[Daniel Haifley]

I am involved in a project right now which is an effort to prove the problems of the 1960 edition of the Spanish Bible. As you may be aware there has been in recent years an effort to produce a King James Equivalent Spanish Bible. Due to the vitriol rhetoric on the part of some, many good people have refused to even look at the problems of the 1960 Reina Valera which was influenced by the critical text. So, about 5 years ago my staff and I started researching all of the Spanish Bibles that had ever been produced. Way back to the 1400's there was a Spanish translation of the scriptures (This one, incidentally was Authorized by the King of Spain and was produced by a Jewish rabbi- its called the Alba Bible.) We started lining them up, side by side, comparing them with the King James Version and found some interesting things. We decided to publish our findings in an Octopla format as a recourse for the Spanish speaking brethren, without any commentary, and let the facts speak for themselves. Several of the versions that predate the KJV are very similar- almost identical in fact. However, there are some differences. (Men like Humberto Gomez, Jeff McCardle and others have been attempting to fix the problems and republish the Spanish Bible for the church today.) The similarities were interesting, so, I started researching the translation work to find out when it was being done etc. Imagine my surprise to find 4 different European Bible's being translated at the same time by men who appeared to be comparing their translations with each other. Tyndale, who built the foundation that the King James Translation Committee used as their base (95% identical to the KJV), was a contemporary with Enzinas who put together the first complete Spanish Bible. Enzinas lived in Melanchthon's house while he was working on his edition. Melanchthon was Martin Luther's understudy and was assisting Luther in his translation into German. There was also another European language that was being worked on at the same time, but I've got to go back and look at my notes to remember which one. Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version.
I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny.