Original KJV Bibles are available for purchase online. So are reproductions, including pdf copies of the originals. Where this gets interesting, at least to me, is that this, in itself, is a puzzle. Why?
I promise this is a real puzzle and not religious spam. This could work for an automobile manual or an agricultural seeds supplier advertisement, that had the same parameters. That is, this has nothing to do with religious faith. You can answer it 100% on historical fact. Indeed, I don't have an answer. The question is actually interesting.
The KJV Bible was published in 1611. The letter J wasn't used until 1633. This is like being sold a wristwatch that is authentically 400+ years old. (I'm editing for a better analogy. How about something more current? Maybe more like someone telling you that they will sell you a document that proves that President GW Bush's military record was flawed. You accept the document as valid, only to later find that the formatting wasn't available on 1970's typewriters and the style matches MS Word Times New Roman 12 font.)
I'm not an authority. I'm just answering based on internet sources that look valid.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
Originally posted by billyrayThat's not entirely accurate. The first known printed source which used I and J regularly as we now do, in English, is from 1633. However, the j itself, as a mere graphical variant on i, stems from Roman times; later, the gothic scripts used it as the last in a series of i's (so 9 would be viij, not viii), in an attempt at increased legibility which also introduced the dots on those letters; and the irregular use of i and j for vowel and consonant is a couple of centuries older than the KJV even in English. In fact, James himself signed his name with a capital J, not I.
The KJV Bible was published in 1611. The letter J wasn't used until 1633. This is like being sold a wristwatch that is authentically 400+ years old. (I'm editing for a better analogy. How about something more current? Maybe more like someone telling you that they will sell you a document that proves that President GW Bush's military record was flawed. You a ...[text shortened]... 2 font.)
I'm not an authority. I'm just answering based on internet sources that look valid.
Also, the KJV wasn't called the King James Version, back then. It would've probably been seen (and not without justification) as blasphemous. The original title page merely calls it the Holy Bible (newly translated &c. ), and mentions James only by title, not by name. The name King James Version is later, from a time when it was useful to compare the various versions.
(Also also... Times New Roman was created in 1931, fifteen years before Dubya himself was - you'd have a hard time telling MS's version apart from most others on a document if you can't tell the difference between typewriting and print in the first place... )
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThank you! That's a super answer!
That's not entirely accurate. The first known printed source which used I and J regularly as we now do, in English, is from 1633. However, the j itself, as a mere graphical variant on i, stems from Roman times; later, the gothic scripts used it as the last in a series of i's (so 9 would be viij, not viii), in an attempt at increased legibi ...[text shortened]... document if you can't tell the difference between typewriting and print in the first place... )
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThanks for the clarification. You are right, too, about the font dating back by decades. The actual anachronistic "tell" in the document wasn't the font, it was the superscripted 'th' on the date. The supposed 1970's typewriters that the military used to create the personnel documents didn't have that superscript capability. Still, I would never presume to argue with you. You really seem to have serious credibility.
That's not entirely accurate. The first known printed source which used I and J regularly as we now do, in English, is from 1633. However, the j itself, as a mere graphical variant on i, stems from Roman times; later, the gothic scripts used it as the last in a series of i's (so 9 would be viij, not viii), in an attempt at increased legibi ...[text shortened]... document if you can't tell the difference between typewriting and print in the first place... )
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
Originally posted by billyrayDon't overestimate my credibility, mind you. Calligraphy and typography are strong interests to me, so I've done a bit of research and have some books lying about that are more credit-worthy than I am myself. I'm not exactly a professional.
Thanks for the clarification. You are right, too, about the font dating back by decades. The actual anachronistic "tell" in the document wasn't the font, it was the superscripted 'th' on the date. The supposed 1970's typewriters that the military used to create the personnel documents didn't have that superscript capability. Still, I would never presume to argue with you. You really seem to have serious credibility.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
Originally posted by coquetteRevised Standard Version - an Americanised (sorry, Americanized) version of the KJV. Since it's still primarily based on that original mockery, its accuracy must remain in question.
don't know what RSV is, but i don't understand "accuracy" in this context. .. .
The original translators of the King James version did an admirable job with what they had but they could of had no more than a handful of extant Greek texts at their disposal. It is to all intents and purposes heavily reliant upon the earlier Latin Vulgate. If anyone is truly interested in the accuracy of modern Biblical texts then read associate professors Jason BeDuhns book, Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.
As for King James he tried to ban us playing football and drinking whisky so we exported him to England to become monarch and good riddance to him.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAccuracy.
Revised Standard Version - an Americanised (sorry, Americanized) version of the KJV. Since it's still primarily based on that original mockery, its accuracy must remain in question.
the ability to accurately evaluate: (1) linguistic content, (2) literary context, and (3) historical and cultural environment as the basis for valid assessment of Bible translation.