Hello Debau,
I have agreed many times that there is no problem with "strain at" as far as the teaching we glean from it goes, although I don't think it is superior to "strain out" in that regard. The Greek means to filter, the other English Bibles reflect that meaning, and "strain at" doesn't mean to filter, it means to exert oneself against something. It nevertheless works to make the point Matthew Henry teaches: In the smaller matters of the law to be superstitious, and to be profane in the greater, is the hypocrisy here condemned but so does the other rendering make that point just as well, and more truly to the original context.

Your reference to Matthew Henry does not add anything. He does not appear to even be aware that there ever was a reading of "strain out" and simply accepts "strain at" as a given, so you cannot say rightly that "he concurs that strained AT is the common sense rendering." We have no idea from that passage you quote whether he would have thought that if he were even aware that there had ever been another rendering.

This topic is about the question whether or not "strain at" was intended by the translators since it is a departure from the earlier Bibles' use of "strain out." Doesn't it matter what Jesus actually had in mind when he gave that teaching?

Brother Steven,
I simply did not recognize the names you were referring to in your post and it sounded like a lot of research you were proposing. 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.

In this post you are simply repeating the interpretation that Will Kinney gave that I already answered. It's a strained interpretation to try to make "strain at" fit into the context of filtering out a gnat. Either "strain" means to filter (with "out") or it means to exert (with "at"), and it appears that what has happened is that because the English word is identical in spelling although it is really two different words (this occurs quite a bit in English, to the chagrin of many foreigners who try to learn it) their meanings have become confused with each other over time and now everybody is trying to make them mean the same thing when they don't.

If there were such a natural mingling of the two different senses in English then yes, we might suppose such a mingling in other languages as well, but there is no such natural mingling that I know of. In English filtering is a different action from exerting.

Yes, this is my own speculative thinking in answer to your speculative thinking. Yes, that's all there is at this point. Except you do claim that there is objective evidence that the translators intentionally made the change to "strain at." In fact you assert it with finality although to this point that supposed proof has not yet been shown here, and it remains for me the question that needs answering. And again, it seems to be getting buried in a lot of conjecture when all by itself it would make the point if it were true and we don't need the conjecture.

I see there is no point in continuing this discussion right now because everybody who is arguing with me starts from the premise that the KJB is absolutely right and puts all his energy into conjectures that seem to make it so and there is no way to argue with that sort of thing.

[Brother Tim]

I got a gnat down in my ear while at an outdoor funeral today. While I debated on how to strain at getting it out, it flew away. Perhaps we need to do the same with this thread. Just let it fly away.

Yes, we can let it fly away. I'll take it eventually to some other site because I still need to get some answers.

Steven, I don't think I was clear about my answer to you. You are continuing and elaborating that same interpretation Will Kinney and others give, about how using a strainer in case there might be a gnat is making an unnecessary exertion. I don't see it although you say you think I recognized it. You make quite a plausibility out of it by bringing in other teachings and parables of Jesus, but really there is no necessity of including those in this one.

There is no special exertion involved in pouring your soup or drink through a strainer. When we read "strain at" I really do not think most of us picture anything having to do with filtering or trying to filter a gnat out of a drink. I never had that context in mind when I read it, and neither do the commentators mentioned, John Gill and Matthew Henry. Using a strainer simply does not enter into the discussion at all when dealing with the phrase "strain at" because we know that means to exert onself and does not imply the context of filtering -- that would just not occur to us. They are two separate words in all our minds and the attempt to make them into one just doesn't work, it is strained reasoning as I have said many times.

And again, even less strained conjecture isn't going to deal with this question anyway if you are trying to talk to people who don't think the KJB has to be perfect at every point of the translation in order to be God's word. What is needed is objective evidence. And again, you claim it has been produced but I haven't seen it.

[Diligent]

I think I just came to the conclusion that God made sure the KJV would say "strain at a gnat" just so we could see who the gnat strainers are!

I have already said this before, but anyone who makes an issue of this phrase is giving a dictionary example of irony.

(Just for the record, I accept the KJV reading as perfect.)

Undelete.

You have such a lack of respect for people who are trying to deal with the questions that people raise about the KJB I wonder why you even bother to run a site to educate anyone. Leave it up to God. He'll lead everybody to your perfectly correct position without your help, right? Seems to me there's a lot of smug self-righteousness around here and petty put-downs that are far from a Christian spirit but full of chest-beating pride and vindictiveness.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

When we read "strain at" I really do not think most of us picture anything having to do with filtering or trying to filter a gnat out of a drink. I never had that context in mind when I read it, and neither do the commentators mentioned, John Gill and Matthew Henry.

With all this discussion about what John Gill and others were picturing, did you even read the full John Gill commentatary ?

Shalom,
Steven

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.

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.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

Seems to me there's a lot of smug self-righteousness around here and petty put-downs that are far from a Christian spirit but full of chest-beating pride and vindictiveness.

Pointing out the irony of debating "strain at/out a gnat" is not "vindictiveness." I certainly believe the KJV reading is correct and I am happy to allow people to defend that reading. But this is at least the third time this question has come up, and it doesn't appear to bear any fruit.

The "camels" of Bible translation and corruption are far weightier. Once you finish straining at the gnat of "strain at a gnat" you will move on to the next minutia. It will never end.

At some point one must decide what their final authority is. There is an abundance of evidence pointing the way to the KJV -- the purpose of this site is to provide for it. But until someone puts their faith in God's word received, one will find a gnat behind every page to strain at.

[Brother Tim]

Connie, first, aren't you painting your criticism with a very broad brush? Second, you seem to assume based on your last post that either (a) we all have a library of resources and limitless time to search for a truly minimal point, or (b) we are all plotting to hide the truth from you and stretch this issue out needlessly.

I am bailing on this discussion. It is no longer edifying.