Please refrain from exhuming decaying corpses


Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.


I used to teach English. But I confess to struggling with archaic English. I used to advise my students to ignore archaic English as it was ‘out of date’ with the modern understanding and modern tongue.

It was my conjecture as an English Teacher that archaic language like its interpratation may have been syntactically correct but the semantics were next to useless: we simply do not know what is meant as we no longer understand the meanings of how archaic ancient language related to now dead cultures.

So why do we still use these terms?

What is Mote? Please do not anser me. I really do not want to know. If someone wishes to communicate to me in a meaningful way then they need use the mother language of the current culture.

I have no interest in learning ancient English.

Mote is dead. May it rest in peace. Please refrain from digging up decaying corpses


Frankly, your sentiments are reprehensible on every level. I was going to call them “barbaric” but that’s an insult to barbarians, who generally know how to prize archaic things.

If you want to be ignorant, that’s your privilege. But I’m horrified by the idea that you used to teach English.

I can’t imagine saying that any form of knowledge is useless, in the first place. And the history of words is particularly important, because every word we use is informed by its history and by the history of every word that has ever interacted with it.

If you don’t want to understand archaic language, then you don’t really care about language at all. And you ought to care about language, because you can’t get through a single day without using it.



Gee. I was going to say that “mote” (noun) isn’t archaic at all. It’s a prefectly functional contemporary word; something you see around the house every day. Especially on a sunny day.

But the above will do.



Did you know you used thou? Blessed art thou among women?

I believe the verse refers to hypocrisy- hypo Gk hypo(under)Krinefhai( to play a part pretend)

The putting forward of a false pretence of virtue or religion

The want of goodness, the pretence of having it. St. Thomas Aquinas

I think the beam in greek means to think big of oneself when looking in the mirror or trying to get others to think you are macho.
It’s an ego trip.

mote means spear

Do you think Shakespear (Era) wrote the King James version of the bible?

Why was King James so important?


No, Dessert, “mote” does not mean “spear,” it means “speck” or “small particle,” like a mote of dust (not to be confused with the truly archaic meaning of “mote” which means “must”).

“Beam” means exactly what it means when you are discussing the beams in your ceiling, a very large piece of wood.

So "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye"
means to deal with your own faults before you go nitpicking someone else’s because your own are likely much bigger and worse that that which you are criticizing and will keep you from being able to make an accurate judgement about the issues of others.

A history of translations of the Bible in English


mote; karphos ; (greek)a dry twig or straw
I guess that is smaller than a spear? But distorts the vision and the brain cognicense just as much.

Thanks for the site, I’m thinking of getting a Dueo Rhemes soon probably didn’t spell this right. Dessert:)


From the Merriam Webster online dictionary (of modern English, btw)
Main Entry: 2mote
Pronunciation: 'mOt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mot, from Old English; akin to Middle Dutch & Frisian mot sand
: a small particle : SPECK

From the online etymological dictionary (
"particle of dust," O.E. mot, of unknown origin; perhaps related to Du. mot “dust from turf, sawdust, grit.” Many references are to Matt. vii.3.

As it says, the verse is Matthew 7:3. You can view and compare a large number of translations at It does not appear to have the Douay-Rheims, perhaps someone else can direct you to a site where that version is searchable.

New International Version
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

To Sixtus, if you do not care to encounter archaic English, why are you using a version of the Scripture that is written that way?


…and a fine book at that…


What thou spakest thou doest not sayath with thy tongue what thou meanest, but of that which thou sayath thou meanest, is not what thou sayest but what thou does’t which art not what thou meanst. Mote it be

Anwerath thoust mine please?


Ist asketh that thou spaketh. Why wheretherfore thou not spaketh? Thou not answerth that which mine seeketh for thar truth. Spaketh pleasteth art thou?


[SIGN][size=4]:smiley: :smiley: Mr. Coverdale?? Paging Mr Miles Coverdale!!"[/SIGN][/size]


oh! Sixtus Wherefore Out Thou Sixtus?


Um, okay:

Yo, hommie, we can’t be dissin’ the old stuff because the old stuff is where it bees!


(according to my nephew)


I have a Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek and it is very old about 30 yr. and I even have to use a magnifier with my bifocals to get the right number.:shrug:
so it is nice I found this site, but not sure if it has all the books but a lot cheaper says the ‘New Lexicon’

but here is the site hope it works

I’m having fun learning how to make large letters

Yeah, I 've been reading in Matt. 7 thanks. Dessert


Try again :mad: just once I’m not mechanical :smiley: I get mad at myself


mote is dead, now we have e-motes :whistle:


Oh, my, yes. My favorite single SF book, for fun reading. THE GRIPPING HAND was a little bit of a disappointment, but that’s common with sequels. Miller couldn’t follow CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, succcessfully, either.



A Canticle for Leibowitz is another classic. Many years ago I was a member of my church’s book club. Every six weeks or so, we’d pick a book (usually something with a spiritual or religious connection, such as a novel by Flannery O’Connor, or a classic by C.S. Lewis, or something interesting by Francis Schaeffer), read it and discuss it over cheese, wine and beer. Great fun, except for the time when I chose Canticle for Leibowitz! I loved it, but everyone else thought it was “just weird”. (BTW, I need to get you my list of McDevitt books…) :wink:


They’re not quite as dead as they might seem to you. The law is simply full of terms and expressions that are no longer used in common parlance, but are still current in legal expression. They are tough to “modernize” because, over the years (centuries in some cases) they have acquired meanings distilled by hundreds or thousands of decisions. Change the word, and you open up a whole new Pandora’s box of potential meanings. That, of course, is completely aside from a certain fondness for words (“Oyez” comes to mind) that don’t have precedential significance, but which lend a certain majesty and sense of historic continuity to the whole. When, for example, the relationship between citizen and state in litigation is still governed, for the most part, by “In Re the Men of Devon”, (1788), and one sees the term “fee simple” on every deed and mortgage, (“fee” being derived from “feoff” a medieval term denoting ownership) one tends to lose that sharp mental distinction between what is “ancient” and what is “modern”.

But aside from that, the English language has pretty broad arms; containing more words than most languages. I see no reason why, if addition is constant and unrestrained, there must necessarily be subtraction based solely on someone’s subjective judgment that certain terms are “archaic”, so long as anyone wants to bother to acquaint himself with them. In the case of KJV or Douay-Rheims English, many manifestly do want to bother.


Oh, not “just weird”! Perhaps the best literary examination of Original Sin and the interplay of human hubris and Providence that I have ever seen. You were right.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit