[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

contributing much valuable research into the matter.

Most welcome, Will. Sometimes the objections of the 'Bible correctors' and of those confused is actually helpful since it encourages us to really look closer at the Bible text, and the commentary and language and history .. Now I can more leisurely go in and out of various issues related to "strain at a gnat". Here are a few miscellaneous notes on the early days.

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

John Wycliffe, given a bit differently.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ron9pWRhXFUC&pg=PA383
Select English Works of John Wyclif
Blynde leders, syynge the gnatte and swalowe the camel.

A variation on other spellings and article usage, more commonly like:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XKKe55WkzKEC&pg=PA123
blynde leders, clensynge a gnatte, but swolowynge a camel

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

Next, more early English references. The first one is simply "straine a gnat" a bit different yet showing the effort. The second includes an early commentary.

http://books.google.com/books?id=imbObI1uCkkC&pg=PA186
Encyclopædia metropolitana; or,
Universal dictionary of knowledge, Volume XVI (1845) (p. 186)

Precisians and plaine plodders
(such is this, and so is that)
In loue do swallow cammells, whilst
They nicely straine a gnat.
Warner. Albion's England, book vi. (c.1600)

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rnb2nA6BZloC&pg=PA39
Letters and Exercises of the Elizabethan Schoolmaster John Conybeare (c.1590)
They streigne a gnatte through their teeth, and swallowe downe a cammel

An apt proverbe applied by oure saviour christ unto the Phariseis, which did aggravate small offences and mayntayne great enormities. It maye be nowe used agaynst such persons as seke out and punishe small offenders, and leat the great trespassours agaynst the la we goe quyte unpunished. Also them that are scrupulouse yn thinges of litle importaunce, and yn ambition, avarice, extorcion, advonterie, theft, murder, treason or heresie. they fynde no daunger of conscience.

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

The Rheims-NT 1582 is given as:
Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel

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

One source, an article "Strain at a Gnat' By Constantin Hopf (1944) indicates (through Google, I have not yet seen the whole article) that an early Latin commentary that was translated to English of Marlorate by Thomas Tymme in 1570 may have been one resource used by the King James Bible translators as well. I extracted these excerpts/abstracts.

Constantin Hopf rejects a recent revival of the contention that the reading strain at in the Authorized Version is a misprint for strain out, and produces examples of the use of the former phrase in 1570 and 1584.

Thus Tymme in 1570 and Paget in 1584 provide further evidence that 'strain at' was a usage in vogue before 1611. It is worth noting too that the English text which serves as lemma in Tymme has 'strayne out' immediately followed by 'strain at' in Tymme's rendering of Calvin. The juxtaposition was thus not regarded as a discrepancy.

Should be available through JSTOR, two pages, also Oxford Journals and maybe others. JSTOR is usually easy at university libraries.

Thus the 'misprint' and 'printer's error' and 'typographical error' canard had even been fully refuted in the scholarly journals over 60 years ago.

Will Daniel Wallace and Doug Kutilek and Roy Beacham and Theodore Mann and William Combs and James Price and Rick Norris and Ron Minton and all the others spreading disinformation ever catch up ?

Remember this is supposed to be, according to top-scholar Daniel Wallace, the ONE definite error, an uncorrected 'scribal corruption', a misprint or printer's error, etc. ! Thus we are supposed to retire our refined and pure King James Bibles and move to their favored corrupt alexandrian-cult textcrit versions. (And 'evangelical' Daniel Wallace wants to be sure to snip out the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus given in Mark.)

Amazing.

And yes, they can claim an error -- for their own shoddy research and their spirit of railing accusation against the pure and perfect Holy Bible, the King James Bible. The depths of despondency, emptiness, despair, distress of those with no pure Bible, they have to try to find 'something', anything ..

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven