I am glad someone else has been brave enough to confess the non-infallibility of Richard Muller. In certain Reformed Scholastic circles, his every word is taken as fact without any critical analysis. No other scholar receives such uncritical adulation. Yes, there is no doubt that his contribution to the historiography of Reformed orthodoxy has been groundbreaking. Nonetheless, that does not mean that his opinion on every subject should be taken as the final word on the issue. On the question of the F. L. Battles' edition of the Institutes, I want to know what specifically is so badly wrong with it that we need yet another translation of the same book. Is the translation a fundamental distortion of the original source? If not, then why not just publish a brief essay correcting the remaining errors rather than doing a whole new translation when there are tons of other continental Reformed works that have never been Englished.