Capital and lowercase letters
Posted: 26 May 2014, 22:55Daniel 9:25 has Prince = Christ
Daniel 9:26 has prince = antichrist
Since every jot and tittle in the Scripture is accurate, and since
we have Scripture which is accurate to the jot and tittle, I am able
to rely upon the difference between a capital "P" and a lowercase "p"
to understand the meaning of Scripture.
The Bible interprets itself: the Prince is called Messiah, Messias
(the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word) is called Christ in
John 1:41, 4:25.
The prince who comes, in Daniel 9:26, comes to destroy the city
(bricks and morter Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the Church).
Clearly, the operation of the spirit of antichrist by the Roman
Empire is being spoken of. This interpretation accords with the view
of the consensus of the true general priesthood of believers and
their godly tradition.
The pure King James Bible's use of capitals and lowercase on words is
particular, and entirely accurate.
It a false assumption to think that when God (i.e. Deity) is named,
that it requires a capital letter. For example, the King James Bible
does not capitalise pronouns, like "he", nor does it always
capitalise "spirit", even when referring to God, or something from
God, as many verses reveal, "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not
always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3a).
However, the use of a capital letter on a title does link to God,
such as "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6b). Or again, "Sun of
righteousness" (Mal. 4:2).
But titles may be capital, nothing to do with God, "Pharaoh",
or, "Wicked", as in, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess. 2:8).
The Bible speaks of "Satan", and yet, "the devil", but when his title
is used as a name, "called the Devil" (see Revelation 12:9), then the
naming of his name is the reason why it is captialised. (The use of
all capitals is to present something which is in written form, such
as the superscription on the cross, or the writing on the whore of
Babylon's head.)
In all this, we are observing the Biblical use of grammar and
language, not to be misapprehended as according to modern rules or
limited to simplistic ones, such as "capital = God, lowercase does
not", etc.
We find that the Scripture does indicate to us that "Prince" means
Christ, as in Daniel 9:25, whereby we may draw that Daniel 8:25 must
also refer to Christ. When we come to Revelation 1:5, I venture that
the words "faithful witness" are not capitalised because it is
descriptive, just as "prince" is descriptive, meaning "first": "And
from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first
begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto
him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood".
Since every word in the pure King James Bible is rightly used in each
place, and each word has its own meaning or function, then the use
of "thy" and "thine" in the following sentence is completely
correct, "Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy
estimation, even unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine
estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto the LORD." (Lev. 27:23).
Inasmuch as "thy" and "thine" are different, so also is "prince"
and "Prince". Clearly, Christ is rightly and accurately both "Prince"
and "prince" in their places, and to claim that either it doesn't
matter or to find fault with the King James Bible (as some do) for
what they accuse as (i.e. seeming) inconsistency, does and shall not
under scrutiny, hold any substance.
When Christ said that no jot or tittle should be lost from the law,
he did not mean merely in Hebrew, but that we should find when
seeking (i.e. today) that the Word of God is accurate to the very
detail of the letter. The fact is that there was not really seeking
to this manner or level of things until recent years, and when God
put it into men's hearts to seek, it was because He had provided the
Word presented accurately to the very punctuation mark.
By beginning with the foundation that the King James Bible is
absolutely right to the lettering, and that its correctness is
particular (after all, a typographical error in a King James Bible is
an error at that place), it is needful to acknowledge a standard form
of the King James Bible as representative. Rather than to argue that
both the 1611 edition, and say, 1769 edition are both correct at the
same time at any place (where they appear to differ), but to say that
their underlying text and translation is always correct, and does not
differ, however, correctness comes down to even the presentation,
spelling and punctuation marks. It is logical for a Bible believer to
recognise that there has been a decided effort throughout the history
of the King James Bible to bring its English presentational text to a
final position, and that this should be seen as the fixed and pure
form, taken as standard and representative.
If the notion of one pure edition and fixed standard presentation is
not embraced, then it becomes difficult to rely upon the very details
of the King James Bible. There then would be no finite correctness to
the jots and tittles. Moreover, phenomena of the presentation becomes
increasingly difficult to explain, because would then be
unsettled/uncertain. However, if we take the capital letters on words
now, and begin to study the issue, we find that some kind of rules
(i.e. the Holy Ghost's use of English) does cover it, and it is
neither irrelevant nor (as the modernists accuse) haphazard.
It is not as if one comes to the Bible and employs his own will onto
the interpretation. The difference between "spirit" and "Spirit" is
not merely the product of the whims of 400 years of printers and
editors. To say that would be like saying, God gave the Word (in
1611), but then left it alone, or to accuse that God does not care
about the intricate details.
"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment:
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut.
32:4).
"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is
a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Psalm 18:30).
Has God neglected the printing of the Bible? Has God neglected the
letters of words? Are we really at a loss as to the perfection of the
Word, and to the meaning of what is given?
Inasmuch differences in lowercase and capitals are jot and tittle
differences, so may we be certain that the very lettering, and the
particular meaning associated with them, is exactly as God has
properly and perfectly supplied.
Just because we find complexity rather that simplicity in our Bible
(for example, it takes much more to explain why God would
use "spirit" lowercase concerning himself on occasions, etc.), it is
up to us to firstly believe and receive, and secondly to study.
Such a case has only been built for one edition of the King James
Bible, and it should be taken on the merits of the evidence.
Once we have the right foundation (an accurate printing of the KJB of the received edition), then we observe the usage of capitals and lowercase letters as having a bearing upon interpretation. In other words, we must discover the reason why the word is so presented. Why is Christ called a "Prince" in one place, and a "prince" in another? It is because there must be a different usage and/or meaning for the word, each relevant and rightly used in his own place and order.
For example, God is called a "saviour" and "Saviour". There are three basic choices we have:
a. it is just the product of the caprice of the printers, etc. (modernist)
b. it is irrelevant (some KJBOs)
c. it is entirely accurate (some KJBOs)
To be honest, those who say that it is irrelevant may well advance somewhat toward the idea that it is merely haphazard, and this would deny that God has had any deep care for the English Bible since 1611.
Now, God is called "saviour" lowercase in: 2 Sam. 22:3, Psalm 106:21, Isaiah 19:20; 43:11, etc., but is called "Saviour" capital in Isaiah 43:3, 60:16, etc. Yet, even Christ is called "saviour" lower case in Ephesians 5:23. What is the distinction in Ephesians? In that verse, it describes His function, His role, not His title.
Another example: When is a house not a house? When it is an house. The King James Bible might use “a house” and then, “an house”. Esau is called “a hairy” man in Gen. 27:11, but “an hairy” in Genesis 25:25. Are we to think this is random? That it does not matter? What is at stake is the very rhythm of the Scripture in English. (God’s works are perfect, including the very fitness of it for the oratory.)
Another example: A “vail” is a cloth (or something) that covers or hides. A “veil” is something which covers or hides, but has been penetrated, taken away or rendered ineffective. Both appear in the King James Bible.
Thus, in taking all manner of examples in regard to the jot and tittle, when we look at “Prince”, we do not see “prince”, neither when we look at “prince”, do we see “Prince”. Even if the same person is both “Prince” and “prince”, we do not confuse the words, confound the meanings, or treat the particular lettering as though it is in vain.
In regard to such cases, we find that the King James Bible is much more superior than Webster’s, or Johnson’s, or even the Oxford English Dictionary. Nothing can compare to study of the Scripture itself, comparing word with word, passage to passage, etc.
We cannot approach God’s Word (in English) as if it either has no full rules of language (as though the case of letters, or spellings are irrelevant), neither as if such rules are so complex they are beyond comprehension. It is all there for us to see, the marvellous signs of the divinity in the detail, that we are indeed observing, uttering and hearing the Holy Ghost’s use of the world’s number one language.
Daniel 9:26 has prince = antichrist
Since every jot and tittle in the Scripture is accurate, and since
we have Scripture which is accurate to the jot and tittle, I am able
to rely upon the difference between a capital "P" and a lowercase "p"
to understand the meaning of Scripture.
The Bible interprets itself: the Prince is called Messiah, Messias
(the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word) is called Christ in
John 1:41, 4:25.
The prince who comes, in Daniel 9:26, comes to destroy the city
(bricks and morter Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the Church).
Clearly, the operation of the spirit of antichrist by the Roman
Empire is being spoken of. This interpretation accords with the view
of the consensus of the true general priesthood of believers and
their godly tradition.
The pure King James Bible's use of capitals and lowercase on words is
particular, and entirely accurate.
It a false assumption to think that when God (i.e. Deity) is named,
that it requires a capital letter. For example, the King James Bible
does not capitalise pronouns, like "he", nor does it always
capitalise "spirit", even when referring to God, or something from
God, as many verses reveal, "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not
always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3a).
However, the use of a capital letter on a title does link to God,
such as "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6b). Or again, "Sun of
righteousness" (Mal. 4:2).
But titles may be capital, nothing to do with God, "Pharaoh",
or, "Wicked", as in, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess. 2:8).
The Bible speaks of "Satan", and yet, "the devil", but when his title
is used as a name, "called the Devil" (see Revelation 12:9), then the
naming of his name is the reason why it is captialised. (The use of
all capitals is to present something which is in written form, such
as the superscription on the cross, or the writing on the whore of
Babylon's head.)
In all this, we are observing the Biblical use of grammar and
language, not to be misapprehended as according to modern rules or
limited to simplistic ones, such as "capital = God, lowercase does
not", etc.
We find that the Scripture does indicate to us that "Prince" means
Christ, as in Daniel 9:25, whereby we may draw that Daniel 8:25 must
also refer to Christ. When we come to Revelation 1:5, I venture that
the words "faithful witness" are not capitalised because it is
descriptive, just as "prince" is descriptive, meaning "first": "And
from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first
begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto
him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood".
Since every word in the pure King James Bible is rightly used in each
place, and each word has its own meaning or function, then the use
of "thy" and "thine" in the following sentence is completely
correct, "Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy
estimation, even unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine
estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto the LORD." (Lev. 27:23).
Inasmuch as "thy" and "thine" are different, so also is "prince"
and "Prince". Clearly, Christ is rightly and accurately both "Prince"
and "prince" in their places, and to claim that either it doesn't
matter or to find fault with the King James Bible (as some do) for
what they accuse as (i.e. seeming) inconsistency, does and shall not
under scrutiny, hold any substance.
When Christ said that no jot or tittle should be lost from the law,
he did not mean merely in Hebrew, but that we should find when
seeking (i.e. today) that the Word of God is accurate to the very
detail of the letter. The fact is that there was not really seeking
to this manner or level of things until recent years, and when God
put it into men's hearts to seek, it was because He had provided the
Word presented accurately to the very punctuation mark.
By beginning with the foundation that the King James Bible is
absolutely right to the lettering, and that its correctness is
particular (after all, a typographical error in a King James Bible is
an error at that place), it is needful to acknowledge a standard form
of the King James Bible as representative. Rather than to argue that
both the 1611 edition, and say, 1769 edition are both correct at the
same time at any place (where they appear to differ), but to say that
their underlying text and translation is always correct, and does not
differ, however, correctness comes down to even the presentation,
spelling and punctuation marks. It is logical for a Bible believer to
recognise that there has been a decided effort throughout the history
of the King James Bible to bring its English presentational text to a
final position, and that this should be seen as the fixed and pure
form, taken as standard and representative.
If the notion of one pure edition and fixed standard presentation is
not embraced, then it becomes difficult to rely upon the very details
of the King James Bible. There then would be no finite correctness to
the jots and tittles. Moreover, phenomena of the presentation becomes
increasingly difficult to explain, because would then be
unsettled/uncertain. However, if we take the capital letters on words
now, and begin to study the issue, we find that some kind of rules
(i.e. the Holy Ghost's use of English) does cover it, and it is
neither irrelevant nor (as the modernists accuse) haphazard.
It is not as if one comes to the Bible and employs his own will onto
the interpretation. The difference between "spirit" and "Spirit" is
not merely the product of the whims of 400 years of printers and
editors. To say that would be like saying, God gave the Word (in
1611), but then left it alone, or to accuse that God does not care
about the intricate details.
"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment:
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut.
32:4).
"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is
a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Psalm 18:30).
Has God neglected the printing of the Bible? Has God neglected the
letters of words? Are we really at a loss as to the perfection of the
Word, and to the meaning of what is given?
Inasmuch differences in lowercase and capitals are jot and tittle
differences, so may we be certain that the very lettering, and the
particular meaning associated with them, is exactly as God has
properly and perfectly supplied.
Just because we find complexity rather that simplicity in our Bible
(for example, it takes much more to explain why God would
use "spirit" lowercase concerning himself on occasions, etc.), it is
up to us to firstly believe and receive, and secondly to study.
Such a case has only been built for one edition of the King James
Bible, and it should be taken on the merits of the evidence.
Once we have the right foundation (an accurate printing of the KJB of the received edition), then we observe the usage of capitals and lowercase letters as having a bearing upon interpretation. In other words, we must discover the reason why the word is so presented. Why is Christ called a "Prince" in one place, and a "prince" in another? It is because there must be a different usage and/or meaning for the word, each relevant and rightly used in his own place and order.
For example, God is called a "saviour" and "Saviour". There are three basic choices we have:
a. it is just the product of the caprice of the printers, etc. (modernist)
b. it is irrelevant (some KJBOs)
c. it is entirely accurate (some KJBOs)
To be honest, those who say that it is irrelevant may well advance somewhat toward the idea that it is merely haphazard, and this would deny that God has had any deep care for the English Bible since 1611.
Now, God is called "saviour" lowercase in: 2 Sam. 22:3, Psalm 106:21, Isaiah 19:20; 43:11, etc., but is called "Saviour" capital in Isaiah 43:3, 60:16, etc. Yet, even Christ is called "saviour" lower case in Ephesians 5:23. What is the distinction in Ephesians? In that verse, it describes His function, His role, not His title.
Another example: When is a house not a house? When it is an house. The King James Bible might use “a house” and then, “an house”. Esau is called “a hairy” man in Gen. 27:11, but “an hairy” in Genesis 25:25. Are we to think this is random? That it does not matter? What is at stake is the very rhythm of the Scripture in English. (God’s works are perfect, including the very fitness of it for the oratory.)
Another example: A “vail” is a cloth (or something) that covers or hides. A “veil” is something which covers or hides, but has been penetrated, taken away or rendered ineffective. Both appear in the King James Bible.
Thus, in taking all manner of examples in regard to the jot and tittle, when we look at “Prince”, we do not see “prince”, neither when we look at “prince”, do we see “Prince”. Even if the same person is both “Prince” and “prince”, we do not confuse the words, confound the meanings, or treat the particular lettering as though it is in vain.
In regard to such cases, we find that the King James Bible is much more superior than Webster’s, or Johnson’s, or even the Oxford English Dictionary. Nothing can compare to study of the Scripture itself, comparing word with word, passage to passage, etc.
We cannot approach God’s Word (in English) as if it either has no full rules of language (as though the case of letters, or spellings are irrelevant), neither as if such rules are so complex they are beyond comprehension. It is all there for us to see, the marvellous signs of the divinity in the detail, that we are indeed observing, uttering and hearing the Holy Ghost’s use of the world’s number one language.