The god of Forces

Today’s KJV has different capitalization of “god” and “God” in Daniel chapter 11 verses 36-39.

Here is today’s text of Daniel 11:36-39:

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. 37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Here is the original 1611 text of Daniel chapter 11 :


Other than modernized spelling, the passages are the same except for capitalization – the 1611 has “god of his fathers” and “god of forces” and “God whom his fathers knew not”.

Original 1611

Modern KJV

the god of his fathers

the God of his fathers

the god of forces

the God of forces

a God whom his fathers knew not

a god whom his fathers knew not

Which capitalization is correct?

Answer: Both are.

Explanation: In verse 36 is mentioned the “God of gods” who must be the true God. So this antichrist speaks marvellous things against the LORD. Then verse  37 starts with “Neither shall” meaning that these are new topics – this verse is reaching to something else other than what was already spoken of in verse 36. Therefore this “god of his fathers” must not be the LORD, it has to be a pagan god. The 1611 correctly put this god into lowercase because he was not the true God of gods that was already mentioned in verse 36. “Neither shall” means that in addition to speaking marvellous things against the God of gods he also will refuse to honour the god of his fathers. The word “Neither” proves that the god of his fathers must be a different god than the true God of god in the verse before. This also means that when we get to verse 38 the “God whom his fathers knew not” is talking about the true God – his fathers knew a pagan god. So again, the 1611 correctly capitalized this as “a God whom his fathers knew not” because that is talking about the true God, the LORD. Therefore the 1611 also correctly puts “god of forces” into lowercase because this is the false deity that the antichrist will erect in the place where worship to the LORD is suppose to occur.

Since the 1611 got it right, why do the modern KJV versions capitalize it differently? The reason is because the modern KJV is simply following a grammar rule of capitalizing “the God of _x_” as a proper noun whether or not it is the true God. So they capitalize “the God of forces” because that sounds like a proper noun and “the God of his fathers” sounds like a proper noun – but “a god whom his fathers knew not” is not a proper noun and therefore they don’t capitalize it.

So the original 1611 is correct from the theological standpoint – they were trying to make sure that they capitalized the correct God and didn’t capitalize the pagan god, and the modern KJV is also correct because it was revised to be consistent with modern English grammar rules that require capitalization of proper nouns and non-capitalization of non-proper nouns.

I used to be convinced that “God of his fathers” meant that this antichrist had to be a Jew – but this is incorrect. This man’s fathers worshipped a pagan god and they did not know the true God. He could be a Buddhist, a Moslem, a Hindu, or from some other pagan background.

He builds the temple in Jerusalem to the LORD, but in the holy place – the estate – where God is supposed to be worshipped this antichrist will set up an image to “forces” which is probably a reference to electricity, the god worshipped by new age theosophists like Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.


Theosophy’s idiotic electricity god they named “Fohat”


I used to be convinced that the phrase “the desire of women” (v. 37) meant that the antichrist was going to be queer. Of course, he probably will be a homo given that he is a self-centered egomaniac, but I think this phrase means something else. If it means that women desire him, but he doesn’t regard their desires, this isn’t necessarily bad – Joseph tried not to regard Potipher’s wife when she wanted to seduce him. If it means that he would not regard his own desire for women, that is not necessarily bad either, if he stays celibate like St Paul did. So the phrase doesn’t seem to read clearly with much sense as a comment on whether or not he is a sex pervert. The desire for women appears in the context between two types of gods – so it must be something that women worship. In other words, he won’t worship the things they worship either. I think it means “Great Mother” type goddesses or the Virgin Mary. Most likely, the phrase means this antichrist won’t revere any Virgin Mary type goddesses, plus it was intended to also give the play- on-words suggestion that he will be a faggot.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.