- Topic
Many of the members here will take what’s discussed here back to the WMS. This is where one or more people will try to put a spin on whatever’s being discussed. My loved one used to do this all the time. It’s a child like dependency because the member has a hard time thinking for themselves. When the study they are regurgitating turns south on them a thought stopping excuse is made. After the discussion is at a stand still the member either calls for help or goes to the cult. This is called fleeing to Zion. At this point they are usually love bombed again and given more distractions to throw into the discussion or told to avoid the person altogether. When we are debating a WMS member we are probably confronting two or more people at the same time. Check out some of the discussions on this forum and you’ll see what I mean.
shimon wrote:
I would need to see but most likely.
most likely what? (sorry i'm not sure which of my two questions this was meant for).
It would be God editing God's book
Furthermore sinse the specifics are yet to be given (or even if it happened hasn't been stated explicitly) so how can I see or ignore a problem?
I believe Joshua is referring to this article:
The article is flawed the two phrasings are not that unique both of those sentences can work accepted Jesus's second coming having happened or not.
My green book has the "second translation" and the same korean as the first translation on the opposite page. Surely someone knows Korean and English who isn't in on a conspiracy.
shimon wrote:
The article is flawed the two phrasings are not that unique both of those sentences can work accepted Jesus's second coming having happened or not.
My green book has the "second translation" and the same korean as the first translation on the opposite page. Surely someone knows Korean and English who isn't in on a conspiracy.
No the two sentences cannot work. If Ahn was the second coming, then why would he be talking about the second coming happening in the future? He would then have to refer to the next coming as the third. If you believe that both of the sentences work, which they don't, then why change it. And what conspiracy are you referring to? It is the very literature put out by the wms. Pointing out the facts about how the literature has been manipulated by the organization is hardly a conspiracy.
Emily wrote:
shimon wrote:
The article is flawed the two phrasings are not that unique both of those sentences can work accepted Jesus's second coming having happened or not.
My green book has the "second translation" and the same korean as the first translation on the opposite page. Surely someone knows Korean and English who isn't in on a conspiracy.
No the two sentences cannot work. If Ahn was the second coming, then why would he be talking about the second coming happening in the future? He would then have to refer to the next coming as the third. If you believe that both of the sentences work, which they don't, then why change it. And what conspiracy are you referring to? It is the very literature put out by the wms. Pointing out the facts about how the literature has been manipulated by the organization is hardly a conspiracy.
He doesn't say the coming is in the future in either version. It says he will do stuff in the future and we can even find the appointed day of his coming no reference to if it is past or future.
It is curious the article claims this book is a 1993 edition when there was no use for an English edition until 1997 and even my sisxth edition I believe it is says the first English edition was in 1996 (It would make sense to start publishing before opening the first church in the English speaking world but not by six years!)
Shimon, I think it refers to the first all English edition. The editions before that were English/Korean. Not sure why it's important for them to make this distinction but they do.
Actually the first all English edition is 2010 1993 is 6 years before WMC left South Korea
Furthermore as I said my English Korean edition has the same Korean as the "1993 edition" but the english of the 2010 edition if the translation were actually wrong I am sure SOMEONE would have noticed.
Why don't you ask one of the wms elders why they started printing the book in English as early as 1993. That doesn't change the fact that they changed what Ahsahnghong wrote. You are completely ignoring the point. Why would they need to change something that their "god" wrote? Shouldn't it have been perfect the first time? All those hours that Ahn spent writing that book and it had errors that Zhang had to fix? Come on Shimon. One of the wms websites even says that "mother" deleted 3 chapters out of that same green book "for [y]our salvation". Seriously?!! Please tell me that you don't believe that garbage Shimon. If you do, there is some swamp land in Florida that you might be interested in.
Actually it ISN'T a change it is a different phrasing of the same thing.
As far as the three chapters without seeing them I cannot respond they could easily be in other of Fathers books they could also be lessons we study still.
You are looking for a change of meaning and will find it.
shimon wrote:
The article is flawed the two phrasings are not that unique both of those sentences can work accepted Jesus's second coming having happened or not.
My green book has the "second translation" and the same korean as the first translation on the opposite page. Surely someone knows Korean and English who isn't in on a conspiracy.
My book is a 2007 edition and has the English of the 'second translation' but the Korean does have a different word than in the 1993 edition shown in the article.
My copy (2007) has 강림하실 "coming"
instead of 재림하실 "second coming"
The Korean (both editions) uses the word 'future'. Why remove it from the English translation in the later edition?
The two sentences may seem the same to you, but I see a difference. For example, "I will do this" and "I will do this in the future." The second sentence has a different implication.
To me in the future is.redundant will.is.already.future tense
Shimon,
If it's the same then why bother changing it at all? If I say I will do something, it could mean now. If I say that I will do something in the future, then it cannot mean now. It's not the same. If it was, they wouldn't have changed it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.