1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV - Strain at a gnat; Archaic?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by kubel, Nov 26, 2006.

  1. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek: ....and quoted from the NIV too.
     
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am very much impressed by what Jerome posted. Many thanks to Jerome.
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have heard this before, and seems that the basis is that "at" following the verb implies that the action may be ineffective upon the substantive.

    To clarify by example: "shooting at"(as in shooting towards) the target, but with the possibility of missing it; or having a "go at"(as in attempting) surfing, but the effort may fail to qualify or the outcome in doubt; and "strain at"(as in filtering for) a gnat, but perhaps not being successful. In fact, the suggestion has even been made that there may not actually be a gnat present to begin with.

    It seems that "at" in this context defines the substantive as the goal, or an objective, to be attempted.
     
    #43 franklinmonroe, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Also true of "at". It has already been established that the preposition (whether "at", "out", "for", etc) is provided by the translator, and so this is where the dispute arises. There is also no corresponding Greek word for "which" in Matt. 23:24 either, but that does not mean it doesn't belong in the English translation.

    Although, currently it would seem "out" has better foundation for its presence. In this case diulozo in Strongs includes "strain through" or "strain out" as part of the definition. A Greek word is often (necessarily or not) translated by more than one English word. Greek does not have the indefinate article at all (the "a" before the words "gnat" and "camel" in this verse); but it is correctly supplied in English to indicate that the substantive is singular and non-specific.
     
    #44 franklinmonroe, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  5. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, it seems that many individuals seem to know absolutely that "strain at" is not wrong while at the very same time there is collectively great uncertainty as to the reason it is right.

    Here are some of the many different reasons offered why "strain at" has been dogmatically held up as the only possible correct translation, followed by my opinion of the theory:

    1) it means to look upon intensely - completely false
    2) it is an archaic meaning the same as "strain out" - some possible evidence
    3) it implies an objective that may not be achieved, or does not exsist - conjecture
    4) it implies a great exertion being applied during the filtering - conjecture
    5) it implies the filtering only begins as a result of the discovery of a gnat - conjecture
     
    #45 franklinmonroe, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    From the 'Lamsa' Bible at Matthew 23:24--
    Here Lamsa follows the unique translation of "strain at" from the KJV (again, as I have contended in another topic).

    From the Aramaic English Standard Translation--
    Evidently, the "gnats" and "camels" are plural in the Peshitta version. The AEST avoids using any preposition.

    From the Rheims New Testament (an English translation of the Latin Vulgate)--
    The Rheims was contemporary to the AV. If this accurrately represents the Latin, then Christians worldwide using the Vulgate believed that the correct meaning was "strain out" for over 1000 years.
     
    #46 franklinmonroe, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  7. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Rheims underwent a major revision in the eighteenth century.
    The original Rheims that was contemporary to the KJ translation has no out, but strain a gnat.
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thank you, Jerome. Do you know which is a more accurrate translation of the Latin? (original or revised)
     
    #48 franklinmonroe, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, I see no cause for contention here, Bros! I believe we all know what it means, whether it says "at", "out", or "strain a gnat".
     
  10. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    That isn't my argument at all. So you will pardon me for not discussing it.

    The question is merely one of grammar. The King James Version reads correctly. We just aren't used to saying it that way. Furthermore, strain out is an idiom. It isn't necessary to say strain out when strain alone is sufficient.

    I think strain a gnat is a pretty literal translation. In English it doesn't work so well though. The at in the King James is quite helpful in connecting things up since we normally strain a liquid rather than gnats.

    I agree that some of the defenses are bad. Some of the attacks are sillier though.

    BTW: I had never heard of the eyestrain theory. The more common mistaken interpretation is to "gag on a gnat."

    A.F.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    A.F., the "eyestrain" theory was my first impression of this passage as I read it in my youth. Anyway, I am not familiar with the "gag" theory... care to elaborate? Thanks
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    To be fair, there are a lot of folks (many cited) that are sure that "strain at" is wrong, but no consensus as to why it is wrong. A couple of reasons offered, and my opinion--

    1) it is a misprint, a printer's error - false (there is evidence of intent)
    2) it is a mistranslation - some evidence to show it was proper originally (an archaic phrase to us now, or still acceptable grammar)
     
    #52 franklinmonroe, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AntennaFarmer: //The more common mistaken interpretation is to "gag on a gnat."//

    That is true.

    Franklinmonroe: //Anyway, I am not familiar with the "gag" theory... care to elaborate? Thanks//

    Uh, 'more common mistake' - you should dig it.

    how about this?
    The more common mistaken misunderstanding is to "gag on a gnat."
    I.E. you can't swollow a gnat but can swollow a camel.

    More what the scripture is talking is that one who strains (filters)
    their wine to avoid an unclean insect yet chugs down an
    unclearn camel
     
  14. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds like we aren't too far apart on the question.

    A.F.
     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Oh! I think I get it now. In this theory, 'to strain' implies 'to gag' (and the words "at" or "out" aren't really the focus), right? The filtering is occurring directly within the throat!

    I had heard that the Pharisees tried to filter their drink through their teeth and lips to prevent contamination, but I never heard of the gag reflex playing a part.
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Brother A.F., if you're looking for the truth too, then we never were far apart.
     
  17. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. For what it is worth, both seem to adequately express the meaning of excolantes.
    Wycliff used clensing, which is more a paraphrase.
    Thankfully, even the RCC now goes to the original languages.
     
  18. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't thank me, thank Jerome, he provided a ton of useful info. :)
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    OK, special thanks to Jerome. A useful ton? I dunno about that: but he did provide a key post at #13 (which I was eventually able to verify from a second source). Thanks also to A.F. (with his key post at #29). I will say again, thanks to all.
     
    #59 franklinmonroe, Dec 7, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2006
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Robycop3, I hope there hasn't been contention (just debate). Perhaps, many on this board know what it means, but clearly there have been (and still are) many unbased interpretations circulating.
     
Loading...