[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now we go to an extra level of confusion and absurdity from the anti-KJB folks.
The claim that the 1611 had 'strain out' and it was changed to 'strain at'.
As mentioned earlier it is trivially easy to see that this is a false accusation.

1) KJB-1611 is online
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...ePosition=1246

2) KJB-1611 Reprint Editions are available:

Thomas Nelson
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-161.../dp/0840700415

Oxford 1833
http://www.archive.org/stream/holybi...ctre00oxfouoft

3) Many references state plainly that the KJB editions have been consistent - even back to Adam Clarke

KJB-1611
Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides,
which strain at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

Some web-sites and threads think that the King James Bible had "strain out" originally and then changed it to "strain at". This super-blunder would be mostly a quirk of history if the Internet hasn't revived it some and top 'scholar' Daniel Wallace did not express the idea in his 2006 paper.

Why do these men want to believe so many lies about one verse ?

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

Web-Sites with 1611 Blunder

Here are web-sites.
Note the last of the three gives the source and the first also mentions using the Jack Pearl Lewis book.

http://www.asapnet.net/remnant/page5isKJVonly.htm - Good News Messengers Church - Milwaukee

http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/15.html - Anti-KJB pages

http://cranfordville.com/Studies/HisBibleLec4.html
Lecturer on Bible history - Lorin Cranford at Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, NC

Another printing error continued in modern printings and defying explanation is "strain at a gnat"
(Matt. 23:24) where the 1611 version correctly had "strain out a gnat." (Lewis, pp. 37-38)

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

So the history of this extra aspect of the 'myth-accusation' of a misprint seems to start here:
Below is a review of the current status, if you find more share away.

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

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913) - First Blunder on 1611

http://books.google.com/books?id=HX4PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2864
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia ISBE - James Orr (1913)

"the first ed of AV read the same as RV, but in the later edd a misprint converted 'strain out' into 'strain at' "

This ISBE blunder is still carried, uncorrected, on various websites, including the NetBible site of Daniel Wallace. Other writings of 1915-1980 appear to have recognized this as a blunder as it is not seen to be repeated for a long time. And it was removed in a later ISBE. :

Later, by 1995, probably before the ISBE had removed the more overt bliunder, to remain with simply the common blunder:

"typographical error crept in"

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

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913) - Internet Lemmings

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Strain - NetBible
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8432 - Studylight
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/isbe/isbe.cfm?id=8438 - BlueLetterBible
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/is...i?number=T8432 - SearchGodsWord
http://www.biblemaster.com/bible/enc...sp?number=8432 - BibleMaster

Notice that they updated the spelling, expanded the names (e.g. RV = Revised Version) while maintaining the blunder. !

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

Two Modern Books with Error
One Bible Only ? uses 'English Bible ..' blunder

http://www.amazon.com/English-Bible-.../dp/B000XBMU7M
Jack Pearl Lewis - The English Bible .. (1981) - (based on three references; would like to check exact wording)

One Bible Only ? (2001) - Roy Beacham & Kevin Bauder
http://tinyurl.com/5s3ctd
"the 1611 edition had ... 'strain out a gnat' .. error ... was introduced at a later date" (Lewis, The English Bible, p. 38) p. 101
http://tinyurl.com/5ffmp8
"uncorrected misprint.. mistakes in copying and printing the Bible..
How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that should be changed ?" p.90

Beacham-Bauder's One Bible Only ? played every angle.

Apparently the Lewis book was done with spotty research and understanding. Michael Marlowe, himself very much textcrit modern version oriented, says:

"In his polemic against adherents of the venerable KJV, Lewis gives an entirely false impression of the number of significant differences between editions of the KJV, which really amount to very few, if indeed any, although many changes of spelling and punctuation have naturally been made in the course of its long history -- yet these cannot be compared to the significant alterations often quietly made in printings of the modern versions. He often fails to take notice of the Greek text proper to the KJV, and so criticizes the version for what he believes to be a faulty translation in places where it presents a perfectly accurate translation of the Received Text. In other places his unjust criticisms merely show that he is not familiar with the Elizabethan idiom of the KJV."

Apparently Lewis set the stage for a lot of the logically weak argumentation that we see today in the Internet discussions.
========================================

Big Chief Modern Blunderer - Daniel Wallace Th.M., Ph.D.

This was covered before, so we have mostly the threads, and the 1611 quote below.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=45
one very definite error -> the modern version accusations
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379&page=8 posts 79 & 80
'Misprint' Quote Festival - prior to 1611 - and 1600s

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197
Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

Note: when Wallace refers to 'scribal corruptions' he is giving his own version of and spin on the 'misprint' and 'typographical error' canard.

"one very definite error in translation .. even KJV advocates would admit (sic)."
"this illustrates ... that scribal corruptions can and do take place"

"strain out .. I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording"

Ironically, Wallace is so obtuse and confused in his animus to the authority and purity of the Holy Bible (King James, Authorised Version) that he can offer up two totally false and essentially contradictory theories at the same time. In the Wallace view the KJB-1611 was done fine and right ('strain out' per Dr. Wallace) and then every later edition had a printer's error and nobody even noticed that they had changed the verse from the 1611. And Daniel Wallace, offering this ludicrous theory to modern scholarship, never even checked an easily available King James Bible 1611 edition ! This is the state of textual apostate scholarship, just wing it with an un-prayer if you try to smear the King James Bible.

For those who try to follow and believe the false Daniel Wallace theories, people won't come to you only to sell bridges. They will want to sell you whole towns and cities.

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Shalom,
Steven