[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Daniel Wallace tries hard to use 'strain as a gnat' as his closer, but it is a blown save. Here is yet a third article, from a talk he gave in 2001, where he tries the same Wallace trickery as we saw above, with some new spins.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1823#P65_17169
Part II: The Reign of the King James(The Era of Elegance) by: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

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

Another Daniel Wallace Self-Contradiction

"I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called ‘first’ edition of the KJV surviving today."

So what is the Daniel Wallace excuse for the untruth about the 1611 text that he gave to readers elsewhere ?

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

Apparently blind reader Wallace decides the King James Bible 1611-text from unknown and ethereal "original autographs".

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

Daniel Wallace Sleight-of-hand Attempt to Claim Printer Errors

Daniel Wallace tries hard to pretend that 'strain at a gnat' (& Jesus in Hebrews 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) were 'printer errors'. Wallace writes in the typical deceptive style of the alexandrian cultist, putting a circle of printer error discussions around the excellent King James Bible translation decisions that were not remotely, in any way, shape or form, printer errors.

Watch the deception - I will put the Wallace quotes in order - A,B,C

(A) printer’s errors were bound to creep in ... (long list of various printer errors over 350 years) ... occasional but bizarre printing mistakes

(B) ... several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. ... Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 .... Matt 23.24 the Authorized Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

(C) In spite of all the printing problems of the KJV

Note the polished deception . By encircling B with A and C, and saying 'several errors' the deceptive Daniel Wallace pretends that the translation issues on the three verses noted are printer errors. A total deception, craftiness, an alexandrian cultist technique.

Note also that Wallace is aware that he is deceiving. He puts in the following footnote:

* It is possible that ‘strain at’ in 1611 English meant ‘strain out’ (so OED). However, it was a rarer meaning even then and certainly should have been changed in subsequent revisions...

And the note itself is full of even more deception. Wallace leaves out that the OED says specifically that it is not a mistranslation and he leaves out that the OED specifically gives multiple usage references. He also fabricates that the OED places 'strain at' as simply a 1611 version of 'strain out'. Amazing.

Wallace also omits the critical Constantin Hopf material, referenced in BDAG. Has he spoken and written about this for years and he never even checked BDAG and the scholarly literature ?

And we have shown on this thread that 'strain at a gnat' was by no means rare, that it was a very well accepted and understood usage, even way beyond the excellent and compelling and conclusive references given by OED and Constantin Hopf.

Thus Daniel Wallace is nothing but consistent. He gets every single fact twisted into an attempt to smear the King James Bible with the big lie of a 'misprint' or 'printer's error'. Then to top off this blunderfest of deceit, The Wallace footnote goes on :

"Inexplicably, this error has remained in the text of most printings of the KJV. "

After acknowledging defacto from OED that it was not a printing error, Wallace, like a dog returning to vomit, goes back to the false claim that it was a printer's error. Quite obviously, only someone who is falsely claiming 'strain at' was a printer's error or a misprint or a 'scribal corruption' (a Wallace classic deceptive phrase for this issue) could claim that the retention is 'inexplicable'.

(See Minton, Making, 350, for exceptions.)

As we saw above, the exceptions are essentially irrelevant. Here is what we know (I will check Minton as well). 140+ years with every edition perfectly agreeing. Then one USA printer around the 1750's some editions had 'strain out'. Then back to agreement for dozens or more editions over the next century plus. Then you have to move ahead to Scrivener, who was influenced by the big lie of a 'printer's error'. Yet that was before OED, Hopf and the new material had totally destroyed that insipid accusation.

Daniel Wallace on this topic truly should put M.D.W after his name .. Master of Deceptive Writing.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Scrivener goofed as well in modifying, as even David Norton indicates. Even with Norton not at all knowing the huge depth of evidences for early usages of 'strain at a gnat' and coming at the issues with his own baggage. Before Scrivener writers like Alford, Paige, Parkhurst and Jacobus did not buy into the misprint canard.