You seem to be asking me to do a lot of work to check out what you are saying to even know what you are talking about so I can't answer until I have more time to slog through it all. I have been answering according to what I remember at Will Kinney's site (all speculation except for the reference to Allen and Jacobs) and of what was posted from John Gill (nothing referring to "filtering") and what I remember seems to remain true.

I don't see why it matters that a lexicon is a favorite of "textcrits" if all they have to offer is that same strained explanation of "strain at" that isn't convincing evidence.

Perhaps you have finally given enough information for me to follow your point about Jeffrey Nachimson, but you still refer me back to a previous post you don't identify and I don't recall. You don't like to make it easy to understand you it seems.

In the last post perhaps you are now offering some real evidence that the change was deliberate, which I asked for a long time ago, which is quite amazing after this long go-round, but I will have to think about it later.

However, isn't it odd that such a long list of pre-KJB commentaries have "strain at" when the Bibles of the time had "strain out?" Nobody has even tried to explain how that might have happened either-- or have I missed that explanation too? (It could be). Early in this discussion somebody already posted two pre-KJB commentators that had "strain at" -- I haven't overlooked that fact but again, nobody has explained it as of yet that I recall.

And which one on the list was a KJ translator, why don't you identify him instead of making me look it up? -- the way you insisted that I look up John Gill without giving any reason why I should make that extra effort.

You tediously misunderstand me, you tediously require me to fill in blanks you should have filled in yourself for the sake of politeness and ease of communication, and only now are you seeming to come up with actual evidence. Fine, I'll check it out later.