Posts by slimboyfat

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

He started to translate the Vulgate after the Council of Constantinople, when Arianism wasn't an issue at all for him.

There you go again. 🙂 How do you know what went on inside Jerome’s head? Where’s your evidence? By the way, I’m not saying that Jerome definitely removed “created” from Prov. 8.22 for theological reasons, even though the source you cited said it was motivated by Arianism, and even though Jerome complained the world “groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian” in 360 CE. I don’t know on what basis you claim Arianism wasn’t an issue for Jerome other than your say so.

You say qana shouldn’t be translated “created”, yet experts in Hebrew do translate it as “created”, including Jewish scholars such as Robert Alter. How are we supposed to judge the situation? Hebrew scholars are wrong and aqwsed12345 is right? On what basis? Experts don’t always get it right, of course, but you’ve given no good reason for thinking they aren’t right about qana meaning “created” in Prov 8.22. I described Robert Alter’s translation as “highly regarded” because it is. Read some of the reviews online. John Barton, a scholar at Oxford University, described Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible as perhaps the best translation ever made into English. Alter’s view does carry some weight.

Some dispute whether the OT of the Peshitta was translated directly from Hebrew and a majority favour direct translation. I checked Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2011) and he says the Peshitta was translated from Hebrew. Earnest mentioned Targums supporting the reading “created”. I didn’t know about that but they’ll be making their commentary from the Hebrew. But we’re really getting into the long grass here. The support in favour of “created” in Prov 8.22 is substantial.

Incidentally I don’t think there is any Harvard publication that says Jesus did not exist.

On the view of Jesus in the Gospel of John I find the comments of Adela Yarbro Collins interesting (yes brace yourself I’m going to quote those blasted “experts” again) from King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (2008):

the third clause of John 1:1 May be translated either “the word was God” or “the word was a god.” Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage the latter way. … It is not precisely clear what Casey means by [describing Jesus as] “a fully divine being” here. If he means something like the second person of the trinity, it is doubtful that John 1 supports such a view. 175, 176

Wisdom was portrayed as God’s first creature in Prov 8:22-23 and Sir 24:9. 178

The identification [of Jesus with “the word” in John’s prologue] implies that Jesus is pre-existent and divine in the sense of being an emanation of God or being “a god”. 181

The term “son of God”, however, is elaborated so that Jesus is portrayed as a pre-existent, heavenly messiah. He is son of God in a unique way as “the only-begotten god.” 186

In the Gospel he [Jesus] is either an emanation of God or God’s first creature, namely, the only begotten god. In Revelation, the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely the principal angel. 203

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Jeepers creepers, how’d you get those beepers

I guess you mean I’m being alarmist. I suppose so. On balance I guess AI probably won’t kill us, but having listened to the arguments, I can’t give any good reason for that. It could just be normalcy bias or recency bias that makes me think it “can’t happen”. But of course disasters happen all the time. Species go extinct all the time, especially since humans took c9ntrol of the planet. If we destroy ourselves that will be just one more species to add to the list.

Our generation and our parents’ generation have been so incredibly lucky in avoiding nuclear war and other catastrophes. I think we have become far too complacent about the risks we face in general. (Steven Pinker is like the extreme version of this - in the future his books might be regarded as hitting something like “peak complacency” for humanity - assuming we survive and can look back on them, of course.)

Nuclear war, far deadlier pandemics than Covid, environmental disaster, technological fascist dystopia, economic collapse, AI oblivion … I tend to think they are all much more likely than we give them credit for. I don’t think this is overly pessimistic. It is realistic.

But I am interested in hearing realistic reasons for optimism!

https://youtu.be/hg7qdowoemo

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

Good to see Earnest weighing in on the topic. It’s been a long time since we had Bible focussed discussion on the forum.

aqwsed1235, I agree, Leolaia, and the sources cited, make good points about the root meaning of qana as “get” or “acquire”, and the related idea about “birth” being relevant to Prov. 8.22. We can agree that “get” or “acquire” does seem to be the most common and everyday sense of the word. At the same time, there does seem to be an unmistakable pattern of using the verb qana in poetic contexts to refer to God’s action of acquiring through creation, in Gen. 14.19, 22; Deut. 32.6 and Ps. 139.13. As Earnest points, the emphasis on creation seems to be particularly strong in Ps 139.13. That’s presumably why the vast majority of translators, including the most competent and respected, choose to bring out the aspect of creation in the translation of Prov 8.22, especially considering the emphasis on creative acts in the passage as a whole. Plus the fact, as Earnest pointed out, it’s not only the LXX, but the ancient Syriac version also opted for a verb meaning “created” in this verse. It’s also interesting that the NWT goes with “produced” rather than “created”, because this seems an especially good fit for Psalms 139, and Eve’s famous statement in Genesis that she “produced” a man with the aid of Jehovah. One translation manages to combine ideas quite skilfully, John Goldingay’s translations of the OT at Prov. 8:

22 Yahweh acquired me at the beginning of his way, before his actions of old.
Long ago I was formed, at the beginning, at earth’s origins.
23 When there were no deeps I was birthed, when there were no springs with heavy water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was birthed.

Even so, it’s still to be noted that the majority of expert Hebrew translators opt for “create” or “made”, rather than any of the alternatives in this verse.

I am a bit at a loss why you say Jerome could not have been influenced by the Arian controversy in choosing to remove reference to creation in Prov 8.22, as the Ellicott commentary that you link suggested. The Arian controversy raged throughout the 4th century. In fact the Arian faction won a major victory in 360 CE when a Council of bishops at Constantinople agreed to adopt an Arian style creed. Jerome completed his translation of the Vulgate within 20 years of that major event, in the 380s, so how can you insist it played no part in his decision to alter Prov 8.22 so it no longer supported an Arian view of Christ? Jerome himself is quoted by Maurice Wiles as saying about the 360 CE Council of Constantinople: “the whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian”. (Page 32 of Wiles’ book cited above) So that’s how Jerome felt about Arianism. It was a live issue to him. Frankly, over 16 centuries later, one suspects it still plays a part in the thinking of some evangelical translators who want to avoid giving any ground to Arian, or now, more particularly JW views, by retaining the word “created” in the verse.

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Sorry, it might be an “easy” answer but it’s the kind of answer people give if they haven’t actually read or listened to anything about the topic. I’m not surprised if that’s DeGrasse Tyson’s take. It means he hasn’t actually listened to the experts at all.

Because how exactly do you turn off a machine that is more intelligent than you? And not just a little more intelligent, ultimately orders of magnitude more intelligent. It could be like trying to beat someone at chess who is 100 or a 1000 times better than you. Good luck with that. Bear in mind that these machines are now being installed in robots that have all the physical capabilities of humans and 100 times the strength or more too. Pulling the plug out is physically as well an intellectually a serious challenge, to put it mildly. It is no way an “easy” solution.

Those seriously attempting to deal with the problem don’t argue that we can retrieve control from a rogue AI. Because if you reach the point when you need to switch the thing off to save yourself then it’s because it is super intelligent and is posing a serious threat, by which point it is too late to switch it off. You see the problem?

Our best hope (according to the experts) is to align it with our goals. But that seems pretty hard too. That’s why they think we have a serious problem on our hands. Glib answers from Deagrasse Tyson about solutions that have already been considered are not terribly helpful.

I am actually eager to find if people have come across realistic answers to the concerns of Hinton and others. That’s why I started the thread. But you posting DeGrasse Tyson giving his glib type response and I think - oh my goodness we really are doomed lol! 🙂

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Okay notsurewheretogo, I will try to listen to that video, but it is worth noting that DeGrasse Tyson has no discernible expertise in AI. Hinton, in the original video is a leading expert on the topic. That makes a huge difference. The pattern seems to be that the greater expertise the person has in AI, the more worried they are about it.

DeGrasse Tyson is a public intellectual who unfortunately people turn to for opinions on all sorts of things from lab leak theories, to vaccine safety, and political issues. He will quite happily give his views on any topic. It doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about. He is an expert on astronomy and physics and used to concentrate mainly on issues such whether Pluto is a planet or not. That’s his area of expertise.

I’m not saying there won’t be any value in the video, but it doesn’t have anywhere near the same weight, or it shouldn’t have, as input from Hinton or other experts in the field of AI.

Paul Christiano is an expert in AI who says that it probably won’t kill us. He’s a good person to hear the other side of the argument. But even he thinks the existential risk is real (I think he puts it at about 10% if I remember correctly). He’s more upbeat than some of his colleagues however.

https://youtu.be/GyFkWb903aU

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

My memory is getting worse these days, I think I had “kill” and wanted to change it to “eliminate”, but I’m not sure. In the end I somehow pressed the button and missed out the word altogether.

edit: but as it stands it could accommodate hopeful words such as “enhance”, “delight”, “settle down and marry and live happily with”, who knows? 🙂

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Yes Disillusioned JW I accidentally pressed the button while I was trying to change the post title and a word is missing, but the ambiguity is growing on me I kind of like it now.

Yes SydBarrett the social consequences could be severe too, if the existential threat doesn’t materialise there might still be significant challenges.

smiddy the guy in the video is a widely recognised expert. He does explain it well.

Cofty yes that is a key point. These guys think we can’t pull the plug on AI once the AI is more intelligent than us because whatever we think to do to shut it down it will already have anticipated it. It’s more complicated than that but that’s my short version. (Edit: that’s one of the best jokes in the video - a member of the audience asks if we can ask AI itself to solve the problem of aligning our goals. Hinton says that’s possible but he isn’t sure if he would trust AI to give us he right answer. That got a good laugh.)

further edit: that’s another point some of these people make. We talk about “AI” as if it’s one thing, when really there are going to be many different AIs, and if they are correct about the risk, it only takes one of them to be misaligned with human goals, combined with super intelligence, is a deadly recipe. Even if we can align and/or shut down some AIs, we would need to succeed every single time in order to evade existential threat. It seems a pretty bleak prospect, if what there guys are saying is true.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

Much of the commentary on the link is old, predates modern scholarship and tends to support King James Version renderings. Nevertheless, the first commentary on the link you provided (Ellicott), says that “formed” or “begotten” is the correct meaning of qana in this passage and that the church “changed their ground” and adopted the translation “possessed” when the threat of Arianism arose. The Lexicons on the Blue Letter Bible website that you linked agree that qana means “created” in this verse.

Brown-Driver-Briggs: a. of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץGenesis 14:19, 22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 (חכמה which see).

Gesenius: (1) to found, create [see note below] the heaven and the earth, Gen. 14:19, 22; men, Deut. 32:6; Psa. 139:13; Prov. 8:22

The same word is used of creation in the following verses:

Gen 14.19 “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,

Gen 14. 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,

Deu 32.6 Do you thus repay the Lord,
O foolish and senseless people?
Is not he your father who created you,
who made you and established you?

Ps 139.13 For it was you who formed my inward parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

In the Proverbs passage itself the parallel phrases point to “created” being the meaning of the word in verse 22. (NRSV)

22 “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of long ago.
23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,

Comparative linguistics (looking at similar words in related languages) also supports the meaning “created”.

But more to the point, the vast majority of modern expert translators of Hebrew translate the word as “created” in this verse. This includes modern translations by the leading Jewish scholars who produced the JPS Bible, and Robert Alter, who both translate “created” in this verse.

NRSV The LORD created me

New Living Translation The LORD formed me

New International Version The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works

Holman Christian Standard Bible The LORD made me

Good News Translation The LORD created me

NET Bible The LORD created me

Common English Bible The LORD created me

International Standard Version The LORD made me

New Catholic Bible The LORD created me

Jerusalem Bible Yahweh created me

Revised English Bible The LORD created me

Moffatt The Eternal made me

Rotherham Yahweh had constituted me the beginning of his way

The German versions on my shelf, Elberfelder, Herder, and Zürcher similarly have “geschaffen”, “created”.

More important than the sheer number of versions that use “created”, or equivalent, is the the fact that the most highly regarded and scholarly versions do: the NRSV, the JPS translation, Robert Alter, the Jerusalem Bible and its revisions.

The few modern exceptions are those that follow the KJV which copied the Vulgate with a view to combatting Arianism (according to Ellicott in the link you provided), or niche evangelical versions for the same reason. The reason ancient Jewish versions opposed the LXX translation of Prov 8.22 is the same reason that they opposed the LXX in general - because they regarded it as a corrupt Christian translation and contradicted it whenever they could, especially in important Christological passages. Modern Hebrew scholars, such as Robert Alter and the JPS Bible, translate “created” in the verse because they care about what it actually means rather than its implications for any Christian debate.

The only modern scholar you have cited is Robert Bowman. He’s a nice enough man, I’ve had some dealings with him, but he’s not a Hebrew scholar, he’s an evangelical apologist. He’s quite a good one, as far as apologists go, but he doesn’t have the expertise of Robert Alter, the translators of the NRSV, the JPS, the Jerusalem Bible, and all the scholars who translate qana as “created” in this verse. Mainstream scholarship is firmly behind the translation “created” in Prov 8.22.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

You object to me citing what relevant scholars say on the topics you are raising. Take the issue of the translation of the Hebrew word qana in Prov 8.22. You have asserted that this word does not mean “created” in this verse. What is your basis for this claim? You have offered none. I pointed out to you that the standard translation used by Bible scholars, the NRSV, translates qana as “created” in this verse. Not only that, but Jewish scholars, including JPS translation, and the highly regarded translation by Robert Alter both translate this word qana as “created” in this verse. Brown-Driver-Briggs says that qana means “created” in this verse, and lists a number of verses where it means “created”. (Gen 14.19, 22; Deu 32.6; Ps 139.13; and Prov 8.22)

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7069/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Against all this you simply assert that it should not be translated “created” but offer absolutely no reason and no scholarly backing for your assertion. You seem to think that you just saying it makes it so. The mainstream consensus view can be wrong of course, but you haven’t given any evidence or cited any scholar. You just declare your view fact.

You said earlier in the thread “who cares what John Ziesler thinks”? Well he was a scholar of the apostle Paul who was chosen by his peers to write a critical text on the theology of Paul for a prestigious series in biblical studies for the Oxford University Press. That’s why his expert view counts when he says that Paul believed Jesus was distinct and subordinate to God and not conceived as part of a Trinity. You don’t offer any counter argument. You simply dismiss scholars in favour of your bald assertions.

What I am pointing out to you is that mainstream scholarship on Paul and the early Christians supports the view that Paul believed Jesus was distinct and subordinate to God. The reasons John Ziesler in particular gives for this are clear and straightforward and I quoted him at length. This is mainstream scholarship. Many scholars argue that for the early Christians Jesus was viewed as God’s first creation and the most powerful angel in heaven. The idea that Paul or other early Christians thought Jesus was part of a Trinity, centuries before the dogma was even developed, is truly a fringe position.

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Anony Mous but that’s why it sounded so different than climate change threat - because those warnings are often couched in terms of temperature rises, and sea level rises, by the end of the century. Even the worst predictions for the climate tend to envisage that some humans will survive. Plus they say there are things we can do about it - mainly stop burning fossil fuels.

The threat Geoffrey Hinton is talking about is much worse, and much nearer than that. He’s talking about catastrophe within years, not decades, and the possibility of every single human being killed.

I’ve not heard any warning like that before from anyone who is not considered a crank. Others who are in a position to understand what he is talking about apparently share his concerns. Even those who don’t think it will happen tend to agree it’s possible he’s right about AI killing us all.

nicolaou, no Geoffrey Hinton says in the interview that the problem of misinformation is a separate, and much smaller risk from AI than the one he is talking about. He is literally saying AI could kill all humans, if they implement goals that are not aligned with our own. At the moment nobody knows how to ensure AI goals don’t diverge from human goals, and when they do, and AI is smarter than us, then it’s very difficult to see what could possibly stop it.

It’s been likened to Pandora’s box from Greek mythology: once AI is out of the box there is no shutting it down and there is no controlling it.

I’m not saying this will definitely happen. This is a serious guy who knows what he’s talking about and many of his colleagues agree with him. That makes what he’s got to say worth listening to at least