Email from missionary:

Dear Chick,

Will you still be printing RV 1960 in your tracts?  Or will it be exclusively RVG?  I am a third generation missionary in Mexico and have been proud to use your material in the past; my problem is that I have read everything that I can get my hands on on this Bible debate issue and I am still not convinced that the RVG should replace my 1960.  I believe Satan is using this to divide churches, schools, fellowships, and friendships - I can not see the stamp of God's love and patience in the issue on either side.  If we could invest all the money, time, and effort that is being put into this issue in to other focuses, not only would we be less divided, but we would be farther ahead - please do not misunderstand me, I am not a compromiser nor a "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" guy, but this battle that is being flung upon the Latin people is not a battle that I chose to fight.  I am KJV only in English, but I do not believe that the KJV has the right to correct other languages, I leave that to the Original Text's.  The main purpose of my email is to ask if you will be carrying any material with the 1960, if not, I regret to say that I can not partake in this debate to which it seems that you all have decided to side in.  If you do still have material with the translation which I use could you please let me know so that I can place an order.  By the way I do have one question more; why do the articles that speak of the other Bible translations use a small "b" when they spell Bible, but they use a large "B" when they speak of the Gomez Bible?  Is it that they are not the Word of God?  It just puzzles me to think that I was misplacing my trust and respect in the Spanish translations for all these years!  Regardless of your preference I believe any of these Bible translations (including the Gomez) deserve our respect and honor in spelling them with a capital "B" - just a thought.
 
May Christ and His Word be Glorified,
 

David Daniels response:

I'm David Daniels.

Thank you for your letter.

I am glad you favor the King James Bible. We know that the King James is the English representative of God's words, preserved through the prophets and apostles and persecuted believers through the centuries. After years of research, I cannot say that fully about any other Bible version.

I hope you do not mean that any of the articles on our website have the smaller-case "b" for other Bibles! If you do, I apologize in advance. Please, let me know which articles and I will immediately have them fixed with capital "B"s. Thank you for your attention. If someone else's website doesn't capitalize it correctly, especially when it says "bibles" (for Bibles), I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. And here's why. A lot of people think that you only capitalize it when specifying a specific Bible version. With all the problems we have with Spanish capitalization rules, I am willing to let it go at that, but I capitalize them all when I write (at least I sure hope I do!).

I had and read the KJV when I first repented and returned to Christ in 1980; but I was taught anti-KJV rhetoric from the moment I entered Bible college. Here in my office I still have my Ryrie NAS Study Bible to remind me of where I've been. Fuller Seminary was even worse; and Wycliffe Bible Translators pushed "dynamic" or "functional equivalence" in translation preferences, to the point where I wrote an article, "What Will You Do When They Know It's Not True?" found here: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/themissionary.asp. (This became a part of my 2003 book, Answers to Your Bible Version Questions.)

When the Lockman Foundation's (NAS-type) version of the Spanish Bible came out, La Biblia de las Americas, I bought one right away for my bilingual mother. Of course, it says Jesus is "el unigénito Dios" which is so far-off from the preserved Bible manuscripts it is amazing. It also is missing all sorts of stuff that Alexandrian-type bibles are missing, as well. I was a "true believer" in the changed meanings and missing words of the Alexandrian Bibles back then. I bought their arguments, hook, line and thinker.

But on November 30, 1998, I realized finally how wrong I was. And as a result, I have kept researching and writing about Bible versions to show what I found ever since. I just wrote a book about the English Bibles, called, Look What's Missing, to show how these differences change doctrines. So it is no surprise to me that a native Spanish-speaker also knew these things, and longed for a Spanish Bible that didn't have all those Alexandrian readings and those retranslated words by people who didn't believe God's words were true.

I heard about a few attempts by Americans to rewrite the Spanish Bible: the 1865 Mora & Pratt, the 1602R, the 1602 Purificada, the 1909, the 1960, La Biblia de Las Americas, the Nuevo Versión Internacional, the Today's English Version and Living Bibles, etc., which were also translated by Americans into Spanish. As my wife and I are trained Bible translators, we were taught to want native speakers to do the translation work (we were going to be missionary translators in Papua New Guinea), though I would learn and do the data entry, learn and analyze grammar rules, syntax, etc., as well as teach the native speakers to read their language.

Then about two years ago, I learned an important fact that opened my ears.

Humberto Gómez is not an American. He is a native Spanish speaker from Mexico. I got polite letters from missionaries who suggested I consider the RVG and write to or call Brother Gómez for myself. That was totally different from the others, who nearly demanded I change from one Bible to another, and right away! I had known about the problems attending all extant editions of the Spanish Bible, and had nearly despaired of having one that represents the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, and that translated the words according to their historical meanings, not the innovations of some modern so-called "scholar." Well, Brother Humberto shared those same beliefs and wants.

So Brother Humberto did not use the KJV to "correct" the Spanish. He did, however, check with the KJV, the 1602 Valera, the 1909 and the Textus Receptus/Masoretic texts. He did not trust himself to understand it all. He checked with Greek and Hebrew experts. He did not think he had the perfect translation of every word. He submitted it to Spanish-speaking churches in 13 countries and it was reviewed by thousands of believers in hundreds of churches, over Latin America, South America and Spain. People sent their ideas and corrections and criticisms largely by email, making it an almost instant process. Brother Humberto was humble enough to admit when his draft edition (the 2004) was either incorrect or not clear enough or not translated the best way.

Brother Humberto has not fought people, unlike others. He reviewed even his enemies' comments and when warranted, changed the RVG as necessary. When I read the history of the KJV, this as far as I can tell is the modern equivalent. I am not going to say that no other language deserves to have God's preserved words in their language. I believe every language needs God's preserved words, so they can say "Thus saith the Lord!" and mean it. They want to know that every single word is from God, and not a book of man's own opinions of what he/she thought God should have said.

We have released a book on the RVG that may answer your questions. It is in both Spanish and English. It has a chart of comparisons of Spanish Bibles in back. I know it will make a difference as you read this book.

Of course, you may not be sure what to do until you see an RVG 2010 in your own hand. Then you will be able to make a clearer decision.

Our English announcement of the RVG is on this page: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0262.asp.

Regarding the tracts. If you haven't noticed, we've been using the RVG in Bible verses in the Spanish tracts for over 2 years now. If you haven't seen the difference, perhaps it is because the translation is that good. If you've been using our tracts the last two years, then you have already been using the RVG. I'm truly happy about it. I believe the translation is God's words in Spanish. It's that good.

I hope this helps. And I hope you will consider the RVG 2010 and not dismiss it outright or mistake it for the 2004.

Thank you very much, Brother, for your time.

And may God bless you as you read His preserved words in English, the King James Bible or in Spanish, the RVG 2010.

In Christ Jesus, and for His service,

David W. Daniels