Tares, or weeds ?

On another board, I had a discussion with some KJVOs, who, as usual, were looking for some excuse to support their KJVO myth. They pointed out that most MVs say "weeds" in Matt. 13 where the KJV says "tares". So, I studied to see what a tare in Scripture actually is. (Modern uses excluded)

A tare in Scripture is a species of grass called the bearded darnel, that, when it first grows, strongly resembles young wheat. The difference can be seen only when they've grown awhile. The tare can crowd out & kill wheat, & its seeds can be poisonous if infected by a certain fungus. This weed had no use for man or animal til some French extracted an insecticide from fungus-infected seeds..

And the tare is a weed, as it's useless to man & crowds out wheat & other useful plants.

So, we must conclude that either definition is correct. But the best definition goes to the KJV, as it specifies what species of weed it is, from the Greek zizanion, meaning that particular plant. But simply saying "weed" is NOT incorrect, as the tare is a weed !

 

Most KJVOs are SO DESPERATE to try to justify their false doctrine that they'll use any excuse to attempt to put down newer English Bible translations.

 

Same way they justify the KJV's ADDING to God's word in Rev. 16:5. No KJVO can show us an authentic ancient Greek ms. of Rev with the words "and shalt be" in that verse.

It's called, "The KJV, right or wrong !"