slimboyfat

Joined

• started 539 topics
• posted 17,649 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Self-subordination doesn't imply inferiorness in substance, that's why it's also necessary to distinguish if we are talking about the ontological, or about economical relationship of the Father and the Son.
  You are misquoting authors the basically the same way the WTS did.

  The highlighted words are from Greek philosophy.

  By contrast, in biblical language Jesus is, “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1.15), “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3.14), “I live because of the Father” (John 6.57), “the Lord created me” (Prov 8.22 in the Jewish Publication Society translation, Robert Alter’s translation, the NRSV, and the LXX as quoted and accepted by all the early Christian fathers, including Athanasius). You have not given any good reason why these scriptures don’t simply mean what they say, or any reason why Origen did not mean what he said when he called Jesus the “most ancient of all the works of creation”.

  John Ziesler said that Jesus is distinct from God and subordinate to him. In order to be perfectly clear he even says that calling Jesus “Son of God” did not mean he was “God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity”. How much clearer could he have been? How can you say that I am not quoting him fairly?

  It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses have described Jesus as an angel, but a fair representation of their teaching would acknowledge that they far more often they emphasise that Jesus is unique and superior to the angels because he is the “only begotten Son”. They teach that Jesus is unique because he is the only direct creation of God and he was the one through whom God created everything else. On top of that God gave Jesus a name that is far superior to the angels and all the angels bow down to him. He is the archangel, or the ruler of the angels. They come to a conclusion similar to the New Testament scholar Susan R. Garrett in her book No Ordinary Angel (2008):

  in comparing Jesus to the angels, one cannot simply put him against them, for he is like them in some important ways—as early Christian authors perceived so clearly. Comparison of Jesus with the angels can never be a simple matter of showing his superiority to them. So, in my analysis, I will also explore what he and they have in common. Page 12

  To say that Christ is the firstborn and the agent of creation is to identify him with the personified figure of Wisdom, and thereby to insist that he predates the angels. In Jewish antiquity, Wisdom was widely assumed to be God’s first creation, and the agent used by God to fashion the rest of the cosmos. Philo calls Wisdom ‘the firstborn mother of all things’. In common understanding, angels did not come along until the second (or possibly even the fifth or sixth day) of creation. By calling Christ the firstborn and by insisting on his role in creation, the New Testament authors undermined any alleged claim by jealous angels, including Satan, that Christ was younger than they and therefore undeserving of worship. Page 127
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  In your earlier post you mentioned that Watchtower has misquoted authors on the Trinity. I think many here would agree with that. People here on the whole are not Watchtower apologists. Watchtower also misquoted scientists about evolution, probably worse than the Trinity misquotes.

  It doesn’t change the fact that the Trinity is a non-biblical teaching. A fair reading of mainstream scholarship confirms the view that the early Christians had views about Jesus that were closer to JWs (and Arius, and later Arians) than to Trinitarians. Take the passage in Phil 2.5–11, for example. In the updated edition of the NRSV, which is the standard scholarly reference Bible, it reads:

  Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

  6 who, though he existed in the form of God,
  did not regard equality with God
  as something to be grasped,
  7 but emptied himself,
  taking the form of a slave,
  assuming human likeness.
  And being found in appearance as a human,
  8 he humbled himself
  and became obedient to the point of death—
  even death on a cross.

  9 Therefore God exalted him even more highly
  and gave him the name
  that is above every other name,
  10 so that at the name given to Jesus
  every knee should bend,
  in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11 and every tongue should confess
  that Jesus Christ is Lord,
  to the glory of God the Father.

  
  

  John Ziesler explains this passage as follows in his book Pauline Christianity (1990), part of three Oxford Bible Series:

  Though (v.6) Christ like Adam was in the image (‘form’: the words in Greek can be synonymous) of God, unlike Adam he did not regard equality with God (i.e. being like God, see Gen 3:5) a matter of grabbing (or perhaps a prize to be snatched). Indeed unlike Adam (v. 7) he voluntarily accepted servanthood and mortality even to the point of a humiliating death on the cross (v. 8) … The ruling function that properly belongs to Yahweh alone is now Christ’s also; he is cosmic Lord and as such receives honour that hitherto has been given only to Yahweh. Yet before we rashly conclude that the two have simply become identified, we must note that the element of subordination remains. It all happens, even the exaltation of Christ, ‘to the glory of God the Father’ (v.11), and Christ does not exalt himself but is exalted by God and is given the title ‘Lord’ by him (v.9). Christ has become the bearer of the powers of God and the recipient of divine homage (v. 10), but is still distinct from him and subject to him. Pages 45 and 46

  We may also compare Phil 2.10ff with Isa. 45:23 where the reference is similarly altered to Christ from Yahweh. There is at least a close association between the two figures, but in fact they are never identified (see again 1 Cor. 8:5f) In 1 Cor 15:24, 28, Christ at the end hands over the kingdom to the Father, and the final subjection of all things to God includes the subjection of Christ himself. It is such passages that lend force to the often quoted words of L. Cerfaux that ‘Christ is Lord because he is God’s vice-regent, exercising power that belongs to God.’ This seems to be exactly right. God’s powers and reign are exercised through Christ as God’s plenipotentiary representative, but Christ is not identical with God. Things traditionally said about God may now properly be said about Christ, but not that he is God, for the element of subordination remains. Page 39

  Compared with ‘Lord’, this title [Son of God] is used by Paul infrequently, but see Rom. 1:3f, 9; 1 Cor 1:9 as examples. By the Second Century, it came to refer to Jesus as divine, but originally it was not a particularly lofty title. It is not the same as God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity … Rather, being Son of God meant obedient service to God on the one hand, and divine commissioning and endorsement on the other. In our society we tend to forget that the first thing about a son was that he obeyed his father; therefore calling Jesus Christ Sin of God meant first of all that he did what God wanted. He was the obedient one. Pages 41 and 42.