Honest question about the KJ capitalizations
 

What is the rule of thumb when capitalizing the word "king" in the KJ? When should it be King or king? Or is there even a standard? Honest question with an honest inquiry.

There is certainly particular and exact rules covering the use of the word "King" in regard to capital letters and lower case.

The word "king" is lowercase when used as a title or as a name.

When referring to God it is capital. At the start of a sentence or quoted speech it is capital.

When Jesus spoke of himself as "a king", he is using the general sense, not the specific.

Once these things are understood, we find that the man Melchisedec had a name which was prophetic of Christ. Melchisedec was merely a man, a king. But his name signified Christ, "King of ..." See Hebrews 7.

So its pretty standard rules of English then?

Standard rules of Biblical English. :)

Not standard rules of modern English, or even 17th century English.

GT, thanks for the question!! It exposed a wonderful little secret signal about Melchisedec (thanks to Matthew's response) that I had never noticed. I had simply assumed if the name "King David" were in the Scriptures, then it would be capitalized based on the standard rules of English regarding titles. This was not so. Wow!

When people try and point out "inconsistencies" in KJB grammar, the problem is that they don't understand the Bible English rules. Bible English actually makes sense, and it is (probably) always more involved than the simplistic modernist view makes out. (Which is why the modernist misses so much, and why there is a complete lack of "divinity in the details" of modern versions.

Very soon I will have a small booklet dealing with the exactness of Biblical English on my website. It is about these kinds of truths I call "glistering truths".

Updaters and "correctors" will say, "glistering", that's obsolete, that's archaic, that's nonsensical to the modern ear. But the very truth, the very exactness of God's Word in English, is given using exactly these things.

That is why "thees" and "thous" and capitals and lowercases and all such spelling issues should be retained and kept now as they have been received out of the proper KJB tradition.

There is absolutely no need to change perfection of the Word.

GT, is your mouth too far open to allow your fingers to type? :D

I have been walking around since reading post #2, chewing on this uniqueness of the KJB. What a gem!!!

Just for some help: why in Acts 25:13, 26, 36:2, & 19 does the 1611 us a lower case "king" and in Acts 25:24, 26:7, 26, & 27 use an upper case "King"? I am using the facsimile of the 1611 provided by e-sword. Not sure what the "PCE" says. But could someone explain why it goes back and forh.

GT, in your academic work, you are often required to write papers. Good practice is to create a rough draft and then refine it. Later, when the paper is examined, the professor does not go back to the rough draft and question why you said thus and thus. In 1611, the translation was completed. With the PCE, the presentation has been refined to its final form.

Good illustration I guess. BTW - "often required to write papers" is an understatement. Constantly required is more like it :D

Can you post what the PCE has for Acts 26:27? From what I can tell, but not sure, it reads a capital letter "King" whereas the rest doesn't.

Ah, my dear Biblical-English-impaired friend, Acts 25:24 and Acts 26:27 both have "King Agrippa", while the rest (25:13, 25:26, 26:2, 26:7, 26:19) have "king Agrippa". Keenly observant fellows will notice that "King" in 25:24 is the beginning of a direct quote, therefore capitalized. "King" in 26:27 is the first word in the verse and therefore capitalized.

"Elementary, my dear Watson." :D

I figured I would miss the obvious. Thanks for the help.

Now, GT, about the significance, as pointed out by Matthew?

The significance found in an Egnlish translation's capital letters of a Greek text that did not make use of such a practice? What about it? I don't see significance, I see bias in translation and interpretation. But then again, I didn't really understand the force of the so called significance. Could you explain it to me one more time?

How can one describe the beauty of a sunrise to another who will not open his eyes?


Do you think that the exclusive capitalization of "King" in Hebrews 7 just coincidentally occurred? Does it not seem curious to you that it matches the typology of Melchisedec to Christ? and that NO OTHER earthly king so given the capitalized title? No, the Greek did not have the capitalization. I don't read Greek. Its grammar does not help me today. What I do have is a Book that has been so perfectly prepared under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that even the capital letters have a message hidden in them, such as "Spirit"/"spirit" and "King"/"king".

Am I to understand that with this capitalization of "king" that there was new revelation in 1611+ which was not a part of the inspired originals?

Not new revelation, just an eye-opener. It's been there all the time.

If it has been there all the time, then I am missing the significance of the KJV's capitalization emphasis. If the KJV was bringing out a theological point like Melchizedek as a type of Christ by capitalizing "king", then what about the emphasis in capitalization pre-1611 or pre-English translations? The type might have been there, but the significance or the emphasis wasn't until the KJV. That seems to be 1 of 2 things: translators bias in the translation to make a theological point or new revelation.

English is a different language then Greek...can't it be inspired or perfectly preserved in both languages?

I'm glad I can hold a Book in my hands and know its perfect. Maybe I'm just a dumb bunny, but after years of looking at "manuscript evidence"and the like, I realized that, at the end of the day, a person is going to humble themselves and realize that he is not the final authority or he is not.. Until that day comes, men will simply place themselves as that final authority. I'm not picking on you Brother Tim, but it just seems that when an answer is provided you look for a way 'out' of the answer, and then add several questions along with the first. I see no value to it whatsoever.

In Christ, Brother Shane

Good point there Brother Shane.
Debate should be for finding the truth.
But some see debate as a tool for final authority.
*******
In reality, the issue is over, as the AV is the winner hands down.
All that is needed is the mop up crew to clean up the mess that all this doubting has taken the world into.
*******
In which Bible do you believe all content is pure, GreekTim?

[I suppose Mr.Decker thinks 1 Corinthians 13:10 is a positive proof text for the nullification of any more tongues.]
Just like the Pre-tribbers with their Rev 4:1 proof text of a pre-trib rapture.
Come up hither
*******

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

Actually, Mr. Decker doesn't use Revelation to prove the Pre-Trib Rapture other than the fact that the Church is not mentioned in the Tribulation passages. And I don't lean on that argument since it is an argument from silence (though it is an argument about silence so...).

Kind of a tough point to make actually.

However, new (advanced) revelations showing up in the AV is a lot easier to swallow after all.

Then there's this:

Matt. 27:41-42
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

Mark 15:29-32
And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Luke 23:35-37
And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

Maybe it's the difference in who is actually being quoted here, but still, why the difference?

Come on son, let's be clear... you "miss the significance" of the KJV as the complete and final authority anyway, so why are you still here beating about the bush and going on about "inspired originals" which you have never seen or handled?

Ahhh yes, that nasty translator bias. And there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight. NOW you are finally getting to the point of your entire thread. Your preconceived notions on the Bible are peeking through your "honest questions," like worms between the apples. :cool:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If you have questions, you should study to find the answer. I will give an overview, which would help for further studies.

There are reasons for the way "King" or "king" is used. I have already pointed out that when "king" is used in the general sense, and "King" when referring to recognition of the role of Christ.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Joh 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Joh 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

Joh 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

Joh 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Joh 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Joh 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Notice clearly the sequence. Pilate asks if Jesus is a "king". In other gospels, we know that Pilate also asked if he were "King" (see Luke 23:3) in response to the accusations made against Christ.

Pilate then asks the Jews if he should release the "King", but the Jews keep saying they have no "king" but the Emperor. When Pilate writes the superscription for the cross, the Jews know full well that Pilate was meaning "King", because they wanted to change it to a self-appointed designation.

In Mark 15:18 the Roman soldiers mocked him as "King", but on the cross, people who read the accusation, and the soldiers, said "king" (see Luke 23:37).

If this were all studied out, the reasons would be revealed who said "king" and when and why, and also remembering that according to grammar, someone can be "a king" even though they are "the King" (of course, that same person can be "a King" and "the king", but there are reasons for that).

Re: "Honest question about the KJ capitalizations"
 

Aloha brother Parrish,

:amen: And there it is - for all to see! :fish:

GREEKtim wouldn't know what an "HONEST" question was if his life depended on it! :sad:

He has been trained in the perverse "SOCRATIC METHOD"; and he employs Jesuit "CASUISTRY" when dealing with issues. In other words - He's a Christian "SOPHIST"! :confused:

None of us is going to be able to pierce through the "mind set" of these "intellectual snobs". It's always the SAME with ALL of them! QUESTIONS, always QUESTIONS! But never HONEST or SINCERE QUESTIONS! They are always "LOADED" QUESTIONS! QUESTIONS "contrived" (by corrupt minds) to elicit specific ANSWERS, that then can be "pounced upon" in order to PROVE the questioner's POINT OF VIEW; or QUESTIONS "designed" to EMBARRASS the person being asked the QUESTION. But never the kind of "questions" that demonstrate a SINCERE desire to know, or arrive at "Truth".

Look up the "Socratic Method" of teaching. Look up the words "Casuistry", "Sophism", and "Sophist" and see if they don't FIT "GREEKtim", "Tmonk", and their "fellow travelers". And if you want to know how we Christians are to "deal" with people like - "GREEKtim", "Tmonk", and their "fellow travelers" - study how the Lord Jesus Christ dealt with "disingenuous" people (who came to Him - ASKING "QUESTIONS") in the four Gospels! I can tell you ahead of time - He didn't waste His time with them! :eek:

And "EVIL" takes on many "forms" - not just "carnal" things.

And having lived around "Christians" for over 50 years, I can testify that we Christians (myself included) are NOT EXEMPT from these verses! :tsk:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

This one paragraph really struck me, that this is EXACTLY what many people do. It is usually the ones that get BANNED that tend to post on a Forum in this way. Sometimes they will ask pointed questions that are meant to EMBARRASS a person or to try to get people to be "defensive" so that they can know that their attack worked! (Or they assume it did.) They often use subtle attacks on people. I call those "veiled threats."

Most of them don't WANT to know the truth - they only want to be RIGHT.

In order to sincerely DESIRE the TRUTH, we sometimes must humble ourselves to get it. There is no need to always be RIGHT, unless we are truly standing up for the Word of God. Then, of course, we must be FIRM and show the truth.

Often people who are self-righteous in their beliefs - thinking that they HAVE the truth and they're going to make people believe it one way or another - attempt to do so by ridiculing and belittling someone. To me, that is a very immature response.

When we desire the TRUTH, the Holy Spirit works in us to KNOW when we have erred away from the truth. If we are not too busy asserting our own self-righteousness to listen, we might discover some real GEMS.

I have been BLESSED by this Forum and I have discovered some of those real GEMS! All praise and glory and honor to the LORD for His gift of the Holy Spirit which works in those who desire the TRUTH.

Jassy

Hebrews 7 capitalization - "King of righteousness"
 

I feel I need to reply because I think I am being falsly portrayed. I DID have an honest question. It was a bad oversight on my part. But through friendly dialogue, I was given a good answer. In post #11, I said thank you and was ready to go on my way.

Then in post #12, someone brought up a new dimension - the significance of the KJV capitalization. I did not bring that up. I did not have an alterior motive. So you guys are unjustly accusing me of something that I didn't intend to discuss. You don't have to agree w/ my views, but you can at least present my side of things based on accuracy of my view. That is the honest thing to do. That goes for George, Bro. Parish, Steven Avery, and anyone else ready to rebuke me for something I never intended to do.

Whether I am or am not, that was not the point of this thread. I do not "maintian" that I had a "temporary" honest question. And I didn't chuck anything aside. My question was answered. I was ready to stop. And someone started a different question. Not my doing.

I didn't go to seminary...

Anywho... if you want to get into this, start a new thread, b/c this one was not intended for the direction you are seeking to take it. Perhaps we can discuss this in an environment that is neutral???