(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Thank you very much. Thank you. You Back when I was 17 years old and I first started going to a King James only Independent fundamental Baptist Church one of the things that surprised me was that even though there were King James only when it came to English in the Spanish department they would use the 1960 reign of Valera they didn't use the old reign of Valera and I just started learning a lot of Spanish at that time. So I was pretty interested in that subject I'd read the New Testament a couple times in Spanish and right away I could see that the 1960 version was not like the King James The first thing that kind of tipped me off was just the name 1960 because I knew that that was a time when a lot of apostasy was going on right and as I'm reading it I noticed, you know hell being replaced with Hades and shield and Also, there were just so many differences Yeah, I mean, it's funny because I had this basically the similar experience to that where I was attending an independent fundamental Baptist Church It was very strong on the King James promoted the King James, but the Spanish department used the 1960 reign of Valera now I wasn't really educated on the Spanish Bible. I don't really know anything about it So I used it because that's what our Spanish the point I would go soul winning and I would even use it when I would Preach but the problem was I wanted to preach a sermon encouraging people to go soul winning So one of the most popular verses to use would be jude 22 and in jude 22 in the King James It says and if some have compassion making a difference very popular verse to use and then it talks about pulling them out of the fire Right, so that's why it's a popular. Right? And so I try to use that in 1960 impossible because it literally says something completely different It doesn't teach like a variation of the verse. It doesn't have like a variation of that verse It's literally a different say something like those that doubt convinced them los que dudan convinced Yeah, those who doubt convinced. Whereas the King James says of some have compassion making a difference It's not even the same thing, right? And and by the way, that's because of an underlying textual variant in the Greek. Mm-hmm and so This goes to show that the 1960 version is not translated from the textus receptus part of it is which they say it is But yeah, but here's the thing. Even the NIV is partially translated from the textus receptus, but that's not the part we're worried about we're worried about the part that goes with Westcott and Hort right and over and over again the 1960 version goes with Westcott and Hort because even the new at least the new King James in English like the new King James a Bad translation and these fundamental Baptists wouldn't touch the new King James with a 10-foot pole Yeah, but at least the new King James is ninety nine point nine nine percent from the textus receptus Whereas the 1960 version can't even say that I mean the 1960 version makes Serious departures where they follow the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text. Yeah, and that was a major red flag for me I remember just that concerning me greatly and then another portion of Scripture that really concerned me was first Peter 2 2 and then in The King James it says, you know desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby right and the teaching is that we read the Word of God in Order to grow in our faith to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus And we're already babes right because we're born again. Yeah babes in Christ. We want to grow Yeah, it's saying that we're basically already born again. We're saying so it only has to do with spiritual growth right I'm saying whereas in the 1960 it says as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word the you may grow into salvation So it's come something completely different right and again that into salvation is because they're not going with the textus receptus Right, and that's why you'll notice other modern English versions will add in that into salvation Aspect in first Peter 2 2. Yeah, absolutely. So why would they use this modern version in Spanish? Why when they're King James only why wouldn't they go with the Reina Valera Antigua, right? Why not? Yeah, what are they doing? What's going on? You know, I've been asking myself that question for years and I've honestly talked to many Spanish pastors And it's one of those things where it's just like this is something we've always done and therefore we're not gonna change on it Something that everyone uses because independent fundamental Baptists are not the only ones who use the 1960 I've seen Jehovah's Witnesses use it. I've seen Catholics use it. I've seen Pentecostals use it It's a book that's basically good for any type of denomination because it teaches whatever they want Okay, but isn't that the same excuse people would use for using a modern version in English, right? It's popular easy to get everybody uses it. Everybody likes it Yeah, but but here's the I remember when I was you know This is before the internet was a big deal back when I was 17 18 dealing with this I remember going down to the Christian bookstore and all they had was the 1960s, right? They did not even carry and obviously we're not in a Spanish-speaking country, but you know being in Sacramento, California All they had was the 1960. So the guy had to pull out like a catalog, you know, cuz this is before Amazon Yeah, he had to pull out like a catalog and like order me because I wanted him to order me Valera Antigua 1602 or whatever and he got out of catalog I waited like four to six weeks for delivery and I got it and when I got it, I just loved it I was like, whoa This is great because all the stuff that had been bothering me about the 1960 once I got that 1602 It was like whoa It's which kind of makes you it kind of makes you wonder Why use the 1960 when there's so many other great versions in Spanish prior to that that you can use There's a 1569 Biblio de Lozo. There's a 1602 Biblio de Cantaro. There is the 1885 in 85 You know, you can use the 1909 you can use the Gomez. Yeah, Gomez is a great version to use Well, yeah, the the brain of Larry Gomez 2010 right addition is basically, you know Almost identical to the King James I mean it really and and and just so that the viewers understand at home We obviously don't think that it has to be worded exactly the same in Spanish as in English, right? We know things are gonna be worded differently in different language, right? And especially a lot of people don't realize that the Spanish language is really similar to Greek It's it's much closer to Greek than English. Oh, yeah, so so it's it's actually You know a lot of times it'll be worded even more Exactly like the original Greek, right? Okay, so there's nothing wrong with reading the Bible in Spanish But I'm not gonna read the 1960 version. I'm gonna read either one of the old versions You know from around the era of the King James That's from the Texas Receptus like whether it's a 1602 or the later ones that still stayed true to that Or I'm gonna get a 2010 reign of Larry Gomez, which is a little bit more modern Spanish But yet it it's in line with the King James It's in line with the TR and again when we say it's in line with the King James It's not gonna word it exactly the same but it's gonna get the same thought across right? Where like for example Revelation 22 14, okay in the King James it says blessed are they that do his commandments They may have right to the tree of life and enter in by the gates into the city But then in the 1960 version it says blessed are they that have washed their robes, right? That's not even close like do the commandments and wash the robes are not even the same thing Yeah, so obviously things are gonna get worded a little different in Spanish than they will in English But shouldn't it basically say the same thing? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah Well, even in John 12 47, you know in the English it says he that hearth my words and believeth not Whereas in the 1960s as he they hear with my words and doesn't guard or keep the word You know keeping God's Word and believing God's Word are two different different things Well, let me give you the history of the Spanish Bible because here's the thing is that you know prior to even the Gomez There's tons of great Bibles that people want to use because you know A lot of the times people want to shy away from the Gomez and they say well that's too soon It's from the 2010. Okay, we can go with versions such as the 1569 which is the video so, you know that was a great translation that was built upon the works of a person named Encinas who translated the New Testament in 1543 and that's a great version of the Bible I mean you compare that New Testament to the New Testament of the King James it reads almost exactly alike and then you have Cipriano de Valera who revised his work in 1602 great Bible la vie la del cantaro And he specifically said that his his version was not necessarily perfect but it was building upon the works that came prior to him and he even had an Illustration in the beginning in the front of the Bible of a man pouring water as another one poured seed Basically insinuating the man who came before me was seeding this and I'm simply building upon the work that he did to make it better And that's simply what it is and there are great versions of the Bible to use So if someone has a problem with using the Gomez, okay Then use the older versions use the BBC that also use the 1602 Use the ones that came prior to that. Those are still good versions to use You don't have to go with the Gomez use the old one Yeah or you can use if you want something more modern you can use the reign of Valera 2010 because Gomez because of the fact that it's faithful to the TR. Yeah, it reads like a King James etc Now here's what happened though. So you have this tradition of Spanish Bibles 1543 1569 1602 1885 where it's all staying faithful and then all of a sudden in 1960 yeah, basically you get a bunch of liberals together that just completely screwed it up Yeah Similar to like the New King James in English except worse than the New King James Because of the fact that they went with the West Connor horse. Yeah, now well, here's the thing quote from one of the translators Well, here's the thing Cipriano and Casa Dora were very sincere men godly men who meant well, they they loved the Lord They loved the Bible and they wanted to produce a genuine word the genuine word of God in the Spanish speaking world But here's the thing you have editors in the 1960 who didn't have that agenda. For example, there's a guy His name is Jose Flores, and he was a consultant on the 1960 in 1977 he wrote a book called a text of the North estimate which basically means the text of the New Testament and he was quoted on page 22 as saying in cases where there is doubt over a Translation we consulted the ERV we consulted the ASV and the RSV They didn't consult the Texas Receptus or they didn't consult the cage AV or that even consult the old Spanish Bible versions They went to these corrupt modern versions of their day to help them to translate that vibe There's no wrong. So so you got a bunch of fundamental Baptist basically lying Yeah, once you actually speak Spanish or just lying right when they say this is the King James equivalent and in Spanish They're flat-out lying right but a lot of the English-speaking pastors They're just blindly trusting the Spanish department because they don't know the language Yeah, so they're just like well, you know, my guy says it's the King James in Spanish. I'm just gonna go with that Yeah, and here's the thing, but but these guys are saying themselves They're saying we went with the RSV Yeah We patterned it after that and you know why they went with those versions because I specifically said let me give you another quote the better educated Desired radical changes in the new version of the Spanish Bible Whereas the lesser educated we're actually leery of it now. Let me get that's the quote from Jose Flores That's the quote from nice. That's actually a quote from Eugene neither. Oh, it was another consultant on the 1960 now Here's the thing. Let me give you a modern day example of this So you talked about the fact that you know, the 1960 removes hell in a lot of places Oh, yeah, and some people say well, it's no big deal. I dare say all they know what it means Well, not not necessarily because I went sowing one time with one of my members one of my church members and we were preaching the gospel to this lady in Spanish and she welcomes Welcome this into her house and we began giving her the gospel and she's very receptive And then when I got on the point about hell talking about in fear No, and all these doctrines what the Bible says about the doctrine of hell. She said let me just interrupt you real quick She said in Spanish. She said does the Bible teach? Hell the hell exists I said absolutely it's all over the Bible she says that's weird cuz I read the Bible all the time and I've never seen that and I thought and I looked at my sowning buddy and I said, can I see her Bible? She said absolutely she pulled out of 1960 and it's ades and say, oh, yeah, she's not seeing in fear No, so people can't say well, it's not a big deal because you have a common person Right. Just a babe and cry not even a baby crush. She wasn't even saved Yeah Just a common individual who's not educated so to speak what they would what they would consider to be educated and she's saying I didn't Know how the whole point of having a modern version is supposedly because the old ones too hard to understand, right? Isn't that what they're saying? Yeah, like all the 1602 the 1885 the 1909 that's too archaic Yeah, so we have to update this and make it easy, but it's not easier to understand Say old or ades instead of in fear. No, it was super easy to understand It has nothing to do with being easy to understand. It says just a different Translation. Yeah, it's a Bible made by scholars for scholars. Yeah, and they're sitting there just scoffing it Oh you uneducated fools. Yeah, King James and all you love the 1602 because you're so steeped in tradition They want to bring in all this like German modernistic Liberal scholarship of the 19th century all these but and look the people behind a lot of these modern versions They don't even believe in the bodily resurrection They don't believe because even if you say well the people made the 1960 did yeah But they're patterning it after Bibles like the RSV that are coming from the critical text and if you look at a lot of these guys that have worked on the critical text and That have done the textual criticism that underlies these versions many of them would deny the bodily resurrection the virgin birth They're just these Scholars who are treating the Bible as an academic exercise and not that it's actually been preserved by God That's interesting You said that because I spoke to a Spanish pastor who's a young guy and he admitted to me and he was a 1960 user He still is he will not change from that, but he readily admitted He said you know what? We have the right doctrine in Spanish and have the right sowing methods. We have the right church Practices, but it's not because we use the 1960 It's because we learn from English pastors who use a King James version of mm-hmm He said so we learned the doctrine from the King James, but we teach out of the 1960. He admitted that It's ridiculous. It is and you know, I personally I enjoy reading the reign of lara gomez version That's my favorite to read but I've I've read the 1602 New Testament cover to cover 1569 I haven't read that one, but I read I read the the 1960 cover cover. Mm-hmm That's how I know what a piece of junk it is. I read the 1909 cover to cover I've read the Gomez Bible Genesis to Revelation, you know, and I'm telling you these are not bad translations They're you know, obviously, you know, I believe that the King James Bible is the greatest translation in the history of mankind But I am edified by reading. Yeah, the Spanish Bible. I love reading in Spanish very rich and it's it's great Yeah, and it's it's very accurate to the original Greek It is, you know, and I've talked to a lot of Christians in Independent fundamental Baptist churches that are King James where sometimes they shy away from reading the Bible in Spanish Have you have you run into that where it's like they they're just like well, I just read the King James And yeah, it's like they don't have any faith in right their Spanish Bible Whereas I think as long as you have a random letter on Tigua or a random letter Gomez It's a reliable trustworthy Bible. You should absolutely you shouldn't hesitate to study it read it meditate upon it But if you have a 1960 be very afraid, yeah thrown in the tree afraid because it is not faithful Absolutely, and my hope my hope and my desire is that a new generation would would rise up to just reject the 1960 Do their homework get educated on what the Spanish Bible issue is really all about and start using these old versions Start using the board jump. I love the random era Gomez. Absolutely, whatever. Yeah. Yeah, you know the 1602 or the Gomez Those are great versions to use but just reject the 1960 Well, and I think that the english-speaking pastors need to quit using this cop-out Because I've confronted pastors about it before and they just threw up their hand like well, I don't know Spanish. I don't speak Spanish It's like do you really need to know Spanish when you see one word that looks like inferno? Yeah, and then you see another word that looks like Hades and shield you you can see what's going on Yeah, you can see the influence there, right? It's one of those things that just hear no evil speak. No evil. Yeah They rather just not hear it. Mm-hmm. Yeah, it's unfortunate But again, you know, I know there is a new generation rising up that are using the Gomez They're using that for so many. They're using it for preaching. I use it. Anytime I preach in Spanish I've used the Gomez and Let liberals and Pentecostals and whoever use the the NIV in Spanish because they have an NIV in Spanish right, it's like Nueva Beccion international or whatever and then let them use the 1960 but can we at least get Independent fundamental Baptist right claim to be textus receptus and claim to be King James. Can we at least get them using something? Yeah, absolutely 60. I mean, this is just like the elephant in the room. Yeah absolutely You