I wasn't talking about either you or Steven Avery, Brother Tim, and it was unfortunately an accumulation of incidents over time that I was responding to from other threads. But the conversation WAS over I think, unless someone was going to post the whole context of John Gill on the subject. I will eventually look it up myself, however, and the conversation is probably over in any case. No, I don't assume anybody's access to resources, but Steven hinted that John Gill said more than was posted here without saying what that might be.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

No, Steven, we haven't discussed it at all. I have merely referred to what was posted here, which addresses the meaning of "strain at" without mentioning the option of "strain out" as I recall. But nobody answered me until now. All I read was what somebody posted. .

Then you should not make a comment that presumed in error "anything having to do with filtering ...I never had that context in mind when I read it, and neither do the commentators mentioned, John Gill". The commentaries of John Gill are in-depth on Hebraic issues, why not learn to look him up; instead of spending so much effort making false presumptions and comments ?

Originally Posted by Connie

If he makes a comment somewhere about the choice of "at" over "out" that should have been the first -- and probably only -- thing quoted from him. It might have saved a lot of useless speculation.

More presumption, conjecture and speculation from you. Why not at least educate yourself first (you can find his commentary easily in Google and NT verses are at crosswalk.com) instead of looking like a foolish critic of John Gill on this verse and of excellent writers like Will Kinney who seek out and share information from various sources, and of the verse itself in the King James Bible ?

Originally Posted by Connie

I did not recognize the name Jeffrey Nachimson that you brought up and I still don't. I don't know what you are referring to. You say he has proved that the translators intended "strain at?" I haven't seen this yet although you are claiming it is so. Also, apparently I didn't grasp what you were suggesting about finding the point in the Allen and Jacobs book, so now that I do I can see if it's possible to follow up on that.

Jeffrey Nachimson is the author (he has written exceellent web articles on the Johannine Comma and other issues) who gave us the section about the deliberate nature of the King James Bible change to "strain at" that he discovered through his own studies a couple of years ago, using the Ward Allen book.

The section that you yourself highlighted as especially significant. Will Kinney quotes Jeffrey in the section that you highlighted in the first post on this very thread.
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...96&postcount=1
(although you passed by Jeffrey's other note, the Greek lexicon entry, which discussed awareness of, seeing, a gnat and making effort .. rather than simply passive straining, without comment).

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Jeffrey originally shared (viewable by WhichVersion members, the two points identical to what Will has posted with some overall notes also included) this at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichv.../message/19146
Matthew 23:24 Strain AT a gnat

Please note : in a heavy-handed and false dismissal of most of Will's article:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/s...thew_23-24.htm
strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel.
"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."
(This version has more HTML, the web-page author adds some of his notes at bottom.)

as having only one objective statement amidst a

Connie - "sea of speculative comments, opinions, guesses and suppositions"

you passed by Jeffrey's other note, the Greek lexicon of Bauer updated by Frederick William Danker, which discussed awareness of, seeing, a gnat and making effort .. rather than simply passive straining .. without any note or comment by yourself.

Strangely, you were also accusing the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary entry as "speculation, etc.." ...as well as the Talmud entry (which actually is from John Gill, as you will discover for yourself when you read his whole section) as well as the Oxford Dictionary reference (Will does not give the quoted entry on that one).

Apparently when you are struggling with an issue, you try to hand-wave all scholarly references. I think it is important to understand why some of us aren't taking your oft-expressed concerns very seriously. You do not seem to be very attentive to the very articles you are attempting to dismiss and you seem far more interested in shrill and inaccurate critiques rather than relatively simple research checking (e.g. John Gill).

This may also help to understand why some see your struggle on this verse as far more a spiritual issue of your approach to the pure word of God, the King James Bible, rather than an objective research and understanding of the Bible issue.

Shalom,
Steven

I will probably eventually look up John Gill, Steven, I have made use of his commentary before, but my comments here were in relation only to what was posted here from him. I would have expected that whatever was posted would have been the most relevant to this topic, wouldn't you? Therefore I did not expect that the poster would have left out a discussion about the former use of "strain out" and the translators' choice of "strain at." And now I see that despite your hint that he has more to say I should know about, he no doubt doesn't discuss this at all. But that's what I'm saying is the necessary objective evidence.

The rest of your post I simply am not following. You are making a lot of assertions about something but I don't know what, what "scholarly references" and so on. The speculations I found at Will Kinney's site remain speculations as far as I can see, simply explanations people come up with for how "strain at" makes sense to them, not actual evidence that its occurrence in the AV was not an error. If you see something there that is objective and not merely speculative, shouldn't you quote it so I can see what you mean? Otherwise I have no idea what you mean and all you are doing is slinging accusations at me.

I did not notice Jeffrey Anybody there and at this point don't see why I need to since you have not given me reason to. Where you say

you passed by Jeffrey's other note, the Greek lexicon of Bauer updated by Frederick William Danker, which discussed awareness of, seeing, a gnat and making effort .. rather than simply passive straining .. without any note or comment by yourself.

all I can answer is that this is a perfect example of the typical speculation I was talking about. Can't you see that this is speculation and interpretation? It's clearly an attempt to make sense of the fact that the text has "strain at" but the Greek means filtering. This is what everybody is doing with this passage, Will Kinney, you, etc., but it's strained reasoning. But if you accept it as authoritative then nothing I say about its being strained reasoning is going to be persuasive.

This is not evidence that "strain at" was intended by the translators, this is just the usual attempt to explain it in such a way that makes it useful for Christian life. But I've already said I accept that it is useful. So is "strain out" useful in exactly the same way. Both give useful instruction, but "strain out" is an accurate translation and "strain at" is not. What I need in order to be convinced is not plausible interpretations but objective evidence that the translators intended "strain at" in spite of the fact that it is not an accurate translation, which of course they would have known. If they chose it, then they chose it for some other reason they considered more important. It's a simple enough requirement. Nothing else will do. If it's not available then I have to decide if I can swallow such strained rationalizations as I'm being offered as God's word. If John Gill does not assert in his commentary that the translators intended it then I see no point in checking John Gill either. I'm sure his interpretation of "strain at" is just as plausible as everybody else's is, but that doesn't prove the translation was correct and it doesn't tell me whether it is in the KJB in error or not.

Thank you for your attention to this topic. I believe I now know all I need to know about it.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

Gill... I would have expected that whatever was posted would have been the most relevant to this topic, wouldn't you?

Everything John Gill writes on this is relevant. What is "most relevant" will very from person to person and discussion to discussion. You have your own glasses.

And for you to make conclusions about John Gill's insight on an extract, along the lines of "John Gill only knew of A-B-C, Gill wasn't aware of filtering .." was flat-out wrong. You still do not seem to understand the basics, when you write a false statement it is your responsibility before God, and it is something that you should diligently seek to avoid. At that point, you propagate an untruth. Even now, you seem to recognize no accountability for your own mistaken words, instead trying to blame others who have done their job well.

John Gill was 100% aware of the rabbinic elements of both filtering and physically straining, even if that combination doesn't fit into your mental boxes. Incidentally he was not a King James Bible defender, although often his insights are helpful, his view was more that of the Reformation Bible, thus it would be neutral looking at this verse. Similarly Matthew Henry, however he did not have the depth of rabbinic background as did John Gill.

For you to take the view that a Greek lexicon entry (they are often compiled by scholarly liberals) is some sort of King James Bible strained apologetic is simply silly. Often such scholarly lexicons will be working off of Greek classical sources. Perhaps you are not aware of that as well. There are some tools (e.g. Strong's Concordance) that tend to simply work with the Bible text and can be somewhat circular. Yet there are other tools that are based on etymological and historical and classical study. Likely Bauer-Danker is of the latter nature, and if so it is 100% germane to your requests for more understanding. i.e. If you could get out of your mental contortionist box.

Honestly, I think you are way off-base at this point in the discussion, you have moved so far aware from the fundamentals and simple understandings that there is little more to say. I understand fully why Tim and Brandon commented as they did, however I noted some things that you had written that were flat-out wrong, dangerously wrong apparently by spiritual-mental blockages, and I wanted to try to help you to see the problem, so far without a notable response other than excuses and close-minded tunnel-vision.

If you want objective evidence of translator's intent, as you claim is the only thing that would ever satisfy you (which is truly a nonsensical view to take if you understood all the issues and evidences) then research Jeffrey's understanding from the Ward Allen book. That is likely the only possible evidence either way about translator's intent, since we don't have a lot of paper saved from 1611. Or simply accept Jeffrey's understanding as true, the translator's purposefully changed "strain out" to "strain at". End of story.

However you are very demanding, combined with misunderstanding, a very unfortunate combination, and, be warned, potentially a road to unbelief.

==================================

If you want to have a little fun, look at this translation of Chrysostom (c 400 AD) by Schaff (not KJB at all). Is this text reflecting the actual Chrysostom pronoun/grammar ? (I dunno.)

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/N...pnf1-10-79.htm
Homily LXXIII of Matthew

Then, to show that there is no harm arising from despising bodily
cleansings, but very great vengeance from not regarding the
purifications of the soul, which is virtue, He called these "a gnat,"
for they are small and nothing, but those other a camel, for they were
beyond what men could bear. Wherefore also He saith,
"Straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel."

www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXIII.html
Homily XXIII.

For although His disciples had been guilty of no such sin, yet in them were supposed to be offenses; as, for instance, not keeping the sabbath, eating with unwashen hands, sitting at meat with publicans; of which He saith also in another place,
"Ye which strain at the gnat, and swallow the camel."
But yet it is also a general law that He is laying down on these matters.

Oh..uh.. was John Chyrsostom part of this vast straining KJB conspiracy ? Or Schaff ? Oh.. wait. Apparently Schaff tries to correct Chyrsostom ! Or his editor. Perhaps they are concerned that Chrysostom had read the Authorized Version ?

Shalom,
Steven

Good grief. I think that explanation of "strain at" is a very strained rationalization, that's how it hits me, an acrobatic mental exercise in cramming the meaning of exertion and filtering into one -- which in fact I've been saying all along and in fact you seemed to see the point yourself a few posts back. It's not really relevant that lexicons use the Greek sources, or that John Gill did, that I can see, you'd have to show how they used it in this case, a discussion of the Greek meaning etc., but you aren't doing that, you are content to upbraid me for some sin or other in finding the interpretation to be forced. I didn't assert anything by the way about John Gill except what was in the quote given here and all he did was interpret "strain at" without reference to the Greek or "strain out," so no, I am not committing this sin you accuse me of.

You want me to accept this interpretation, this explanation, this rationalization of "strain at" as if it is objective evidence for its intentional inclusion in the Bible. Now if the translators themselves give this same explanation or interpretation, THAT I would have to take seriously, but otherwise this just sounds like everybody is straining to put the two different meanings together. What if the translators chose "strain at" just because it had become the accepted idea and not because it accurately reflected the Greek? Is that a possibility? What if nobody would ever have known there was that other meaning of filtering if the new versions hadn't forced so many of us to be constantly looking up the Greek? Brother Tim didn't even picture the action of filtering out a gnat with a strainer. Most of us don't read "strain at" to include anything about filtering. You can interpret the passage just fine without any indication of filtering, as it appears Matthew Henry did (You are saying John Gill included it but I haven't seen it yet and yes, again, I would expect you to quote it since you are asserting it).

You want me to just "see" as you all seem to, that WHATEVER is in the KJB is exactly what is supposed to be there and it's a spiritual problem of mine if I don't, so that ends it for you. Fine, let it be ended. I'm spiritually deficient and that's that.

I haven't called any of this a conspiracy so please drop that term. If I suppose anything about how it might have happened I don't think of an intentional plot, I think of plausible explanations occurring in people's minds for a phrase they take as given by God.

It looks to me like Schaff simply contributed the accepted understanding of "strain at a gnat" without it involving anything having to do with translation.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Connie I specifically quoted your error on John Gill, you falsely stated that he was not aware of the filtering aspect.

"filtering ...I never had that context in mind ... neither (does) John Gill"

When in fact John Gill specifically discusses straining as filtering in great depth, from the Hebraic understandings.

Now you have switched gears to simply saying that he doesn't directly discuss strain at vs. strain out .. yet actually even on that his commentary gives deep insight on all the issues.

I have no idea what explanation of "strain at" you are calling strained right above ? Please indicate ! Chrystostom ? If so, he wrote in Greek so he wasn't trying to rationalize "strain at". He could be showing how the greek word diluzio was understood 1600 years ago in Greek, however. Does that matter to you ?

Are you aware that the Greek lacks a preposition, which would more likely be expected if the Greek was to mean strain out ?

I'm out for a bit, so I will leave with those thoughts and questions.

I really have no idea what evidences you are interested in, depending on your mood you seem to reject the English (active usage of strain at before the time of the King James Bible, the redundancy of strain out, the idiomatic issues) the Greek (e.g. the lexicons that you reject) the Hebraics (Gill who you reject), historical evidence of conscious translation, which you hand-wave, and more so I don't know what is left .

What is the evidence that you really think is significant ? Let's be clear, and not go in circles. When I come back I will try to include what I think were the best discussions of the Greek grammar and the English language "strain at.." history. However not so much for Connie, as for the completion of the forum thread, unless Connie indicates exactly what issues are in fact primary.

Schaff was actually against "strain at", he was very liberal in text, it is very possible the translator was simply being faithful to the Greek of Chrysostom. Can you consider that possibility ?

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now I want to repeat one point for Connie, a bit more slowly.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

the Greek lexicon of Bauer updated by Frederick William Danker, which discussed awareness of, seeing, a gnat and making effort .. rather than simply passive straining .. without any note or comment by yourself.

Originally Posted by Connie

all I can answer is that this is a perfect example of the typical speculation I was talking about. Can't you see that this is speculation and interpretation? It's clearly an attempt to make sense of the fact that the text has "strain at" but the Greek means filtering.

Yet, Connie, as I have tried to share with you, such a lexicon is not based on the English Authorized Version. You are simply again factually wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDAG
The Bauer-Danker Lexicon (ISBN 0226039331) is among the most highly respected dictionaries of biblical Greek

Connie, these lectionaries are textcrit favorites, and this one is translated from German to English. They have no sympathy toward the King James Bible. Yet you handwave even such a resource as part of a King James Bible apologetic conspiracy (no other word is as accurate for your attempt at perfunctory dismissal of all in-depth scholarship that supports 'strain at') when mentioned in the "strain at" context.

Originally Posted by Connie

This is what everybody is doing with this passage, Will Kinney, you, etc., but it's strained reasoning. But if you accept it as authoritative then nothing I say about its being strained reasoning is going to be persuasive.

The ultra-strained reasoning is how you make a textual work on the Greek language, written in German, into an apologetic for the historic English Bible, the Authorized Version, that is not part of that work, nor even respected in textcrit circles (which have a propensity for flights of liberal and textually confused fancy).

It is one thing to say that the Danker-Bauer lexicon evidence is not conclusive, or is only one item to be weighed, or even to contend that it is not being properly balanced, understood, presented .. fair enough.

However to dismiss it the way you do, as King James Bible fanciful and speculative apologetics based on an a priori attempt to defend 'strain at' is so silly as to make normal silly into totally sensible and reasonable.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew 23:24 (KJB 1611)
Ye blind guides,
which straine at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

Some thoughts to share from my studies.

The history of how the 'printer's error' or 'typographical error' or 'misprint' idea came to be parroted by so many on essentially myth and no evidence is a fascinating study in itself. (A few in recent days have even claimed that the original King James Bible had 'strained out', even in an age where the 1611 edition is easily available.) This tawdry history of accusation involving men like Adam Clarke and Daniel Wallace may be worthy of a separate post. Big names, small names, all sorts of people who have a resistance to the purity of the King James Bible have spread this myth, unconcerned about the fact that it had no evidence and made no sense historically. Sufficient to them was simply to look at a few other early English Bibles, notice that they had 'strain out' and conclude from that ultra-paltry 'evidence' that there was a 'printer's error' or a 'misprint'.

On the other hand, rarely does an opponent of the King James Bible 'strain at' try a substantive discussion of Greek grammar or Hebraic understanding or English historic usages or Bible context or anything of those sorts. Usually they simply parrot the false printer's error argument. The main exception I have seen is James Price, who had a dialog of sorts with Jeffrey Khoo on the verse. Meanwhile Rick Norris has actually helped show the history of the parroting of the false accusation since Noah Webster (famous for strained 'corrections' to the Bible) without adding any other real substance to the discussion. Often the efforts of Rick Norris and others, while designed to cast doubt upon the pure word of God, ends up simply affirming even more strongly the purity and perfection of God's word in the Holy Bible, the King James Bible.

Without going into Hebraics and Greek grammar and English idioms and all ... why do we know 'strain at' is not a printer's error ?

Three major reasons. Any one of these alone is conclusive, or close to conclusive, put together the issue of an error is done, finito. The only issue is how such a deep deception by King James Bible opponents had so much play and air time for so long.

================================================== ===========================

EVERY KING JAMES BIBLE EDITION FOR OVER 140 YEARS

a) every single KJB edition for over 140 years had 'strain at a gnat', and I know of only one edition mentioned until Scrivener that modified this. (There may have been others due to the influence of Noah Webster as a Bible corrector.) As a contrast, the error of shewed to hewed was corrected immediately after the 1st edition. Other true printer's errors or misprints may have taken longer, yet would occur fairly quickly.

And with strained at, in this early critical period, there was no known note or concern of error by anybody. No editions were changed. Every evidence is that the text was considered 100% proper.

KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATOR NOTES

b) Some translator notes were recently discovered. The explanation from Jeffrey Nachimson was given above, here I will share from another the same basic information, from the Baptist Board in 2006 by FranklinMonroe (whose own position on the verse is mixed).

Some of the notes made by John Bois (member of the first Cambridge Committee for the AV1611) during the final revision were recently discovered in Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford, edited by Professor Ward Allen, and published in 1970 under the title Translating for King James.

Mr. Allen is also the co-author with Edward C. Jacobs on The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators' Work-in-Progress. Apparently, a 1610 Bishop's Bible the translators used discovered in the Bodleian Library which reads, "Yee blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallow a camell" had a mark on the verse indicating the intent to alter "out" to "at."

It seems that this was a deliberate change, and not a printer's error

ENGLISH USAGE BEFORE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS TO 1611

3) 'Strain at' was an English usage at the time for the Biblical expression. Continuing to decimate the printer's error argument that was based only on superficial checking of other English Bible editions. In the BaptistBoard thread eight (!) different examples were given of this usage, which I will repeat here.

Iincluding even a translation of John Calvin to English !
Including even another writing by a King James Bible translators !

Rudolf Gwalther
An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572)
"...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne at a Gnat..."

John Whitgift
A godlie sermon preched before the Queenes Maiestie... (1574)
"...ye straine at a Gnat, & swallow..."

John Calvin translated by Arthur Golding
The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin... (1577)
"...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne at a gnat, and swallowe..."

John King
Lectures vpon Ionas deliuered at Yorke... (1599)
"...wonders of nature, whe~ we straine at gnats, & cannot co~ceiue..."

Roger Fenton
An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599)
"...Let vs then leaue to straine at gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..."

George Abbot, ***KJV translator on the Oxford commitee assigned the Gospels***
An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600)
"...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel."

Edward Topsell
The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610)
...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine at Gnats, and swallow Camels,...

Thomas Gainsford
The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610)
"...and seeke extremities, They straine at Gnats..."

================================================== ===============

Whether you embrace or question 'strain at a gnat' it should be abundantly clear that the opponents of the King James Bible have totally deceived themselves with the idea that 'strain at a gnat' was anything other than a conscious, deliberate decision of translation of Matthew 23:24 by superb experts in the Biblical Greek and the English language.

Shalom,
Steven