[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

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

Watching the opponents of the King James Bible, in a stupor trying to swat at the gnat, you may understand a bit more the extra effort the last day or two.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

.. those who readily reject the King James Bible view is that they will jump at anything to attack the KJB (it is like they will more quickly accept an atheist’s opinion against the KJB than anything else). It is clear that already unbelief was much advanced by Webster, and that by the time of Trench, Scrivener and others, this view was continued by the "scholars", so that the modern writers can make something "fact" because of the apparent depth of attestation.

Yep. Let me give a modern example.

Daniel Wallace, considered an evangelical scholar while defending the textual apostasy of the alexandrian text, took one of the hardest lines trying to swat the gnat.

Seeming to totally buy into the false teaching about the history of the verse, he declared (as if there was a Greek preposition meaning "out" in the text .. Jack Moorman and others have made clear the grammar issues here):

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today - by Daniel B. Wallace

the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit (sic). In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).

Thus Wallace was buying into the misprint canard ! Claiming this was a scribal corruption in the King James Bible translation-printing process (he makes this even clearer below).

All this as his ONE supposed very definite error !!

Then Wallace puts in a footnote that proves he is wrong above. What stupidity, he likely wrote the article, found out he was wrong, and then put the footnote in (to both articles !) and left the errant articles as is ! What a lack of integrity.

7 Oxford English Dictionary.s.v. “strain [verb],” 21: “It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’, the rendering of earlier versions ... But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency.” Although this may be true, the OED adds quickly that “The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort.’”

What is this ? The first part from OED simply disproved the contention in his article. Then he switches to a strawman about 'violent effort'. We don't presume violent effort, nor does the King James Bible text, nor does the English usage history. This non-sequitur note becomes the Wallace excuse and diversion for his own blunder ! Which he now has in two versions in two articles still on the web ! Amazing.

This is it, folks, this false, phoney, stupid canard for 200 years is their one supposed tangible error !

In fact, this 'scholar' even falsely thought the 1611 had 'strain out' ! (This textual expert can't even find the URL of the 1611 edition put online by the University of Pennsylvania, and even Adam Clarke almost 200 years ago knew there was no difference in the early KJB editions and his comments on this are still easily available and never contradicted. Even the Thomas Neslson reprint edition should have prevented this next blunder.)

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197
Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - by Daniel B. Wallace

Another well-known error is found in Jesus’ discourse against the religious leaders of his day, recorded in Matthew 23. In v. 24 the KJV reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The Greek verb diulivzw means “to strain out.” I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording, but inexplicably changed it later to “strain at.” ...

This is the high level of anti-King James Bible 'scholarship' today. Virtually every fact is gotten wrong in their concern that God's word may actually be pure and perfect and majestic and readable by the ploughman... and yes, even by the seminarian. That thought, that authority, is very discomfiting to these rebels without a cause. So try agiprog, disinformation.

Or, simply reject these folks whose hands are stained, and appreciate and love Gods' word, the King James Bible. Know that God's word is pure and true.

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

Shalom,
Steven