[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

There is some more to go into about the blunderama from Daniel Wallace. Wallace invested a big emotional and tactical part of his anti-KJB writings on the multi-lies about Matthew 23:24 being a 'scribal corruption' or being originally in the KJB 1611. In a sense that was the Wallace 'closer' after a bunch of weak arguments. After all, if there is only a printer blunder, how can the King James Bible today be defended ? As emphasized also in the 'One Bible Only ?' book.

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

However first a little acknowledgment of the one article that deals directly with the KJB-1611 part of the lie. Someone must have read Wallace or another and asked:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/21centurykjv.asp
Why does the original 1611 version have "strain out a gnat" and modern King James versions misprint that by saying "strain at a gnat" When will this error be corrected?

David Daniels response:
You were lied to about Matthew 23:24. It is a lie spread by anti-King James people. ...

I have a letter-for-letter exact reproduction ... of the 1611 King Jame Bible, first printing by Robert Barker, the King's own printer. Here's exactly what it says:

24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

There you have it. The King James NEVER said "strain out a gnat." It ALWAYS said, in proper English, "strain at a gnat." The modern printings that say "strain at a gnat" are correct. ... The Cambridge King James Bible is an exact replica, with updated spelling and all printing errors removed, of precisely what the translators handed Robert Barker to be printed! ...

In short, there is no error, thus nothing to be corrected, in accurate printings of the King James Bible like the Cambridge. I come from a totally anti-KJV training in Bible college and seminary. It has taken years of research to dispel the stories and lies and doubts placed on God's preserved words, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven