[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

StudyLight and find the original 1611 online. It is just as you say: "Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel." ... http://www.studylight.org/ Just type in Matthew 23:24 and scroll down to "early versions", then click on KJV 1611 edition.

Thanks, Will. That is a bit complicated for Daniel Wallace. Or else he only goes with the 'original autographs' so even the 1611 text he saw didn't count. We know the 'original autographs' can be made to be anything you want . And Daniel Wallace wants them to be a 'scribal corruption'. We can't disturb him with real texts and MSS when he has such a theory.

The Wallace theory:

a misprint only in the original autographs !

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Having concentrated on the top pistol-slinger sophisticated and subtile deceiver, Daniel Wallace, and considering others who have tried to propagate the misprint myths, in the last few posts - we will move now to another aspect.

First, something simple, some nice Commentaries in the 1800's, that used 'strain at' without hesitation or concern or special discussion and with exposition.

The 1800s was a time of the heavy anti-KJB propaganda, especially for the strain at 'misprints', especially after Richard Richard Chevenix Trench weighed in on 'strain at' around 1850. By 1945 all of this was refuted, however the anti-KJB folks simply parroted the earlier false assertion anyway.)

Now to concentrate on generally more edifying writers .

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

Commentary - 1800's - 'strain at a gnat' Exposition

http://books.google.com/books?id=E1EHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150
Expository notes, with practical observations, on the New Testament - William Burkitt (1832)

A proverbial expression, intimating, that some persons pretend great scrupulosity about small matters, and none, or but little, about duties of the greatest moment p. 117

scruple a ceremony,but make no conscience of murder and perjury p. 150

http://books.google.com/books?id=whIEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA54
Scriptural musings By Augusta M. Wicks (1845)

".. above all a great multitude of evil-doers who 'strain at a knat, and swallow a camel,' and who are ever watching the professing christian to find fault with him, as the Pharisees who watched our Saviour p.54

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0237.htm
Hypocrisy - Charles Spurgeon (1859)

Mark you, my dear friends, I like you to strain at the gnats; I have no objection to that at all *only do not swallow the camel afterwards. Be as particular as you like about right and wrong. If you think a thing is a little wrong, it is wrong to you. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." If you cannot do it, believing yourself to be right in not doing it, though another man could do it and do right, yet to you it would not be right. Strain the gnats; they are not good things in your wines, strain them out; it is well to get rid of them; but then do not open your mouth and swallow a camel afterwards, for if you do that, you will give no evidence that you are a child of God, but prove that you are a damnable hypocrite.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VJU...A412&lpg=PA412
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - Alfred Edersheim (1883)

The fifth Woe referred to one of the best-known and strangest Jewish ordinances, which extended the mosaic law of tithing, in most burdensome minuteness, even to the smallest products of the soil that were esculent and could be preserved, such as anise. Of these, according to some, not only the seeds, but, in certain cases, even the leaves and stalks, had to be tithed. And this, together with grievous omission of the weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy, and faith. Truly, this was 'to strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!' We remember that this conscientiousness in tithing constituted one of the characteristics of the Pharisees; but we could scarcely be prepared for such an instance of it, as when the Talmud gravely assures us that the ass of a certain Rabbi had been so well trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken! And experience, not only in the past but in the present, has only too plainly shown, that a religious zeal which expends itself on trifles has not room nor strength left for the weightier matters of the Law.

One of the pleasant aspects of a study like the one in process is that we end up finding and reading materials from earlier days, from men quite unlike the cookie-cutter pablum of the modern seminaries, from men who were far less likely to strain at gnats as is the modern norm. Modern "commentaries" vary, however they tend to range from superficial nothings to doctrinal ax-grinders to technocrat gibberish.

In the Johannine Comma research and studies I discovered how fine it is to look at earlier writings, and this has led to a comfort with, and thankfulness for, so much of the earlier writings by men of faith and belief in the scriptures as the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

First, here is another Commentary, about 1920.

http://www.biblecentre.org/commentar...athew_exp2.htm
The Gospel of Matthew - An Exposition Arno Clement Gaebelein (c. 1920)

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cummin, and ye have left aside the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy and faith; these ye ought to have done and not have left those aside. Blind guides who strain out the gnat, but drink down the camel" (verses 23-24).

Their self-righteousness and piety consisted in being very scrupulous about minor things, while the important matters were completely ignored by them. They strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. It is not different today. The little unessential things in religious practices are unduly magnified, while the important matters are ignored.ses 25-33).

Please feel free to post here commentaries or extracts you have that are interesting, even if they do not touch directly on the misprint issue, or even the translation/context/idiom views. This thread is designed to be an all-purpose resource, an emphasis on refuting the 200-year-old anti-King James Bible fabrication of a 'misprint' - yet touching on other points.

Now I hope to move over to some other issues and resources - still staying 'positive' .. i.e. less concern for now for the details of the busted accusers.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

When you ask for a 'definition' of an idiom, you can get a wide variety of response. We noticed above how Daniel Wallace extracted a little remark from OED (Oxford English Dictionary) about ' 'to make violent effort' only as a diversion, a cover, from the fact that the OED refuted his main contention, a supposed printer's error or scribal corruption.

On another forum another similar definition was posted :

Strain (at) means 'To exert much effort or energy'

Now those of us who know English and have actually lived in the USA (oops, do USA folks know English ?) or England or Australia or another English-speaking country will get a out of such postings. (This last one was by an apparent non-native-English-poster who scoured the Internet for a definition to try to bludgeon the word of God. Keep in mind that there are excellent English-speakers all over the world, I have been impressed particularly by the Dutch and Danish skill in the language, so this is not only for English-primary folks.)

Anyway, many of us have likely used the phrase 'strain at a gnat' maybe 1000 times, or at least 100, without any such connotation of violent effort. There is no there there.

A simple and far more accurate definition, although any definition will not cover full semantic range, would be this one :

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
gnat *Idiom
strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, to fuss about trifles while ignoring more serious matters.

Simple, hits the basics.

Now we note a couple of things. One is that looking at Matthew 23, this is a far better contextual fit that removing the concept of fuss, and simply talking of 'strain out' - which may be defined as a small (proper, cleansing) matter. (Note: anyone who feels they would like to expand this thought, please go right ahead !)

This contextual issue is the simplest one, imho, that shows the superiority of 'strain at" to 'strain out' (an early translation attempt that has multiple problems).

'Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel..'

.. really zings the context of the rebuke of Jesus to the Pharisees. 'At' is the solid contextual translation, the proper preposition used where the technical grammar allows many choices (with 'out' quite dubious) yet only one choice really captures the sense and context. Which is why 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' has become a dynamic staple of English literature and usage for hundreds of years (a history deserving its own review).

This contextual issue is touched on here and there, however it deserves its own honored place in the discussion table. I will leave you with a couple of notes directly related.

Jonathan Went wrote a good article where he quoted Albert Barnes (who missed all this in falling for the misprint canard).

http://www.studylight.org/col/ds/arc...17&sn=101&pn=7
Swallow a Camel? (Matthew 23:24) - Jonathan Went (2005)

the Arabs have the proverb: "He eats an elephant, and is suffocated with a gnat", i.e., "he is troubled with little things, but pays no attention to great matters" (Barnes on Matthew 23:24).

Note how well this Middle Eastern proverb matches well our definition in use above !

Jonathan Went is also an example of a modern writer who wrote like he knew that the gig was up for the misprint accusation (which he did not even mention, despite it being given by so many Wallace-type 'scholars'). Even without knowing the incredible full range of early English (pre-1611) usage that we now have available. (Over 15 at last count, including powerful translations of Calvin and two King James Bible translators and Biblical, political, secular and theater usages ! With the emphasis on Biblical sermons and writings.).

"According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable under the entry for 'Strain', "Robert Greene in Mamillia (1583) speaks of 'straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant'." The AV of Matthew 23:24 has "strain at a gnat" which was familiar English at the time for "strain out". Greene was an intelligent irreverent Norwich born Elizabethan writer who in this work used classical aphorisms and zoological similes to describe romantic love.

This article makes a nice point, after quoting the Oxford English Dictionary information that has been available for at least 85 years.

http://sluiceboxadventures.com/endti...es/Coats10.htm
Straining At Gnats - Daryl R. Coats

Overlooking the irony that today’s critics, in this instance, prefer an "archaic reading" to a modern reading that had "already gained currency" by 1611, I point out that the expression "strain at" appeared in print thirty-eight years before 1611 (Green’s Mamillia, 1583), and that even Shakespeare used it in Troilus and Cressida (Act III, scene iii, line 112) in 1609, two years before the first published edition of the AV.

And as we know now, that does not even scratch the surface of English usage from 1540-1610.

Nowy, note that the definition, and the knowledge that 'strain at a gnat' was clearly deliberate, matches well that of Charles Earle Funk, editor in chief of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary Series, that we referenced earlier, in the context of early English usages.

http://www.dountoothers.org/curious42507-4.html
Heavens to Betsy ! & Other Curious Sayings - Charles Earl Funk (1955)

to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel

(Charles Earle Funk was editor in chief of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary Series.)

TO MAKE A FUSS OVER TRIFLES BUT ACCEPT GREAT FAULTS WITHOUT COMPLAINT. This, as are many others, is a Biblical expression. It is found in Matthew xxiii, 24-26 : “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” But the translators of the King James Bible of 1611 were already familiar with this figure of speech. It had appeared in Lectures upon Jonas by Bishop John King, first printed in 1594, reprinted in 1599, in which the bishop himself said, “They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells.”

In developing this series of articles, I had one pleasure of truly seeing a minute gnat strained after with almost Herculean gnat-straining efforts. (While the camel of the misprint lie was totally missed and fudged and attempted to be hid under a thin shawl.) One writer actually makes a big deal that the excellent Charles Funk definition and analysis above was in a book entitled 'Heavens to Betsy'. Thus giving us a most excellent modern Pharisee example.

However, let our emphasis not be on gnat-strainers, let us be focused on the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ, with thankfulness for the pure and perfect Bible we have in our hands by the wonderful grace of God.

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

To finish for the evening, here is a cute aside to show the power and strength of 'strain at a gnat ..'.
Let's start where we came in, and move ahead a century.

Remember Noah Webster, making a big point about the supposed need to revise the King James Bible, putting 'strain out' in his revision attempt and actively floating the misprint canard ?

Uh, oh !

http://books.google.com/books?id=jMcVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP57
New Websterian 1912 Dictionary - Noah Webster updated by Henry Thurston Peck

Among the chief is the social stigma attaching to noticeable departures from the received forms of the language; though it is singular that the fear of this stigma often capriciously strains at the gnat and swallows the camel, making those whose shall' s and will's are hopelessly at odds needlessly careful to pronounce at all as two words. Perhaps equally important is the steadying influence of earlier literature. Other influences are the example of the older members of the community, patriotism (especially in England), the fear of not being understood, the historical sense, and a general feeling for the Indecency of wanton disregard of what is established. All these tend to offset the charm of novelty.



Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

A break today from the fascinating factual and literary and historical and Biblical exegesis and translational backdrop of this verse and section in the Bible to a small thought about our calling and the opposition. Having been in correspondence with one of the main pushers of the modern misprint lie against the King James Bible, and noting the reaction, one scripture came strongly to heart.

Ephesians 6::12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.

There is no understanding I can see of how such a lie against the Bible came to take hold of men's minds -- except that this is a dark principality .. spiritual wickedness in high places. Men who might otherwise be sincere, who might be Christian scholars or Christian missionaries, it is amazing how their minds go into a fuzz and fog. And they grasped hold with all their strength of a lie (in this case the misprint lie). And this lie allows them to venture out to deny the authority of the word of God. And even to try, if you can imagine, to attack the word of God using their own self-deception shared with others.

Having noted the hold of the misprint lie has upon the minds of some men, how they truly desire to be false accusers against the word of God, has surprised me some. Perhaps it should not, since we have been in the battle defending the Bible for a short season, yet the vehemence of accusation and the desire to embrace a clear and obvious and blatant and malignant lie brings forth another verse:

Although this verse is referenced directly in relation to one sin, homosexuality, please note the fruits of a reprobate mind.

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind,
to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

When presented with the simple truth that a lie propagated against the word of God is now exposed as false - one would expect, or at least hope, that Christian men would consider the evidences and nod in agreement, and even be thankful that an accusation was false. Accept the truth and happily and thankfully withdraw the accusation.

Please understand, such men (in this scenario) might still, a bit strangely, still consider 'strain out a gnat' as the superior or even proper translation and 'strain at a gnat' as inferior (after all, that is what much propaganda has declared). And they might still continue in their efforts to deny the purity of the King James Bible, if that has been one of their ongoing points of contention or 'ministry'.

(This is not recommended, I am simply pointing out that a person, you would think, could accept a simple truth such as that the Christian gentlemen of 1540-1611 frequently used 'strain as a gnat..' as their saying and that helps explain why it was brought into the King James Bible. While 'misprint' is a false and unreasonable and unacceptable explanation, the type of 'logic' that would have Lord Ockham not just rolling around in his grave, but doing back-flips and somersaults. And they would understand that this simple historical truth refutes fully even the conjecture, and how much more the false accusation, of a 'misprint' or a 'printer's error' or a 'typographical error' or a 'scribal corruption'.)

You would just expect that in the face of truly clear simple and overwhelming evidence that the King James Bible (1611) phrasing of 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' was simply their translational decision that the opponents would drop the 'misprint' and 'printer's error' canard with a smile and a thanks, and move on.

So you would expect, among Christian men. Thus we return to the spiritual aspect of the false accusation, and the verses above. Please be aware : this lie was fabricated and embraced by :

inventors of evil things

And rather than thanks, on sharing the good news that our Bible does not have an uncorrected misprint, you might well be speaking to men who are :

without understanding

Whose real purpose in looking at the word of God is not truth, but to :

debate using deceit

as they are filled with an :

implacable

opposition to the pure word of God. An opposition one that makes them write with pride and without humility in discussing their false accusation against the word of God. In a sense their myth-accusation morphs into a railing accusation, since they have turned the truth of the purity of God's word into a lie.

By the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will return to our studies tomorrow.

Shalom,
Steven

[George]

Excellent comments brother,

As you have pointed out - the battle is definitely in the "spiritual" realm, and I believe that the problem (with these perverter's of God's Holy words) begins in their hearts [Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.]; and extends out to their conscience; and ultimately their minds become "evil effected" [Acts 14:2].

The following list is only a partial exposition of what happens to a persons "faculties" (man or woman – lost or saved ) when they deliberately choose to reject; or go against; or turn away from; or ignore God’s words:


THE HEART

• Is darkened = (Romans 1:21)
• Is blind = (Ephesians 4:18)

∆ Becomes EVIL = (Hebrews 3:12)


THE CONSCIENCE

• Is defiled = (Titus 1:15)
• Is seared = (1Timothy 4:2)

∆ Becomes EVIL = (Hebrews 10:22)


THE MIND

• Becomes corrupt = (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8)
• Is blinded = (2 Corinthians 3:14; 2 Corinthians 4:4)
• Becomes carnal = (Romans 8:6-7)
• Is alienated = (Colossians 1:21)
• Becomes defiled = (Titus 1:15)
• Becomes reprobate = (Romans 1:28; 2 Timothy 3:8)

∆ Becomes EVIL = (Acts 14:2)

CONCLUSION: (Rejection of God’s Words = EVIL!)

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Amen, George. The mind, the final result of the rebellion, is a terrible thing to waste - and a travesty to put in the service of the deceiver, the accuser of the word of God.

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

Now, some critics may say:

"So many words ... . what are you trying to do, get us to think ?
We just want to accuse !
Like on TV and media - we don't want depth, that is passé "

So here, for the honest seeking an overview or for the abrupt impatient with all the words.

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

Two lies that have come from the fog of confusion against the King James Bible on 'strain at a gnat'.

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

Lie #1 - accusation

misprint, printer's error or typographical error, scribal corruption
dumb accusation at the beginning, sans evidence
sustained over the years by a lemming repetition of those seeking 'revision' - a #1 weapon, even though a lie
today a subtile #1 weapon of the anti-KJB crew, a lie delivered with smirks

totally busted by OED (John King and Mamillia)
busted more by Constantin Hopf (Calvin through Tymme/Marlorate and Paget)
now busted even more (15+ early usages 1540-1610, 2 KJB translators included)

Lie #2 - blunder

KJB-1611 edition had 'strain out' - new anti-KJB modernist fabrication, a hopeful monster

error begets error

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Note:

The deceivers will always want to try to discuss the wide-ranging translation issues rather than acknowledge the above. There is a way that men of deception try to combine and confound two issues not because of sincerity, only in order to avoid the stark truth of one -- in order to avoid acknowledging their lies. They figure that by switching discussion to a more subjective playing field they can hide their objective lie. Men do not like to admit they have been deceivers. Especially 'Christian' men in 'ministry' and 'scholarship' and 'missionaries' - they are afraid it will look bad on their spiritual resume, especially if they have been attacking the word of God falsely.

Now in fact the translation issues are beautiful and fascinating and clearly we love to expound on 'strain at a gnat' and believe it the proper and superior translation, proven and tested by time, giving us a rich idiom that is faithful to the Bible text and the Biblical context.

However with the deceivers who have been peddling the misprint myth-accusation this discussion can only take place when the misprint lie, which has had the deadly embrace of men of deception today, had been discarded. And the most desired, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, is a true repentance by the men whose words have been lies, even if mostly lemming-lies, believing what they have heard or been taught.

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

In this context, understand .. none of the deceivers ever really think they can get any mileage out of the translation issue discussion alone. They are not that dumb. In our day and age especially, where 'strain at a gnat .. ' is the idiom in use and very well understood and widely used. They are not going to look foolish trying to argue that 'strain at a gnat .. ' is a mistranslation while also acknowledging the truth of the misprint accusation as a historic blunder of huge magnitude. The translation argument without the misprint aspect is transparently weak, although some may play around with it for their own head games. And if they do blow a lot of hot air nobody will be warmed.

So basically, with hardened hearts, the deceivers in the anti-KJB biz will refuse to really give up the misprint myth-accusation. Since the whole game for the deceivers has been the misprint canard (and recently the 2nd related lie, of the 1611 edition).

They will use and misuse and try to not sincerely understand the the beautiful and complex contextual and translation and idiom issues (everything from neat exegesis to dueling lexicons to scouring the ancient Greek usages to technical grammatical issues right and left - those issues could go on for years with nobody 'convincing' another, their goal of diversion) for one purpose only .. to mask the 200-year-old anti-KJB lie of a 'misprint', a 'printer error' 'or 'longest living typo', the 'one definite error', the 'scribal corruption' that has been propagated aggressively and subtilely by the modernists. Even after the discovered real evidence refuted the weird no-evidence accusation ultra-conclusively. The modernist deceivers try to build position by attacking the pure word of God, and this is has been their ace card, even though a tawdry lie.

Men like Doug Kutilek and Daniel Wallace and Rick Norris and Ron Minton and Robert Bowman and Roy Beachham and Kevin Bauder and William Combs and Theodore Mann and Bob Hayton and Jack Lewis and James Price .. a motley crew of amateur and semi-pro and pro anti-KJB agitators, folks propagating the misprint lie. In their animus towards the pure word of God (with its majesty and authority) they have gone to the deceiver to receive a lie and even sought themselves to be missionaries of the deception.

All hitched their star to a total 'misprint' lie, the myth-accusation, about one beautiful little Bible preposition and verse and idiom, against all sense, all heart towards God, and even against the real sound scholarship.

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

Shalom,
Steven

[chette777]

good work Steve. my hats off to you.

I praise my Lord for people who can defend his word as mightily as you have.

to God be the glory