A Serious Error in the King James Version

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Advocates of the King James Version assume that it is the apex of Bible translations for the English-speaking world. Later translations are assumed to have diluted the truth, or to embody a humanist agenda.

What if the King James Version had a serious error, not in an obscure part of the Old Testament, or buried in the Epistles, but in the Gospels themselves, in the teaching of Jesus? Daniel B. Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of a widely used text on New Testament Greek, says that it does.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 KJV

24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 NIV

The KJV pictures the Pharisee squinting to see a gnat. All other translations point to the Pharisees straining wine to remove small insects such as gnats. It is known that they did this, or had the women or the servants do it. A Pharisee squinting to get a better look at a gnat, on the other hand, is pointless.

By using the wrong preposition, "at" instead of "out," the KJV causes the reader to use the wrong definition of "strain." This word, "strain," has a whole series of definitions. It is both a noun and a verb and can be used as a verb without an object and as a verb with an object. In this case the choice is between two uses of "strain" as a verb with an object. Dictionary.com lists seven uses of "strain" as a verb with object. The KJV uses Defintion 2 while the other translations use Definition 7.

2. to exert to the utmost:
to strain one's ears to catch a sound.

7. to pour (liquid containing solid matter) through a filter, sieve, or the like in order to hold back the denser solid constituents: to strain gravy.

While the average reader might skip over this, the KJV makes a distinct error in the teaching of Jesus, using the wrong definition of "strain," and so portraying the wrong action.


Professor Wallace is clear about the KJV giving a wrong translation of this verse.

<< Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ >>

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

Another comment from Professor Wallace:

<< For example, in Matthew 23.24 the KJV says, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” The Greek means “strain out a gnat.” >>

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation/


This error in the KJV does not change any doctrines but neither does it help us to understand the teaching of Jesus.
 

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I've always understood what "strain at a gnat" means because the following words "swallow a camel" make it abundantly clear.

Even if this is a mistranslation, how is it a serious error? What biblical truth is distorted?
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Advocates of the King James Version assume that it is the apex of Bible translations for the English-speaking world. Later translations are assumed to have diluted the truth, or to embody a humanist agenda.

What if the King James Version had a serious error, not in an obscure part of the Old Testament, or buried in the Epistles, but in the Gospels themselves, in the teaching of Jesus? Daniel B. Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of a widely used text on New Testament Greek, says that it does.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 KJV

24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 NIV

The KJV pictures the Pharisee squinting to see a gnat. All other translations point to the Pharisees straining wine to remove small insects such as gnats. It is known that they did this, or had the women or the servants do it. A Pharisee squinting to get a better look at a gnat, on the other hand, is pointless.

By using the wrong preposition, "at" instead of "out," the KJV causes the reader to use the wrong definition of "strain." This word, "strain," has a whole series of definitions. It is both a noun and a verb and can be used as a verb without an object and as a verb with an object. In this case the choice is between two uses of "strain" as a verb with an object. Dictionary.com lists seven uses of "strain" as a verb with object. The KJV uses Defintion 2 while the other translations use Definition 7.

2. to exert to the utmost:
to strain one's ears to catch a sound.

7. to pour (liquid containing solid matter) through a filter, sieve, or the like in order to hold back the denser solid constituents: to strain gravy.

While the average reader might skip over this, the KJV makes a distinct error in the teaching of Jesus, using the wrong definition of "strain," and so portraying the wrong action.


Professor Wallace is clear about the KJV giving a wrong translation of this verse.

<< Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ >>

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

Another comment from Professor Wallace:

<< For example, in Matthew 23.24 the KJV says, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” The Greek means “strain out a gnat.” >>

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation/


This error in the KJV does not change any doctrines but neither does it help us to understand the teaching of Jesus.


Accuracy in the reading of God's word is important. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit was to men in their language who wrote it down in their language. It is a good idea to learn to understand as much as possible about the original language, for a true rendition. It must be viewed by what the meaning was in their time and in their culture--not in our time and our culture in order to rightly appreciate the word. God is very precise in His words--He has to be--what He says is. When He speaks even the elements hear and obey. The original had neither verses and chapters and preciously little punctuation. Removing these can render the meaning of some verses vastly different. The original was inspired, and I feel the translations also--however, we must bear in mind that man is fallible and make mistakes. When you grow up in a certain time and culture, you carry that in your subconscious no matter how hard you may try not to when translating from one language into another, when both are in different times and cultures. The KJV is set in that time with those mores and thoughts of that time.
Language is never static--the word "gay" once had a very different meaning. Someone reading that word even 60 years ago would have in mind only "happy"--it is best now to use the word "happy," instead---"The Happy Widow", however, just doesn't sound right to me, though definitely more accurate for today.
The rendering of this verse (Mat 23:24)this way does make a difference---just not a life saving one. The straining of the gnat was explained to me, even in grade school, as straining wine also. If there is a better rendering and understanding of an original word, there is no need to fear it. God is very detailed. When He said "Lazarus, come forth,"--if He hadn't said Lazarus---every grave would have opened. He spoke a world into existence---His words are power and are of critical importance.
 
Upvote 0

r4.h

Active Member
Feb 11, 2018
167
83
62
Hamilton
✟13,310.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Accuracy in the reading of God's word is important. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit was to men in their language who wrote it down in their language. It is a good idea to learn to understand as much as possible about the original language, for a true rendition. It must be viewed by what the meaning was in their time and in their culture--not in our time and our culture in order to rightly appreciate the word. God is very precise in His words--He has to be--what He says is. When He speaks even the elements hear and obey. The original had neither verses and chapters and preciously little punctuation. Removing these can render the meaning of some verses vastly different. The original was inspired, and I feel the translations also--however, we must bear in mind that man is fallible and make mistakes. When you grow up in a certain time and culture, you carry that in your subconscious no matter how hard you may try not to when translating from one language into another, when both are in different times and cultures. The KJV is set in that time with those mores and thoughts of that time.
Language is never static--the word "gay" once had a very different meaning. Someone reading that word even 60 years ago would have in mind only "happy"--it is best now to use the word "happy," instead---"The Happy Widow", however, just doesn't sound right to me, though definitely more accurate for today.
The rendering of this verse (Mat 23:24)this way does make a difference---just not a life saving one. The straining of the gnat was explained to me, even in grade school, as straining wine also. If there is a better rendering and understanding of an original word, there is no need to fear it. God is very detailed. When He said "Lazarus, come forth,"--if He hadn't said Lazarus---every grave would have opened. He spoke a world into existence---His words are power and are of critical importance.

Very good point re Lazarus. But i couldnt help thinking. zombie like (dazed) people coming out into the sunshine, rubbing their eyes and saying who woke me up. lol

I think strain at is better than strain out, as the Pharisee` were not catching a little lie but missing the big truth as much as straining to receive smallest truth, but swallowing wholesale error.
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Advocates of the King James Version assume that it is the apex of Bible translations for the English-speaking world. Later translations are assumed to have diluted the truth, or to embody a humanist agenda.

What if the King James Version had a serious error, not in an obscure part of the Old Testament, or buried in the Epistles, but in the Gospels themselves, in the teaching of Jesus? Daniel B. Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of a widely used text on New Testament Greek, says that it does.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 KJV

24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 NIV

The KJV pictures the Pharisee squinting to see a gnat. All other translations point to the Pharisees straining wine to remove small insects such as gnats. It is known that they did this, or had the women or the servants do it. A Pharisee squinting to get a better look at a gnat, on the other hand, is pointless.

By using the wrong preposition, "at" instead of "out," the KJV causes the reader to use the wrong definition of "strain." This word, "strain," has a whole series of definitions. It is both a noun and a verb and can be used as a verb without an object and as a verb with an object. In this case the choice is between two uses of "strain" as a verb with an object. Dictionary.com lists seven uses of "strain" as a verb with object. The KJV uses Defintion 2 while the other translations use Definition 7.

2. to exert to the utmost:
to strain one's ears to catch a sound.

7. to pour (liquid containing solid matter) through a filter, sieve, or the like in order to hold back the denser solid constituents: to strain gravy.

While the average reader might skip over this, the KJV makes a distinct error in the teaching of Jesus, using the wrong definition of "strain," and so portraying the wrong action.


Professor Wallace is clear about the KJV giving a wrong translation of this verse.

<< Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ >>

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

Another comment from Professor Wallace:

<< For example, in Matthew 23.24 the KJV says, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” The Greek means “strain out a gnat.” >>

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation/


This error in the KJV does not change any doctrines but neither does it help us to understand the teaching of Jesus.
I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two translations of Matthew 23:24. The whole point is that hypocrites will harass God-fearing people for the most insignificant things, while turning a blind eye to huge sins committed by their allies.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Advocates of the King James Version assume that it is the apex of Bible translations for the English-speaking world. Later translations are assumed to have diluted the truth, or to embody a humanist agenda.

What if the King James Version had a serious error, not in an obscure part of the Old Testament, or buried in the Epistles, but in the Gospels themselves, in the teaching of Jesus?
I would care, but this wouldn't make any other translation be preferable let alone perfect.

Daniel B. Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of a widely used text on New Testament Greek, says that it does.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 KJV

24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 NIV
I cannot see how this amounts to a killer or even very serious mistranslation.

By using the wrong preposition, "at" instead of "out," the KJV causes the reader to use the wrong definition of "strain."
The message appears to be the same, however.

This error in the KJV does not change any doctrines but neither does it help us to understand the teaching of Jesus.
Interesting. So, it's doctrinally sound but might require a little help from an expert in linguistics, history, or the like to understand it perfectly--JUST AS IS THE CASE WITH EVERY OTHER TRANSLATION.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Following up the OP ...


When Jesus says that the Pharisee would "swallow a camel," He is referring to the Old Testament law which lists camels as an unclean animal.

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
--Leviticus 11:4 KJV

4 There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.
--Leviticus 11:4 NIV


Gnats are also unclean under Old Testament law, which forbids eating flying insects with four legs. Jesus apparently dismisses any accidental ingestion of gnats or other insects since it is not a deliberate act.

20 All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.
--Leviticus 11: 20-23 NIV
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The strain-at-a-gnat error is so blatant that some have wondered if the error was made by the printer instead of by translators. This is mentioned in Ellicott's Commentary.


<< Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(24) Strain at a gnat.--Better, as in Tyndale's and other earlier versions, strain out. It is sometimes said that the present rendering of the Authorised version is but the perpetuation of a printer's blunder; but of this there is scarcely sufficient evidence, nor is it probable in itself. In the Greek both nouns have the emphasis of the article, "the gnat--the camel." The scrupulous care described in the first clause of the proverbial saying was literally practised by devout Jews (as it is now by the Buddhists of Ceylon), in accordance with Leviticus 11:23; Leviticus 11:42. In the second clause, the camel appears, not only, as in Matthew 19:24, as the type of vastness, but as being among the unclean beasts of which the Israelites might not eat (Leviticus 11:4). >>


Link:Matthew 23:24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
are you not swallowing a camel yourself my brother. Strain out or strain at makes no real ddifference and as you admit, certainly not doctrinatley .

It could be stated, "you can`t swallow (strain at) a nat, (a little truth) but you easily swallow a camel (a complete error)

No version is infallible, it would be surprising indeed if fallible humans could translate perfectly one language into another.

Please excuse my fallible post.:help:


You say that no translation is infallible, and that is fair enough.
Nevertheless, every other translation seems to have done a better job on Matthew 23:24. The Tyndall translation, older than the KJV, got it right, for instance.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The old King James wasn't perfect, but it has a wonderfully legacy and I have found it to be reliable. I have much bigger issues with the textual criticism that renders modern translations wooden and blah. What they call the KJV is probably the 1769 version, which is different from modern English. At the time it was probably consistent with common expression. I don't see a major issue with straining at, and simply straining a gnat. It sounds like the KJV is saying staring because of the gnat rather then straining to see the gnat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The KJV is an ok but dated translation. There are better ones out there.
I have a hard time getting away from it because so much scholarship is tied to it, especially the Strong's, Vine's and many commentaries. It's usually a good idea to cross reference with other translations, there are a bunch of them. I think the KJV is true to the majority text the vast majority of the time.

Nothing wrong with the old King James, if you know it's history it's about 85% the same as the Geneva and Tyndale Bible which predate it by decades.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
HI dale,

Personally, I don't see any difference in the point being made. Whether or not there was some practice to strain gnats out of wine isn't the point of Jesus' words. The point was that they would fight to the death over very little issues of the word of God and yet make great errors in understanding the whole of the word of God.

Either translation works fine to make that point.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 KJV

24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
--Matthew 23:24 NIV

The New King James Version appears to have corrected it:

“Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matt. 23:4 NKJV)​

The KJV pictures the Pharisee squinting to see a gnat. All other translations point to the Pharisees straining wine to remove small insects such as gnats. It is known that they did this, or had the women or the servants do it. A Pharisee squinting to get a better look at a gnat, on the other hand, is pointless.

By using the wrong preposition, "at" instead of "out," the KJV causes the reader to use the wrong definition of "strain." This word, "strain," has a whole series of definitions. It is both a noun and a verb and can be used as a verb without an object and as a verb with an object.

Went ahead and looked up the Greek word in question here. This word, From διά (G1223) and hulizo (to filter). Is only used once in the New Testament. The Strong's definition indicates 'strain out', is thought to be a misprint:

διϋλίζω diÿlízō, dee-oo-lid'-zo; from G1223 and ὑλίζω hylízō hoo-lid'-zo (to filter); to strain out:—strain at (probably by misprint). (Strong's Dictionary)
Which makes it odd that the RV and AV keep it in:

Strain Out: primarily denotes "to strain thoroughly" (dia, "through," intensive, hulizo, "to strain"), then, "to strain out," as through a sieve or strainer, as in the case of wine, so as to remove the unclean midge, Mat 23:24, RV (AV, "strain at"). (Vine's Dictionary G1368)​

I think it's translated wrong but hardly a serious error.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Professor Wallace gives other reasons for his stand that the King James Version is not the best translation, in the same articles.

"There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word ..."

"Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient."

" ... 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning ..."

" I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations."

Link: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today


"There has never been an authorized revision of the KJV."
Although:

"The KJV that is used today is almost always the 1769 revision."

In other words, almost all of the Bibles sold today that say "Authorized Version" on them aren't really authorized, either by the British monarch or by the Church of England.
( ... and certainly not by God.)

"Most biblical scholars—both conservative and liberal—would say instead that the KJV added words and verses, rather than that the modern ones have removed such. And this is in part because the oldest and most reliable manuscripts lack the extra verses that are found in the KJV."

Link: Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

"The KJV New Testament, for example, was essentially based on seven Greek manuscripts, dating no earlier than the eleventh century. Today we have about 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, including those that the KJV translators used. And they date as early as the second century."

Link: Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Professor Wallace gives other reasons for his stand that the King James Version is not the best translation, in the same articles.

"There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word ..."

"Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient."

" ... 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning ..."

" I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations."

Link: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

The majority of manuscripts that have been discovered and catalogued in the past four hundred years agree more with the Textus Receptus than with the modern Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text. The majority of these manuscripts, termed the Byzantine Majority Text by scholars such as WilburPickering, Zane C. Hodges, Maurice A. Robinson, are in the Byzantine tradition which generally agrees with the Textus Receptus...The NA/UBS text is highly edited, being a composite text of readings from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and other manuscripts, all of which disagree with each other in thousands of places (Wasn't the Textus Receptus based on just a few manuscripts? KJV Today)
The NA/UBS text is based on Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and disagree with the Byzantine tradition in thousands of places. Just because he only used a half a dozen manuscripts for the actual composition doesn't mean he wasn't aware of other variations, he had been studying them for years.

"There has never been an authorized revision of the KJV."
Although:

"The KJV that is used today is almost always the 1769 revision."

In other words, almost all of the Bibles sold today that say "Authorized Version" on them aren't really authorized, either by the British monarch or by the Church of England.
( ... and certainly not by God.)

I would agree only that the Scriptures are canonical only in the originals. We do not have perfect copies but we do have the best preserved documents from the ancient world for the translations from the Hebrew as well as Greek Scriptures.

"Most biblical scholars—both conservative and liberal—would say instead that the KJV added words and verses, rather than that the modern ones have removed such. And this is in part because the oldest and most reliable manuscripts lack the extra verses that are found in the KJV."

Link: Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

"The KJV New Testament, for example, was essentially based on seven Greek manuscripts, dating no earlier than the eleventh century. Today we have about 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, including those that the KJV translators used. And they date as early as the second century."

Link: Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text

He based it on the Byzantine Majority Text, far more consistent with those 5800 Greek manuscripts then NA/UBS. I've never been KJV only and I have no serious reservations about consulting the NIV right beside the KJV. I don't see a dimes worth of difference between the manuscripts other then normal text variation effecting no essential doctrine or essential content of the narratives.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tallguy88
Upvote 0

TerryWoodenpic

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2017
440
208
89
Oldham
✟39,925.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
in English the word strain can have two meanings, To strain at or against, or to strain a fluid.
They are two different English words, that happen to have the same spelling and sound, but totally different meanings.

I rather doubt that this is the case in koine Greek as it would be a strange coincidence. But I would need to hear that from a specialist Greek language linguist.

If this is so, the argument between "at and out" fails miserably.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
in English the word strain can have two meanings, To strain at or against, or to strain a fluid.
They are two different English words, that happen to have the same spelling and sound, but totally different meanings.

I rather doubt that this is the case in koine Greek as it would be a strange coincidence. But I would need to hear that from a specialist Greek language linguist.

If this is so, the argument between "at and out" fails miserably.

Hi terry,

Personally, I think that Jesus' use of the phrase 'swallow a camel' would indicate that he was talking of 'straining a liquid' in his use of the word strain. To 'strain at' some goal wouldn't really fit with 'swallowing a camel'.

That's just how I break it down.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TerryWoodenpic

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2017
440
208
89
Oldham
✟39,925.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Hi terry,

Personally, I think that Jesus' use of the phrase 'swallow a camel' would indicate that he was talking of 'straining a liquid' in his use of the word strain. To 'strain at' some goal wouldn't really fit with 'swallowing a camel'.

That's just how I break it down.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

That would seem likely ... But what does the Greek word mean, is it "to strain a Fluid"? or "to strain at a task"?
That is what no one has addressed in this thread. The two meanings of strain, will be different words in Greek.

In English entomology the two words come from different roots. it is just chance that they sound and look the same.
 
Upvote 0