From: Lira (lira@escelsa.com.br)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2000 - 07:27:48 EDT
<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I studied a little of biblical Greek some years ago
and I would appreciate your help in clarifying a text for me. I have a doubt
about the translation of Rev. 21:3, 10. According to the translation of our
Bibles, the idea is that John sees the city in the moment it is descending from
heaven. However, in Rev. 3:12, where a similar phrase is used, the idea cannot
be that. The three passages seem to use the same verbal tense (aorist?),
although there are some slight differences in the construction, and I don't know
the implication of these differences.<BR>My question is: Is it possible that
John sees the New Earth with the New Jerusalem already there, instead of the
idea that he sees it in the moment it is coming down from heaven? If he sees it
at the moment it is coming down, why would the angel take him to a high
mountain (v. 10)? My opinion is that the city is already there and the angel
takes him to a high mountain so that he can have a panoramic view of the
city from ABOVE. And the expression “KATABAINOUSA(N) EK TOU OURANOU APO TOU
QEOU” would just be a DESCRIPTION of the city: “The New Jerusalem which
comes down out of heaven from God”. <BR>Is this interpretation
possible?<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:32 EDT