[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

As pointed out Daniel Wallace makes no mention of the extremely pertinent scholarly paper by Constantin Hopf in any of the three articles we have examined where he makes a variety of errors about 'strain at a gnat'.

For the relatively minor issue of KJB editions with 'strain out' Daniel Wallace referenced:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Daniel Wallace: (See Minton, Making, 350, for exceptions.)

Which leads to:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1791
Ron Minton, The Making and Preservation of the Bible (n.p.; November, 2000)

With n.p. being non-published, a draft received. We saw that the information was short, only three items over hundreds of years of publishing, and that may have been why Daniel Wallace used a footnote reference to an unpublished work rather than listing the paltry 3 editions. Thus leaving the reader with the impression that there may be a wide divide in the King James Bibles, maybe Ron Minton lists 100 editions ! Also the information was only partially correct, while the Baskett and Scrivener editions can legitimately be considered as (wayward) King James Bible editions that had 'strain out' the Noah Webster revision would be no more a King James Bible edition than the modern revisions and 'updates' © by Douel, Nelson and Sovereign Grace Publishers (Jay Green) with names like KJ21, KJ3, MKJV, NKJV etc. These editions are tainted by the need to make changes to justify their existence and their ©. Thus, considering the commonly accepted myth-accusation, they will want to look good by not perpetuating a 'misprint' . Error begets error. The myth-accusation influences the versions of the misguided 'reformers' of the pure Bible text.

At least Noah Webster thought he had a basis for his attempts to change the pure King James Bible text (e.g. he actually believed the text was indelicate) rather than kowtowing to misinformation and the lure of lucre as is common today. While Webster was very wrong, at least he seems to have acted consistently to his understandings. He was more of a myth-maker than a myth-kowtowerr. (Note that his false misprint accusation was only presented as a possibility, e.g. "evidently an oversight or misprint".

Shalom,
Steven