[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The 'strongest' non-argument or pseudo-argument given for the misprint canard was 'other early versions had 'strain out a gnat'. Well..duhh..the King James Bible translators updated the (arguably archaic and ill-fitting) 'strain out' usage to what was the common and more active and precise translation of their day. As they updated and modified and changed and improved words throughout the Bible, leading to the pure and majestic and revered and accepted Bible.

(An interesting point is that the people who aggressively mention the other 1500s versions here generally will not give these Received Text NT's the time of day. They only get dug out and referenced if they can be in some way put into a comparison with the King James Bible that they think they can use in anti-KJB agiprop !.)

The history of this phrase 'strain at a gnat' was clearly shown by the 15+ references of pre-1611 usage. (Even if you do not agree with the King James Bible translators decision, even if you personally would prefer one of the alternatives, 'strain at a gnat' clearly was their usage-understanding translation.)

Yet even in the other versions there is one very significant evidence to turn the corner. This one slipped through our earlier lists, mainly because it is not technically 'strain at'.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible, while having the 1560 text of 'strain out a gnat' had a significant margin note. And this note seems to go back to the early 1560 Geneva.

http://www.genevabible.org/files/Dai...3footnotes.htm
http://www.thedcl.org/bible/gb/matthew.pdf
Ye stay at that which is nothing, and let pass that which is of greater importance.

Hmmm.. sounds familiar, with a similar sense .
Well, maybe it was another of the gang of misprints !

Shalom,
Steven