Answering a Few Charges by Vince Larue of Supposed Critical Text Readings in the RVG

By Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez

A few charges of supposed Critical Text problems in the RVG were brought to my attention today. They were made by a fellow named Vince Larue who promotes another Spanish Bible which failed to prove itself to be the answer to the Spanish Bible issue. His Spanish Bible has never made any impact and we have written extensively on the reasons why. (You can find some of those writings here.)

It was claimed that there are still Critical Text based issues that we've overlooked in the RVG over the past 20 years. Now we are only human so in case there still remain some things that we overlooked, I thought I'd take the time to look into each of his complaints. Let's consider them one by one.

Vince Larue said: “Psalm 1:3 follows the 1960 instead of the KJV or previous Valeras.”

In Psalm 1:3 the only word different in the RVG and previous Valeras that I see in an initial checking is the word “corrientes” instead of “arroyos”.  They are both the exact same thing.  Both are Spanish designations for “rivers of waters”.  There is no problem here.  The RVG reads exactly like the KJV.  A different word usage than that of an older Bible which says the exact same thing does not constitute a Critical Text reading.

As to the word "cae" for "wither", click on the following link here.

Vince Larue said: “Psalm 12:7 intentionally mistranslates the pronouns, destroying the prophetic promises to Israel.”

In Ps. 12:7 the pronouns are not mistranslated.  They refer to the pure words of God.  Jewish Rabbis that speak Hebrew fluently will tell you that a feminine pronoun can correspond with masculine subject words (although masculine proper nouns and names are a different thing altogether.) This has been explained many times, such as in this short article: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/does-psalm-12-6-7-teach-the-preservation-of-the-scriptures.

Vince Larue said: “John 15:11 follows the Critical Text instead of the TR and previous Valeras.”

In John 15:11 he is complaining (I assume) of the word “esté” in the RVG as opposed the word used in the Bible he likes which instead says “permanezca” in the 1865.  The KJV says “remain”.  Again, both words in the RVG and the 1865 Valera say the exact same thing.  According to the official standard Spanish dictionary, of the Royal Academy of Spain, the word “estar” means “permanecer”.  https://dle.rae.es/estar?m=form.  This is another false alarm.  Nothing Critical Text here.

Vince Larue said: “Psalm 37:23 is an absolute disaster claiming that “God” approves the way of the good man, thanks to the use of capitalized pronouns (following the NKJV, not the KJV).”

In Psalm 37:23 Larue is simply demonstrating his misunderstanding of the verse.  The truth is that God does delight in the man who follows in the steps ordered by the Lord.  So the RVG has it right.  Larue’s understanding of the verse is wrong. 

Vince Larue said: “Matthew 1:23 followed the CT until the 2023 revision (Rodriguez’s book promotes the 2010 as the correct revision).”

In Matthew 1:23 the way it read in 2010 wasn’t even a Critical Text reading.  Not everything that needs to be refined in a Bible revision is a matter of Critical Text verses Received Text.  Larue doesn’t seem to comprehend this.  The words “you shall call” was updated to “they shall call” which now reads the same way it does in the KJV.  Therefore there is no issue here.  To complain about the way something reads in a prior edition which has been updated and refined already in the current edition is really weak and petty.  It shows that he is struggling to find legitimate complaints against the current RVG so he has to resort to past editions.  That would be like condemning the 1769 KJV for printing errors in the first few printings of the KJV soon after 1611.  Inferior argumentation like this demonstrates desperation for relevance and legitimacy.  It’s pretty sad.

Vince Larue said: “Philippians 1:19 has Paul seeking to be “liberated” from prison, thanks the Gomez’s hatred for the biblical word “salud”.”

In Philippians 1:19 the current edition of the RVG reads EXACTLY like the KJV with the word “salvación”.  But even the word “liberación” was really not a problem, nor was it a Critical Text word. 

I love how Vince says that Gomez had “hatred” for the word “salud”.  Brother Gomez was saved with the 1909 Antigua edition of the Reina Valera which used the word “salud” instead of “salvación”.  Brother Gomez has many times expressed his love and appreciation for the Bible he got saved with though he later discovered it to have flaws, which is why he did the RVG.  But when someone has to exaggerate things with false claims of “hatred” it tells you something about him and his position.  He's grasping for straws and looking for anything to vilify Brother Gomez.  Too bad for him its not working.  The RVG continues to grow while the Spanish Bible Larue pushes is collecting dust because nobody wants it.  Bible-believing Hispanics recognize which one is better.

Vince Larue said: “1 Chronicles 20:3 reads like modern versions claiming that David made them cut with saws, instead of cutting them with saws.”

In 1^st Chronicles 20:3 there is no problem with the way it reads.  It simply implies that David had others do the cutting rather than himself.  There are 2 possible interpretations of the passage and the way the RVG reads allows for either of the 2 interpretations.  This is a translating technique called “ambiguity” but deliberate ambiguity that renders it in a way that allows for all possible interpretations.  It is a non-biased way of translating, which is the right and honest way of translating.

IN CONCLUSION

So after going through each one of Vince Larue’s supposed “Critical Text” readings in the RVG, I am encouraged to see that our opponents are trying so hard to find things that are wrong with the RVG so that they can write it off yet are coming up empty.  None of the readings Larue pointed out in the RVG are in conflict with the KJV nor the TR. Though their motives are not in favor of us, I still appreciate the efforts of our critics because it helps us. Each one of Larue’s complaints are non-issues.  When someone has to try so hard to find something wrong, and upon investigation the complaints prove to be false alarms, it demonstrates how good the text is.  It reminds me of how hard people try to find fault in the KJV.  These people help strengthen my faith in another way.

Vince Larue demonstrates that he is still a novice when it comes to his understanding of what constitutes a Critical Text variant.  A different word usage or a different way of translating something as opposed to the way his Bible renders it, does NOT constitute a Critical Text reading.  Sometimes there is more than one way to say the same thing.  Some times there is a better way of saying the same thing.  But neither represents a Critical Text problem.   Larue has much to learn.