[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Please understand that the 'strain at a gnat' accusation is anachronistic. We are in an age of information that fully refuted the accusation and the accusers have to feign ignorance. (Or be deliberately ignorant.)

In the 1600s there was no accusation at all.

In the 1700s folks did not appreciate the Bible God had given, and many went ahead to translate, Some of those translated 'strain out' or 'strain away' or 'strain off'. And Lowth grumbled grammatically. Still no accusation.

In the 1800s more new translations and the clamor came for 'revision' and as part of that clamor the misprint accusation developed, sans evidence. However they did not know the early writings before 1611, only Shakespeare. The accusation was stupid, banal, yet there was a level of ignorance.

The incredible labors on the English Oxford Dictionary changed that, bringing forth two refutation references, Mamillia and John King. So there was no more excuse, yet many ignored. At this time the accusation was already anachronistic, being superseded by scholarship.

More so with Constantin Hopf (1944) the party was over. Two additional references, top Bible translation, before 1611. End of story.

Then the Internet age, and all of a sudden we have 15 dynamic references available, every single one a refutation of the misprint accusation.

Thus we can say that the accusations of Wallace and Kutilek and Norris and Combs and Mann and Minton and Glenny and Bowman and Price and Bruce and so many more is anachronistic and obsolete and long-refuted. They belong to a different age and they were tawdry, weak, dubious anti-scholarship in that earlier age.

Shalom,
Steven