Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Right. I am asking if the original KJV in 1611, as it came off the printing press, had italics. It's completely a curiosity question. I don't care about later revisions, just the original version.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right. I am asking if the original KJV in 1611, as it came off the printing press, had italics. It's completely a curiosity question. I don't care about later revisions, just the original version.
They were set in smaller type.
They were set in smaller type.
Very interesting. Not just a smaller type, but a different font as well! I was curious if italics was even a commonly used type of print at the time, but judging by the sophistication of the elaborate font used in the original printing, I'd say it would almost have to be.
Wow, that was truly informative. Thanks!
I have some German books in my library that use a very similar type to that used in the original KJV and they are from the early 20th century.
I have some German books in my library that use a very similar type to that used in the original KJV and they are from the early 20th century.
That particular script is called blackletter and was the type used by Gutenberg. The English-speaking world switched to a "Roman" script sometime in the 16th Century, apart from certain legal documents and important books, like the AV. Even today, legal documents often have headings in blackletter.
I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
Dr. Alan Cairns, pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC uses KJV. Cairns is one of my favorite preachers.
Do Free Presbyterian churches tend to use KJV? Those I have come across in person or through sermons preach from it.
(Dr. Paisley certainly preached from the KJV..)
Just asking...
I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
Dr. Alan Cairns, pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC uses KJV. Cairns is one of my favorite preachers.
Do Free Presbyterian churches tend to use KJV? Those I have come across in person or through sermons preach from it.
(Dr. Paisley certainly preached from the KJV..)
Just asking...
In view of these requirements, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland believes that it is important to assert, maintain and defend the best translation available in the English language. In 1961 the Synod passed a resolution which continues to express the Church's position. The Synod 'states its firm conviction that the Authorised Version is the best and most faithful translation of the Word of God to be found in the English language'. This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for family and private use.
Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me.
This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for family and private use.
Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me. Someone who is Free Presbyterian or familiar with them clear it up for me...
This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for family and private use.
Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me. Someone who is Free Presbyterian or familiar with them clear it up for me...
Part of the difficulty attaches to the connotations attached to KJVO. A person may "only" use the KJV and not fit into the constellation of significations attached to the label KJVO.
KJVO sometimes carries a nearly cultic belief that the Holy Spirit so superintended the preservation of the text that the translational decisions of the KJV translators are more authoritative than the original Hebrew and Greek!
Part of the difficulty attaches to the connotations attached to KJVO. A person may "only" use the KJV and not fit into the constellation of significations attached to the label KJVO.
KJVO sometimes carries a nearly cultic belief that the Holy Spirit so superintended the preservation of the text that the translational decisions of the KJV translators are more authoritative than the original Hebrew and Greek!
We have had writers on the PB defend the KJV because . . .
* The Byzantine manuscripts are more numerous (90%+) and some on the PB deem them superior to the Alexandrian texts behind the modern translations.
* The differentiation of the singular and plurals in the KJV offers greater clarity than modern English translations.
* 1/3 of the Bible is poetic and they believe that the KJV better conveys the affective aspects of the Bible than some of the more mundane prosaic renderings in English.
* The loss of a common Bible has been lamented and the preservation of the KJV is sometimes seen as an upholding of that which is good and valuable and time-tested.
One could accept an ESV or NASB as "the Bible," use them on occasion, and still preach/teach out of the KJV without holding to the odd views of some of the KJVO crowd.
In all fairness, however, most confessionally Reformed seminary grads were taught to use the Nestle/UBS Critical Text rather than the TR or Majority/Byzantine text.
Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?
I have no problem with the KJV being picked as even a "standard" translation, and the excellencies of the version have already been proclaimed. However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV. I NEVER said they were Ruckmanites, "God and" Riplingerites, or along the lines of the Indy-Fundy Baptist KJVOs. But, the position sounds to me more than just "KJV Preferred" like most of the smaller Reformed bodies hold to.
The question is: is someone who studies, memorizes, uses and loves the Geneva, ESV, NKJV, or other good editions of the Bible a deficient Christian for doing so? Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?
...However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV.... Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?
I have no problem with the KJV being picked as even a "standard" translation, and the excellencies of the version have already been proclaimed. However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV. I NEVER said they were Ruckmanites, "God and" Riplingerites, or along the lines of the Indy-Fundy Baptist KJVOs. But, the position sounds to me more than just "KJV Preferred" like most of the smaller Reformed bodies hold to.
The question is: is someone who studies, memorizes, uses and loves the Geneva, ESV, NKJV, or other good editions of the Bible a deficient Christian for doing so? Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?
Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?
The ESV is over 90% identical to the RSV. Would you also say that the ESV is not a "translation" ?
Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?
Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?
The ESV is over 90% identical to the RSV. Would you also say that the ESV is not a "translation" ?