"The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth".... Not Necessarily (Let Me Explain)

I just had an interesting conversation with someone regarding the bible that I would like to share. For most of my life and all of yours, we were taught that the bible said, "The meek shall inherit the earth." Combine this with "turn the other cheek", and you have a recipe for being passive, keeping your head down, and not defending yourself when you are harmed or others are harmed. Afterall, by turning the other cheek, and being meek, there is holiness in that. Of course, we should remember that the bible most of us have experience with is the "King James Version" of the bible. Throughout history, their have been other versions of the bible, like the Geneva version (which was banned so that the King James version could take over) and the Wycliffe version (which infuriated the church because it illustrated biblically how the behavior of the church at that time was in direct opposition to the the bible). The King James version was not necessarily a direct translation of the bible, but more of a revision; hence the usage of the term "version" and not "translation". A version is how I, myself, tell a story or portray something, whereas a translation is simply taking something and putting it into another language as accurately as can be done. Now, back to the meek thing. Now biblically speaking, the word that was translated to mean "meek" did not actually mean "meek". In translations, sometimes languages have words that don't translate well to other languages. And some languages, like English, have words that have multiple meanings, like shorty (a short person versus a man's girlfriend), live (I want to live versus I went to a live concert), lie (I lie down to sleep versus He is a liar because he is known to lie all the time), came (I came home last night versus the, um, sexual reference), etc. The word that was translated to "meek" actually is more accurately translated to "one who has a sword, but keeps it in its sheath. That is similar to meek in a way, but has one major difference which is lost in our current translation; to have a sword but keep it in his sheath means that one is not passive or exhibiting weakness, but instead is capable of aggression and even violence, but morally chooses to not do so because of obedience to God's laws, which in turn goes back to God's gift to humans.... free will. In other words, there is no morality or honor or holiness in being weak and allowing people to harm or trample over you, because you don't have any other options but to allow that to happen (like a rabbit that is eaten by a fox). Morality in that sense is just a weak person's justification as to why they don't act, which in truth is just cowardice. True morality, honor, and holiness is having the power to do great harm, but choosing to not do so and to act righteously. In that sense, you turn the other cheek because you know the damage you are capable of, and you choose not to do it. Of course, you only have two cheeks, so at some point you have to take the sword out of its sheath and start swinging. Earlier versions of the bible before the King James Version were more along the lines of this "keeping your sword in its sheath, but still have a sword if you need it" philosophy; which, here in the south, most southern Christians know instinctively even though that's not what was taught in church or Sunday school. To understand why this change happened in the Bible, I would suggest that people learn more about King James himself. Spoiler alert: He was a real naughty fella. Take care.