> >> Of course, the original "King James" translation did not use
> italics for indicating words inserted into the text for clarity; rather
> than tell you what they did, I suggest you look at a facsimile.
> I have a reproduction of the 1611 KJV and it does have italics both in the
> introduction and the text. The text has been modified with Roman letter but
> there is no indication that italics have been added where they were not.
I'm sorry, I am lost. Does it have italics or not? Another post says
that there is lighter typeface where we would expect italics, and I can't
decide whether this agrees with that or contradicts it.
Thanks to those who just happen to have a copy of the the 1611 text lying
around and have shared the info. What a wonderful day and age to be alive!