I will probably eventually look up John Gill, Steven, I have made use of his commentary before, but my comments here were in relation only to what was posted here from him. I would have expected that whatever was posted would have been the most relevant to this topic, wouldn't you? Therefore I did not expect that the poster would have left out a discussion about the former use of "strain out" and the translators' choice of "strain at." And now I see that despite your hint that he has more to say I should know about, he no doubt doesn't discuss this at all. But that's what I'm saying is the necessary objective evidence.

The rest of your post I simply am not following. You are making a lot of assertions about something but I don't know what, what "scholarly references" and so on. The speculations I found at Will Kinney's site remain speculations as far as I can see, simply explanations people come up with for how "strain at" makes sense to them, not actual evidence that its occurrence in the AV was not an error. If you see something there that is objective and not merely speculative, shouldn't you quote it so I can see what you mean? Otherwise I have no idea what you mean and all you are doing is slinging accusations at me.

I did not notice Jeffrey Anybody there and at this point don't see why I need to since you have not given me reason to. Where you say

all I can answer is that this is a perfect example of the typical speculation I was talking about. Can't you see that this is speculation and interpretation? It's clearly an attempt to make sense of the fact that the text has "strain at" but the Greek means filtering. This is what everybody is doing with this passage, Will Kinney, you, etc., but it's strained reasoning. But if you accept it as authoritative then nothing I say about its being strained reasoning is going to be persuasive.

This is not evidence that "strain at" was intended by the translators, this is just the usual attempt to explain it in such a way that makes it useful for Christian life. But I've already said I accept that it is useful. So is "strain out" useful in exactly the same way. Both give useful instruction, but "strain out" is an accurate translation and "strain at" is not. What I need in order to be convinced is not plausible interpretations but objective evidence that the translators intended "strain at" in spite of the fact that it is not an accurate translation, which of course they would have known. If they chose it, then they chose it for some other reason they considered more important. It's a simple enough requirement. Nothing else will do. If it's not available then I have to decide if I can swallow such strained rationalizations as I'm being offered as God's word. If John Gill does not assert in his commentary that the translators intended it then I see no point in checking John Gill either. I'm sure his interpretation of "strain at" is just as plausible as everybody else's is, but that doesn't prove the translation was correct and it doesn't tell me whether it is in the KJB in error or not.

Thank you for your attention to this topic. I believe I now know all I need to know about it.