Posts by slimboyfat

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

slimboyfat

The AI first claimed there were no variants before backtracking and then dealing with the variants. That's a consistent pattern of unreliability and if you don't already know the facts then are vulnerable to accepting AI nonsense as fact. You may not care if errors are relied upon to support the truth but the God you purport to serve surely does not have such a cavalier attitude to the truth.

Even staunch Trinitarians such as Raymond Brown don't think Acts 20:28 can be relied upon. I am satisfied from my reading on the subject that at the very least there is significant doubt about what this verse really means and no doctrine should be based on it. That's a very generous assessment of the evidence. In truth I think the Trinitarian reading is extremely unlikely for the many reasons that textual and biblical scholars, including Trinitarians have outlined at length.

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

slimboyfat

The problem is AI gets things wrong while looking as if it knows what it’s talking about. Not just small things, but howlers, that you might miss if you don’t read it very carefully and know the subject well. On another thread the AI didn’t realise that a woman’s maiden name indicates her husband’s ancestry and not her own, and proceeded to write thousands of words on a completely faulty basis. On the Acts 20:28 thread it claimed there are no variants in this text when anybody familiar with the issue knows this is comeplete nonsense. The most common “mistake” it makes, if it can be called a mistake, because in a deep sense AI doesn’t care about being accurate, it cares only about simulating a credible response, is to attribute wrong views to scholars. In past threads the AI has attributed the complete opposite view to scholars than the view they actually hold. And when this is pointed out it carries on as if there is nothing wrong, like an unstoppable steam roller of plausible lies and nonsense. So yes, I think there is significant harm if anyone takes this AI bot seriously, and I think you’re an opportunistic fool if you don’t realise that it damages your own cause in the long run.

18

Books that are taboo C.O not happy lord of the rings

by Witness 007 in

so the c.o and his wife came over for dinner and of course checked out our library and saw lord of the rings and told us off for spiritism books...it's just a damn fantasy book the bible has more magic and devils in it.

.

slimboyfat

Witness 007 I’m somewhat amazed, reading your comments on here for decades, that you’re still in a situation of inviting around a CO for dinner. What’s the story?

p.s. I had a worse situation than this. I had a book on spiritualism by the occultist Rudolph Steiner which I had purposely turned the other way to hide it. An elder took it out the bookshelf and turned it around and his eyes nearly popped out his head. He put it back without saying a word. Perhaps he didn’t know I saw him look at it, I’m not sure. His gobsmacked silence was message all its own.

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

slimboyfat

He uses an AI programme jhine. This is absolutely clear because some of his posts are so long, in such a short period of time that it is impossible for a human to even type the text without thinking, never mind actually compose it. (13,000 words of detailed argument in a couple of hours in one of his posts is not even close to humanly possible, for example) Plus the tone, formatting, and the claims of certainty where the evidence is mixed are hallmarks of AI responses. Aqabot has not actually denied using AI, he has just brushed it off as a distraction, which is deflection. Any book anyone mentions, he’s already read it. Any language discussed, he understands it. Any argument presented, he’s already got an answer for it. These are unmissable marks of AI not human interaction. Get used to it, it’s a very weird world we now live in, not made any easier by unscrupulous people like Aqabot spewing out endless AI drivel, in my view.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

slimboyfat

In Acts 2:36 God’s exaltation of Jesus culminates in his being declared “both Lord and Christ”; the title κύριος carries precisely the Septuagintal resonance that the objection says Luke never entertains.

Again another subtle but important misquotation. Acts 2:36 doesn’t say Jesus was “declared” Lord and Christ at his exaltation. It says that God “has made” Jesus Lord and Christ. Firstly, nobody ever “made” God Lord, he is Lord by right. If Jesus was “made” Lord, as Acts says, then he is clearly not God, of whom this could never be said. Secondly, the author of Acts makes it extremely clear that Jesus, as Lord, is distinct from YHWH in his quotation of Psalm 110:1 where Jesus as messianic Lord (adonai) is distinct and subordinate to YHWH.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

slimboyfat

The biggest problem with the Trinitarian rendering is the one that Trinitarians are least able to face and that is that it is simply overwhelmingly unlikely on an unbiased reading of the book of Acts that its author would ever have written anything remotely like a statement about God giving “his own blood”. Because the author of the book of Acts clearly viewed Jesus and God as separate and Jesus is definitely subordinate to God throughout. In fact it has perhaps one of the lowest Christologies of any book in the NT. At one point the author asserts that the reason Jesus was able to perform miracles is because God empowered him to do so. This is as far from a Trinitarian understanding of Jesus as coequal and consubstantial with God you can get. The idea that the author who otherwise consistently differentiated and subordinated Jesus to God, nevertheless slipped in a comment in 20:28 about God himself, or God the Son in Trinitarian terms I suppose, giving his blood for humans is so farfetched and removed from the spirit of the text as it is possible to get. The variations in the text and the ambiguity of the grammar in the text are just additional reasons for discounting the Trinitarian reading. The primary reason it’s wrong is that it clearly makes no sense in a first century Christian text such as this. It’s as out of place and out of time as if it were to slip in a mention the pope or the Vikings or something else that only came around in later centuries.

24

Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower translates this verse like this: .

but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.

slimboyfat

Sea Breeze there’s a much better case to be made for Jesus being called “god” here than in Acts 20:28, but even so it’s far from clear cut. Some very competent Greek scholars have agreed with the NWT reading here and on the flip side, even if Jesus is called God in this verse it’s obviously in a very qualified sense because 1) it’s quoting a verse where the king of Israel was also “god” in some sense and 2) even as “god” Jesus still has another who is “God” to him in verse 9. In Bible times it was perfectly possible to call other beings, angels and humans, gods in a qualified sense. Given that is the case why would this title be denied to God’s own Son, the most powerful being in existence next to God himself?

The whole argument of Hebrews chapter 1 is that Jesus “has become” better than the angels because he inherited a name greater than theirs. If what the author actually wanted to argue was that Jesus is in fact almighty God himself, then there seems to be a lot of beating about the bush with the angels talk, and specifying the particular ways in which Jesus has become superior to the angels. If Jesus was actually believed to be God almighty then it seems rather redundant to argue he is now superior to the angels.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

slimboyfat

Looking at NA28 am I reading it correcting that Irenaeus has a variant here too? Which would mean that not only was aquabot wrong about the verse having no variation (in fact it’s a famously difficult text from a textual criticism perspective) but also wrong about there being no witnesses to a different ending to the verse in particular because there are Greek MSS with different wording and apparently other early witnesses such as Irenaeus too. The trouble with AI generated answers is that they look very knowledgable and competent but they just get really basic stuff wrong and unless you know the topic really well you can’t spot it. I refuse to read it at this point because although it looks convincing it’s as reliable as jelly and you’ll end up accepting stuff that is just factually wrong. Plus he has the AI tone set to condescending mode or something.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

slimboyfat

1500 words in 15 minutes 🤔

The original Greek text, supported by all extant manuscripts and early translations, clearly states that God purchased the church "with his own blood."

That is an incorrect hallucination. There are many manuscripts and versions that read differently.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

slimboyfat

Because the phrase “his own” may be an idiomatic expression meaning “his own son”.

We can relate to that in English because we have a similar idea at work in the expression, “we look after our own”. That means we look after our kin, not that we look out for just ourself.