View Single Post
  #28  
Old 07-24-2008, 06:11 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Connie I specifically quoted your error on John Gill, you falsely stated that he was not aware of the filtering aspect.

"filtering ...I never had that context in mind ... neither (does) John Gill"


When in fact John Gill specifically discusses straining as filtering in great depth, from the Hebraic understandings.

Now you have switched gears to simply saying that he doesn't directly discuss strain at vs. strain out .. yet actually even on that his commentary gives deep insight on all the issues.

I have no idea what explanation of "strain at" you are calling strained right above ? Please indicate ! Chrystostom ? If so, he wrote in Greek so he wasn't trying to rationalize "strain at". He could be showing how the greek word diluzio was understood 1600 years ago in Greek, however. Does that matter to you ?

Are you aware that the Greek lacks a preposition, which would more likely be expected if the Greek was to mean strain out ?

I'm out for a bit, so I will leave with those thoughts and questions.

I really have no idea what evidences you are interested in, depending on your mood you seem to reject the English (active usage of strain at before the time of the King James Bible, the redundancy of strain out, the idiomatic issues) the Greek (e.g. the lexicons that you reject) the Hebraics (Gill who you reject), historical evidence of conscious translation, which you hand-wave, and more so I don't know what is left .

What is the evidence that you really think is significant ? Let's be clear, and not go in circles. When I come back I will try to include what I think were the best discussions of the Greek grammar and the English language "strain at.." history. However not so much for Connie, as for the completion of the forum thread, unless Connie indicates exactly what issues are in fact primary.

Schaff was actually against "strain at", he was very liberal in text, it is very possible the translator was simply being faithful to the Greek of Chrysostom. Can you consider that possibility ?

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-24-2008 at 06:18 PM.