The 1960 Reina-Valera Exposed

A critical analysis of the intent behind the 1960 revision of the Reina-Valera Spanish Bible. By: R. Daniel White Introduction This article will examine the motives and intentions behind the 1960 revision of the Reina-Valera Spanish Bible, as they are presented by the man who commissioned the revision. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine specific changes to specific verses of the Reina-Valera Spanish Bible made by the 1960 revision, as works of that nature already exist and are readily available. Eugene Nida of the American Bible Society, along with John H. Twentyman of the British and Foreign Bible Society (both societies are a part of the United Bible Society), oversaw the revision of the Spanish Bible, the Reina-Valera. While these men did not cast any votes during any of the meetings, they did supply the revisionists with council, commentaries, and information on special exegetical and linguistic problems. Following are excerpts from an article written by Eugene A. Nida entitled Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960 and comments about those excerpts by this author. Background Prior to 1950, Eugene Nida claimed that the Bible societies began receiving, from seminaries, suggestions for substantial modifications to the existing and universally accepted Spanish Bible, the Reina-Valera 1909 (Antigua Version). Hence, the American Bible Society launched a study to determine if and what kind of revision was needed.

The study concluded that the Spanish-speaking world only wanted changes made to update spelling, accent marks, and contemporary usage. There was a strong animosity toward making any changes in meaning. Eugene Nida said that only uneducated people resist alterations to Gods word, while educated people desire radical changes. Mr. Nida gave no basis for his declaration, but used this line of reasoning as his justification for revising the Spanish Bible. Mr. Nida's propaganda tactic plays on people's desire to appear educated and intelligent, believing they will acquiesce and accept Bible corruptions to avoid appearing uneducated. Excerpt 1 Part of the difficulty in assessing just what types and how many changes were desirable, if the constituency was to be served and satisfied, was the fact that despite this desire for some limited number of changes the Protestant constituency in Spanishspeaking Latin America is predominately very conservative on matters of Biblical interpretation and use. The better educated people naturally tended to desire more radical changes, while the lesser educated were basically suspicious of alterations. In fact, in some limited groups, even the pastors were afraid to suggest the slightest change in the text for fear that they might seem to be tampering with the Word of God. This excerpt demonstrates Mr. Nida's elitist view concerning Bible revision; it is manipulative in nature, and places anyone who does not desire radical revision on the defensive. In general, people do not want to appear uneducated and so without questioning these assumptive statements they accept the changes, and let the scholars steal Gods precious book from their church and their family. There is no basis given for Mr. Nidas comments concerning educated people desiring radical changes to the

Bible and uneducated people resisting such change. Bob Jones Sr. said that "education without salvation is damnation". Billy Sunday said "when the Bible says one thing, and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the devil". Mr. Nida uses education and scholarship to usurp the authority of the word of God. Mr. Nida went on to say professors in seminaries and in many Bible schools urged the Bible Societies to consider a very radical revision of the Bible, which would bring it entirely up to datein textual and exegetical matters. He provides no proof for his statement, nor does he offer any names of people or seminaries to demonstrate his position. It is merely assumed and the reader is supposed to accept his declarations as fact. Mr. Nida conveniently fails to tell his readers of those professors and teachers that were perfectly content with the Bible they had, those desiring no change to the word of God. Mr. Nida did not tell his reader the reason that some seminary professors desired such radical change, was the Bible is contrary to their false doctrine and critical education and must be eliminated for them to progress their beliefs. Those liberal professors wanted a Bible that would support their humanistic, rationalistic philosophies of men. Excerpt 2 The societies sent out suggested changes all over Latin America to determine the extent of revision needed. This was the conclusion: A careful study of these suggested changes did confirm unmistakably that a revision was desirable, but at the same time it was most interesting to note that for the most part people were not interested in any changes of text or exegesis. In fact, what was clearly indicated was a revision which would bring the language up to date, but which would leave the meaning of the Bible as unmodified as possible.

The question faced by the Bible Societies was one of whether to give the people what they needed, but probably would not accept (namely, a full-scale revision of the Reina-Valera), or provide what the people obviously desired, namely, a light revision of orthographic, grammatical, and lexical forms. The history of revising the Bible is strewn with instances of revisions which were ahead of their time, for getting people to accept a particular alteration of the Bible involves a long process of education. It is amazing that Mr. Nida would be so arrogant to include this statement in his article. Who does Mr. Nida think he is to say that the people need a radically changed Bible, when that is not what they desire? Spanish-speaking Latin America wanted to preserve Gods holy words, while the scholars wanted to adulterate the Bible. He admits that it takes a long process of education before people will accept alteration. Adolf Hitler said if you tell a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, the people will believe it. Eugene Nida is a propaganda-mongering elitist believing he can sit in judgment of what whole nations need; he is the epitome of pride and arrogance. The United Bible Societies had a problem. They wanted to publish a radically revised Bible; however, they knew if they published a Bible containing the numerous alternations they wanted, the good Christian people of Latin America would not accept it as a Bible. The Bible Societies recognized that they needed a propaganda campaign to educate the common Christian into accepting a radical revision of the Bible. Excerpt 3 Mr. Nida went on to say:

It is not possible to force upon any constituency merely what they need. They must be led to realize that they want it. Accordingly, it seemed a much wiser procedure to plan on a limited revision, more or less in line with what was evidently desired, and then later to prepare an entirely new text of the Spanish Bible to serve the needs of seminary students and the more educated laity. Mr. Nida is a propagandist, brainwashing the masses into believing a lie. The Bible Societies knew that if they went with their plan, to radically change the Bible, it would have been rejected by the people. That would have set them back in their plans to infiltrate the Spanish-speaking world with corrupt Bibles, possibly for decades. Thus, the ReinaValera 1960 served as a stepping stone for future corrupt Bibles and was only the first installment. Mr. Nida said, leaders in the Protestant church in Latin America have been very conscious of this need for a more thorough revision or new translation, but they also wisely recognized the problem of the tradition-oriented congregations which must be helped to understand the problems. Which Protestant church? Which leaders? Mr. Nida supplies no names, merely blind statements, more propaganda, and more elitist tactics. The desire and goal of the United Bible Societies and Mr. Nida was to educate the people out of believing the very book that brings salvation to lost souls. Excerpt 4 Accordingly, these leaders agreed to a wholehearted backing of the limited revision of the ReinaValera, on the understanding that by the time this was completed the Bible Societies would undertake a more thorough revision or new translation. Hence, in 1960, the American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society began a new translation of the Spanish Bible, to be published within the next five or six years.

The only reason why the United Bible Society published the Reina-Valera 1960 was to transition the churches to accept corrupt, Ecumenical Bibles that will usher in the One World Religion. Immediately after publishing the 1960 revision of the Reina-Valera, they began work on creating a more radically changed Bible and in 1976, the United Bible Society published the Spanish Popular Version (Versin Popular), a very corrupt Bible that unashamedly follows the critical Greek manuscripts. Without the Reina-Valera 1960, transition to Bibles based on critical Greek manuscripts would have been delayed by decades. The revision committee succeeded in creating a compromised Bible that still retained a resemblance to the Antigua Version, but prepared the way for more radical changes to suit the educated needs of seminary professors and the more educated laity. Excerpt 5 However, with surprising consistency the committee refrained from making any important exegetical alterations. Nevertheless, in some instances where a critical text is so much to be preferred over the traditional Textus Receptus, the committee did make some slight changes particularly if such changes were not in well-known verses where an alteration would be unduly upsetting to the constituency. For this cause, the 1960 revision of the Reina-Valera appears on the surface to be a good Bible; the revision committee was subtle and deceptive and stealthily inserted errant passages in obscure places. Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. In other words, only an astute student of the Bible would notice the changes. Many of the common corruptions found in the Versin Popular,

the Nueva Versin International, and a plethora of other modern, corrupt versions are not found in the Reina-Valera 1960. However, it does contain verses where the revisers clearly rejected the majority Greek manuscript witness in favor of the critical readings of corrupt Greek manuscripts. In other places, the Reina-Valera 1960 contains corruptions that are not supported by any Greek text, but perpetrate false doctrine. It is not the intent of this work to document those verses. Let the words of Eugene A. Nida suffice to condemn the Reina-Valera 1960. Several revealing works analyze and compare verses of various Spanish Bibles for those who are interested. One of the best works is by Rex Cobb called Analisis de Las Biblias Espaolas (Analysis of the Spanish Bibles). Today there is a whole generation of pastors, teachers and missionaries who have only known the Reina-Valera 1960, because the generation of Bible-believers before did not stand the gap and defend Gods precious book. There is a breach in the wall of defense surrounding Spanish-speaking local churches. It is time for a Nehemiah to rise up and begin rebuilding the walls. It is time to seek after the old paths and remember the Bible that once was. It is time to rend the preservation and publication of Gods word from the hands of Bible societies and restore it to its proper place, the Church. For those who would stand for the Reina-Valera 1960, it is the authors prayer that they would give serious consideration to the intention with which the 1960 was published. It was designed to be deceptive and manipulative by elitist scholars who believe they are able to stand in judgment of God's word.