>>>PD also said:
>>>But, the alarm may be more than just the concern over the sufferings. It
>>>may be that some of these reports they were getting were to the effect
>>>that Christ was already here (if we take ENESTHKEN as "has come").
>>
>>RH responded
>>That's fine. However, I do not see how that would translate into the
>>Thessalonians being troubled.
>PD then said
>This is an easy one. If ENESTHKEN = "has come," then the Lord has
>returned, the church has been raptured, and they missed it. Indeed,
>cause for alarm!
RH again
True, if that were the case. However, when the Thessalonians looked around
and saw that no one was missing, I doubt that they would have seriously
believed that the rapture had occurred and they had missed it. They would,
therefore, still be looking for the rapture. Consequently, it cannot be true
that Christ had returned (i.e., that the Thessalonians actually believed that
Christ was already there).
This argues that ENESTHKEN should not be translated "has come," as in many of
the modern translations -- a point you made earlier, I believe. Unless, of
course, we are to understand that the rapture would occur after the Day of
the Lord had come or, at least, had begun. Still, to convey the idea that
the Day of the Lord was the source of alarm to the Thessalonians says that
they were not looking to the rapture to take them out of that trouble
(otherwise, why the alarm).
I think we both agree that translating ENESTHKEN as "has come" is not correct
and does not fit the situation. If so, why are the more recent translations
going in this direction? Do they mean to direct us to the conclusion that
the Day of the Lord precedes the rapture -- apparently excluding the pretrib
position?