On his both feet?
"So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem: for he did eat continually at the king's table; and was lame on both his feet." (2 Samuel 9:13 KJV)
Is the last phrase "on both his feet" replaced with the phrase "on his both feet"? I thought you normally say his both feet instead of both his feet. I guess either way is fine. Obviously, the one in the KJV is correct. Is the other one correct, too? Could anyone help me clarify it?
I have another question.
Would anyone help me?
Would someone help me?
What is the difference between the two? Thanks.
Top answer
The King James Version is a very old form of English. In some places the translation seems very awkward or strange to modern speakers. Use a modern translation.
- The King James Version is a very old form of English.
- In some places the translation seems very awkward or strange to modern speakers.
- Use a modern translation.
- So Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, because he ate continually at the table of the king.
- Now he was lame in both of his feet.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
The King James Version is a very old form of English. In some places the translation seems very awkward or strange to modern speakers. Use a modern translation.
So Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, because he ate continually at the table of the king. Now he was lame in both of his feet.
deborahjeongIs the last phrase "on both his feet" replaced
0
Related Questions