A Response to Muller’s 1865 Valera Critique

 

 

By Luis Vega

 

 

 

Introduction

 

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)

 

 

Muller’s Veiled Defense of the 1960 Revision

 

To begin with, the article by Mitchell Muller is inaccurately titled. According to the Muller’s title it is supposed 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”:

 

“This chart is only interested in where the 1960 follows the KJB, and to demonstrate the 1865 in fact in many times does not follow the KJB whereas the 1960 does... Again, the comparisons made are only attempting to demonstrate that the 1960 has greater number of readings closer or duplicates the readings of the KJB as opposed to the 1865.”

 

"1960 is in fact every bit as good as the 1865… God decided to use the 1960....don't tell us that "it's not to be trusted" when I have just demonstrated that the 1960 is closer to the KJB in 4 of Paul's epistles than the 1865."

 

How on God's 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:

 

 "I for one am going to simply trust the providence of God and believe that He knows what he is doing, and try to stay out of His way."

 

 Mitchell Muller obviously wrote this camouflaged defense of the 1960 not only to criticize the Valera 1865 Bible, but also attempt to justify his use of his counterfeit Valera (1960 revision). Muller even contradictions himself! Look at Muller’s contradiction in these two statements:

 

"I don't have the luxury of sitting in an air conditioned office spending hours and hours pouring over these 2 Bibles comparing them. I scraped up an hour here and a few minutes there..."

 

"I doubt seriously if they have done the hours of work I have done on this Bible."  

 

Which statement is true? Did Muller scrape up an "hour here and a few minutes there" or did he spend "hours of work...on this Bible?" Both of these statements cannot be true!

 

Muller’s Poor Comprehension of the Spanish Language

 

 

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):

 

 “Quiero hablarles con algo que es muy importante a mi, es algo que yo creo que lo que es faltando en las iglesias hoy, es la cosa que frustre los pastores mas que cualquier otra cosa, eso es compromiso,”   (“Comete tu Vida” by Mitchell Muller, 5/29/06).

 

Reads:  [“I want to speak with something that is very important to me, it is something that I believe that what it is lacking in the churches today, it is the thing that I frustrated the pastors more than any other thing, that is commitment.”]

 

 

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

 

“¿Por qué no todos son haciendo la voluntad de Dios?” - This reads: “Why not all are making the will of God?” 

 

“Tiran sus oraciones por arriba como Dios te debe cada cosa que quiera…Y cuando el Señor no les dio, se vayan molestados,”  - Throw your prayer over the top like God …huh?

 

“¿Que tienes que ver con Dios mi tontería?” – This reads: “What do you have to see with God my foolishness.”

 

“Nos valuamos nuestras vidas conforme a los valores del mundo.”  - We estimated our lives?

 

“Muchos teman a comprometer a Cristo” - How can you commit Christ to something?

 

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:

 

“Quedan con tratando de entender.”  - Actually says: “They remain with trying to understand”

 

“Si lo hagas este su meta principal para tu vida, vas a perder el plan y propósito para tu vida hecho por Dios.” –  I rest my case!

 

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.

 

How can Muller muster up enough self-confidence to utter the following is beyond me:

 

“I would think that any reasonable man would at least require his defectors to speak the language they are attacking. How can I take seriously any of these men when they have demonstrated any working knowledge of the language in question? Especially Tim Sigrest…If he truly speaks Spanish, he is woefully inadequate…”

 

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, mean-spirited, 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 in the errors can only be determined by the negative effects they can 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.      

 

 

The “Extremely Archaic Words” Criticism

 

“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 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 history it is the most prestigious and powerful literary form and 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 Old Castilian of the Valera is the Spanish equivalent 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 AV 1611 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 Mitchell Muller’s farsighted 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 trust the 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 Spanish understanding? 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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The So-Called “Errors” 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 Anglicization of the Spanish Bible ideology, and at the same time reflecting 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 AV 1611 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).

 

“If correlative words in different languages were completely equivalent semantically, translation would be a very simple mechanical process.” (Louw, J.P., “Semantics of New Testament Greek”, pg 43,)

 

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 AV 1611 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!

 

 

 

The Coniah in Matthew’s Genealogy Argument

 

“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

   

 

1)     The name “Coniah” (a.k.a “Jechonias”) is not only in the original 1602 Valera and the 1865 Valera but it is also in the AV 1611. The name in [brackets] is “Joacim” (“Jehoiakim”) not “Coniah” (a.k.a Jechoniah). How can Muller say that “the very idea of including this man’s name is altogether an affront to Jehovah God,” when all the correct Bibles already have “Jeconiah” (“Coniah”) in the list? So if there is a “real problem” as Muller claims, then the AV 1611 destroys “the sets of 14 generations.”   

 

2)     The Bible says in Jeremiah 22:24 that “Conias” (Coniah) is the son of “Joacim“ (Jehoiakim). So the Valera Bible is absolutely correct. 

 

3)     Do you notice the phrase “[a Joacim; y Joacim engendró]” is in brackets? Every single Bible Believer on the face of this planet knows that [bracketed words], as well as italic words in the Bible were set as such to indicate that those words were not present in the original text or language, but were words supplied for clarity, to complete the reading, or to assist the reader in the meaning of the text, etc. As a matter of fact putting words in brackets is the strongest and most emphatic way of alerting the reader that the words are not part of the original text.

 

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 de commended on their integrity and ethics for their addition of the italicized words! They should not be reproached. The AV 1611 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) & 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)!”  

 

 

 

Criticism of Galatians 1:7

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Criticism of Galatians 1:9

 

 

 

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”?

Another Biblical example of the majestic plural is when Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, “we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king” (Daniel 2:36). (You think maybe this is the same mysterious “we” detective Muller is trying to uncover?).

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” (“Oui,” Yes in French). 

 

 

 

Muller’s Comment on Galatians 2

 

“no diverse readings found either, in other words the entire chapter is KJB”

 

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 Christians’ 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.

 

“Many Bible Believers, though well intentioned, are ignorantly trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with no knowledge of how disastrous the results can be.” (Jeff McArdle) 

 

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 all one needs to completely decipher the Castilian language is one translation 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.

 

 

Criticism of “Vuelvo a Protestar” in Galatians 5:3

 

 

 

Muller argues here about the Castilian word “protestar.” Muller is, of course, probably trying to ride on the fact that “protest” in our modern usage it means “objecting or complaining,” and also conjures up the idea of going on a hunger strike and marching around with picket signs. But the truth is the Greek word for “protestar” (Valera) or “testify” (KJB) is “marturomai” (μαρτύρομαι), which according to the Spanish Strong’s Greek dictionary means the following: “ser llamado como testigo, es decir, (fig.) protestar (en afirmación o exhortación): - requerir.” (bring forth a witness, obtest (to protest), testify, to declare solemnly”). 

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.

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 some one didn’t do their research.

And please note that the word “protestant” can be applied to anyone who “protests” against the Roman Catholic whore. In the passage, Paul is trying to destroy the doctrine of justification by works. Justification by works is one of the most hellish heresies of the RCC and Valera tells us to “protest” against it.

 

 

Criticism of Galatians 5:19

 

 

 

The Greek word behind “disolución” is “aselgeia” (ἀσέλγεια) which means, “licentiousness (libertinaje sexual), lasciviousness (lasciva) or wantonness (disolución).” The AV 1611 translates “aselgeia” in Rom 13:13 and 2 Pe 2:18 as “wantonness.” The 1960 Revision even translates “aselgeia” as “disoluciones” in 2 Peter 2:18. So if the 1865 Valera reading here is an “error,” then the AV is also an “error” in Romans 13:13 and 2 Pe 2:18. Common sense makes the answer apparent.

 

 

Criticism of “Bienes” in Ephesians 1:3

 

 

 

Mitchell Muller has shot wide of the target again! The word “cielos” (1865 Valera) or “heavenly” (KJB) in the Greek is “epouranios” (ἐπουράνιος) literally meaning “celestial, heavenly or what pertains to, or is in heaven.” There is no argument there. The actual Valera word being criticized by Muller is “bienes” (Since the AV 1611 uses the word “places”). But the truth is the word “cielos” in the expression “bienes celestials” or AV expression “heavenly places” (Eph 1:20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) is actually not in the Greek text, which is why the AV 1611 translators set the word “places” in italics and the 1865 Valera has “bienes” in italics. The 1960 Revision does not have “lugares” in italics (a real error). So there is in actuality, apart from italics, only one word: “cielos” (Valera 1865)? But in any case, how can Muller frown on an italic word that was added exclusively for clarification purposes?

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.

 

 

Criticism of “Remisión” in Ephesians 1:7

 

 

 

The Greek word “aphesis” (ἄφεσις), which in the Valera stands as “remisión,” according to the Lexicons means here “the act of freeing and liberating from an obligation, guilt, or punishment, pardon, cancellation, forgiveness, remission.” In the AV 1611 the same Greek word “aphesis” appears as “remission” nine times! (Mat 26:28; Mar 1:4; Luk 1:77; Luk 3:3; Luk 24:47; Act 2:38; Act 10:43; Heb 9:22; Heb 10:18). Is the AV 1611 in error too? Or is the 1865 Valera absolutely correct? You decide. But the answer is as plain as the nose on your face.

 

 

 

Criticism of “Ántes Esperamos” in Ephesians 1:12

 

 

 

Muller argues that the tense “ántes esperamos” is wrong because it is present tense and it is supposed 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!). 

 

 

 

Criticism of “En Oyendo La Palabra” in Ephesians 1:13

 

 

 

Again Muller argues ignorantly that the tense in “en oyendo la palabra” is wrong because it is “present tense” and it is supposed 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)

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 1:18

 

 

 

I do not understand why Muller would even mention this verse. The words “la esperanza de su vocación” are 100% perfect. The word “vocación” in the Greek is “klēsis” (κλῆσις) which means an “invitation to experience of special privilege and responsibility, a call, a summons or calling.” The AV 1611 translates the same Greek word in Ephesians 4:1 as “vocation.” Instead of proving the 1865 Valera is in error, this verse, it only serves to further prove that the 1865 Valera is correct. Another nail in the coffin!

 

 

Criticism of “Mi Inteligencia” in Ephesians 3:4

 

 

 

The Greek word “sunesis” (σύνεσις), which the 1865 Valera renders as “inteligencia,” according to the Spanish Strong’s means “poner juntos mentalmente, es decir, inteligencia, intelecto, entendimiento, inteligencia, conocimiento.”

So why is this Castilian word not the equivalent word for “knowledge” (AV 1611)? Logically, the Greek word “sunesis” was translated “inteligencia” from the Received Text and not the KJB! The 1602 Valera was printed almost 10 years before the AV 1611. The Valera Bible does not come from the AV 1611. It faithfully comes 100% from the TR. As a matter of fact, the translators used the original 1602 Valera as a worthy text to seek advice from to translate the AV 1611. Maybe Muller could learn something from these great men.

  

 

 

Criticism of “No Fue Entendido” in Ephesians 3:5

 

 

 

The Greek word “gnōrizō” (γνωρίζω), which the 1865 Valera renders “entendido,” means “to make known, reveal, give to understand, to perceive, obtain a knowledge of or insight into,” With the accurate definition of this Greek word in mind, could Muller now say that “entendido” was not faithfully translated? I think that the only thing that what was not understood (“no fue entendido”) by Muller was the Spanish language, along with these facts. 

 

 

Criticism of “É Incorporados” in Ephesians 3:6

 

 

 

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 it saying “no body,” as Muller claims, it literally means the complete opposite! I guess Muller never heard the saying “Look before you jump.”

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 3:11

 

 

 

Muller obviously is arguing about the word “siglos” (Gr. “aiōn” αἰών). According to the Spanish Strong’s this Greek word properly means “edad, era; por extension, perpetuidad (tambien pasado), eternamente, siempre, siglo, universo.” Bible Believers know that any single Hebrew or Greek word may have many different meanings, or there may be subtle shades of meaning, and nuances, which are not apparent from the bare face of the word. The Valera 1865 is absolutely perfect in this verse! or should I say “AV” perfect?

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 4:9

 

 

 

Muller’s so-called “error” here is the word “inferior.” The fact is the Greek word here is “katōteros” (κατώτερος) which is defined by the Lexicons as “inferior or lower.” The Valera Bible was printed almost 10 years before the words “the lower parts were” were around! The word “inferiores” is absolutely correct and Muller is wrong. Again. 

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 4:11

 

 

 

Muller here criticizes the word “doctores.” The Greek word here is “didaskalos” (διδάσκαλος), which is defined by the Lexicons as “doctor, teacher, instructor, or master.” The definition in practically every Spanish dictionary confirms the correctness of this Spanish word. Since “doctores” was translated from διδάσκαλος and not from the English word “teacher”, then it is undeniably 100% correct.

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 4:18

 

 

 

Muller here calls the word “dureza” an error and claims that the 1865 stands “against the KJB.” Let’s see if this claim is true! The Greek word for “dureza” is “pōrōsis” (πώρωσις) which means “callousness, blindness, hardness.” Interestingly E.W. Bullinger’s lexicon gives only one single and rather surprising definition “the process by which the extremities of fractured bones are reunited by a callus; metaph. a hardening, hardness.” The AV 1611 as well translated the same Greek word into “hardness” in Mark 3:5.

Further evidence is the original AV translators’ marginal notes 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 AV 1611?

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 4:19

 

 

 

The Greek word behind the Valera word “desvergüenza” is “aselgeia” (ἀσέλγεια), which means “lack of self-constraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is moral, lasciviousness, outrageousness, shamelessness or wantonness.” The word “desvergüenza” is the Spanish equivalent of the word “shamelessness.” Muller repeatedly fails to distinguish between a translator’s word choice and a translator’s error. One Greek word can be translated by three Spanish words. Frankly, Muller can personally disagree with Cipriano de Valera’s word choice (he has every right to do so), but he cannot assertively call it an error.    

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 5:1

 

 

 

 

The original word behind “imitadores” is the Greek word “mimētēs” (μιμητής), which simply means “follower or imitator”, according to the Lexicons. The word “imitadores” in the 1865 Valera is faultlessly accurate, in view of the fact that that it was translated directly from μιμητής, and not the English word “followers.”

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.

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 5:3

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 5:11

 

 

 

 

The Valera word “reprobadles” (or reprobar) according to the official Spanish language dictionaries of the Royal Academy of Spain is defined as: “To not permit, to not approve, consider bad, blame, condemn, and contradict.” Behind the Spanish word “reprobadles” is the Greek word “elegchō” (ἐλέγχω) which the AV 1611 renders many times, in a variety of ways: “rebuke” (1Tim 5:20, Tit 1:13, Tit 2:15, Rev 3:19); “reprove” (Jn 16:8, Eph 5:11, 2Ti 4:2); “tell him his fault” (Mat 18:15). There is no validity to an “error” here.

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 5:28

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 6:6

 

 

 

The Castilian word “ánimo”, from the Latin “animus” (and this from the Greek “ἄνεμος”, soplo), does not mean simply “mind” as Muller claims. The Dictionary of the Spanish language of the Spanish Royal Academy says “ánimo” means “alma, espíritu.” This Castilian word can also mean “intention, will, effort, and thought.” In Spanish we say “estado de ánimo,” which means the condition of the disposition or willingness in a person, caused by joy, sadness and discouragement. Even the Greek word “psuchē” (ψυχή), which is behind the word “ánimo” in this verse, appears as “soul” in the KJB for the greater part of the NT. Doctrinally, the Biblical concept of “heart” involves the soul (mind, emotions and will) and conscience. No “error” here! 

 

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 6:13

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The Castilian word “negocios” is a wide-ranging term which means “cualquier ocupación, empleo, quehacer o trabajo” according to the Spanish Language Dictionaries (1734-2001 Real Academia Española). This general word can be broadly employed in a variety of different ways. In Muller’s Anglicization obsession, he might argue that the Apostle mentioned “affairs” not any occupation, work, etc. Doctrinally, the Apostle was not slothful and unoccupied in his affairs. This great Apostle was certainly occupied and worked hard in all of his affairs. Even the Greek expression, “κατά ἐμέ” in this verse means “the things relating to me”; without specifying what those “things” are. Therefore, in Ephesians 6:21, is “negocios” grammatically and doctrinally appropriate in the Valera? Absolutely.

 

 

 

Criticism of Ephesians 6:24

 

 

 

The Greek word “aphtharsia” (ἀφθαρσία), which of course is from where the Spanish Bible translators translate “incorrupción,” means “incorruption and incapacity of decay.”  The AV1611 translates “aphtharsia” (ἀφθαρσία), many times as “incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:42, 50, 53-53). Muller says that the word “incorrupción” does not follow the KJB (“in sincerity”). The Valera Bible needs to follow the KJB? Says who? If a Valera Bible Believer claimed that the AV 1611 needed to follow the Valera Bible, it would be considered offensive and almost blasphemous to the true English Bible Believers. But somehow it’s OK for Muller disrespectfully force on others his insulting Spanish Bible Anglicization ideology?

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 AV 1611 is wrong. Period.

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 1:5

 

 

 

The word “participación” in the Greek text is “koino-nia” (κοινωνία), which denotes not only “fellowship” (AV1611), but also “the act of partaking, sharing, participation, close relationship and communion.” And since the Castilian word “participación” was translated from “koino-nia” (not from the AV 1611 “fellowship”); the Valera is a 100% correct. Cipriano de Valera’ work here is simply flawless, while Muller’s is simply fruitless.

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 1:29

 

 

 

The expression “en nombre de” comes from “υπέρ” (huper), one of the most important Greek words in the NT, that means here “because of, for the sake of, for, behalf of.” According to Muller’s understanding “en nombre de” is an error since the English Bible says “behalf of.”

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!

 

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:1

 

 

 

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:

 

Photo Image: 1780 Diccionario de la Lengua Castellana (RAE)

 

 

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

 

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

 

“Y a éstos llama Él con entrañas de caridad y con palabras suavísimas, diciendo: Venid a Mí todos los que estáis trabajados y cargados con el peso de vuestra mortalidad y de vuestros pecados; porque yo os daré alivio y refrigerio. Otra cosa se debe decir a los tales, de grandísimo esfuerzo y consolación.” -  (1546 “Sermón contra los escándalos en las caídas públicas” by Luis de Granada, 1504-1588)   

 

 

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.

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:3

 

 

 

The word “humildad” here was translated from the Greek word ”tapeinophrosunē “(ταπεινοφροσύνη), which means “humility, modesty and lowliness.” But did you know that the AV 1611 also translated this same Greek word ταπεινοφροσύνη as “humility”? 

 

“…things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility [tapeinophrosunē], and neglecting of the body….” (Col 2:23) 

 

“…be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility [tapeinophrosunē]: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Pe 5:5)

 

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

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:3

 

 

 

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

There are four Greek words “allēlōn hēgeomai huperechō heautou” (ἀλλήλων ἡγέομαι ὑπερέχω ἑαυτοῦ) in this particular reading, in the 1865 Valera Bible that are translated clearly and concisely in six words (KJB employs 7). In the Spanish language, the words “let each esteem other better than themselves” cannot be simply translated by means of the conventional formal equivalence without running into serious problems of confusion. Here’s were the English language is better, than the Spanish. Even the 1960 Revisers, with all their modern technology, “education”, and “expertise,” need to take up 10 maze-like words to translate four Greek words, when Valera could brilliantly do it with a smaller amount of words. Does not esteeming others better require esteeming oneself less than others? It is impossible to have one without the other. This is simply a matter of word choice by the translator, not an “error” as Muller claims. Remember the Valera was not translated out of the KJB! But Mitchell Muller actually believes that the 1960 Revisers did a better job than Cipriano de Valera.

 

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

 

(Reads - “esteeming each one to the others like superiors to himself”)  Huh? You have to read it numerous times before understanding it!

 

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 communicates the correct wording, brings forth the full meaning of the text, and flawlessly conveys the doctrinal principle of humility.

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:10

 

 

 

 

The word “infernal” was translated from the Greek word “katachthonios” (καταχθόνιος), not the English Bible. This Greek adjective means “subterranean, infernal or under the earth.” Cipriano de Valera rendered the Greek word καταχθόνιος perfectly into “infernal.” The AV 1611 was not available to Valera, since it was printed nearly a decade later. So the “it does match the KJB” nonsense is pointless as well as unreasonable.

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:15

 

 

 

The Greek word “amōmētos” (ἀμώμητος) here (behind the words “sin culpa”), means “without blemish, spotless, one in whom there is nothing reprehensible.” The words “sin culpa” were translated from the Greek word “amōmētos” ἀμώμητος, not from the AV 1611 “without rebuke.” Even in the AV 1611 this same Greek word “ἀμώμητος” was rendered as “blameless” in 2 Peter 3:14. So if the Valera Bible is incorrect in Philippians 2:15 for rendering it “sin culpa,” then the AV 1611 is incorrect in its translation in 2 Peter 3:14. Case closed. The words “sin culpa” here are AV “blameless”!

   

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:21

 

 

 

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

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:23

 

 

 

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 AV 1611 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?

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 2:28

 

 

 

The words “más presto” do not come from the words “the more carefully” (AV 1611), but from the Greek adverb “spoudaioterōs” (σπουδαιοτέρως) which literally means “more speedily, readiness, sooner or more carefully.” The AV 1611 translates this same Greek word as “very diligently” in 2 Timothy 1:17. And to think Muller spent “hours of work…in this Bible”

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 3:3

 

 

 

The Valera is supposed to follow the KJB? Where? To America? The word in question here is “servimos” which was TRANSLATED NOT FROM THE KJB, BUT OUT THE GREEK WORD “latreuō” (λατρεύω). When this Greek word is spoken in respect to God it means “to serve Him, especially with external or official cultic service.” The AV 1611 translates this same Greek word as “serve“ 12 times (Mat 4:10, Luk 1:74, Luk 4:8, Act 7:7, Act 27:23, Rom 1:9, 2Ti 1:3, Heb 8:5, Heb 9:14, Heb 12:28, Heb 13:10, Rev 7:15, Rev 22:3.) and “serving” (Act 26:7).

 

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 3:7

 

 

 

 

The word “amor” here which is part of the full expression “por amor” comes from the Greek a primary preposition “dia” (διά) which denotes “the channel of an act, that is, it means “through (in very wide applications) or the reason by which something is or is not done.” The saying “por amor” could easily be an idiomatic expression or Cipriano de Valera decided to simply declare that “channel through which or reason by which” the Apostle Paul counted all things a loss, Love. Doctrinally it is 100 % correct. The word “amor” as it appears here in the Valera, is correct for the same reason that “would God” in Numbers 14:2 and “let him” in Revelation 22:17 in the AV 1611 are correct.

 

   

 

Criticism of Philippians 3:8

 

 

 

The same standard or principle applies here to the same Greek word “dia” (διά). As mentioned previously (Philippians 3:7)  this Greek preposition stands for a “reason by which something is done.” That is why the AV 1611 translates διά as “reason” 5 times, “because” 56 times, and “through” 94 times in the New Testament. The phrase “por amor” could simply be an idiomatic expression or this “reason” διά is simply disclosed.

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 3:9

 

 

 

The word “de” from the expression “justicia de Dios” is the one Greek word “ek” (ἐκ). This Greek preposition denotes “origin or out of.” The AV renders this one Greek word as “which is of.” So just like the AV translators acceptably translated the one Greek word to three English words, the Valera acceptably decided to render this one Greek into one Spanish word. Neither this Valera reading, nor any other, is restricted to Muller’s poor definitions.    

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 3:10

 

 

 

The word “virtud” here in the 1865 Valera is correct, for the same exact reason that the same Greek word “dunamis “ (δύναμις) from where “virtud” was correctly translated from, is also correctly translated in the King James as “virtue” in Mar 5:30, Luk 6:19, and Luk 8:46. Any questions?

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 3:19

 

 

 

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.   

 

 

Criticism of Philippians 4:8

 

 

 

 

Muller claims that the word “santo” is an “error”, since the AV says “pure.” The Greek adjective “hagnos” (ἁγνός), behind the word “santo”, means “holy, pure from every defilement or fault, perfect, sacred, not contaminated.” This Greek cultic word originally was regarded as an attribute of the divinity and everything belonging to it. What other “pure” is the apostle Paul talking about here apart from “holy purity”? According to the Bible, is there such a thing as something that is truly “pure” outside of holy purity? Even “hagnos” (ἁγνός), is from the same Greek word “hagios” (ἅγιος) which means “holy” and translated as such 168 times in the AV. This a matter of “word choice” by the translator, not an “error” as Muller wrongly claims. 

 

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 1:14

 

 

 

The word “remisión” here in the 1865 Valera was translated from the Greek word “aphesis” (άφεσις). The AV 1611 translates this same Greek word 9 times as “remission”  (Mat 26:28, Mar 1:4, Luk 1:77, Luk 3:3, Luk 24:47, Act 2:38, Act 10:43, Heb 9:22, Heb 10:18).

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 1:24

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 2:9

 

 

 

 

I present here three reasons why “divinidad” in the 1865 Valera is 100% correct:

 

1) In Germanic languages (Mother tongue of English) all nouns need to be capitalized. Therefore, in the English language it is grammatically necessary to capitalize all nouns. But this principle does not apply in Latin languages (Mother tongue of Spanish). The nouns in the Spanish language do not need to be capitalized.

2) There is no one word equivalent or correlation in the Spanish language of the word “Godhead”. Why? This is an exclusive and very unique English term and as such is in fact matchless and without equivalent in any other language. This word “Godhead” which comes from “God” and the old English suffix “-hede” (hood), is the sole survival of this form of the suffix, along with “maidenhead.” Muller’s Anglicization of the Spanish ideology falls flat on its face on this one!

3) The word “divinidad” was not translated from “Godhead”, but FROM THE GREEK WORD “theotēs” (θεότης), which according to the Lexicons means “divinity, deity or the state of being God.”

 

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 2:21

 

 

 

Muller claims that “no comas” in the 1865 Valera is wrong, because it does not match the AV 1611 reading “touch not.” According to Cipriano de Valera the Greek word in the manuscript he did his work from meant “touch or eat lightly.” In the 1602 Bible, Cipriano de Valera himself says in his notes regarding this rendering the following:

 

“La palabra G. significa tocar, o comer à la ligera: perô aqui mas conviene trasladar Comer que tocar: pues que se sigue tocar.”

 

Translated - “The Greek word means touch or eat lightly: but here it is more convenient to transfer Eat instead of touch: since it follows touch.” 

 

This respected answer by Cipriano de Valera, reflects his authoritative right to translate FROM THE GREEK TR TEXT (not the KJB), into the Spanish language how God lead him to. So if Cipriano de Valera himself declares that the Greek word means “comer a la ligera” (eat lightly), who can say anything about it? So if Cipriano de Valera wrote it, it is 100% correct! By the way did you notice the 1960 Revision has the words “tales como” added to this text? 

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 3:2

 

 

 

The words “Ponéd vuestro corazón” comes from the Greek word “phroneō” (φρονέω) which means “have a sentiment or opinion; by implication to be mentally disposed, intensively to interest oneself in.”

It is worth mentioning the original AV translators’ marginal notes in the original 1611 AV text concerning this verse:

 

 

 

 

In fact, the 1865 Valera perfectly captures all of this by using the stronger phrase “Ponéd vuestro corazón,” whereas, the 1960 Revision weakens the connotation in its rendition, “Poned la mira.” Setting one’s heart on the things of God is Biblically sound, while setting your sight is just that, simply setting your sight on the things of God. Unrepentant sinners can set there sight on the things of God, but only true Christians can set there hearts on the things above. So how is the 1960 Revision “closer to” or “duplicate(s) the reading of the KJB” in this verse?

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 3:3

 

 

 

(Note: Muller mistakenly says it is “Col 3:5”, when it is Colossians 3:3)

 

The Greek word “kruptō“ (κρύπτω) from where the word “guardada” was translated from means “to conceal, hide in a safe place, cover, cloak, keep secret, to keep covered for purposes of concealment.” The word “guardada” conveys all of the aforementioned in one Castilian word and in a brilliant fashion. In Spanish we use the expression “tengo un dinero guardado” which means to have money in a safe place and logically well taken care of. 

 

Muller can disagree with Cipriano de Valera’s choice of word here, but he simply cannot call it an error.     

 

 

 

 Criticism of Colossians 3:6

 

 

 

The Greek noun “apeitheia” (ἀπείθεια), from where the Spanish word “rebelión” was translated from, means “disobedience, obstinacy, and obstinate opposition to God’s will.” If the Spanish word “rebellion” was translated from the KJB, then Muller would have a point. But the truth is the Valera Bible was not translated from the AV 1611, but directly from the Greek manuscripts. So what this all boil down to is not an “error” in the 1865 Valera, but an true error in Muller’s mistaken belief and wrong approach to the Spanish Bible.

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 3:8

 

 

 

The Greek noun “blasphēmia“ (βλασφημία), which is from where “maledicencia” was translated from (not the KJB), means “speech that denigrates or defames, injurious speech, vilification, evil speaking, slander, calumniation, or detraction.” Even the AV 1611 translators recognized this when they rendered this same Greek word into “evil speaking” (Eph 4:31) and “railing” (Jude 1:9). Even the original English word “blaspheme” formerly meant to “speak evil of anyone, to injure by words or to blame unjustly.” When applied to God, it means to speak of Him unjustly; to ascribe to Him acts and attributes which He does not possess, or to speak impiously or profanely.

 In conclusion, is the 1865 Valera correct? Absolutely. Does Muller need to check his facts before pretending to correct the Spanish Bible? Absolutely.

 

 

 

Criticism of Colossians 3:12

 

 

 

To begin with, it is worth noting that Muller in his chart tries to imply, on the surface, that the 1865 Valera added the word “de espíritu.” The truth is that it is only part of the full expression; as you can see below in my own truthful chart:

 

 

 

Instead of proving that the Valera 1865 is in “error,” this actually proves that the mutilated 1960 Revision is omitting words from the text. Who is Mitchell Muller trying to fool with that “the 1960 Revision is closer to the KJB” nonsense? Muller claimed his chart proves that:

 

“…the 1960 follows the KJB, and…that the 1865 in fact many times does not follow the KJB whereas the 1960 does… Again, the comparisons made are only attempting to demonstrate that the 1960 has a greater number of readings closer or exactly duplicates the readings of the KJB as opposed to the 1865.”

 

Do you see where the 1960 “follows the KJB” or “exactly duplicates the readings of the KJB” in this verse as Muller claims? The Greek word “tapeinophrosunē” (ταπεινοφροσύνη), is where “humildad de espíritu” (Valera) was translated from and not from the AV reading, “humbleness of mind”. Doctrinally, in truth “humbleness of mind” can only come from a spiritually renewed nature, that is, from being “humble in spirit.” 

 

 

 

 

Muller’s Criticism of the Castilian Words in the 1865 Valera

 

 

 

The Castilian Word “Concierto”

 

“concierto humano – you may say that technically “concierto” means covenant, but I have yet to find ONE Mexican that did!”    – Mitchell Muller

 

“dos conciertos – if you’re thinking of a symphony, you do well.” – Mitchell Muller

 

Here is where Muller’s shallow Spanish word definitions and weak arguments fall apart at the seams. When the AV 1611 mentions women that are “fair” (Genesis 6:2), does that mean they are just average? When the AV 1611 mentions “conversation” (Gal 1:13), should we interpret it as a “dialog”? How about when the AV 1611 mentions a man with “gay clothing” (James 2:3), does that mean this man was dressed like a homosexual? You might say that technically “gay” means radiant, magnificent, fine, merry, etc. But I have yet to find ONE American that did! Muller uses a weak argument about not finding “ONE Mexican” that understands the actual meaning of the word Castilian “concierto” to validate his criticism of the word. So should we judge the Castilian language in the Valera Bible by what the average Mexican understands about this prestigious language? Did you know that the average Mexican has about five years of education? Five Years!

We hold the Castilian language in the Valera Bible up to the light of God’s glorious Spirit and the trustworthy authorities and the academic dictionaries of the Spanish language available to us today. 

The Castilian word “concierto,” which comes from “concertar” (acordar o pactar), according to the “Breve Diccionario Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana” and the “Diccionario Etimológico General de la Lengua Castellana” etymologically means “convenio [pacto], acuerdo” (agreement or pact).   

 Muller says that he has yet to find “ONE Mexican” that understands the correct meaning of Castilian word “concierto.” Muller your search is over! I’m the “ONE Mexican” that comprehends the real meaning of “concierto”! And not only that, this “ONE Mexican” has just put to rest your shallow criticism over this Castilian word “concierto” used in the Valera Bible.

 

 

The Castilian Words “Macho y Hembra”

 

(Regarding Galatians 3:28)      “macho, ni hembra – again, technically this reads “male nor female” but only if you’re a farm animal. These are not terms used for people.”

 

 

The Castilian word “macho,” which comes from the Latin word “masculus,” means literally “from the masculine sex, male gender or male.” The word “hembra,” which comes from the Latin “femina,” means literally “The sex that conceives, the animal that gives birth, in the rational humans and the brutes.”

 

Notice in the following reference how the word “macho” is used in historic literature from the 1594:

 

"Estaba el varón cual veis (si es macho cada varón), hecho un macho por la liga que en la moneda halló." - ("Romances" Luis de Góngora y Argote, 1561-1627):

 

Even in modern usage, the Spanish word “macho” still retains its original meaning. In Mexico today, the word “macho” is applied to “male animals,” but it is also true that many Mexican men consider it an honor to be called a “macho.” Does that mean that they want to called a “farm animal”? Obviously not! Every native Mexican knows that “macho,” in the Mexican culture, also has a “positive” connotation which means “courageous” or “valorous.” The term “macho” also has its negative overtones and connotations, since it is applied to a person who prominently exhibits or espouses extreme male chauvinism (machismo) and also to male animals. 

  Once more do we judge the Castilian language employed in the Valera Bible by what the average Mexican understands? Or do we judge the purest Spanish language, 16^th century Castilian tongue, by accepted modern usages of our modern Spanish or the Mexican culture? We know as Bible Believers that the focus of each word translated in faithful Bibles is not whether or not the translated word is “appropriate” for the audience.

Instead of educating, enriching and elevating the Spanish brothers, Mitchell Muller wants to downgrade the Valera Bible and lower and bring all the Spanish speaking Christians down.

 

 

 

The Castilian Word “Salud”

 

(Regarding Ephesians 1:13; Philiippians 1:19, 28; 2:11)

 

There are even English speaking Christians acquainted with that fact that originally the word employed for “salvation” (AV 1611) is the Castilian word “salud.” The only reason the term “salud” is controversial is because in our modern usage the general meaning of the word means “health.” But the truth which is being intentionally ignored by many is that the Castilian word “salud,” as well as many other words, has more than just one meaning (just like the English words “match, tie, post, etc.). Muller can object and resent this fact all he wants, but the truth is that one Greek word can be translated as several Spanish words in the Valera Bible, as well as the AV 1611. Our obligation is to distinguish between a translator’s choice and a translator’s error. On Greek word can easily be translated by three Spanish words. We can personally dislike or disagree with Cipriano de Valera’s word choice, but cannot necessarily call it an error. It is no mystery that the Greek word “sōtēria” (σωτηρία) from where the term “salud” was translated from also has many meanings. The meanings of this Greek word are, “rescue, safety, deliver, health, salvation, save, saving.” A perfect example in the AV 1611 is Acts 27:34 where “sōtēria” was translated “health.” It is also very interesting to find out that even the Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of American English defines “health” as: “Sound state of the mind, in a moral sense; purity; goodness… Salvation or divine favor, or grace which cheers God's people.” Even the Greek word “hugiainō” (ὑγιαίνω) which appears in the Valera Bible as “sana” or “sound” in the AV 1611 (1 Tim 1:10; 2 Tim 4:3; Tit 1:9) when referring to “sana doctrina” (sound doctrine) is also translated as “health, whole (in a physical sense)” in Luke 5:31, Luke 7:10 and 3 John 1:2. In other words, God considers true “health” as being whole, complete and sound in spirit and soul, not just merely limited to good physical health. Even if our puny mind when reading the Castilian word “salud” can only conjure up the idea of “physical health.”

The following reasons are specified for why the Castilian word “salud” should de preserved intact in the Valera Bible:

1) The latest edition of the official Spanish language dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy of Spain defines “salud” as “the state of spiritual grace or salvation.” This definition is not listed as archaic meaning. The following definition is given in the 1739 “Diccionario de la Lengua Castellana” (RAE): “It is taken from the state of grace and justification, which is the life of the soul.” Since the 1700’s up until today all the official Spanish language dictionaries of the Spanish Royal Academy of Spain, define “salud” as “the state of spiritual grace or salvation.”

2) The original 1602 Valera has the Old Castilian word “salud” for salvation (AV 1611) in every reference with the exception of Revelation 7:10 and 12:10.

3) As late as 1909 (See RVR 1909) the word was totally acceptable to the Spanish speaking Christians as the word which means “salvation.”

4) Though the common meaning of the word “salud” today, in places like Mexico and Latin America, is “health,” the root of this Old Castilian word is derived from the Latin word “saluto” which means “salvation.”  Both Spanish words are even similar, both beginning with the same prefix, sal: (sal-ud, sal-vación.).

 

But more important and major factor is the fact that the Castilian word “salud” in the original 1602 Valera refers to the salvation of one’s soul from hell. That involves not just the redemption and salvaging of the soul from the bondage of sin and eternal damnation, but also the health of that soul for eternity. According to Isaiah 53, didn’t Christ’s atonement involve “healing” for the born again Christian, that is, complete spiritual, emotional and mental well being?

 

Someone once wisely said, “God will give you a steak, but He won’t cut it up and feed it to you.”           

 

The following are a few quotes from 16^th Century Spanish Literature were “salud” is used:

 

"...Cristo, hijo de Dios, naceria de doncella, y en parto y fuera de parto quedaria siempre entera; y el otro que moriria por la salud universal de todo el linaje humano." – (1604 "El viaje entretenido"  by Agustín de Rojas Villandrado, 1572-1635):

 

"Misterioso nombre el de Margarita, pues le pudo servir de símbolo a Jesucristo para su Evangelio y su amor para la ley y salud nuestra."  - (1606 "Oraciones evangélicas y panegíricos funerales" by Paravicino y Arteaga, Hortensio Félix, 1580-1633) 

 

 “¿Qué sabes tú lo que te conviene? ¿A qué viniste a la Religión? ¿No viniste a buscar tu salud eterna y dejar tu gobierno en las manos de Dios, que Él sabe mejor tu negocio que tú?" – (1614 "Pláticas del Padre Gil González Dávila sobre las reglas de la Compañía de Jesús" by Gil González Dávila, 1570-1658)

 

"Y si para nosotros Cristo es Jesús y salud, bien se entiende quetenemos enfermedad nosotros, para cuyo remedio se ordena la  salud de Jesús. Veamos, pues, la cualidad de nuestro estado miserable, y el número de nuestras flaquezas, y los daños y males nuestros..."  (1559 "De los nombres de Cristo" by Luis de León, 1527-1591): 

 

Also when researching in loads of Castilian literature it was observed that a very frequent and common expression was employed, "salud del alma." Here is where Muller’s eyes bulge out in bewilderment as he says “heathy soul?!!!

The Valera 1865 switches from “salud” to the word “salvación” when the reference to the final redemption we will experience at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:5, Romans 13:11, etc). This is a general rule. Luke 1:69 is only an exception because it is a quote from the OT.

The Castilian word “salud,” as referring to the salvation of the soul, is the perfect word to use in Spanish and there is no reason to change it, and much less ignorantly criticize it. Many Christian Laodiceans and Valera critics, due to mental slothfulness, have failed to interpret the meaning of word “salud” as well as other perfectly acceptable Castilian words in the Spanish Bible.  

Mitchell Muller might argue that he has not found “ONE Mexican” that comprehends the word “salud” in this light. But that is why the Lord has gave some to be “teachers” (Eph 4:11; 1 Co 12:28). Even well-informed Spanish speaking teachers!

 

 

 

The Castilian Words “Sentimiento, Sintamos”

 

(Regarding Philipians 2:5; 3:15, 16; 4:1)

 

The Greek word “phroneō” (φρονέω) is the source from where “sentimientos” was translated from, not the English word “mind” from the AV 1611. This is a fact that I cannot stress enough.

One does not need to be a linguist to understand that the word “sentimientos” is used here clearly as “sentiments or affections,” not as “feelings” as Muller claims. All three languages (Greek, English amd Spanish) confirm this fact:

 

1) Greek: According to the Lexicons this Greek verb (φρονέω) means “to exercise the mind, to think on them, have a sentiment, opinion, set affection on, to be affectionately desirous of them.” A perfect example of this in found in the AV 1611, where this Greek word appears as “affection” φρονέω in Colossians 3:2. This one Greek word was translated in the AV as “mind” (Philippians 2:4) and as “affection” (Colossians 3:2). Is this an error too?

2) English: According to the Noah’ 1828 Dictionary of the English Language defines “sentiment” as:

 

Sentiment

SEN'TIMENT, n. [from L. sentio, to feel, perceive or think.]

 

1. Properly. a thought prompted by passion or feeling.

 

2. In a popular sense, Thought; opinion; notion; judgement; the decision of the mind formed by deliberation or reasoning. Thus in deliberative bodies, every man has the privilege of delivering his sentiments upon questions, motions and bills.

 

3. The sense, thought or opinion contained in words, but considered as distinct from them. We may like the sentiment, when we dislike the language.

 

4. Sensibility; feeling.

 

The 17^th century connotation and sense is preserved in phrases such as my sentiments exactly. So why are sentiments, emotions, perception, thoughts, mind and soul so closely linked or associated? The emotions, mind and will are all faculties of the human rational soul.

 

3) Spanish: The Castilian word “sentimientos” is a derivation of “sentir” which according to the Etymological Dictionary of the Castilian Language originally means “percibir por los sentidos, darse cuenta, pensar, opinar” (perceive by way of the senses, take notice, think, and to have/express an opinion).

 

The following two images are the official 1780 (Top) & 1992 (Bottom) Spanish Dictionary of the Real Academia Española definitions of “sentimiento”: 

 

 

 

Doctrinally, the word “sentimientos” in this text reveals Christ as the great model and exemplar of humility, lowliness of mind, and perfect sentiments. The 1865 Valera reading in this verse is absolutely 100% correct.

 

 

The Castilian Words “Huelgo, Holgáos”

 

Muller calls the word “huelgo” or “holgáos” errors, but after confesses that he does not know what the word means, when he admits clearly, “so what it means here I can’t say”

 

The Diccionario Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana says that “holgar” in the mid 15^th century meant: “divertirse, disfrutar, alegrarse” Historically, since our society’s idolatry of money (work), this Castilian word’s original meaning has gone through definition changes:

 

“Aunque la realidad social ha producido un cambio notable en el significado de esta palabra, lo cierto es que se ha cargado de valores negativos por cuanto que siempre revela la necesidad de hacer valor los derechos laborales ante una situación que se considera injusta, que es donde realmente reside lo negativo.” - Diccionario del Origen de las Palabras by A. Buitrago & J. A. Torijano 

 

Translation -  “Although the social reality has produced a noticeable change in the meaning of this word, what is certain is that it has been weighed down with negative values by which always reveals the necessity to make valuable the labor rights before a condition that is considered unjust, which is where the negative really resides.”

 

The following are quotes from old Spanish Literature from the 16^th – 17^th century where the word “huelgo” is employed:

  

1585 - "Yo os agradezco lo que me referís, y me huelgo con vuestras cartas y de que no comuniquéis con nadie lo que me decís en ellas..."  ("Correspondencia con Felipe IV" by Baltasar Álamos de Barrientos)

 

1634 - "A mi prima y al señor don Rodrigo beso las manos y huelgo en extremo de los lindos niños que dice vuestra merced les ha dado Nuestro Señor... a veces, con tales monarcas, una palabrilla de los que están cerca hace mil bienes y también mil males. Mucho me huelgo que la majestad de la reina se aficione a las Agustinas Recoletas."  ("Epistolario de Luisa de Carvajal y Mendoza" by Luisa de Carvajal y Mendoza, 17th c.-1664) 

 

1640 - "¿Cómo puedo resistirme a no entrañarle dentro del corazón? Pero aun me falta otra experiencia. ¡Cuánto de verte me huelgo!"  ("Sueños hay que verdad son" by Pedro Calderón de la Barca, 1600-1681)

 

 

The Castilian word “holganza” or “holgar” according to the official 1780 (Top) & 1992 (Bottom) Spanish Dictionaries of the Real Academia Española means:

 

 

 

 

 

Even the 2001 edition still retains its past definition of the word holgar: “alegrarse (recibir o sentir alegria).” 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Here is the concluding break down of the 73 verse that Muller calls “errors”:

 

·       Out of the 73 verses, 10 of them were “italic words.” That’s 14% of all the verses.

 

·       Out of the 73 verses, 13 of them were due to Muller’s lack of knowledge of the Spanish language. That’s 18% of all the verses

 

·       Out of the 73 verses, 32 of them were diverse to the KJB, perfectly translated from the Received Text and perfect word choice. That’s 44% of all the verses.

 

·       Out of the 73 verses, 15 of them were just criticism of Old Castilian words (which are 100% perfect). That’s 21% of all the verses.

 

Cipriano de Valera truly believed his 1602 revision of the Spanish Bible produced the pure Word of God for the Spanish speaking world. The traditional conservative Christian view is that the Valera Bible is indisputably the historic Bible of the Spanish-speaking Christians. Our Lord God has placed His stamp of approval through the usage of many generations of Bible-believing Christians. The fruits of Valera Bible speak louder than words. The 1865 Valera, in language and in text, is far superior to any other Spanish translation of the Bible. If we believe in God’s providential preservation of the Scriptures, we will preserve and defend the standard Spanish Bible; the original 1602 Cipriano de Valera and 1865 Valera.

If the 1865 Valera, which is essentially the original 1602 Valera, is in error why then would Mitchell Muller criticize the 1865 Valera Bible and not offer a solution to the Spanish Bible issue.

Although this critique may be considered by some as an abrasive refutation, but it will serve to silence, not only the further unreliable claims by Mitchell Muller, but also discourage future Valera critics that do not adopt a very cautious attitude toward the words in the Spanish Holy Bible. Strong expressions create deep impressions.

 

 

Bro. Luis Vega

 

(luisvga27@yahoo.com)

 

Bible Teacher

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

Diccionario de la Lengua Castellana, and Lengua Española, Real Academia Española, All Editions 1726 – 2001. 

 

Joan Corominas, Breve Diccionario Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana, Gredos, 1994.

 

Fernando Corripio, Diccionario Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana, Bruguera.

 

Alberto Buitrago, J. Agustin Torijano, Diccionario del origen de las palabras, Espasa, 2006.

 

Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Editorial del Valle de Mexico

 

Louw, J.P., “Semantics of New Testament Greek”, Scholar Press, 1983

 

Jeff McArdle, SR., M.A., A Comprehensive Comparison of the Gospels in Two Primary New Testaments: The Valera 1865 and the Monterrey Revision of the Original 1602 Valera, 2003.

 

James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, 1890.

 

E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, 1999.

 

BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3 rd Edition, 2000

 

 

BIBLES

 

Valera, Cipriano, La Biblia que es los Sacros Libros del Viejo y Nuevo Testamento, Ámsterdam, 1602

 

La Santa Biblia, Version de Cipriano de Valera 1865

 

The Holy Bible: 1611 Authorized Version, King James Version