A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[rwb]

The AI explained the history of KJV in great detail. Did you all not read what it said? The AI clearly said one cannot use the 1611 edition to prove anything one way or the other. Therefore, this is a strawman based on what the AI said. I'm simply using an AI as a tool for researching purposes. No different than using Google as a tool for researching purposes, for example. Obviously, the AI is not coming up with these things on it's own. It is from data it has gathered from multiple sources.

It would be helpful if you gave the sources from AI. Because both Covenantee and I have copies of the 1611 KJV that prove otherwise.

"### Did the Translators Believe They Were the Same Person?
Even though the 1611 translators didn't use capitalization to make the distinction, **your conclusion is absolutely correct:** neither the original 1611 translators nor the later 1769 editors believed the "Prince" of verse 25 and the "prince" of verse 26 were the same person.

Looking at the 1611 KJV proves the translators did capitalize Prince of vs 26, as well as Messiah the Prince vs 25.

Daniel 9:25 (KJV16) Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall, euen in troublous times.
Daniel 9:26 (KJV16) And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

 

[rwb]

The company of 54 talented KJV translators who were confessing Christians showed (Messish the Prince) in caps because they were aware it was Jesus Christ Deity, they didn't cap (the prince to come) because these 54 scholars on the translating committee were aware the figure wasn't deity

The KJV committee were talented scholars of their day, and knew well what they were doing,

Jesus Is The Lord

They did in the 1611 KJV. You must be referring to a more modern version where the translators do write "prince that shall come". Makes me wonder how much bias was used in interpreting?

Daniel 9:25 (KJV16) Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall, euen in troublous times.
Daniel 9:26 (KJV16) And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

Here is the Modern Version of the KJB.

Da 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.
Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

[Truth7t7]

I agree it’s absurd to think both princes are the same but what I’m saying is that capitalizing prince doesn’t change who that prince is.

The only way to prove who the prince in verse 27 is from the context of verse 27. The context of verse 27 is Jesus confirming the covenant God made to Abraham.

How do you see the "He" in Daniel 9:27 being on this earth until the consummation or ultimate end as Daniel 9:27 teaches?

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future" (The End)

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 7:10-11 below clearly shows the Lord's Second coming and final judgement, the (Little Horn) is present on this earth at this time, as his living body will be killed/slain being cast into the lake of fire

Daniel 7:10-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Cast (Alive/Living) into the lake of fire

Revelation 19:19-20KJV
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 

[Truth7t7]

What I typically do is type up what I plan on submitting, in Notepad first, then paste, then send. If it's going to be a lengthy post. But posts like this one I simply type up in real time then send. Notepad is not needed in this case.

I Simply Request (Don't Respond Not Finished) any reasonable person would do just that

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[IndianaRob]

The company of 54 talented KJV translators who were confessing Christians showed (Messish the Prince) in caps because they were aware it was Jesus Christ Deity, they didn't cap (the prince to come) because these 54 scholars on the translating committee were aware the figure wasn't deity

The KJV committee were talented scholars of their day, and knew well what they were doing,

Jesus Is The Lord

I’m King James only so I fully stand behind it but the KJV translators did capitalize “the prince to come” in their original writing.

26 And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

 

[Davidpt]

I agree it’s absurd to think both princes are the same but what I’m saying is that capitalizing prince doesn’t change who that prince is.

The only way to prove who the prince in verse 27 is from the context of verse 27. The context of verse 27 is Jesus confirming the covenant God made to Abraham.

I agree with you in return. Since I am not arguing that the capitalization of someone in verse 25 and 26 determines who is meant in verse 27. Even if Prince nor Messiah was capitalized in verse 25 and 26, it would still mean Jesus in verse 27, regardless.

But as to the prince in question per verse 26, that's different altogether. Because if one takes that to also be meaning Christ, one then has to explain what coming of Christ occurred after He ascended but prior to Him returning? Preterists have an answer for that. Except I don't agree with them.

Because if I did I would be contradicting how I interpret Matthew 24:30, since they obviously don't interpret it in the same manner as me. And per their theology, Matthew 24:30 is relevant since it explains the 'the prince that shall come' post that of the Messiah having been cut off earlier. Granted, maybe not all Preterists might take the prince to be meaning Christ. Some of them might take it to mean Titus for all I know. And that they still take Matthew 24:30 to be involving a coming of Christ in judgment in 70 AD, but not bodily, regardless.

 

[Davidpt]

I’m King James only so I fully stand behind it but the KJV translators did capitalize “the prince to come” in their original writing.

26 And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

In that example you used, they also capitalized Sanctuarie. Therefore, what is your point?

 

[IndianaRob]

How do you see the "He" in Daniel 9:27 being on this earth until the consummation or ultimate end as Daniel 9:27 teaches?

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future" (The End)

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 7:10-11 below clearly shows the Lord's Second coming and final judgement, the (Little Horn) is present on this earth at this time, as his living body will be killed/slain being cast into the lake of fire

Daniel 7:10-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Cast (Alive/Living) into the lake of fire

Revelation 19:19-20KJV
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

The consummation was the consummation (completion) of the seventy weeks. During that seventy-week period came the end of earthly Jerusalem and the Old Covenant.

The seventy weeks marked the beginning of the end for Daniel's people (the Jews) and his holy city (earthly Jerusalem). During those seventy weeks, Israel would fill up the measure of her transgression by rejecting and crucifying Christ. At the same time, Christ would be anointed as King of kings and Lord of lords, bringing in the New Covenant and the heavenly Jerusalem.

 

[rwb]

I agree with you in return. Since I am not arguing that the capitalization of someone in verse 25 and 26 determines who is meant in verse 27. Even if Prince nor Messiah was capitalized in verse 25 and 26, it would still mean Jesus in verse 27, regardless.

But as to the prince in question per verse 26, that's different altogether. Because if one takes that to also be meaning Christ, one then has to explain what coming of Christ occurred after He ascended but prior to Him returning? Preterists have an answer for that. Except I don't agree with them.

Because if I did I would be contradicting how I interpret Matthew 24:30, since they obviously don't interpret it in the same manner as me. And per their theology, Matthew 24:30 is relevant since it explains the 'the prince that shall come' post that of the Messiah having been cut off earlier. Granted, maybe not all Preterists might take the prince to be meaning Christ. Some of them might take it to mean Titus, for all I know. And that they still take Matthew 24:30 to be involving a coming of Christ in judgment in 70 AD, but not bodily

What coming of Christ after He ascended? Mt 24:30 refers to Christ coming again at the end of this age. Daniel is referring to Christ' first coming. Everything in Daniel comes before the end of this age, "even unto the consummation."

 

[rwb]

The consummation was the consummation (completion) of the seventy weeks. During that seventy-week period came the end of earthly Jerusalem and the Old Covenant.

The seventy weeks marked the beginning of the end for Daniel's people (the Jews) and his holy city (earthly Jerusalem). During those seventy weeks, Israel would fill up the measure of her transgression by rejecting and crucifying Christ. At the same time, Christ would be anointed as King of kings and Lord of lords, bringing in the New Covenant and the heavenly Jerusalem.

I would only add seventy weeks of years = 490 yrs. not days as some believe.

 

[IndianaRob]

I agree with you in return. Since I am not arguing that the capitalization of someone in verse 25 and 26 determines who is meant in verse 27. Even if Prince nor Messiah was capitalized in verse 25 and 26, it would still mean Jesus in verse 27, regardless.

But as to the prince in question per verse 26, that's different altogether. Because if one takes that to also be meaning Christ, one then has to explain what coming of Christ occurred after He ascended but prior to Him returning? Preterists have an answer for that. Except I don't agree with them.

Because if I did I would be contradicting how I interpret Matthew 24:30, since they obviously don't interpret it in the same manner as me. And per their theology, Matthew 24:30 is relevant since it explains the 'the prince that shall come' post that of the Messiah having been cut off earlier. Granted, maybe not all Preterists might take the prince to be meaning Christ. Some of them might take it to mean Titus, for all I know. And that they still take Matthew 24:30 to be involving a coming of Christ in judgment in 70 AD, but not bodily, regardless.

There was no coming of Christ after the resurrection because the resurrection itself was the second coming of Christ. This is where Preterists, in my view, get it completely wrong. Like futurists, they look for another coming after the resurrection instead of recognizing that Christ literally left the earth, went into the grave, prepared a place for us, and returned in all power and glory through His resurrection.

 

[IndianaRob]

In that example you used, they also capitalized Sanctuarie. Therefore, what is your point?

Truth7t7 said that the KJV translators didn't capitalize "Prince" in verse 26, and I thought the same at first. So I checked an original copy of the KJV and found that it actually is capitalized there. That said, capitalization doesn't prove anything one way or the other anyway.

 

[Truth7t7]

They did in the 1611 KJV. You must be referring to a more modern version where the translators do write "prince that shall come". Makes me wonder how much bias was used in interpreting?

Daniel 9:25 (KJV16) Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall, euen in troublous times.
Daniel 9:26 (KJV16) And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

Here is the Modern Version of the KJB.

Da 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.
Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Your 100% correct, (the prince to come) was a cap upper case (P) in the 1611 KJV and it was revised in 1769 to lower case (p) by the revision, I stand corrected

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[IndianaRob]

I would only add seventy weeks of years = 490 yrs. not days as some believe.

That's because you believe the seventy weeks of years are tied to the command to rebuild the earthly temple, and that this timeline points to the coming of the Messiah. I believe the command is not about rebuilding the earthly temple, but about the establishment of the heavenly Jerusalem.

 

[Davidpt]

It would be helpful if you gave the sources from AI. Because both Covenantee and I have copies of the 1611 KJV that prove otherwise.


Looking at the 1611 KJV proves the translators did capitalize Prince of vs 26, as well as Messiah the Prince vs 25.

Daniel 9:25 (KJV16) Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall, euen in troublous times.
Daniel 9:26 (KJV16) And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

You need to look at in light of the following. And if you have any disputes with any of the following, simply querie Google and see if it will provide any links to what is being asserted here, then see if any of those links agree or disagree. Unless you can prove via sources on the internet that this AI is not being factual here, it only stands to reason that you should look at it from this perspective. Notice what info the AI gathered---the actual 1611 King James Bible, you will notice something very strange to modern eyes: **they capitalized a massive amount of common nouns.**---Because of this erratic capitalization, you cannot use the 1611 edition to definitively prove the translators' theological intent regarding the word "prince." In some 1611 printings, both "princes" might be capitalized simply because they are nouns; in others, they might not be.

From this same AI per an earler post in this thread
---------------------
This AI:

To answer your specific question right away: **The earliest known KJV translation of these verses is the 1611 edition.** However, the capitalization you are looking at is actually the result of later editing, not the 1611 original.

Here is the fascinating history behind the capitalization in the KJV, and why your underlying point is still completely correct.

### The 1611 Original vs. The Modern KJV
If you look at a facsimile of the actual 1611 King James Bible, you will notice something very strange to modern eyes: **they capitalized a massive amount of common nouns.**

In 17th-century English, there were no strict standardized rules for capitalization. Typesetters often capitalized nouns simply to give them emphasis, to break up the text, or purely based on personal preference. If you read Daniel 9 in the 1611 edition, you will see words like "Weeks," "Street," "Wall," and "Covenant" capitalized.

Because of this erratic capitalization, you cannot use the 1611 edition to definitively prove the translators' theological intent regarding the word "prince." In some 1611 printings, both "princes" might be capitalized simply because they are nouns; in others, they might not be.

### The Benjamin Blayney Edition (1769)
The KJV that you are reading—and the one that 99% of people read today—is **not** the 1611 edition. It is the 1769 Oxford Edition, edited by a scholar named Benjamin Blayney.

Blayney painstakingly went through the KJV to standardize the spelling, update punctuation, and **firmly establish rules for capitalization**. It was Blayney who established the rule that divine titles and names of God (Lord, God, Spirit, Messiah, **Prince** when referring to the Messiah) must be capitalized, while ordinary human figures (kings, princes, prophets) must be lowercase.

So, the specific capitalization distinction you noticed ("Messiah the Prince" vs. "the prince that shall come") is the deliberate, standardized choice of 18th-century KJV editors.
-----

My note: Notice what the AI said---Blayney painstakingly went through the KJV to standardize the spelling, update punctuation, and **firmly establish rules for capitalization**. It was Blayney who established the rule that divine titles and names of God (Lord, God, Spirit, Messiah, **Prince** when referring to the Messiah) must be capitalized, while ordinary human figures (kings, princes, prophets) must be lowercase.


And guess what? The KJV I have, prince is not capitalized in verse 26. But why not if meaning Christ? This scholar clearly, painstakingly went through the KJV to standardize the spelling, update punctuation, and **firmly establish rules for capitalization**. It was Blayney who established the rule that divine titles and names of God (Lord, God, Spirit, Messiah, **Prince** when referring to the Messiah) MUST be capitalized. Yet, despite that, prince is not capitalized in the later KJV I use. Which obviously tells me that even this scholar Blayney didn't take this prince to be meaning Deity, otherwise he would have capitalized prince in verse 26 as well. Sometimes we have to be like a good detective and put 2 and 2 together based on the facts that are present.

 

[Truth7t7]

Like futurists, they look for another coming after the resurrection instead of recognizing that Christ literally left the earth, went into the grave, prepared a place for us, and returned in all power and glory through His resurrection.

Your symbolic representation of the Lord's past resurrection, and it replacing his future, literal, visible, second coming in the heavens is 100% "Wrong", your claim is in complete denial of the future, literal event seen below, that will take place on this earth, with literal human eyes that will witness the future event

Jesus Is The Lord

Matthew 24:29-31KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[covenantee]

You need to look at in light of the following. And if you have any disputes with any of the following, simply querie Google and see if it will provide any links to what is being asserted here, then see if any of those links agree or disagree. Unless you can prove via sources on the internet that this AI is not being factual here, it only stands to reason that you should look at it from this perspective. Notice what info the AI gathered---the actual 1611 King James Bible, you will notice something very strange to modern eyes: **they capitalized a massive amount of common nouns.**---Because of this erratic capitalization, you cannot use the 1611 edition to definitively prove the translators' theological intent regarding the word "prince." In some 1611 printings, both "princes" might be capitalized simply because they are nouns; in others, they might not be.

From this same AI per an earler post in this thread
---------------------
This AI:

To answer your specific question right away: **The earliest known KJV translation of these verses is the 1611 edition.** However, the capitalization you are looking at is actually the result of later editing, not the 1611 original.

Here is the fascinating history behind the capitalization in the KJV, and why your underlying point is still completely correct.

### The 1611 Original vs. The Modern KJV
If you look at a facsimile of the actual 1611 King James Bible, you will notice something very strange to modern eyes: **they capitalized a massive amount of common nouns.**

In 17th-century English, there were no strict standardized rules for capitalization. Typesetters often capitalized nouns simply to give them emphasis, to break up the text, or purely based on personal preference. If you read Daniel 9 in the 1611 edition, you will see words like "Weeks," "Street," "Wall," and "Covenant" capitalized.

Because of this erratic capitalization, you cannot use the 1611 edition to definitively prove the translators' theological intent regarding the word "prince." In some 1611 printings, both "princes" might be capitalized simply because they are nouns; in others, they might not be.

### The Benjamin Blayney Edition (1769)
The KJV that you are reading—and the one that 99% of people read today—is **not** the 1611 edition. It is the 1769 Oxford Edition, edited by a scholar named Benjamin Blayney.

Blayney painstakingly went through the KJV to standardize the spelling, update punctuation, and **firmly establish rules for capitalization**. It was Blayney who established the rule that divine titles and names of God (Lord, God, Spirit, Messiah, **Prince** when referring to the Messiah) must be capitalized, while ordinary human figures (kings, princes, prophets) must be lowercase.

So, the specific capitalization distinction you noticed ("Messiah the Prince" vs. "the prince that shall come") is the deliberate, standardized choice of 18th-century KJV editors.
-----

My note: Notice what the AI said---Blayney painstakingly went through the KJV to standardize the spelling, update punctuation, and **firmly establish rules for capitalization**. It was Blayney who established the rule that divine titles and names of God (Lord, God, Spirit, Messiah, **Prince** when referring to the Messiah) must be capitalized, while ordinary human figures (kings, princes, prophets) must be lowercase.


And guess what? The KJV I have, prince is not capitalized in verse 26. But why not if meaning Christ? This scholar clearly, painstakingly went through the KJV to standardize the spelling, update punctuation, and **firmly establish rules for capitalization**. It was Blayney who established the rule that divine titles and names of God (Lord, God, Spirit, Messiah, **Prince** when referring to the Messiah) must be capitalized. Yet, despite that, prince is not capitalized in the later KJV is use. Which obviously tells me that even this scholar Blayney didn't take this prince to be meaning Deity, otherwise he would have capitalized prince in verse 26 as well. Sometimes we have to be like a good detective and put 2 and 2 together based on the facts that are present.

Your AI missed Tertullian.

More than 1,000 years before Calvin, he identified Christ as the Leader (i.e. prince) in Daniel 9:26.

Tertullian (I, II, III)​

Apologetic. (HTML)​

An Answer to the Jews. (HTML)​

Of the Times of Christ's Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem's Destruction. (HTML)​

CCEL Footnote 1226 (In-Text, Margin)​

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”[Daniel 9:26] And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His.

 

[rwb]

That's because you believe the seventy weeks of years are tied to the command to rebuild the earthly temple, and that this timeline points to the coming of the Messiah. I believe the command is not about rebuilding the earthly temple, but about the establishment of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The timeline points not only to re-building, but also to the advent of Christ coming to earth in mortal, human flesh.

The pivotal moment for the rebuilding of the Temple is the decree issued by Cyrus, King of Persia. This decree is recorded in Ezra 1:1-4:

 

[IndianaRob]

Your symbolic representation of the Lord's past resurrection, and it replacing his future literal, visible, second coming is 100% "Wrong" your claim is in complete denial of the future literal event seen below that will take place on this earth, with literal human eyes that will witness the future event

Jesus Is The Lord

Matthew 24:29-31KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Did Jesus return in all power and great glory at the resurrection?

 

[rwb]

### The 1611 Original vs. The Modern KJV
If you look at a facsimile of the actual 1611 King James Bible, you will notice something very strange to modern eyes: **they capitalized a massive amount of common nouns.**

In 17th-century English, there were no strict standardized rules for capitalization. Typesetters often capitalized nouns simply to give them emphasis, to break up the text, or purely based on personal preference. If you read Daniel 9 in the 1611 edition, you will see words like "Weeks," "Street," "Wall," and "Covenant" capitalized.

Because of this erratic capitalization, you cannot use the 1611 edition to definitively prove the translators' theological intent regarding the word "prince." In some 1611 printings, both "princes" might be capitalized simply because they are nouns; in others, they might not be.

By whose opinion is the capitalization in 1611 erratic?