fav NASB against anything out there in English.

JR

[No Swansong]

The other half of this of course, is the KJV-onlyists that spend more time trying to spread KJV-onlyism than reaching the lost.
I repeat my earlier assertion that at least on this forum there had not been a KJO thread for quite some time and the ones that have been posted recently have all been the ones that are attacking the position.

[Logos1560]

According to my sources, RV1909 is the last "acceptable" revision

Are any of those sources KJV-only?

In the book entitled THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM : SEEING THE SHADOW OF THE RSV IN SPANISH that is edited by Mickey Carter, Allen Johnson wrote: "It should also be no surprise that the Spanish RV 1960 matches with the RSV, NWT, and other perversions--they all have modernist fingerprints from the Critical Text" (p. 122).

In this same book, Mickey Carter claimed that "Some of the 1909 is Nestle's text and therefore, not pure Textus Receptus" (p. 34).

In another chapter in this same book, Gail Riplinger wrote: "The changes in the Reina-Valera 1960 mirror those in the New World Translation and the corruptions which were introduced in English Bibles at the turn of the century" (p. 63).

[mothcorrupteth]

Are any of those sources KJV-only?Yes. Rabid 1611 KJV-onlyists, in fact. Not that it matters much to me. I just want an accurate translation, and I reasoned that I couldn't go too wrong opting for the KJV's equivalent in terms of esteem.

[arunma]

Por favor, si van ecribir mi lengua nativa, apre'ndanla. Abochorna el atento.

Trans: if you're going to write in my native toungue, learn how to do it. The attempt is embarrasing.

Well, it might not have been her fault, since she may have used one of the many translators available on the Internet. I've played with dictionary.com's before to translate stuff from French. And I know enough French to know that it doesn't do the best job.

[B®ent]

Well, it might not have been her fault, since she may have used one of the many translators available on the Internet. I've played with dictionary.com's before to translate stuff from French. And I know enough French to know that it doesn't do the best job.

Cubanito was translating TwinCrier's statement.