[bibleprotector]

It's ungrammatical

There is a problem where people put their own notions of "grammar" onto the Bible.

it is commonly misunderstood

There is a problem where people put popularity/contemporary opinion onto the Bible.

oddness

There is a problem where people put their own opinion of taste onto the Bible.

As I understand it the Greek says "out"

There is a problem where the so-called Greek (actually the English word "out" is supplied, not a Greek one) is used to alter or undermine the sense and presentation of a Bible passage that was made by many wise men which has stood the test of time. There is a problem to defy good tradition with no real authority.

In all this, there is no problem with the Bible.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by chette777

I thought we were discussing a better translation of Matthew 28:19, 20 not strained nats.

Ah, brother, the problem is some people just can't resist straining at gnats.

[chette777]

LOL!!!!

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There is a problem where people put their own notions of "grammar" onto the Bible.



There is a problem where people put popularity/contemporary opinion onto the Bible.



There is a problem where people put their own opinion of taste onto the Bible.



There is a problem where the so-called Greek (actually the English word "out" is supplied, not a Greek one) is used to alter or undermine the sense and presentation of a Bible passage that was made by many wise men which has stood the test of time. There is a problem to defy good tradition with no real authority.

In all this, there is no problem with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Ah, brother, the problem is some people just can't resist straining at gnats.

ROFL...

There is a problem where people put their own notions of "grammar" onto the Bible.

Which is what it seems to me is being done by my worthy opponents and not by myself. It is clearly ungrammatical -- bad English -- to make "strain at" mean "strain out." It is not a matter of personal opinion.

There are two different meanings of the English word "strain" involved here, which has been alluded to in this conversation many times without being discussed as such.

One (strain out) means using a sieve or strainer (usually a mesh of some sort) to remove impurities or other objects from a liquid or other substance (sand perhaps), the second means to make an effort or exert oneself (strain at), without the slightest implication of using a strainer to remove impurities. They are two different words with NO overlap in meaning.

There is a problem where people put popularity/contemporary opinion onto the Bible.

No doubt, but I am certainly doing no such thing. On the contrary, it might be argued that the common proverbial use of the passage has long since put a false opinion onto the Bible. The proverbial understanding of "strain at" that has become enshrined in the culture does not in any way imply the action of removing impurities. It is understood in the sense of exerting oneself in excessive concern over a very small thing, while weightier matters are ignored. NOTHING in this proverbial understanding has EVER included the idea of removing impurities from one's drink, and not one thing that anyone has offered in defense of the authenticity of "strain at" in this discussion has suggested such an idea either.

There are efforts made here, by Will Kinney at the link supplied for instance, as well as by Bible Protector, to combine the two meanings by suggesting that "strain at" refers to the action of TRYING to strain out a gnat without necessarily succeeding at the effort. This is the most strained reasoning imaginable. There is no connection between the two uses of the word, and nobody has ever read "strain at" to imply anything having to do with the action of filtering out impurities. All the many quotes that have been summoned in this discussion in defense of "strain at" do not imply filtering but only exertion.

Again, the proverb has come down to us as about exertion, not about filtering. The pre-1611 examples given are about exertion, not about filtering.

THIS is the popular opinion that has been "put onto the Bible" if any has been in this conversation, or ever for that matter. I have certainly put no popular/contemporary meaning on either term. I have only been asking how "strain out" which means filtering, and which was used in three English translations prior to the King James, got changed to "strain at" in the King James, and all ANYBODY has done in reply is speculate speculate speculate in a strained effort to preserve the translation from any taint of error, and without ONE IOTA OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, and yet I'm the one accused of mere opinion?

Objective evidence would be perhaps a note by the KJB translators showing that they made an intentional choice of "strain at" over the "strain out" of the previous translations. Or it might be a reference by a commentator to such a choice having been made. But all the quotations given show only the commonly accepted proverbial understanding of the passage in terms of making effort without any notion of filtering things out, and without any apparent recognition that the earlier translations or the original Greek were about filtering out.

There is a problem where people put their own opinion of taste onto the Bible.

There certainly is, and after slogging through all the arguments in favor of "strain at" I can conclude only that my opponents are exerting themselves in defense of what is only their own opinion, in order to make it appear to be objective fact, whereas I have found no objective fact in all this discussion that objectively supports the translators' intentional choice of "strain at" in the KJB.

Perhaps I have overlooked such an objective fact somewhere that someone could bring to my attention? Otherwise it's all a lot of couldawouldashouldas. For instance it has been opined that it could have been that the translators were simply recognizing a usage that had become common in the culture for instance. Well, were they in fact doing such a thing or not? It's nothing but speculation.

There is a problem where the so-called Greek (actually the English word "out" is supplied, not a Greek one) is used to alter or undermine the sense and presentation of a Bible passage that was made by many wise men which has stood the test of time. There is a problem to defy good tradition with no real authority.

This is a wonderful undeniable statement in the abstract. But it begs the question of whether or not the sense and presentation of this particular Bible passage WAS in fact intentionally made by these many wise men.

The fact is that those very wise men were very concerned that the original Greek be well rendered into English, so you are slighting THEIR concerns by this statement. The Greek according to all references I've run across refers to the act of filtering out impurities and not the act of exerting oneself.

The only possible reason the translators MIGHT have intentionally chosen "strain at" then is that it had become common usage although it was in fact not what the Greek says or what the previous Bibles said which most of their own work preserved.

The straining at gnats here is by those who can't abide the thought that the KJB might have a tiny word wrong. An immense amount of speculation has gone into perishing such a thought. Why can't you just admit that YOU DON'T KNOW why "strain at" is in the KJB?

By the way, the Defined King James put out by Waite has a footnote to "strain at" that says simply:

i.e., out

Thank you for this discussion and I'll try to ignore it from here on, hoping nobody says something as false as the post I am responding to so that I might feel obliged to respond again.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Ah, brother, the problem is some people just can't resist straining at gnats.

Any chance of deleting all the “gnat” talk? Or moving it to another thread?

[Josh]

Why can't you just admit that YOU DON'T KNOW why "strain at" is in the KJB?

Oh but I do know, want to know why it's there? Because God put it there! If He didn't want "at" in there, He wouldn't have kept it there for 397 years!

By the way, the Defined King James put out by Waite has a footnote to "strain at" that says simply:


Quote:
i.e., out

It may very well have been a word commonly used as "out" then, but I'm not sure. Until I find out whether they were interchangable then, I wouldn't put to much confidence in what any comentary says.

Hello Josh:

Strain at does not mean the same thing as strain out, and in all the discussion nobody has even said that it does, except for the strained speculation that it means trying to strain out a gnat without necessarily succeeding at the effort. The proverbial understanding of "strain at a gnat" is that it's about exerting oneself over trifles, it does not include the idea of filtering out impurities.

NONE of the quotes given include the idea of filtering, not Matthew Henry, not John Gill, not any of them. Theirs is the proverbial understanding which is a different idea than the idea of filtering out gnats, although it maintains a similar enough meaning concerning excessive attention to small things to be useful as a proverb nevertheless.

The Pharisees even today filter their liquid food JUST IN CASE there might be an unclean bug in it -- they do NOT have to see this bug, it's simply a worry that one MIGHT be there that they can't see. This is typical Pharisaical obsessing over minutiae, and I happen to know this from an orthodox Jewish correspondent of mine. I've known this for a long time but never applied it to the question of the KJB translation until now.

Strain AT does NOT mean the same thing as strain OUT, but apparently Dr. Waite wants the original meaning to be implied nevertheless, despite the fact that we've used the phrase for centuries to mean exerting and not filtering.

[Josh]

Re-read my post, I said it very well could have been an accepted interchangable term in 1611. It may or may not be documented somewhere whether or not these terms were interchangable back in the day, but it very well could be.

Fine, then it's just another speculation to add to the long list of opinions and speculations on this subject and as such can be dismissed. Given the facts already covered in this discussion it is a very highly unlikely idea but no matter.

Please let us move this discussion to the other thread I started for the purpose:

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379