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.