original reddit post (removed).
Being free to love is kinda hard to do when you're forced into the sex trafficking industry because men like Lloyd will always ensure that industry exists. Fucking hypocritical ass hat.
Absolutely, he displays a pathological inability to appreciate that anybody matters other than himself.
Other people being harmed is neither here nor there, what matters is if you’ve insulted his inflated sense of himself.
is it an original from the graphics department?.
anyone know?.
Aha, I see.
And I think I added an initial S to brother Glass’ name because I confused him with Ulysses S Grant for a moment.
self-aware npc has an upload that the ""top-secret"' elders only secret boxes is a drum roll here......a new brochure.....ta dahhhh🤪.
i mean how more dramatic can we get..
Are there no scans yet?
original reddit post (removed).
I think the main reason he interviews people from other cults now is because they are less likely to know about his past. If they did any due diligence they should know it’s a bad idea. Or else atheists with similar moral outlook such as Richard Carrier or Matt Dilahunty.
is it an original from the graphics department?.
anyone know?.
and all he had at hand was one photo to work from, so all three deer had the same body posture and leg positioning.
Do you know which publication the illustration ended up in?
If it was original, maybe there's a mock up photo of some Bethelite in drag sitting on top of a leopard dotted, stuffed plush seven headed beast toy somewhere in the anals, I mean annals, of the Watchtower art department's archives.
Yes, they showed Ulysses S. Glass as John of Patmos in one of the videos, and the mock up of Peter calling to Jesus on the Sea of Galilee too.
is it an original from the graphics department?.
anyone know?.
Yes I think it is. Most of the illustrations in Revelation are Watchtower originals apart from the photos. That’s not to say they didn’t get inspiration from another source but I haven’t seen any claims about this particular image being derivative. They have similar images in earlier books. If I was looking to find similar images from other religious groups the first place I would look is the Seventh-day Adventists.
hi!i am doing a very long and exhaustive study of the "j" versions, based off the new study edition of the new world translation:https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
this list has about 300 sources, mostly bibles, that the jehovah's witnesses have used to "justify" their insertion of "jehovah" into the new testament.i am doing an excel spreadsheet of where to find digitized copies of these j versions and then some notes on them.. they contain some really interesting renderings, some that would make a jehovah's witness's head spin!for example, in j29:the original aramaic new testament in plain english (an american translation of the aramaic new testament), by glenn david bauscher, seventh edition, australia, 2012which you can find here:.
http://buffaloriverforge.com/peshitta/nt%20peshitta%207th%20ed%20plain%20text%20unnoted.pdfin luke 2:11 it says:.
If the Shem Tob medieval version of Matthew is a descendent from an an ancient Hebrew original then it is many stages removed from that original. It’s entirely plausible that all sorts of additions and deletions accrued along the way, including Trinitarian ones. When one appreciates just how thoroughly Trinitarians changed the text of scripture and the early writings of the church to conform to the later Trinity doctrine it’s somewhat a miracle that non-Trinitarian material has survived at all from the early period. For every description of Jesus as the first creation of God in early Christianity that managed to cling on in the manuscript tradition there were probably many other examples that were blotted out.
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.
I can’t follow what the person’s point is. That AI doesn’t meet his standard of intelligence? It is already passing law and medical exams and it’s only getting better from here on in. What does it have to be able to do before it’s considered a threat? The experts think it’s not far off outsmarting humans already and they are worried. Those who know most about AI are the most worried. Those who know the least are the most flippant about it. (A real life demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect) This wasn’t always the case because in the past some AI experts were highly skeptical about it exceeding human level intelligence any time soon. Many like Geoffrey Hinton have changed their mind due to the surprisingly rapid progress of AI in recent months. Anything by Rom Yampolskiy on the topic is worth watching.
hi!i am doing a very long and exhaustive study of the "j" versions, based off the new study edition of the new world translation:https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
this list has about 300 sources, mostly bibles, that the jehovah's witnesses have used to "justify" their insertion of "jehovah" into the new testament.i am doing an excel spreadsheet of where to find digitized copies of these j versions and then some notes on them.. they contain some really interesting renderings, some that would make a jehovah's witness's head spin!for example, in j29:the original aramaic new testament in plain english (an american translation of the aramaic new testament), by glenn david bauscher, seventh edition, australia, 2012which you can find here:.
http://buffaloriverforge.com/peshitta/nt%20peshitta%207th%20ed%20plain%20text%20unnoted.pdfin luke 2:11 it says:.
Sorry I mistook this for a discussion thread not a personal blog site. My mistake.
(With thanks to Earnest for the response. I have a feeling we’ve discussed this before!)
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.
Professor Roman Yampolskiy is the best explainer I’ve found on the topic so far. Surprisingly the death of all humans might not actually be the worst conceivable outcome from strong AI. Check out his comments around the 10 minute mark. 😮
