Dears, peace to all those
Any of you did know that in the year 380 Wycliffe used "IHU" instead of "JESUS", and Gutenberg, in the year 1454. used "IHESUS" instead of "JESUS" and in the year 1611 the 47 experts in Greek, Hebrew and English used "IESVS" instead of "JESUS" in the KJV 1611?
The above is not too hard to find out using the web mostly in the "images" option, if any wants the links email to josecadena@cantv.net
I must tell to all of you that I was kicked out of the forum "Talk Jesus" because I post this, and I was insulted by the manager of that forum
The name and the number os the beast
The name and the number os the beast
Wycliffe's use occurred by 1382 when his translation was first published, not "380". I think you dropped a "1".
There was no letter J, U or W in the latin alphabet. It's generally considered that Wycliffe used "IHU" as an abbreviation.
The Oxford English Dictionary etymology says this:during the ME. period regularly used in its OF. (objective) form Iesu (Jesu). The (L. nom.) form Iesus (Jesus) was rare in ME., but became the regular Eng. form in 16th c. Yet in Tindale's New Test., 1525-34, the form Iesu was generally used where the Gr. has {capital}{iota} {eta} {sigma} {omicron} {upsilon}{accent}, the Vulgate Iesu, in the vocative and oblique cases. This was, as a rule, retained by Coverdale 1535, and in the Great Bible 1539, also, in the vocative instances, in the Bishops' Bible 1568; but in representing the Gr. oblique cases, this has Iesus.
Iesu disappeared from the Geneva 1557 (except in one place), and from the Rhemish 1582, and the version of 1611.
Jesu was frequent in the earlier forms of the Book of Common Prayer [which dates from 1549], and survives in one place; in later use it occurs in hymns, rarely in nom. or obj., but frequently in the vocative. In hymns, the possessive Jesus' is commonly sung.
In ME. the name was rarely written in full, being usually represented by the abbreviations ihu, and ihc, ihs, ihus, or ihu{accent}, etc.: see IHS. These have been commonly expanded by modern editors as Ihesu, Ihesus, forms which occur occasionally in MSS. and in early 16th c. printed books.Welcome to ForumGarden.
There was no letter J, U or W in the latin alphabet. It's generally considered that Wycliffe used "IHU" as an abbreviation.
The Oxford English Dictionary etymology says this:during the ME. period regularly used in its OF. (objective) form Iesu (Jesu). The (L. nom.) form Iesus (Jesus) was rare in ME., but became the regular Eng. form in 16th c. Yet in Tindale's New Test., 1525-34, the form Iesu was generally used where the Gr. has {capital}{iota} {eta} {sigma} {omicron} {upsilon}{accent}, the Vulgate Iesu, in the vocative and oblique cases. This was, as a rule, retained by Coverdale 1535, and in the Great Bible 1539, also, in the vocative instances, in the Bishops' Bible 1568; but in representing the Gr. oblique cases, this has Iesus.
Iesu disappeared from the Geneva 1557 (except in one place), and from the Rhemish 1582, and the version of 1611.
Jesu was frequent in the earlier forms of the Book of Common Prayer [which dates from 1549], and survives in one place; in later use it occurs in hymns, rarely in nom. or obj., but frequently in the vocative. In hymns, the possessive Jesus' is commonly sung.
In ME. the name was rarely written in full, being usually represented by the abbreviations ihu, and ihc, ihs, ihus, or ihu{accent}, etc.: see IHS. These have been commonly expanded by modern editors as Ihesu, Ihesus, forms which occur occasionally in MSS. and in early 16th c. printed books.Welcome to ForumGarden.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The name and the number os the beast
iesous:-6
Welcome to the forum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Welcome to the forum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The name and the number os the beast
spot;642959 wrote: Wycliffe's use occurred by 1382 when his translation was first published, not "380". I think you dropped a "1".
Dear thank you for your time, about the dates I just wanted to mean "around those years".
The real point in the post was to make clear that the readers of those days didn't know "JESUS" as you and me know today, and therefore they didn't claim to "JESUS".
spot;642959 wrote: There was no letter J, U or W in the latin alphabet.
I didn't mean the "latin" alphabet but the "english" alphabet which had the "J" character, you can see it in the KJV 1611 in several places, for instance, at the top of the leave of chapter 22, where appears "CHAP.XX.ij", in Bibles of the 1540 to 1578 for sure appears "Jairo". There is a link where those leaves are shown.
En the Spanish Biblia del Cántaro of the year 1602 in the passage Matthew 17:5 is written: ".. MI HIJO AMADO....", but the writer [Cipriano de Valera] didn't use it for writing "JESÚS": he wrote "IESVS"
spot;642959 wrote: It's generally considered that Wycliffe used "IHU" as an abbreviation.
In ME. the name was rarely written in full, being usually represented by the abbreviations ihu, and ihc, ihs, ihus, or ihu{accent}, etc.: see IHS. These have been commonly expanded by modern editors as Ihesu, Ihesus, forms which occur occasionally in MSS. and in early 16th c. printed books.Welcome to ForumGarden.
How could be saved if the apostol Paul [and the others] would have not given to us the exact name in which men can be saved?
There is site that shows clearly who really are IHU, IHS, Ihesus; those who want to read that shocking document, please email to josecadena@cantv.net
Dear thank you for your time, about the dates I just wanted to mean "around those years".
The real point in the post was to make clear that the readers of those days didn't know "JESUS" as you and me know today, and therefore they didn't claim to "JESUS".
spot;642959 wrote: There was no letter J, U or W in the latin alphabet.
I didn't mean the "latin" alphabet but the "english" alphabet which had the "J" character, you can see it in the KJV 1611 in several places, for instance, at the top of the leave of chapter 22, where appears "CHAP.XX.ij", in Bibles of the 1540 to 1578 for sure appears "Jairo". There is a link where those leaves are shown.
En the Spanish Biblia del Cántaro of the year 1602 in the passage Matthew 17:5 is written: ".. MI HIJO AMADO....", but the writer [Cipriano de Valera] didn't use it for writing "JESÚS": he wrote "IESVS"
spot;642959 wrote: It's generally considered that Wycliffe used "IHU" as an abbreviation.
In ME. the name was rarely written in full, being usually represented by the abbreviations ihu, and ihc, ihs, ihus, or ihu{accent}, etc.: see IHS. These have been commonly expanded by modern editors as Ihesu, Ihesus, forms which occur occasionally in MSS. and in early 16th c. printed books.Welcome to ForumGarden.
How could be saved if the apostol Paul [and the others] would have not given to us the exact name in which men can be saved?
There is site that shows clearly who really are IHU, IHS, Ihesus; those who want to read that shocking document, please email to josecadena@cantv.net
The name and the number os the beast
iesous;643010 wrote: I didn't mean the "latin" alphabet but the "english" alphabet which had the "J" character, you can see it in the KJV 1611 in several places, for instance, at the top of the leave of chapter 22, where appears "CHAP.XX.ij"That's slightly different. The lowercase "j" there is a numbering device, not a consonant. The J j types are not used in the Bible of 1611 as letters. By 1640 the differentiation was well established but even into the 1800s I and J were still being used for the consonant value in printed English books.
The Oxford English Dictionary, again: "In printing manuscripts or reprinting books produced before the differentiation of I and J, the earlier I has been treated in two different ways. The earlier editors, in most cases, introduced the modern usage into their texts, changing the I of the archetype, when it stood for the consonant, into J. Later editors more usually aim at reproducing the actual form of the original, and retain I with its twofold value." - I hope that's interesting to you.
I mentioned the Latin alphabet because you'd mentioned the Gutenberg Bible, which is a latin text.
The Oxford English Dictionary, again: "In printing manuscripts or reprinting books produced before the differentiation of I and J, the earlier I has been treated in two different ways. The earlier editors, in most cases, introduced the modern usage into their texts, changing the I of the archetype, when it stood for the consonant, into J. Later editors more usually aim at reproducing the actual form of the original, and retain I with its twofold value." - I hope that's interesting to you.
I mentioned the Latin alphabet because you'd mentioned the Gutenberg Bible, which is a latin text.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The name and the number os the beast
iesous:-6
I've just visited that forum. There is no point to my even trying to get on. I am a Christian pluralist and they would ban me immediately. I looked at one thread on Roman Catholicism and found it appalling.
As far as the name Jesus goes I really don't think that God would care whether or not we got the name exactly correct. The basis of the name is Joshua or Yeshua. What is important is that we live in a developing transforming relationship with the risen Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I've just visited that forum. There is no point to my even trying to get on. I am a Christian pluralist and they would ban me immediately. I looked at one thread on Roman Catholicism and found it appalling.
As far as the name Jesus goes I really don't think that God would care whether or not we got the name exactly correct. The basis of the name is Joshua or Yeshua. What is important is that we live in a developing transforming relationship with the risen Lord.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The name and the number os the beast
Ted;643004 wrote: iesous:-6
Welcome to the forum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would echo that but bear in mind on this forum you may find some who do not share your world view. Enjoy the arguments but don't take things personally if someone disagrees with you.
Welcome to the forum.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would echo that but bear in mind on this forum you may find some who do not share your world view. Enjoy the arguments but don't take things personally if someone disagrees with you.
The name and the number os the beast
spot;643020 wrote: That's slightly different. The lowercase "j" there is a numbering device, not a consonant. The J j types are not used in the Bible of 1611 as letters. By 1640 the differentiation was well established but even into the 1800s I and J were still being used for the consonant value in printed English books.
The Oxford English Dictionary, again: "In printing manuscripts or reprinting books produced before the differentiation of I and J, the earlier I has been treated in two different ways. The earlier editors, in most cases, introduced the modern usage into their texts, changing the I of the archetype, when it stood for the consonant, into J. Later editors more usually aim at reproducing the actual form of the original, and retain I with its twofold value." - I hope that's interesting to you.
In the web one can find leaves of Geneva Bible (leaf_geneva.jpg); the one that I have is "THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS" in which appears "IESVS" but at the margin was used "J" in "John" with not gottic font. In the King James 1611 one can see at Luke Chapter VIII (leaf_kingjames1611_luke.jpg) "Jairus daughter" and in "rejected" in a non gottic font. In the spanish Biblia del Oso of year 1569 Matthew 17:5 was written "HIIO AMADO" but 33 years later (1602, which is before 1611) the J was used: "HIJO AMADO". Without any doubt, in those years the J character was used as a character for names, both J & j. The spanish "I" sounds very diferent than the spanish "J". I have read that the KJV translators consulted the spanish Bibles
I can't show the leaves which I am commenting because I still don't have the number of posts stablished as rule, but I can supply the links to those who want them.
The Oxford English Dictionary, again: "In printing manuscripts or reprinting books produced before the differentiation of I and J, the earlier I has been treated in two different ways. The earlier editors, in most cases, introduced the modern usage into their texts, changing the I of the archetype, when it stood for the consonant, into J. Later editors more usually aim at reproducing the actual form of the original, and retain I with its twofold value." - I hope that's interesting to you.
In the web one can find leaves of Geneva Bible (leaf_geneva.jpg); the one that I have is "THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS" in which appears "IESVS" but at the margin was used "J" in "John" with not gottic font. In the King James 1611 one can see at Luke Chapter VIII (leaf_kingjames1611_luke.jpg) "Jairus daughter" and in "rejected" in a non gottic font. In the spanish Biblia del Oso of year 1569 Matthew 17:5 was written "HIIO AMADO" but 33 years later (1602, which is before 1611) the J was used: "HIJO AMADO". Without any doubt, in those years the J character was used as a character for names, both J & j. The spanish "I" sounds very diferent than the spanish "J". I have read that the KJV translators consulted the spanish Bibles
I can't show the leaves which I am commenting because I still don't have the number of posts stablished as rule, but I can supply the links to those who want them.
The name and the number os the beast
Have a look at http://www.greatsite.com/images/facsimi ... etail3.gif - that's a facsimile page from the 1611 King James version.
You'll see "Chap. j" where "j" is not a consonant, it's a numeric "one". That's a convention of the time.
You'll see that there are two styles of capital I. The one used in "Iohn" is undecorated. It's a capital I used as a consonant, in today's style we'd employ a J in its place. It's a typographic artifact of the time. It's not a matter of spelling so much as what the typesetters thought was correct.
The other capital I is decorated and it shows, for example, in Verse 49 "And behold, I send the promise" (top right). It looks very like a modern-day J and not at all like a capital I. It's again a typographic style of the time. It's a vowel as opposed to a consonant.
Do show your facsimile images when you can, we can discuss those as well.
You'll see "Chap. j" where "j" is not a consonant, it's a numeric "one". That's a convention of the time.
You'll see that there are two styles of capital I. The one used in "Iohn" is undecorated. It's a capital I used as a consonant, in today's style we'd employ a J in its place. It's a typographic artifact of the time. It's not a matter of spelling so much as what the typesetters thought was correct.
The other capital I is decorated and it shows, for example, in Verse 49 "And behold, I send the promise" (top right). It looks very like a modern-day J and not at all like a capital I. It's again a typographic style of the time. It's a vowel as opposed to a consonant.
Do show your facsimile images when you can, we can discuss those as well.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The name and the number os the beast
spot;643267 wrote: Have a [I remove this link because it didn't allow me to post] that's a facsimile page from the 1611 King James version.
You'll see "Chap. j" where "j" is not a consonant, it's a numeric "one". That's a convention of the time.
You'll see that there are two styles of capital I. The one used in "Iohn" is undecorated. It's a capital I used as a consonant, in today's style we'd employ a J in its place. It's a typographic artifact of the time. It's not a matter of spelling so much as what the typesetters thought was correct.
The other capital I is decorated and it shows, for example, in Verse 49 "And behold, I send the promise" (top right). It looks very like a modern-day J and not at all like a capital I. It's again a typographic style of the time. It's a vowel as opposed to a consonant.
Do show your facsimile images when you can, we can discuss those as well.
If to the end of the line texto-recepto.iespana.es/ is added one of the leaves (leaf_kingjames1611_luke.jpg; leaf_geneva.jpg) will be shown the facsimile of those leaves (don't use www)
Beside the "J" characters also the "W" appears in those Bibles, also appears in facsmiles of Wycliffe's as early as 1382
You'll see "Chap. j" where "j" is not a consonant, it's a numeric "one". That's a convention of the time.
You'll see that there are two styles of capital I. The one used in "Iohn" is undecorated. It's a capital I used as a consonant, in today's style we'd employ a J in its place. It's a typographic artifact of the time. It's not a matter of spelling so much as what the typesetters thought was correct.
The other capital I is decorated and it shows, for example, in Verse 49 "And behold, I send the promise" (top right). It looks very like a modern-day J and not at all like a capital I. It's again a typographic style of the time. It's a vowel as opposed to a consonant.
Do show your facsimile images when you can, we can discuss those as well.
If to the end of the line texto-recepto.iespana.es/ is added one of the leaves (leaf_kingjames1611_luke.jpg; leaf_geneva.jpg) will be shown the facsimile of those leaves (don't use www)
Beside the "J" characters also the "W" appears in those Bibles, also appears in facsmiles of Wycliffe's as early as 1382
The name and the number os the beast
iesous;643454 wrote: Beside the "J" characters also the "W" appears in those Bibles, also appears in facsmiles of Wycliffe's as early as 1382The W is quite reasonable there, Wycliffe was writing an English translation and English used W from an early date. I could look up when if it helps.
The use of I/i and J/j for vowel and consonant is a distinct time-dependent feature of English typography (and, from what I've seen, Spanish, though I know nothing about that).
Any text at all in Latin is going to have no J/j anywhere, even today. A spelling in Latin of "IESVS" is perfectly correct, for Latin, and always has been and still is. Why is the English (and, presumably, also Spanish) spelling so crucial in calling on the Lord's name?
The use of I/i and J/j for vowel and consonant is a distinct time-dependent feature of English typography (and, from what I've seen, Spanish, though I know nothing about that).
Any text at all in Latin is going to have no J/j anywhere, even today. A spelling in Latin of "IESVS" is perfectly correct, for Latin, and always has been and still is. Why is the English (and, presumably, also Spanish) spelling so crucial in calling on the Lord's name?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The name and the number os the beast
spot;643643 wrote: Any text at all in Latin is going to have no J/j anywhere, even today. A spelling in Latin of "IESVS" is perfectly correct, for Latin, and always has been and still is. Why is the English (and, presumably, also Spanish) spelling so crucial in calling on the Lord's name?
1.- The english readers are not latin readers
2.- "IESVS" souds different that "JESUS", they are two different names
3.- The source name of the "lord" is not in Latin Characters but in Greek Characters
4.- Acts 4:12 means that ALL the names "IESVS", "IESV", "JESUS", "IHU", "IHS"; "JESHUAH" [and any other different to one mentioned there] are just wrong
5.- In the source doesn't appear any of these stranges names: the "lord" was not a latin citizen
6.- The apostle Paul knew Latin very well, and wrote a letter to the Romans in which he never named "IESVS" neither "JESUS"
1.- The english readers are not latin readers
2.- "IESVS" souds different that "JESUS", they are two different names
3.- The source name of the "lord" is not in Latin Characters but in Greek Characters
4.- Acts 4:12 means that ALL the names "IESVS", "IESV", "JESUS", "IHU", "IHS"; "JESHUAH" [and any other different to one mentioned there] are just wrong
5.- In the source doesn't appear any of these stranges names: the "lord" was not a latin citizen
6.- The apostle Paul knew Latin very well, and wrote a letter to the Romans in which he never named "IESVS" neither "JESUS"