Log In Register

Home Forums Articles Changes In the Green Book – Removal of Second Coming

This topic contains 70 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  emil 7 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46463

    emil
    Member

    Simon wrote:

    I always understood at his coming to be speaking of second coming as completed in 84 so there really is no confusion in that one. As far as the one to come versus who was to come one word change could be argued skewed both ways. Not read other translations mostly because most are kjv tradition based rather than translations done purely off the text.

    Jesus and us type word usage remains in the books in some places too so that conspiracy would seem a bit strong if it weren't for the other horrible jobs they do at cover-ups

    Could you please elaborate? I am not clear what you mean to say. The point I am making is that the word 'future' does make a difference to the possible interpretations to the sentence. Without that word, the sentence could be interpreted to mean the events taking place after Moses. However, with the word it is unambiguously and event taking place after the writer has written the sentence.

    I also don't understand what your last sentence means.

    #46462

    admin
    Keymaster
    #46461

    Simon
    Participant

    I always understood at his coming to be speaking of second coming as completed in 84 so there really is no confusion in that one. As far as the one to come versus who was to come one word change could be argued skewed both ways. Not read other translations mostly because most are kjv tradition based rather than translations done purely off the text.

    Jesus and us type word usage remains in the books in some places too so that conspiracy would seem a bit strong if it weren’t for the other horrible jobs they do at cover-ups

    #46460

    emil
    Member

    I think we are losing sight of the issue here. While the WMSCOG members here may think they have a valid argument about the word "future" being dropped, you must look at the earlier part of the sentence to understand that the word has great significance.

    It is in fact contrary to the way they use Rom 5:14 "as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come" to show that the new Adam was still to come at the time Hebrews was written despite the fact that the verse does not imply it at all. This becomes more clear when you read translations other than the NIV, all of which unambiguously say "was to come" in some way or other.

    Going back, without the word future inserted, the "will do" can be interpreted to mean anything that was done after Moses wrote his works. They can then go on to say this includes all that Ahn had done since his baptism as his claim to be God.

    On the other hand, insert the word "future" back in and the meaning changes to imply what is going to happen in a period post the writing of Ahn's book.

    If they try to justify the removal as a correction in translation, it looks OK until you realize that the Korean version has been changed too. Since Ahn wrote in the Korean language, and he was dead long before even the 1993 edition came out, how can anyone justify the change in the later Korean version after 1993?

    Taking the part about removal of the word "second" and claiming that "coming" implies "second coming", that is again a dicey proposition. If you take out the word, there is no reason why the first coming is not equally applicable since Moses' works were written centuries before the first coming. If Ahn was the second coming as they claim, he is dead. So anything  that still remains to be done by Christ would have to be at the third coming. I understand from a member friend that the second coming is deemed to have started with his baptism in 1948. This in order to claim the fig tree parable as prophecy though the story clearly has no link with the second coming.

    One more point seems to have been overlooked in the change is words. I point to the apparent removal of the words "the truth about the relations between Jesus and us." To me this reads like Ahn identified himself as one of us and not as Christ. Removal of this is extremely significant. 

    #46459

    admin
    Keymaster

    Enoc wrote:

    Emily wrote:

    I only have the 2007 version.  What exactly are you looking for Enoc?  I would like to try and help.

    Hi Emily, i also have some versions from 2000 and 2010 but i need to see that 93 version to check some things. i had no luck with the site contact email and forum admin pm, both do not answer my emails. If someone can sell me the original would be cool, but a copy or scan is ok too. thanks

    i have no pms from you, but i did finally get time to respond to your e-mails.  sorry for the delay.

    #46458

    Enoc
    Member

    Emily wrote:

    I only have the 2007 version.  What exactly are you looking for Enoc?  I would like to try and help.

    Hi Emily, i also have some versions from 2000 and 2010 but i need to see that 93 version to check some things. i had no luck with the site contact email and forum admin pm, both do not answer my emails. If someone can sell me the original would be cool, but a copy or scan is ok too. thanks

    #46457

    Emily
    Member

    Enoc wrote:

    who here have the 1993 green book?

    i need more/detailed information 

    i contact the site via email with no responce

    I only have the 2007 version.  What exactly are you looking for Enoc?  I would like to try and help.

    #46456

    Enoc
    Member

    who here have the 1993 green book?

    i need more/detailed information 

    i contact the site via email with no responce

    #46455

    genny
    Participant

    king34 wrote:

    hey shimon I have a question. I understand that jesus was born of a virgin berth but from where jesus geneology come from because joseph is not his father. Because I was looking at the geneology of jesus and it does not match when you look at it in mathew and I believe the other one is in mark or luke?

    shimon wrote:

    Genny at one point posted a link explaining why one was of Mary and One was of Joseph and why it was expressed as of Joseph. I do not have it off hand if she doesn't see this and post it before I find it I will repost it.

    I can't find that conversation right now, but I can give links about the two genealogies of Jesus as explained in some Bible commentaries:

    http://studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=3&verse=23#Lu3_23

    http://studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=3&verse=23#Lu3_23

    #46454

    Simon
    Participant

    With God all things are possible.

    And Parthenogenesis is possible in humans whether you believe it or not.

    #46453

    Simon
    Participant

    Yes actually asexual reproduction is.possible

    And yes.sex is a requirement of.adultery

    #46452

    king34
    Member

    ok perfect.

    #46451

    Simon
    Participant

    Genny at one point posted a link explaining why one was of Mary and One was of Joseph and why it was expressed as of Joseph. I do not have it off hand if she doesn't see this and post it before I find it I will repost it.

    #46450

    king34
    Member

    hey shimon I have a question. I understand that jesus was born of a virgin berth but from where jesus geneology come from because joseph is not his father. Because I was looking at the geneology of jesus and it does not match when you look at it in mathew and I believe the other one is in mark or luke?

    #46449

    Simon
    Participant

    and even if it wasn't meant virgin, that still doesn't change the fact a virgin birth cannot be adultery under OT law. No sex=No Adultery

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.