[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

the Bible versions, which generally had 'strain out' (Wycliffe being different, an earlier dialect).

And the Rheims NT being different, 'strain a gnat'.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now we go to an extra level of confusion and absurdity from the anti-KJB folks.
The claim that the 1611 had 'strain out' and it was changed to 'strain at'.
As mentioned earlier it is trivially easy to see that this is a false accusation.

1) KJB-1611 is online
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...ePosition=1246

2) KJB-1611 Reprint Editions are available:

Thomas Nelson
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-161.../dp/0840700415

Oxford 1833
http://www.archive.org/stream/holybi...ctre00oxfouoft

3) Many references state plainly that the KJB editions have been consistent - even back to Adam Clarke

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

Some web-sites and threads think that the King James Bible had "strain out" originally and then changed it to "strain at". This super-blunder would be mostly a quirk of history if the Internet hasn't revived it some and top 'scholar' Daniel Wallace did not express the idea in his 2006 paper.

Why do these men want to believe so many lies about one verse ?

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

Web-Sites with 1611 Blunder

Here are web-sites.
Note the last of the three gives the source and the first also mentions using the Jack Pearl Lewis book.

http://www.asapnet.net/remnant/page5isKJVonly.htm - Good News Messengers Church - Milwaukee

http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/15.html - Anti-KJB pages

http://cranfordville.com/Studies/HisBibleLec4.html
Lecturer on Bible history - Lorin Cranford at Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, NC

Another printing error continued in modern printings and defying explanation is "strain at a gnat"
(Matt. 23:24) where the 1611 version correctly had "strain out a gnat." (Lewis, pp. 37-38)

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

So the history of this extra aspect of the 'myth-accusation' of a misprint seems to start here:
Below is a review of the current status, if you find more share away.

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

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913) - First Blunder on 1611

http://books.google.com/books?id=HX4PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2864
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia ISBE - James Orr (1913)

"the first ed of AV read the same as RV, but in the later edd a misprint converted 'strain out' into 'strain at' "

This ISBE blunder is still carried, uncorrected, on various websites, including the NetBible site of Daniel Wallace. Other writings of 1915-1980 appear to have recognized this as a blunder as it is not seen to be repeated for a long time. And it was removed in a later ISBE. :

Later, by 1995, probably before the ISBE had removed the more overt bliunder, to remain with simply the common blunder:

"typographical error crept in"

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

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913) - Internet Lemmings

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Strain - NetBible
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8432 - Studylight
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/isbe/isbe.cfm?id=8438 - BlueLetterBible
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/is...i?number=T8432 - SearchGodsWord
http://www.biblemaster.com/bible/enc...sp?number=8432 - BibleMaster

Notice that they updated the spelling, expanded the names (e.g. RV = Revised Version) while maintaining the blunder. !

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

Two Modern Books with Error
One Bible Only ? uses 'English Bible ..' blunder

http://www.amazon.com/English-Bible-.../dp/B000XBMU7M
Jack Pearl Lewis - The English Bible .. (1981) - (based on three references; would like to check exact wording)

One Bible Only ? (2001) - Roy Beacham & Kevin Bauder
http://tinyurl.com/5s3ctd
"the 1611 edition had ... 'strain out a gnat' .. error ... was introduced at a later date" (Lewis, The English Bible, p. 38) p. 101
http://tinyurl.com/5ffmp8
"uncorrected misprint.. mistakes in copying and printing the Bible..
How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that should be changed ?" p.90

Beacham-Bauder's One Bible Only ? played every angle.

Apparently the Lewis book was done with spotty research and understanding. Michael Marlowe, himself very much textcrit modern version oriented, says:

"In his polemic against adherents of the venerable KJV, Lewis gives an entirely false impression of the number of significant differences between editions of the KJV, which really amount to very few, if indeed any, although many changes of spelling and punctuation have naturally been made in the course of its long history -- yet these cannot be compared to the significant alterations often quietly made in printings of the modern versions. He often fails to take notice of the Greek text proper to the KJV, and so criticizes the version for what he believes to be a faulty translation in places where it presents a perfectly accurate translation of the Received Text. In other places his unjust criticisms merely show that he is not familiar with the Elizabethan idiom of the KJV."

Apparently Lewis set the stage for a lot of the logically weak argumentation that we see today in the Internet discussions.
========================================

Big Chief Modern Blunderer - Daniel Wallace Th.M., Ph.D.

This was covered before, so we have mostly the threads, and the 1611 quote below.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=45
one very definite error -> the modern version accusations
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379&page=8 posts 79 & 80
'Misprint' Quote Festival - prior to 1611 - and 1600s

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197
Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

Note: when Wallace refers to 'scribal corruptions' he is giving his own version of and spin on the 'misprint' and 'typographical error' canard.

"one very definite error in translation .. even KJV advocates would admit (sic)."
"this illustrates ... that scribal corruptions can and do take place"

"strain out .. I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording"

Ironically, Wallace is so obtuse and confused in his animus to the authority and purity of the Holy Bible (King James, Authorised Version) that he can offer up two totally false and essentially contradictory theories at the same time. In the Wallace view the KJB-1611 was done fine and right ('strain out' per Dr. Wallace) and then every later edition had a printer's error and nobody even noticed that they had changed the verse from the 1611. And Daniel Wallace, offering this ludicrous theory to modern scholarship, never even checked an easily available King James Bible 1611 edition ! This is the state of textual apostate scholarship, just wing it with an un-prayer if you try to smear the King James Bible.

For those who try to follow and believe the false Daniel Wallace theories, people won't come to you only to sell bridges. They will want to sell you whole towns and cities.

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,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

For those who try to follow and believe the false Daniel Wallace theories, people won't come to you only to sell bridges. They will want to sell you whole towns and cities.

And even worse, impure counterfeits of the pure and perfect word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

There is some more to go into about the blunderama from Daniel Wallace. Wallace invested a big emotional and tactical part of his anti-KJB writings on the multi-lies about Matthew 23:24 being a 'scribal corruption' or being originally in the KJB 1611. In a sense that was the Wallace 'closer' after a bunch of weak arguments. After all, if there is only a printer blunder, how can the King James Bible today be defended ? As emphasized also in the 'One Bible Only ?' book.

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

However first a little acknowledgment of the one article that deals directly with the KJB-1611 part of the lie. Someone must have read Wallace or another and asked:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/21centurykjv.asp
Why does the original 1611 version have "strain out a gnat" and modern King James versions misprint that by saying "strain at a gnat" When will this error be corrected?

David Daniels response:
You were lied to about Matthew 23:24. It is a lie spread by anti-King James people. ...

I have a letter-for-letter exact reproduction ... of the 1611 King Jame Bible, first printing by Robert Barker, the King's own printer. Here's exactly what it says:

24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

There you have it. The King James NEVER said "strain out a gnat." It ALWAYS said, in proper English, "strain at a gnat." The modern printings that say "strain at a gnat" are correct. ... The Cambridge King James Bible is an exact replica, with updated spelling and all printing errors removed, of precisely what the translators handed Robert Barker to be printed! ...

In short, there is no error, thus nothing to be corrected, in accurate printings of the King James Bible like the Cambridge. I come from a totally anti-KJV training in Bible college and seminary. It has taken years of research to dispel the stories and lies and doubts placed on God's preserved words, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Daniel Wallace tries hard to use 'strain as a gnat' as his closer, but it is a blown save. Here is yet a third article, from a talk he gave in 2001, where he tries the same Wallace trickery as we saw above, with some new spins.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1823#P65_17169
Part II: The Reign of the King James(The Era of Elegance) by: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

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

Another Daniel Wallace Self-Contradiction

"I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called ‘first’ edition of the KJV surviving today."

So what is the Daniel Wallace excuse for the untruth about the 1611 text that he gave to readers elsewhere ?

"strain out .. I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording"

Apparently blind reader Wallace decides the King James Bible 1611-text from unknown and ethereal "original autographs".

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

Daniel Wallace Sleight-of-hand Attempt to Claim Printer Errors

Daniel Wallace tries hard to pretend that 'strain at a gnat' (& Jesus in Hebrews 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) were 'printer errors'. Wallace writes in the typical deceptive style of the alexandrian cultist, putting a circle of printer error discussions around the excellent King James Bible translation decisions that were not remotely, in any way, shape or form, printer errors.

Watch the deception - I will put the Wallace quotes in order - A,B,C

(A) printer’s errors were bound to creep in ... (long list of various printer errors over 350 years) ... occasional but bizarre printing mistakes

(B) ... several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. ... Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 .... Matt 23.24 the Authorized Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

(C) In spite of all the printing problems of the KJV

Note the polished deception . By encircling B with A and C, and saying 'several errors' the deceptive Daniel Wallace pretends that the translation issues on the three verses noted are printer errors. A total deception, craftiness, an alexandrian cultist technique.

Note also that Wallace is aware that he is deceiving. He puts in the following footnote:

* It is possible that ‘strain at’ in 1611 English meant ‘strain out’ (so OED). However, it was a rarer meaning even then and certainly should have been changed in subsequent revisions...

And the note itself is full of even more deception. Wallace leaves out that the OED says specifically that it is not a mistranslation and he leaves out that the OED specifically gives multiple usage references. He also fabricates that the OED places 'strain at' as simply a 1611 version of 'strain out'. Amazing.

Wallace also omits the critical Constantin Hopf material, referenced in BDAG. Has he spoken and written about this for years and he never even checked BDAG and the scholarly literature ?

And we have shown on this thread that 'strain at a gnat' was by no means rare, that it was a very well accepted and understood usage, even way beyond the excellent and compelling and conclusive references given by OED and Constantin Hopf.

Thus Daniel Wallace is nothing but consistent. He gets every single fact twisted into an attempt to smear the King James Bible with the big lie of a 'misprint' or 'printer's error'. Then to top off this blunderfest of deceit, The Wallace footnote goes on :

"Inexplicably, this error has remained in the text of most printings of the KJV. "

After acknowledging defacto from OED that it was not a printing error, Wallace, like a dog returning to vomit, goes back to the false claim that it was a printer's error. Quite obviously, only someone who is falsely claiming 'strain at' was a printer's error or a misprint or a 'scribal corruption' (a Wallace classic deceptive phrase for this issue) could claim that the retention is 'inexplicable'.

(See Minton, Making, 350, for exceptions.)

As we saw above, the exceptions are essentially irrelevant. Here is what we know (I will check Minton as well). 140+ years with every edition perfectly agreeing. Then one USA printer around the 1750's some editions had 'strain out'. Then back to agreement for dozens or more editions over the next century plus. Then you have to move ahead to Scrivener, who was influenced by the big lie of a 'printer's error'. Yet that was before OED, Hopf and the new material had totally destroyed that insipid accusation.

Daniel Wallace on this topic truly should put M.D.W after his name .. Master of Deceptive Writing.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Scrivener goofed as well in modifying, as even David Norton indicates. Even with Norton not at all knowing the huge depth of evidences for early usages of 'strain at a gnat' and coming at the issues with his own baggage. Before Scrivener writers like Alford, Paige, Parkhurst and Jacobus did not buy into the misprint canard.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

As we saw above, the exceptions are essentially irrelevant... (I will check Minton as well).

Checking Ron Minton, he adds nothing new, only what we have already discussed, listing :

1754 eight volume edition issued in London by T. Baskett
1833 Noah Webster revision
1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by F.H.A. Scrivener

And no more. King James Bible defenders do not consider the Noah Webster revision a King James Bible as it incorporates hundreds of his peculiar revisions, such as changing the text to avoid indelicate words. It might be comparable to the KJ/21-Millenium versions (not considered a King James Bible edition by KJB defenders) although some of its changes would be more radical. The Douel editions (KJ/21, Millenium and whatever else they have) and the Jay Green editions (e.g. MKJV) make the error of changing the text. My conjecture is that they see the 'misprint' lie in a lot of places and want to look hip. Another reason to avoid all those copyrighted, deficient almost-but-not-quite King James Bibles, where they make changes that are simply unnecessary and wrong. And with Webster we saw how he was one of the first to raise the 'misprint' canard.

I referenced Baskett above as USA. This is complex because there were some editions that may have said London even though they were USA printed and to be sure either way more checking would have to be done. There may have a few Baskett editions in that period with "strain out". I have yet to see anything in writing at the time about why the editions were off, nor have I seen whether or not they made other changes. Perhaps 'strain out' in the Baskett editions was a typographical error . Maybe not likely, but far more likely than the 1611, where the probability of a misprint is effectively 0.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by F.H.A. Scrivener

It is worth noting that this iimproper modification will carry over to a modern publisher King James Bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Cam...aragraph_Bible
The original Cambridge Paragraph Bible

Cambridge Paragraph Bible ... the KJV text in the standard reference work in New Testament Octapla edited by Luther Weigle, chairman of the translation committee that produced the Revised Standard Version.

Ok, not particularly significant, though worthy of note since we are trying to be complete.
Note the following:

... recently, the publisher Zondervan has attempted a revival of Scrivener's text by conforming all its newer editions of the KJV to it, such as its Zondervan KJV Study Bible.

So a newer Zondervan edition, at least the 'KJV Study Bible', will have the improper 'strain out'. I confirmed this in a 2002 edition, which has a lot of material lauding the NAS and NIV Study Bible origins, and the people involved in those editions. A good indication why the best King James Bible publishers are those that understand and appreciate the purity and perfection of the King James Bible and work only with the King James Bible text. With a tip of the cap to the work done on the Pure Cambridge Edition to bring these questions to focus and clarity.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

As pointed out Daniel Wallace makes no mention of the extremely pertinent scholarly paper by Constantin Hopf in any of the three articles we have examined where he makes a variety of errors about 'strain at a gnat'.

For the relatively minor issue of KJB editions with 'strain out' Daniel Wallace referenced:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Daniel Wallace: (See Minton, Making, 350, for exceptions.)

Which leads to:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1791
Ron Minton, The Making and Preservation of the Bible (n.p.; November, 2000)

With n.p. being non-published, a draft received. We saw that the information was short, only three items over hundreds of years of publishing, and that may have been why Daniel Wallace used a footnote reference to an unpublished work rather than listing the paltry 3 editions. Thus leaving the reader with the impression that there may be a wide divide in the King James Bibles, maybe Ron Minton lists 100 editions ! Also the information was only partially correct, while the Baskett and Scrivener editions can legitimately be considered as (wayward) King James Bible editions that had 'strain out' the Noah Webster revision would be no more a King James Bible edition than the modern revisions and 'updates' © by Douel, Nelson and Sovereign Grace Publishers (Jay Green) with names like KJ21, KJ3, MKJV, NKJV etc. These editions are tainted by the need to make changes to justify their existence and their ©. Thus, considering the commonly accepted myth-accusation, they will want to look good by not perpetuating a 'misprint' . Error begets error. The myth-accusation influences the versions of the misguided 'reformers' of the pure Bible text.

At least Noah Webster thought he had a basis for his attempts to change the pure King James Bible text (e.g. he actually believed the text was indelicate) rather than kowtowing to misinformation and the lure of lucre as is common today. While Webster was very wrong, at least he seems to have acted consistently to his understandings. He was more of a myth-maker than a myth-kowtowerr. (Note that his false misprint accusation was only presented as a possibility, e.g. "evidently an oversight or misprint".

Shalom,
Steven

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

However first a little acknowledgment of the one article that deals directly with the KJB-1611 part of the lie. Someone must have read Wallace or another and asked:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/21centurykjv.asp
Why does the original 1611 version have "strain out a gnat" and modern King James versions misprint that by saying "strain at a gnat" When will this error be corrected?

David Daniels response:
You were lied to about Matthew 23:24. It is a lie spread by anti-King James people. ...

I have a letter-for-letter exact reproduction ... of the 1611 King Jame Bible, first printing by Robert Barker, the King's own printer. Here's exactly what it says:

24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

There you have it. The King James NEVER said "strain out a gnat." It ALWAYS said, in proper English, "strain at a gnat." The modern printings that say "strain at a gnat" are correct. ... The Cambridge King James Bible is an exact replica, with updated spelling and all printing errors removed, of precisely what the translators handed Robert Barker to be printed! ...

In short, there is no error, thus nothing to be corrected, in accurate printings of the King James Bible like the Cambridge. I come from a totally anti-KJV training in Bible college and seminary. It has taken years of research to dispel the stories and lies and doubts placed on God's preserved words, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

Hi Steven. You can also go to 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."

Study Light can be found here:

http://www.studylight.org/

Just type in Matthew 23:24 and scroll down to "early versions", then click on KJV 1611 edition. There it is.

Will K

[chette777]

you guys are straining at a lot of material and what a good job for the defense of the KJV.

I posted in another post that I strain at many things,I strain at righteousness, I strain at understainding the Bible, the KJV translaters were correct in using the words strained at. Jesus was showing that the Pharisee's were mentally focused on the wrong things to strain at. the words left as they are are very important to us today for we can strain at many things but we need to make sure our straining at is of correct priority.

Many don't strain at the study of God's word they spend more time straining at small issues of of the word, Life and godliness and dont focus of the large more wieghtier matters of spirituality.