(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

So speaking of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. So some guy was on my Facebook today telling me all the King James has all these errors. And when I asked him to actually produce an error, that's the error that he came up with. He said, you know, the King James is wrong when it says strain at a gnat. And I've heard this a bunch of times, I don't know if you guys have heard it. But they say, what it actually should say is strain out a gnat. And people always bring this up as like, this is a big error in the King James, strain at versus strain out. Here's what's so dumb about this, okay? First of all, if you look it up in the Greek New Testament, it doesn't say out or at. It doesn't have either of those. It's basically just says they strain the gnat or they strain the camel. But stop and think about this for a second. Does that even change the meaning at all? Like whether you're straining at the gnat or straining out the gnat, either way, here's what Christ is saying. There's something really small that you guys don't want to swallow, that you just can't handle some little problem or some little thing that you find anomalous, but yet you're willing to swallow this giant ridiculous thing that the Pharisees are teaching you. So basically, either way, whether it's strain out a gnat or strain at a gnat, it's like, you don't want to swallow the gnat, but you're willing to swallow the camel. So what in the world is the difference? It's so funny how the modern version crowd, they always fixate on these nothing burgers, like strain out instead of strain out, these meaningless differences. Meanwhile, the NIVs attacking the virgin birth, attacking the eternal sonship of Christ, attacking the Trinity, attacking salvation, messing up the doctrine of hell, and they're worried about strain at a gnat versus strain out a gnat when I can't even figure out what the meaning would be different as far as applying that verse. What different doctrine would you get from those two different expressions? It's like saying, you know, when it says eat it up, you're like, well, you don't want to eat it up. It goes down. Yeah. Oh, man. Yeah. That's crazy. I'm, I've actually never heard that, you know, I've never heard, but man, that talk about, you know, straighten out a gnat. They say like, well, strain out the gnat. It's talking about like, you know, there's a little gnat floating in their drink and they like strain it out. Like, like, like, I'm sure that, I'm sure that these people 2000 years ago, they have like this little metal mesh strainer. Right. They're straight. They're pouring their drink through a little strainer. And then they're like, you know, versus strain out would be like, you know, you're doing it with your throat, but here's the thing, whether you're straining it out with a little metal strainer or whether you're straining it with your throat, either way, you're like, I don't want to swallow this gnat. But I'm willing to swallow the camel. That's what Jesus is saying. There's no difference in doctrine. You don't walk away. So basically, yeah, somebody can get up and try to sound smart and say, well, unfortunately the King James is wrong. It's actually strain out than that. And they could go into some big made up story about, you know, fishing gnats out of glass. But at the end of the day, there's no difference in the actual meaning of what Jesus is saying. There's no difference in doctrine. It's a total nothing burger. And that's what the new version crowd wants to talk about. James White gets all excited about Revelation 16, five total nothing burger, Ephesians three, nine, total nothing burger. Meanwhile, the new versions are taken out Mark 16, nine through 20. John seven, they're taking out 12 verses. They're taking out John seven 53 to eight 11. They're taking out first John five seven. They're taking out act eight 37 things that actually affect doctrine that actually impact the meaning. Not just these vain janglings, like the whole Matthew 27 44 thing, right about testing the same in their teeth, where it's just like the meaning is there. And that's a great way to explain in English what it means, even though it's not word for word exactly what you see in the Texas Receptus. Yeah. Or God forbid, you know, me and it'll Yeah, I think everybody knows what that means now. Yeah. Yeah, as an example, I think there's a bunch of means on that. Yeah, I just saw another example the other day in Second John, I was reading the Greek New Testament. And he said, I trust to come on to you that we may speak face to face, that our joy may be full. And in Greek, it basically said that we may mouth mouth mouth. Yeah. So that's not a literal word for word translation. But you know, face to face sounds better than mouth to mouth. And it's the exact same meaning. Yeah. And, you know, I go ahead and I well, you know, I read through Hebrews, which is one of the harder books in Greek. You know, when I got done with Hebrews, like, thank God, that was not like a literal, like word for word, because, you know, when I read through that, I was like, I had Hebrews memorized, you know, and I'm going through this, so I knew what the verses should say in English. And I'm reading through it. I'm like, this is hard. Whereas you go to John, it's like, it's a lot of times, it'll will be word for word, you know, it's just like, just very simple grammar and all that. But you don't want it to be like that. You don't want it to be this word for word, everything literal. And then like you said, you know, idioms, I think you use this, or we probably all use this, you know, raining cats and dogs, you know, we know what that means. We know that means it's pouring hard, you know, but if you just transliterate that in some other language, it'd be like, what is going on? You know, I remember like, I remember one time, like, because my brother, he, he speaks Spanish fluently, but he would always try to like translate idioms from English into Spanish when he was talking to my mom. And you know, one time he told my mom in Spanish, he says, estas brincando la pistola, which means you're jumping the gun, you know, you're just jumping the gun, but in Spanish, it just sounds ridiculous. You know what I mean? And my mom's like, what are you trying to say? I'm jumping a what? Like, doesn't make any sense. You know, you can't translate like idioms from a different language. And so or sometimes you have to create an idiom from a different language in order to for it to make sense or something, you know, a lot of people that will point to that as a mistake in the King James just because they didn't translate it super literal. Mm hmm. Right. I mean, it's just like, that's not a mistake. It's just, they put it into our English vernacular, right? Because it sounds better, you know, instead of being all wooden. Yeah. You know what, you hit on this first because I just watched that video where you were in acts there. But when I read through acts, areopagus, you know, and it says areopagus in one place is they visit areopagus. But then there's a place where it says Mars Hill and it's areopagool or it's air aerial. Yeah, because it's basically it's basically Mars Hill and airy. Airy's is Mars. Right. And they do that same thing with Diana. Yeah. Yeah. Because Diana is like Artemis or something like that. And and so, you know, people could point at that and say, well, you know, they should have just transliterated the Greek, you know, God there. But you're in the Roman Empire when this, you know, when it was written. So obviously, you know, it you know, the translators took that the lead there and said, hey, you know, we're going to use the Roman equivalent because it's an equivalent, you know, like when you look at those gods or it's the same God. Yeah. And it's kind of a different name. It's kind of interesting how the King James Bible translators consistently use the the Roman names of the gods instead of the Greek names, which the the original Greek text uses the Greek names for the gods, obviously, like if you're if you're reading the New Testament Greek, it's going to talk about Aries, Zeus, Hermes and Artemis. Whereas when you read the King James, it talks about Mars, Jupiter, Mercury uses all the Roman names. And the only thing I can think of as to why that is, it must just be that in 1611, England, people were probably more familiar with the Roman versions than the Greek versions. So they're probably just making it easy for the people, you know, in 1611 England to understand. You see what I'm saying? Because like, yeah, maybe they're more likely to know who Diana is versus Artemis and it's the same person.