View Single Post
  #25  
Old 07-24-2008, 03:20 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
Gill... I would have expected that whatever was posted would have been the most relevant to this topic, wouldn't you?
Everything John Gill writes on this is relevant. What is "most relevant" will very from person to person and discussion to discussion. You have your own glasses.

And for you to make conclusions about John Gill's insight on an extract, along the lines of "John Gill only knew of A-B-C, Gill wasn't aware of filtering .." was flat-out wrong. You still do not seem to understand the basics, when you write a false statement it is your responsibility before God, and it is something that you should diligently seek to avoid. At that point, you propagate an untruth. Even now, you seem to recognize no accountability for your own mistaken words, instead trying to blame others who have done their job well.

John Gill was 100% aware of the rabbinic elements of both filtering and physically straining, even if that combination doesn't fit into your mental boxes. Incidentally he was not a King James Bible defender, although often his insights are helpful, his view was more that of the Reformation Bible, thus it would be neutral looking at this verse. Similarly Matthew Henry, however he did not have the depth of rabbinic background as did John Gill.

For you to take the view that a Greek lexicon entry (they are often compiled by scholarly liberals) is some sort of King James Bible strained apologetic is simply silly. Often such scholarly lexicons will be working off of Greek classical sources. Perhaps you are not aware of that as well. There are some tools (e.g. Strong's Concordance) that tend to simply work with the Bible text and can be somewhat circular. Yet there are other tools that are based on etymological and historical and classical study. Likely Bauer-Danker is of the latter nature, and if so it is 100% germane to your requests for more understanding. i.e. If you could get out of your mental contortionist box.

Honestly, I think you are way off-base at this point in the discussion, you have moved so far aware from the fundamentals and simple understandings that there is little more to say. I understand fully why Tim and Brandon commented as they did, however I noted some things that you had written that were flat-out wrong, dangerously wrong apparently by spiritual-mental blockages, and I wanted to try to help you to see the problem, so far without a notable response other than excuses and close-minded tunnel-vision.

If you want objective evidence of translator's intent, as you claim is the only thing that would ever satisfy you (which is truly a nonsensical view to take if you understood all the issues and evidences) then research Jeffrey's understanding from the Ward Allen book. That is likely the only possible evidence either way about translator's intent, since we don't have a lot of paper saved from 1611. Or simply accept Jeffrey's understanding as true, the translator's purposefully changed "strain out" to "strain at". End of story.

However you are very demanding, combined with misunderstanding, a very unfortunate combination, and, be warned, potentially a road to unbelief.

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

If you want to have a little fun, look at this translation of Chrysostom (c 400 AD) by Schaff (not KJB at all). Is this text reflecting the actual Chrysostom pronoun/grammar ? (I dunno.)

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/N...pnf1-10-79.htm
Homily LXXIII of Matthew

Then, to show that there is no harm arising from despising bodily
cleansings, but very great vengeance from not regarding the
purifications of the soul, which is virtue, He called these "a gnat,"
for they are small and nothing, but those other a camel, for they were
beyond what men could bear. Wherefore also He saith,
"Straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel."

www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXIII.html
Homily XXIII.

For although His disciples had been guilty of no such sin, yet in them were supposed to be offenses; as, for instance, not keeping the sabbath, eating with unwashen hands, sitting at meat with publicans; of which He saith also in another place,
"Ye which strain at the gnat, and swallow the camel."
But yet it is also a general law that He is laying down on these matters.


Oh..uh.. was John Chyrsostom part of this vast straining KJB conspiracy ? Or Schaff ? Oh.. wait. Apparently Schaff tries to correct Chyrsostom ! Or his editor. Perhaps they are concerned that Chrysostom had read the Authorized Version ?

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-24-2008 at 03:50 PM.