[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

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

Some thoughts to share from my studies.

The history of how the 'printer's error' or 'typographical error' or 'misprint' idea came to be parroted by so many on essentially myth and no evidence is a fascinating study in itself. (A few in recent days have even claimed that the original King James Bible had 'strained out', even in an age where the 1611 edition is easily available.) This tawdry history of accusation involving men like Adam Clarke and Daniel Wallace may be worthy of a separate post. Big names, small names, all sorts of people who have a resistance to the purity of the King James Bible have spread this myth, unconcerned about the fact that it had no evidence and made no sense historically. Sufficient to them was simply to look at a few other early English Bibles, notice that they had 'strain out' and conclude from that ultra-paltry 'evidence' that there was a 'printer's error' or a 'misprint'.

On the other hand, rarely does an opponent of the King James Bible 'strain at' try a substantive discussion of Greek grammar or Hebraic understanding or English historic usages or Bible context or anything of those sorts. Usually they simply parrot the false printer's error argument. The main exception I have seen is James Price, who had a dialog of sorts with Jeffrey Khoo on the verse. Meanwhile Rick Norris has actually helped show the history of the parroting of the false accusation since Noah Webster (famous for strained 'corrections' to the Bible) without adding any other real substance to the discussion. Often the efforts of Rick Norris and others, while designed to cast doubt upon the pure word of God, ends up simply affirming even more strongly the purity and perfection of God's word in the Holy Bible, the King James Bible.

Without going into Hebraics and Greek grammar and English idioms and all ... why do we know 'strain at' is not a printer's error ?

Three major reasons. Any one of these alone is conclusive, or close to conclusive, put together the issue of an error is done, finito. The only issue is how such a deep deception by King James Bible opponents had so much play and air time for so long.

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

EVERY KING JAMES BIBLE EDITION FOR OVER 140 YEARS

a) every single KJB edition for over 140 years had 'strain at a gnat', and I know of only one edition mentioned until Scrivener that modified this. (There may have been others due to the influence of Noah Webster as a Bible corrector.) As a contrast, the error of shewed to hewed was corrected immediately after the 1st edition. Other true printer's errors or misprints may have taken longer, yet would occur fairly quickly.

And with strained at, in this early critical period, there was no known note or concern of error by anybody. No editions were changed. Every evidence is that the text was considered 100% proper.

KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATOR NOTES

b) Some translator notes were recently discovered. The explanation from Jeffrey Nachimson was given above, here I will share from another the same basic information, from the Baptist Board in 2006 by FranklinMonroe (whose own position on the verse is mixed).

Some of the notes made by John Bois (member of the first Cambridge Committee for the AV1611) during the final revision were recently discovered in Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford, edited by Professor Ward Allen, and published in 1970 under the title Translating for King James.

Mr. Allen is also the co-author with Edward C. Jacobs on The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators' Work-in-Progress. Apparently, a 1610 Bishop's Bible the translators used discovered in the Bodleian Library which reads, "Yee blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallow a camell" had a mark on the verse indicating the intent to alter "out" to "at."

It seems that this was a deliberate change, and not a printer's error

ENGLISH USAGE BEFORE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS TO 1611

3) 'Strain at' was an English usage at the time for the Biblical expression. Continuing to decimate the printer's error argument that was based only on superficial checking of other English Bible editions. In the BaptistBoard thread eight (!) different examples were given of this usage, which I will repeat here.

Iincluding even a translation of John Calvin to English !
Including even another writing by a King James Bible translators !

Rudolf Gwalther
An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572)
"...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne at a Gnat..."

John Whitgift
A godlie sermon preched before the Queenes Maiestie... (1574)
"...ye straine at a Gnat, & swallow..."

John Calvin translated by Arthur Golding
The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin... (1577)
"...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne at a gnat, and swallowe..."

John King
Lectures vpon Ionas deliuered at Yorke... (1599)
"...wonders of nature, whe~ we straine at gnats, & cannot co~ceiue..."

Roger Fenton
An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599)
"...Let vs then leaue to straine at gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..."

George Abbot, ***KJV translator on the Oxford commitee assigned the Gospels***
An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600)
"...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel."

Edward Topsell
The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610)
...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine at Gnats, and swallow Camels,...

Thomas Gainsford
The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610)
"...and seeke extremities, They straine at Gnats..."

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

Whether you embrace or question 'strain at a gnat' it should be abundantly clear that the opponents of the King James Bible have totally deceived themselves with the idea that 'strain at a gnat' was anything other than a conscious, deliberate decision of translation of Matthew 23:24 by superb experts in the Biblical Greek and the English language.

Shalom,
Steven