This article will shed authoritative light on all the claims made by Mitchell Muller in his 1865 Valera critique and provide overwhelming truth perceptible for all to see in a razor-sharp dissection that will pierce through all ignorance, slice open obscure unsupported claims, puncture unqualified dogmatic assertions, and lastly provide evidence that the claims made by Mitchell Muller regarding the 1865 Valera do not withstand close examination. (Mitchell Muller’s 1865 Valera criticism entitled “Comparison Between the 1960 and 1865 Version of the Spanish Bible” can be found at: http://www.kjv-asia.com).

To begin with, the article by Mitchell Muller is inaccurately titled. According to the Muller’s title it is suppose to be a “Comparison Between the 1960 and 1865 Version of the Spanish Bible” when it should have been titled “Another American Attempting to Anglicize the Valera Bible and Defend the 1960 Revision.” Why do I say this? Notice carefully how Mitchell Muller clearly admits his “only” interest (which of course reveals his real motive) in presenting his chart and claims in his “disguised 1960 defense”:

How on God' great earth can Mitchell Muller say that God decided to use the Alexandrian 1960 Revision? This is like saying God decided to use catholic Jesuits, ecumenical Bible Societies and the Critical text! Notice how Muller implies that the 1960 Revision is part of God's providence:

The following proves without a shadow of a doubt Mitchell Muller’s terrible understanding of our modern everyday Spanish language. These linguistic blunders are from Mitchell Muller’s latest studies (which can be found in his website http://www.mullerstomexico.org/studies.php):

Let’s look at some more “Yo speako Espanolo poe-key-toe” boo-boos:

Muller not only wants to anglicize the Spanish Valera Bible, but here he wants to Spanish-cize the English! In Muller’s recent sermon/study titled “Como Ser Usado Por Dios” (July 7, 2006) he says the following:

Beloved reader, every single one of Mitchell Muller’s studies is jam-packed with similar grammatical confusions. In the Spanish language, even one small word can change the entire meaning of a complete document. Now could you imagine the effect of a multiplicity of Muller’s mistakes? By now, Mitchell Muller should want to bury his head in the sand. The end result of Muller’s Spanish, as you can well see, is nonsense with only humorous value. The only thing that Muller’s broken down Spanish generates is incomprehensible sentences, unnatural expressions, mistaken grammatical structures, incorrect expressions, inaccurate use of verbal tenses, articles, conjunctions, adverbs, and wrong word order, etc. Not only is Mitchell Muller’s primary language not Spanish, but the mutated and hybrid Spanish that he picked up is miserably below average. Muller’s Spanish expertise hardly inspires much confidence.

My point in exposing from top to bottom Mitchell Muller’s lack of understanding and deficiency in the Spanish language is in no way done with malicious intent, to be mean-spirited, or to attack or to belittle Muller. My objective is to prove that Mitchell Muller is unskilled not only in our modern basic Spanish language, but ridiculously incapable of passing judgment on the educated speech of the 16^th century Castilian Romance in the Valera Bible. Can someone criticize a language he is fundamentally ignorant of? It is no wonder Muller can say the following: “Several times I found words that I had never heard of…” – Mitchell Muller

Are Muller’s mistakes really that serious? The seriousness of the errors can only be determined by the negative effects they cause on others. And the only thing that Muller’s misconceptions, shallow research, presumed ideas, errors, and pessimistic criticisms are good for is to confuse and tear down the faith, confidence and devotion of Spanish speaking brothers to the Valera Bible.

“Another apparent hindrance was the extremely archaic words employed.” – Mitchell Muller

After seeing Muller’s bankrupt Spanish, which is marred by limitations and lack of knowledge in the basic Spanish, do you really think Mitchell Muller has the profound understanding of the Old Castilian tongue to pour scorn on the Castilian Spanish words in the Valera Bible? Cipriano de Valera, who devoted years studying dialects in the University, committed 20 years of his educated life passionately to the Spanish Bible, and Mitchell Muller thinks he can look up a few verses and criticize Valera’s work. Do you prefer Cipriano de Valera’s prestigious Spanish language or Mitchell Muller’s Spanish? It’s like comparing a brand new Mercedes next to an old broken down Volkswagen?

The Spanish language of the original 1602 Valera Bible and the 1865 Valera Bible is the classical (17^th century) Old Castilian vernacular, which is the purest form of the Spanish language. In all of history it is the most prestigious and powerful literary form and is of course the official language of all Spain. This rich and mature classical language of Romance historically is the most vigorous, abundant in vocabulary, and is richer in idiomatic construction than all the classical Romance tongues and the Spanish of today put together. The reverence and style in this language has always been appreciated by true Bible Believers and scholars. The Old Castilian of the Valera is the Spanish counterpart of the 17^th century Elizabethan English vernacular used in the AV 1611. This English is not used by ordinary English speakers today. The Valera Bible as well uses words that evidently are not used by ordinary Spanish speakers today. If the Valera Bible has “extremely archaic words employed,” what about the following AV1611 words?

“almug, chode, chapt, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, neesed, ouches, pilled, pruit, ringstraked, stacte, tatches, trode, trow, wimples, wot.”

Are these words also a “hindrance” too? It is obvious to see that Mitchell Muller’s nearsighted approach to the 1865 Valera Bible noticeably reveals his careless and superficial research. How can this man criticize the rich and prestigious Castilian language by way of his busted understanding of the Spanish language? Mitchell Muller unwisely makes claims regarding the 1865 Valera without having information and facts to support their claims. The truth is that claims are only as good as the evidence supporting them. Shame on you Mitchell Muller!

Will you stick with Christian tradition of trusting that God used the dignity and expertise of Cipriano de Valera to give us His word faithfully in the Spanish language? Or will you trust Muller’s claims and limited understanding of the Spanish language? The classical purity, precision of expressions and concise eloquence of the Castilian language conserved and treasured in the Valera Bible by means of its powerful words and majestic phrases not only teaches us, but can also educate the ignorant.

(See Muller’s Criticism of the Castilian Words in the 1865 Valera)

I present at this time my findings after carefully examining all 73 verses that Mitchell Muller claims are “errors” in the 1865 Valera. This list is exhaustive, for the simple fact that Mitchell Muller did not do his homework. So basically I had to do it for him and in addition, my own.

Clearly you will see a pattern in Mitchell Muller’s arguments, which reveals his undesirable and erroneous theory concerning the Anglicization of the Spanish Bible, and at the same time reflects the same position countless Valera critics maintain. Muller mistakenly assumes that there exists a perfectly defined one-to-one correlation (or one-word equivalent) between the words and phrases of the Valera Bible and the AV1611 Bible. The truth is that words in two different languages never match perfectly. One does not need to be a skilled linguistic scholar to see that these two Bibles employ two different languages, two separate grammatical structures, and different linguistic constraints (which incorporate distinct rules of grammar of languages, their own writing conventions, their own idioms, semantics, etc).

This predetermined and untrustworthy misconception makes Muller persistently object to specific 1865 Valera words that do not cater to what Muller thinks is the literal one-word equivalent in the AV1611 reading. Mitchell Muller does not evaluate the 1865 Valera by the TR text, but objectionably judges it with the KJB. Someone needs to inform Muller that the Valera Bible comes directly from the Received Text, and was not translated or anglicized out of the King James Bible! God is able to make use of any and every language, including the prestigious 17^th Century Castilian Language, to speak to any group of people in His own way. And of course, God does not need any help from Laodicean Christians in order to speak.

Critical thinkers analyze problems, generate supporting arguments, use scientific methods, use deductive reasoning, and recognize truth. None of the aforementioned is present in Mitchell Muller’s unsupported dogmatic assertions. Did Mitchell Muller look for and present evidence to back up his fixed judgments? Let us see!

“In Matthew’s genealogy there is real problem as it includes “Coniah” in the list of names…By adding his name in the 1865 version they destroy the sets of 14 generations…” – Mitchell Muller

These bracketed words, as well as the italics, were added and set in italics and brackets so we would know they were added. That is honesty. So actually, bracketed words and italics are marks of honesty in the 1865 Valera and proof that it is an honest and faithful Spanish Bible. The translator and reviser of our Valera Bible should be commended on their integrity and ethics for their addition of the italicized words! They should not be reproached. The AV1611 is packed with literally thousands of italics. When translating from one language to another, the idioms change, making it impossible to give a word-for-word rendering, and thus making it necessary to add certain words (usually italicized) to help the reader grasp the full meaning of the text. The Greek tongue omits the verb sometimes, which is perfectly correct according to the rules in Greek grammar. However, in Spanish, this would make an awkward sentence. The words must be added to finished work to complete the sentence structure of the new language. These bracketed words in Matthew’s genealogy were not added to change the Word of God and much less “destroy the sets of 14 generations” as Muller claims in his “Veiled 1960 Defense.” Therefore all objections about italicized words are groundless, unsupported, and therefore in vain. So far the only thing being “destroyed” here is Muller’s claims!

Out of the 73 verses that Muller calls “errors” in his article, 10 of those 73 verses are italicized words (Galatians 3:25; Ephesians 2:2, 12; 3:1; 3:3, 21; 4:1; 6:7; Philippians 1:9) and words in brackets (here in Matthew’s genealogy). Obviously, since they are clarified here, I will not comment on these verses (italics/brackets) any further. I guess now it is suitable to re-phrase the old cliché to say, “I just killed 10 birds (alleged “errors”) with one stone (of truth)!”

This is a typographical error, to be corrected in later printed editions. The Valera 1865 reads “evangelio de Cristo” and the original 1602 reads “Evangelio de Christo.”

This Valera reading does not merely use an incorrect plural word; it uses a majestic or literary plural that is perfectly appropriate. What is a majestic or literary plural? In formal speaking and writing the speaker or writer often refers to himself in the plural, especially if the speaker is royalty. Not only is Paul an Apostle, but he is the son of a King of kings! By analogy, this is similar to a person saying “Let’s see” (Let us see) even when he is planning by himself. If you carefully look here in Galatians 1:9 (the same verse in question), the KJB reads, “As we said before.” Hey Muller what about this “we”?

King Artaxerxes alternately referred to himself in the singular and the plural in his correspondence. Once, he wrote, “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.” (Ezra 4:18). In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself “I” in one place (Ezra 7:13) but “we” in another place “7:24). Here “we” go again! Do you think Muller will start questioning all these “we” too? I hope not. In conclusion: Is this Valera reading acceptable? “We” (Yes in French).

Here we can clearly see Muller’s Anglicization of the Valera Bible delusion. This is a perfect example of the faulty way of thinking that some have adopted. How can the Valera Bible be “KJB”? There is no such thing as a King James Bible in Spanish. This is a pre-conceived notion. The Valera Bible is not a King James Bible. In fact, there will never be a King James Bible in the Spanish language. It is impossible to duplicate or reproduce the King James in Spanish. There is a serious flaw in such reasoning. Many English Bible perfectionists find a difference in the Valera Bible (from there AV 1611) and they immediately want to change the Valera Bible in order to make it match the King James in regards to semantics, linguistics, and word choice. They unnecessarily are attempting to force King James readings into a completely different language, ramming the KJB down Spanish speaking Christian’s throats.

This disappointing new trend (Anglicization of the Spanish Bible), even if it is well intentioned, is frankly erroneous thinking that is irritating and absolutely distasteful.

Laodicean Christians simply do not understand that it is not about simply substituting words between two different languages. When these Laodicean Christians change or revise the words of Valera for what they think is correct, they undeniably devalue and weaken part of the meaning in the Spanish Bible. These same folks blindly assume that all one needs to fully understand the Old Castilian Spanish (with the sole intention of attempting to modernize or Americanize the language) is one Spanish-English dictionary.

Muller needs to understand that every language has its very own specific rules of grammar to be aware of and respect, before hastily trying to force the Spanish Bible to read like the KJB. The Castilian tongue employed in the Valera Bible, as well as all other languages, is dynamic, fluid, and flexible, and entails semantics, linguistics, idioms, as well as emotions, thoughts, beliefs, meanings, intentions and the culture of the speaker.

Official etymological dictionaries of the Castilian tongue say that the word “protestar” (pro-testar) comes from the Latin words “pro” (meaning “por”) and “testari” (which means “atestiguar”). Basically the words “atestiguar” (to testify to) and “testificar” (to testify) mean and say the same thing.

The word “protestant” can be applied to anyone who “protests” against the RCC. In this particular verse, Paul is trying to destroy the doctrine of justification by works (one of the most demonic heresies of the RCC). Cipriano de Valera, logically, with old-fashioned Protestant flavor and style, vehemently tells us to “protest” against it.

One of the most important factors here is the fact that word “protestar” appears not only in the Valera 1865 but in the original 1602 Valera (Deu 8:19; Neh 9:29-30; Luk 16:28). It appears that someone didn’t do his research.

Another important testimony, are the original AV translators’ marginal notes in the original 1611 AV text regarding this verse:

Please also note that the word “bienes” in Spanish refers to, among other things, that which a person possesses and what could be considered his “holdings,” such as land, capital, inheritance, etc. This definition of the plural form of the word “bien” can be found in almost any Spanish dictionary, and so once again, Mr. Muller failed to identify the absolute correctness of a perfectly acceptable word used by Cipriano de Valera in 1602.

Muller argues that the tense “ántes esperamos” is wrong because it is present tense and it is suppose to be past tense. Here is where it is going to be embarrassing for Mitchell Muller.

The Spanish verb is the same in the present and past. The same word can be used for both present tense and past tense. Example: “Hoy esperamos mucho tiempo en…” but I can also say “Ayer esperamos mucho tiempo en…” This is basic Spanish grammar. This serves as additional evidence of Muller’s complete lack of knowledge of the Spanish language (The same song and dance!).

Again Muller argues ignorantly that the tense in “en oyendo la palabra” is wrong because it is “present tense” and it is suppose to be past tense. This is a present participle that can be used also in the past tense. Example: I can say “Hoy estas oyendo la palabra” but I can also say “Ayer estuve oyendo la palabra…” The word “esperasteis” (past tense) joined to “en oyendo la palabra” in this verse further strengthens and proves it is past tense. Shame on you Muller! (Note: I saved the “salud” criticism for last)

Muller says that the Castilian word “incorporados” means “no body.” Let’s see if Muller’s definition holds water against creditable sources. According to the Real Academia Española dictionary of the Spanish language the Spanish word “incorporado” comes from the verb “incorporar”, which means “agregar, unir dos o mas cosas para que hagan un todo y un cuerpo entre sí; agregarse una o mas personas a otras para formar un cuerpo.”

The “Diccionario Etimológico General de la Lengua Castellana” says that “incorporar” comes from the Latin words “in” (en) and “corpus” (cuerpo). So instead of it saying “no body,” as Muller claims, it literally means the complete opposite! I guess Muller never heard the saying “Look before you jump.”

Further evidence is the original AV translators’ marginal note in the original 1611 AV text concerning this verse:

So if the word “dureza” is an error in the 1865 Valera, then “hardness” is an error in the AV1611?

Also note that the word “imitadores” or “imitar” did not carry the same negative connotation in the Spanish language that the word “imitation” does today in English. The English word “imitation” means more often than not, fake. The word “imitar” in Spanish does not carry this idea at all. Cipriano de Valera using this word in 1602 is not the same as New Age Bible revisionists using the word “imitate” in the 21^st century.

This idiom “ni aun se miente” cannot de defined by just looking up the word “miente” in a Spanish dictionary (which is what Muller apparently did). One must comprehend the Spanish language in order to understand this obvious expression. The expression “ni aun se miente,” which is similar to our common expression “ni aun se menciona,” clearly means, “is not even mentioned.”

The following are a few quotes from 16^th to 17^th Century Spaniard Literature:

"...queda encima de la noble tierra del paradiso: de cuya se miente nacen los frutos muy habundosos." (“Peregrinatio in Terram Sanctam; Viaje siquier peregrinación de la tierra" by Bernardo de Breidenbach; Martín Martínez de Ampiés tr.)

"Mire ahora vuestra paternidad si se miente en los púlpitos." (1742, "Fray Gerundio de Campazas" by José Francisco de Isla, 1703-1781)

It is obvious that in both contexts the expression “se miente” is used to say “is mentioned.” Mentioning has to do with verbal communication, which has to do with words not thoughts (as Muller ignorantly claims).

The original 1602 Valera and the 1865 Valera, which are essentially the same Bible, have the word mujer in the Old Cast. spelling “muger” and “celo” as “zelo,” etc.

According to Mitchell Muller’s “expertise” the word “superado“ is an “error.” To begin with, a significant testimony to the faithfulness of the 1865 Valera is the original AV translators’ marginal notes in the original 1611 AV text concerning this verse:

The Greek word “katergazomai” (κατεργάζομαι), which in the Valera is translated “superado”, means “accomplish, achieve, to bring about a result by doing something, perform, work fully or work out.” Interestingly, the derivation of “katergazomai” denotes the official activity of military profession. This Greek word here is taken directly from war language; and the idea is, that every foe was to be subdued – no matter how numerous or formidable they might be, withstanding the enemy, overcoming or vanquishing all foes, and thus standing firm as conquerors. The words “superado todo” are entirely accurate and perfectly rendered.

Criticism of Ephesians 6:21

Last but not least, the noteworthy proof of the faithfulness of the 1865 Valera is the original AV translators’ marginal notes in the original 1611 AV text concerning this verse:

So if the 1865 Valera is wrong, the AV1611 is wrong. Period.

According to the Merriam-Webster’s Spanish-English Dictionary the English noun word “behalf” means:

1 : favor masculine, beneficio masculine, parte feminine

2 on behalf of or in behalf of: de parte de, en nombre de

So according to Merriam Webster’s if you use the expression “en nombre de” it means “on behalf of” or “in behalf of.” The words “a causa de” (1960 Revision) means “because of.” The 1865 Valera is actually a better rendering of this verse. Cipriano de Valera is correct here and once again Mitchell Muller is dead wrong!

Mitchell Muller claims that “refrigerio” means, “to have a snack. Refreshment.” The truth is the Castilian word “refrigerio” means according to the Dictionaries of the Real Academia Española: “Benefit or relief that one feels with that which refreshes; relief or consolation in whatever predicament, pain or suffering. Small nourishment that is taken to restore physical strength.”

Below is also is a photo copy of the definition of “refrigerar” in the 1780 Diccionario de la Lengua Castellana:

Interestingly, even the word “refrigerar” (refrigerate) also means to “comfort, fortify and repair physical strengths.” Where’s Muller’s snack?

The following is a historical quote from 16th century Castilian Literature:

I guess Mitchell Muller’s chances of one day publishing a Spanish-English Dictionary have seriously diminished after this article! The only “snack” I see here is the junk food claims by Muller.

Now, in the light if this truth, does the 1865 Valera contain an “error” here?

Muller claims that the words “estimándoos inferiores los unos a los otros” are an “error,” seeing as the KJB reads “let each esteem other better than themselves.”

Let’s see the 1960 Revision rendition: “estimando cada uno a los demás como superiores a Èl mismo”

It is interesting to observe how Valera uses two clear and graspable words (“estimándoos inferiors”) and goes straight to the point, with out the multiplicity of unnecessary words (as in the 1960 Revision), and perfectly communicating the correct wording, brings forth the full meaning of the text, and flawlessly conveys the doctrinal principle of humility.

Muller makes mention of the words “Cristo Jesús” in his Valera criticism article. But Why? To make his list of alleged errors seem longer? Or maybe because it doesn’t read “Jesús Cristo” to fit his “it doesn’t match up with the KJB” nonsense?” I am at a loss of words. This is a real mystery

This is basically an idiomatic expression. And as such, cannot be immediately understood (much less translated) by merely analyzing its literal meaning. Spanish also has many idiomatic expressions (Example “Hace mucho frío”). Although their literal translations sound odd to English speakers, they sound perfectly natural to native speakers. A few examples of idioms in English are: to be “on the go”; to “play the field”; to “jump the gun.” Could you imagine Muller’s Spanish translation of these idioms!

The AV1611 reads, “I shall see how it will go with me.” If it is interpreted literally, what is the “it” and where is this “it” going to go with Paul? Does this mean Paul is wondering “how” this “it” is going to tag along with Paul? Do we have a mystery “it” in this verse? Cipriano de Valera spent six years studying dialects at the university and taught nine years in Cambridge University. Does Muller think he can correct Valera’s Spanish and work?

Muller argues here about the lower case “d” in the word “dios.” The word “God” in respects to the God of the Bible should always be with a capital “G.” But is this “dios” referring to the one God of the Bible as in verse 15? Or this referring to the “enemigos son de la cruz de Cristo” (ver. 18) which have as their god, which the Valera Bible describes as “el vientre” (their own “belly” AV). Muller tells you to simply “note the lower case “d”” but I say to you “note the whole context of the verse and ask yourself who is this referring to”? The answer is obvious.

Muller wants you to think that the words “por amor” are added to the text here, but the truth is this is simply a matter of ignorance of the basic Spanish language. The words “por amor” here are actually an idiomatic expression which clearly means “for the sake of.” In English we say “for goodness’ sake!”, but in Spanish we say “por el amor de Dios!”, which of course is the same exact thing. This continuous failure to comprehend the basic Spanish language is a huge setback for this King James perfectionist. The 1865 Valera is correct, while Muller still needs to take Spanish at the beginner level.