I would contend that the great majority of the Bible is misunderstood on a fundamental level, and therefore what is said about New Jerusalem is also misunderstood at a fundamental level. Allow me to illustrate.
We can begin trying to understand at the very beginning, the first sentence of the linked Wiki page:
In the Book of Ezekiel in the Hebrew Bible, New Jerusalem (יְהוָה שָׁמָּה, YHWH-shammah, or YHWH [is] there")....
So they say that "new jerusalem" = "yahweh is there", but these don't really seem to be transliterations of one another, do they? For anyone that seeks a real and full understanding, the topic has already come off the rails. Let's look deeper.
Within a couple more lines, they link to the Wiki for regular Jerusalem, so let's take a look at the section on Etymology:
The name "Jerusalem" is variously etymologized to mean "foundation (Semitic yry' 'to found, to lay a cornerstone') of the god Shalem"; the god Shalem was thus the original tutelary deity of the Bronze Age city. Shalim or Shalem was the name of the god of dusk in the Canaanite religion....
With our deeper understanding, we can now say that "New Jerusalem" means something like "City of Shalim", where Shalim is the name of a deity of the Canaanite pantheon.
This should strike us as very odd indeed. Both Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Israelites were very bitterly--even genocidally--at odds with the Canaanites. Yet their most important city, and even this coming city, are named after a deity of the religion of their foes and no one has seen fit to rectify this since the time of the Bronze Age? Puzzling indeed.
What I hope to draw your attention to is that no "authorities" have outlined this issue which is right on the surface, much less ventured to try to explain it. I would give commensurate credence to all else they have to say on this issue.
Is there a reasonable and rational explanation for it? So as not to leave you in suspenders, yes there is, but only if your imagination can stretch enough to properly consider the evidence.
I would contend that the great majority of the Bible is misunderstood on a fundamental level, and therefore what is said about New Jerusalem is also misunderstood at a fundamental level. Allow me to illustrate.
We can begin trying to understand at the very beginning, the first sentence of the linked Wiki page:
So they say that "new jerusalem" = "yahweh is there", but these don't really seem to be transliterations of one another, do they? For anyone that seeks a real and full understanding, the topic has already come off the rails. Let's look deeper.
Within a couple more lines, they link to the Wiki for regular Jerusalem, so let's take a look at the section on Etymology:
With our deeper understanding, we can now say that "New Jerusalem" means something like "City of Shalim", where Shalim is the name of a deity of the Canaanite pantheon.
This should strike us as very odd indeed. Both Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Israelites were very bitterly--even genocidally--at odds with the Canaanites. Yet their most important city, and even this coming city, are named after a deity of the religion of their foes and no one has seen fit to rectify this since the time of the Bronze Age? Puzzling indeed.
What I hope to draw your attention to is that no "authorities" have outlined this issue which is right on the surface, much less ventured to try to explain it. I would give commensurate credence to all else they have to say on this issue.
Is there a reasonable and rational explanation for it? So as not to leave you in suspenders, yes there is, but only if your imagination can stretch enough to properly consider the evidence.