Where will Jesus return?

Post by **__id_2546** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:44 am

So....if there is a new heaven and a new earth, is there a possibility that it won't be in any present city we know of?

Post by **_Sean** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:08 am

Suzana wrote:Apart from the fact that not every single person on the planet has such access, I personally don't think God will need to rely on television or the internet to make known such an unbeleivably momentous event as the end of the world as we know it...we are talking about the Creater of the universe after all!

I could see some organization starting up and taking collections to get every man woman and child on earth either TV or internet access so as to fulfill "every eye will see Him". They could think of themselves like John the baptist "preparing the way for the Lord" (to return.)

Now we know the secret as to why He hasn't returned yet.

RKCastillo wrote:So....if there is a new heaven and a new earth, is there a possibility that it won't be in any present city we know of?

I don't know if there is any way to know for sure. He may return "in flaming fire" burning up the place, then comes the judgement, then the new heavens an earth. So it could be that "the heavens and earth flee away" (Rev 20:11) so there is nothing around for Him to land on, at least for a (maybe short) period of time.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:21 am

Paidion wrote:Matthew 24:27 For as the lighting [not "lightning"] comes from the east and shines to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

That the word is sometimes (if not always) "lighting" can be seen from Luke 11:36

... as when the lamp with its lighting illumines you.

In the Matthew passage it seems the "lighting" refers to the sun. For the lighting of the sun comes from the east and shines to the west. This is not the case with lightning.

When the sun comes up and shines all day, everyone is aware of it. If Jesus' coming is like that, then It will be no "secret coming" as some teach. Indeed, Jesus warned against those who said he was in the "secret chambers ... that such would be a false Messiah.

I believe that Christ is returning bodily. The angels said to those watching Christ's ascension:

"This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Acts 1:11

Maybe He will return to the Mount of Olives. Maybe not. But in any case "every eye shall see him". I don't know how that will happen, whether by television or by some miracle of God. But it will be so. So it doesn't seem to matter just where on the earth he will appear.

Help me out Paidion, where is "lighting" in Matthew and not "lightning"? Is this of a paticular translation and all the others have it wrong? I have always heard it referred to as lightning

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:35 pm

Allyn, I truly thought my post was sufficient to explain this. The lighting of the sun comes from the east and shines to the west. Lightning doesn't do this. And furthermore lightning flashes. It doesn't shine.

I also gave an example of a verse where, contextually, the word cannot and is not translated as "lightning".

Every translation of which I am aware renders the Greek word as "lightning" in Matthew 24:27, but that doesn't prove they are right.

Of the 16 translations of the NT which I have on my Online Bible, all except 3 translate the word "ekklesia" as "church" in nearly all of the 111 occurences of the word. "Church" is an ecclesiastical word which has been derived from the late Greek "kuriakon" (the Lord's). It's not a "bad" word, since the people of God are the Lord's. But it is not broad enough to translate "ekklesia" in that way. The word "ekklesia" actually means "assembly" and is so translated consistently in YLT, Darby's translation, and Rotherham's translation.

Of course, those who translate "ekklesia" as "church" don't do so in the four instances in Acts 19, since the "church" mentioned there is a gathering of worshippers of the goddess Artemis. Also most of them don't translate the word as "church" in Acts 7:38 where the reference is to the congregation of Israel in the desert, but as "assembly" or "congregation. But four of them (ASV, AV, Douay, and KJ21) actually translate it as "church" in that verse as well.

To translate "astrape" as "lightning" is too limiting, just as translating "ekklesia" as "church" is too limiting. The latter can be translated as "assembly" in every occurence of the word, and this would include cases in which the assembly was "the church" (the Lord's people).
Likewise the word "astrape" can be translated as "lighting" in every instance of the word. In some instances that lighting indeed refers to lightning, for lightning is one form of lighting. But since "lightning" does not exhaust the referents for the word, as is obvious from Luke 11:36, the word should not be translated as "lightning" unless the context demands it.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:18 pm

Every translation of which I am aware renders the Greek word as "lightning" in Matthew 24:27, but that doesn't prove they are right.

27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west (NKJV)

27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west (NIV)

27"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west (NASB)

27 For as the lightning flashes in the east and shines to the west (NLT)

27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west (KJV)

27( For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west (ESV)

27for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west (YLT)

27 For as lightning goeth out from the east, and appeareth [till] into the west (YNT)

You have heard of these translations? Why mess with the word? Lightning is just as adequate in descrbing brightly shinning

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:45 pm

You have heard of these translations? Why mess with the word? Lightning is just as adequate in descrbing brightly shinning

You have read all I have written, and your conclusion is that I am "messing with the word"? INCREDIBLE.

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:16 pm

Allyn wrote: You have heard of these translations? Why mess with the word? Lightning is just as adequate in descrbing brightly shinning

Well, yeah, except the "east to the west" thing is so weird. I always wondered because here, at least, storms come from the west or south. Lightning could describe the brightness, I suppose, but the direction is confusing.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:31 pm

I'm willing to concede to both of you. I see your point. I guess I am on this kick that if we cannot trust translations then many of us are up the creek without a paddle.

Post by **_TK** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:48 pm

i just did a quick check in an internet dictionary- "lightning" is a variant of "lightening"- when the sun rises it does "lighten" from the east to the west, meaning that eventually everyone on earth see the sun rise.

i am satisfied that this is what Jesus was talking about. "lightning" as in storm lightning doesn't make sense.

thanks for the greek lesson, Paidion.

TK

Post by **_psychohmike** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:48 pm

Hey Paidion...Guess what...I am going to have to agree with you for once. I believe that the greek word astrape because of the use of from "east to west," necessitates the sun as being the shining that is being spoken of.

Allyn...I to think that translations hold no weight over the original languages. Translators have presuppositional biases too.

Pmike