God has only got one chosen people

[Zao is life]

Just for the record, this is what happened with me the last time I chatted with @Davidpt 's intelligence (Chat GPT):

I began by saying one thing about John 5:25, and it disagreed with me - giving all main-stream church theology in its reply.

I kept asking it pertinent questions calculated to make it realize that it could not answer my latest question with a "y" when it had already answered one of my previous questions with an "x".

Eventually Chat GPT agreed with me, having changed its mind completely - though the main-stream church's theology interpretation of Matthew 24:25 is not the same as what I was giving it. I will give its reply after it changed its mind in the next post.

My argument was this:

John 5:24-29
24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life [zoe aionios], and shall not come into condemnation [G2920 krisis]; but is passed from death [G2288 thanatos] unto life [zoe].

25 The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead [G3498 nekros] will hear the voice of the Son of God and will live | be alive [zao]. 26 For as the Father hath life [zoe] in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life [zoe] in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves [G3419 mnemeion] shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection [G386 anastasis] of life [zoe]; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection [anastasis] of condemnation [G2920 krisis]."

John 5:24-29 with the verses rearranged by me, taking note of the key words:

* Life [G2222 zoe].
* Everlasting life [zoe aionios].
* Dead [G3498 nekros].
* Graves [G3419 mnemeion].
* The Resurrection [G386 anastasis].
* Live | be alive [G2198 zao].
* Hear the voice of the Son of God.
* Condemnation [G2920 krisis].

==============================================​

The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves [mnemeion] shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of condemnation [G2920 krisis].

Marvel not at this. For as the Father hath life [zoe] in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life [zoe] in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead [nekros] will hear the voice of the Son of God and will live | be alive [zao].

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life [zoe aionios], and shall not come into condemnation [G2920 krisis]; but is passed from death [G2288 thanatos] unto life [zoe]."

==============================================​

* The power by which the dead [nekros] pass from death to life, is Christ's death and resurrection from the dead

- which when He spoke, was about to occur:

"The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25).

* To be zao (alive) forever (immortal) we need to have everlasting life (zoe aionios) in us. Only Christ possesses everlasting life in Himself. To those who belong to Him, the everlasting life [zoe] that is given to us, is IN CHRIST (John 1:4; John 5:26; John 14:6; 1 John 5:11-12; Colossians 3:4).

Jesus is talking about the same judgment that is mentioned in the Revelation:

Revelation 11:18 (when the seventh trumpet sounds)
"Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."

Revelation 20:12 & 15
"I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Continued in next post - where I will give Chat GPT's new reply to me after I got it to change its mind just by debating it and asking it pertinent questions.

Copy @WPM

 

[Zao is life]

Continued regarding @Davidpt 's intelligence he relies so much on.

This was what Chat GPT said to me AFTER having changed its mind and began to see things my way:

HOW THE ABOVE PASSAGE IS COMMONLY INTERPRETED BY MAIN-STREAM CHURCHES

John 5:25–29 is commonly interpreted as describing two different “resurrections”

- one spiritual (present) and one physical (future).

This interpretation largely rests on dividing verse 25 (“now is, and is coming”) from verses 28–29 (“the hour is coming”), treating them as different time periods with different subjects,

but is this separation actually necessary? Does the text demand it?

When read alongside the lexicon of:

zoē (life), nekros (dead), mnēmeion (graves), anastasis (resurrection), and thanatos (death),

then Jesus is speaking of one resurrection reality, inaugurated by His own death, burial, and resurrection - not describing two different resurrections consisting of a "spiritual" (present) resurrection and a (future) bodily resurrection - but a single resurrection in two stages:

1. Inauguration - “the hour is coming, and now is” (v.25).

2. Consummation - “the hour is coming” (vs.28–29).

One voice. One giver of life. One resurrection. Two phases of the same work: "Christ, the firstfruit, then when Christ comes, those who belong to him." (1 Corinthians 15:23), and then all the dead (John 5:25-29):

Verse: John 5:25 | John 5:28-29
Subject: The dead | All in the graves
Action: Hear His voice | Hear His voice
Result: Live [zao] | Come forth

The difference is not in the kind of resurrection, but in the scope:

Verse 25 = the resurrection begins with Christ's resurrection (now is).
Verse 28–29 = the resurrection becomes universal (“all in the graves”).

This is a progression, not a theological split. Jesus does not change subjects - He expands the subject:

Jesus grounds both statements in the same authority: “God the Father has given Him authority to execute judgment.” (v. 27). Resurrection and judgment are tied together in John 5:24-29 - there is no gap between them.

Those who doubt this only need to ask themselves the following questions:-

1. Does Jesus explicitly say or imply that He is describing two different resurrections?

2. If the same voice raises the dead in both verses, why insist they are different events?

3. What hermeneutical basis allows you to separate v. 25 from v. 28 when Jesus unites them lexically?

4. How can the word zoē in v. 24 (used in reference to life) and the word zao in v. 25 (used in reference to being alive | living) both be referring to the everlasting life which Jesus spoke of in v. 24, yet not be referring to being bodily alive [zao]?

5. How can the words "nekros" (dead); "hear"; "everlasting life [zoe]"; "live | be alive [zao]"; "judgment", and "resurrection" refer to two different "resurrection" realities with respect to the dead, which are unrelated in time - within five verses?

6. Is the passage not basing what Jesus was saying upon His own death and resurrection which was soon to occur?

7. Why does the book of Revelation describe a resurrection/judgment event identical to John 5:24-29 if John intended two?

==============================================​

My point is you can get ChatGPT to agree with what you say when you challenge its replies long enough by asking it pertinent questions that show its own contradiction when it needs to reply with a "y" answer after having already replied with an "x" answer for the same thing (or making it think it's contradicting itself by making false statements that contradict its reply).

Copy @WPM

AI is man-made intelligence - but we are made in the image and likeness of God and we already have 10,000 x 10,000 and thousands of thousands more intelligence than AI - but even we are fallible - which is why we are taught to ask God in prayer to guide us in our understanding of His Word.

Those whose intelligence is man-made instead of God-given are going to be deceived if AI has anything to do with the mark of the beast.

(I said IF AI has anything to do with the mark of the beast).

This is a forum for humans debating humans about God-given things. The forum should ban anyone bringing ban everyone FROM bringing man-made AI answers into the debate . It's not right to try to force someone to debate AI with the answer you got from AI WITHOUT you yourself even having bothered to challenge AI on its answers FIRST.

It's not right trying to get someone to debate AI - period.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Jesus made one new man out of the two. (Jews and Gentiles).

Ephesians 2:
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

 

[Zao is life]

Guess what? For anyone who might be interested. Before Chatgpt was a thing, for decades now, how I interpret and understand Romans 11:28 has never changed. I can read what the verse says. I can comprehend what it means. Even decades ago I already had enough sense to realize that both 'they's in that verse are referring to the same group of ppl. In this case, unbelieving Jews. I didn't need Chatgpt to tell me that. Yet Chatgpt appears to agree with my reading of that verse. But since some are unwilling to accept my reading of that verse, thus I was apparently unconvincing, I then thought, maybe Chatgpt might be more convincing since it is capable of arguing things I never considered for arguments, such as--

# **1. GRAMMAR: The two “they”s in v.28 must have the same referent**

Verse 28 is one sentence with *two parallel clauses*, joined by **ἀλλά** (“but”).
This creates a standard Greek **antithetical parallelism**:

it is *linguistically impossible* for Paul to switch referents mid-sentence without any signal.
If Paul intended two different groups, he would have marked the shift (e.g., “these… but those…”).

* the *first* “they” = unbelieving Jews
* the *second* “they” = believing remnant

But Greek does **not** allow this unless clearly indicated, and Paul does *not* indicate it.

The context allows it and if you challended Chat GPT long enough it would agree that the context allows it - but Chat GPT - unchallenged by you - is clearly deriving its reply from what it obtained from a Dispensatioalist type of interpretation produced by humans.

Verse 26 states all Israel will be saved - and the timing for their deliverance is given in verse 27 by the mention of the covenant God made with "them" when He took away their sins - a once-for all sacrifice when the Deliverer who came out of Zion offered His blood - nearly 2,000 years ago. Verse 28 has not jumped to a completely different subject - the same two groups of Jews from verse 1 onward - the saved, and those who were broken off - and a third group - the Gentiles grafted in among the saved remnant.

 

[Zao is life]

You really getting hostile, aren't you? Maybe it's best that maybe you and I don't converse anymore.

I will continue to correct your posts when you are wrong. Save your own breath for yourself if you like and whenever you like. You don't need to or have the right to save mine, thanks.

 

[WPM]

Continued regarding @Davidpt 's intelligence he relies so much on.

This was what Chat GPT said to me AFTER having changed its mind and began to see things my way:

HOW THE ABOVE PASSAGE IS COMMONLY INTERPRETED BY MAIN-STREAM CHURCHES

John 5:25–29 is commonly interpreted as describing two different “resurrections”

- one spiritual (present) and one physical (future).

This interpretation largely rests on dividing verse 25 (“now is, and is coming”) from verses 28–29 (“the hour is coming”), treating them as different time periods with different subjects,

but is this separation actually necessary? Does the text demand it?

When read alongside the lexicon of:

zoē (life), nekros (dead), mnēmeion (graves), anastasis (resurrection), and thanatos (death),

then Jesus is speaking of one resurrection reality, inaugurated by His own death, burial, and resurrection - not describing two different resurrections consisting of a "spiritual" (present) resurrection and a (future) bodily resurrection - but a single resurrection in two stages:

1. Inauguration - “the hour is coming, and now is” (v.25).

2. Consummation - “the hour is coming” (vs.28–29).

One voice. One giver of life. One resurrection. Two phases of the same work: "Christ, the firstfruit, then when Christ comes, those who belong to him." (1 Corinthians 15:23), and then all the dead (John 5:25-29):

Verse: John 5:25 | John 5:28-29
Subject: The dead | All in the graves
Action: Hear His voice | Hear His voice
Result: Live [zao] | Come forth

The difference is not in the kind of resurrection, but in the scope:

Verse 25 = the resurrection begins with Christ's resurrection (now is).
Verse 28–29 = the resurrection becomes universal (“all in the graves”).

This is a progression, not a theological split. Jesus does not change subjects - He expands the subject:

Jesus grounds both statements in the same authority: “God the Father has given Him authority to execute judgment.” (v. 27). Resurrection and judgment are tied together in John 5:24-29 - there is no gap between them.

Those who doubt this only need to ask themselves the following questions:-

1. Does Jesus explicitly say or imply that He is describing two different resurrections?

2. If the same voice raises the dead in both verses, why insist they are different events?

3. What hermeneutical basis allows you to separate v. 25 from v. 28 when Jesus unites them lexically?

4. How can the word zoē in v. 24 (used in reference to life) and the word zao in v. 25 (used in reference to being alive | living) both be referring to the everlasting life which Jesus spoke of in v. 24, yet not be referring to being bodily alive [zao]?

5. How can the words "nekros" (dead); "hear"; "everlasting life [zoe]"; "live | be alive [zao]"; "judgment", and "resurrection" refer to two different "resurrection" realities with respect to the dead, which are unrelated in time - within five verses?

6. Is the passage not basing what Jesus was saying upon His own death and resurrection which was soon to occur?

7. Why does the book of Revelation describe a resurrection/judgment event identical to John 5:24-29 if John intended two?

==============================================​

My point is you can get ChatGPT to agree with what you say when you challenge its replies long enough by asking it pertinent questions that show its own contradiction when it needs to reply with a "y" answer after having already replied with an "x" answer for the same thing (or making it think it's contradicting itself by making false statements that contradict its reply).

Copy @WPM

AI is man-made intelligence - but we are made in the image and likeness of God and we already have 10,000 x 10,000 and thousands of thousands more intelligence than AI - but even we are fallible - which is why we are taught to ask God in prayer to guide us in our understanding of His Word.

Those whose intelligence is man-made instead of God-given are going to be deceived if AI has anything to do with the mark of the beast.

(I said IF AI has anything to do with the mark of the beast).

This is a forum for humans debating humans about God-given things. The forum should ban anyone bringing ban everyone FROM bringing man-made AI answers into the debate . It's not right to try to force someone to debate AI with the answer you got from AI WITHOUT you yourself even having bothered to challenge AI on its answers FIRST.

It's not right trying to get someone to debate AI - period.

Ask what David relies on about gay marriage or abortion. See what we are dealing with.

 

[Davidpt]

Ask what David relies on about gay marriage or abortion. See what we are dealing with.

What does this mean exactly? If it has something to do with ChatGPT's opinions on these subjects, what does that have to do with me? Not one single time have I conversed with Chatgpt in regards to these subjects nor am I planning on it in the future.

 

[Davidpt]

The context allows it and if you challended Chat GPT long enough it would agree that the context allows it - but Chat GPT - unchallenged by you - is clearly deriving its reply from what it obtained from a Dispensatioalist type of interpretation produced by humans.

Verse 26 states all Israel will be saved - and the timing for their deliverance is given in verse 27 by the mention of the covenant God made with "them" when He took away their sins - a once-for all sacrifice when the Deliverer who came out of Zion offered His blood - nearly 2,000 years ago. Verse 28 has not jumped to a completely different subject - the same two groups of Jews from verse 1 onward - the saved, and those who were broken off - and a third group - the Gentiles grafted in among the saved remnant.

For all I know, you and I likely agree about everything else in Romans 11. I'm only disputing your interpretation of verse 28. Just because the unbelieving Jews are beloved for the fathers' sakes, my understanding of that verse, all I see that meaning is, the fact they can still be grafted back in if they are no longer in disbelief, tends to prove it. They are only cutoff permanently if they remain in disbelief. But for the father's sakes God gives them one more chance after having been cutoff, rather than no more chances whatsoever after having been cutoff. But I'm meaning on an individual basis, not on a national basis. And in the end all Israel shall be saved. Meaning the remnant that were never cutoff, the unbelieving Jews that are grafted back in who eventually chose to believe rather than never believe, plus all Gentile believers that are in grafted in. All of these together equal the all Israel shall be saved.

 

[Davidpt]

I will continue to correct your posts when you are wrong. Save your own breath for yourself if you like and whenever you like. You don't need to or have the right to save mine, thanks.

In this case it was your tone that I was taking issue with. You came across as pretty hostile towards me.

 

[WPM]

What does this mean exactly? If it has something to do with ChatGPT's opinions on these subjects, what does that have to do with me? Not one single time have I conversed with Chatgpt in regards to these subjects nor am I planning on it in the future.

Your source of truth is perverted and corrupt.

 

[Davidpt]

Your source of truth is perverted and corrupt.

Pretty much everything I believe and have concluded, has been my positions for decades now, yet Chatgpt is somehow my source for truth even though there was no such thing as Chatgpt decades ago? And that makes sense exactly how?

 

[WPM]

Pretty much everything I believe and have concluded, has been my positions for decades now, yet Chatgpt is somehow my source for truth even though there was no such thing as Chatgpt decades ago? And that makes sense exactly how?

That is the source of your arguments.

 

[Zao is life]

For all I know, you and I likely agree about everything else in Romans 11. I'm only disputing your interpretation of verse 28. Just because the unbelieving Jews are beloved for the fathers' sakes, my understanding of that verse, all I see that meaning is, the fact they can still be grafted back in if they are no longer in disbelief, tends to prove it. They are only cutoff permanently if they remain in disbelief. But for the father's sakes God gives them one more chance after having been cutoff, rather than no more chances whatsoever after having been cutoff. But I'm meaning on an individual basis, not on a national basis. And in the end all Israel shall be saved. Meaning the remnant that were never cutoff, the unbelieving Jews that are grafted back in who eventually chose to believe rather than never believe, plus all Gentile believers that are in grafted in. All of these together equal the all Israel shall be saved.

I understand why you say that

- but the word "they" in verse 28 is not even in the Textus Receptus that the KJV was translated from - that's why the KJV has the word "they" in italics both times - whenever you see a word in italics in the KJV, then you know that the word was added for clarity by the translators.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Taking the added words out it reads,

"concerning the gospel, enemies for your sakes:

but as touching the election, beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God without repentance.

The election and the elect remnant is a theme in what Paul has been talking about

- since chapter 9 Paul has been talking about a remnant that has been saved, and the fact that for the fathers' sakes there was still a remnant:

As Isaiah said before, "Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we would have been as Sodom, and would have been like Gomorrah." Romans 9:29

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (verses 2-5)

"concerning the gospel, enemies for your sakes:

but as touching the election, beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God without repentance. (verses 28-29).

If you know Paul is talking about the fact that a remnant has remained, then you know that the KJV translators could have added even another word for clarity and placed it in italics:

God hath not cast away all his people which he foreknew - verse 2.

"concerning the gospel, enemies for your sakes:

but as touching the election, beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God without repentance.

The context has not changed - and it matters not what Chat GPT or AI thinks about the lexicon regarding the word "they" in both sentences of verse 28 - because the word "they" is not even there in the Greek text - which is why the KJV has the word in italics both times.

Romans 11:28 Interlinear: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

 

[Zao is life]

In this case it was your tone that I was taking issue with. You came across as pretty hostile towards me.

It's very frustrating that you seek to "correct" me with AI so that I then have to debate with AI - even though its whole argument - and therefore yours - is based on a word ("they") - which appears in italics in the KJV because it does not even exist in the original text,

Just because you choose to use Chat GPT's opinions that are based on false information fed into it, doesn't mean I'm going to go to Chat GPT to correct your correction by first debating AI and getting AI to correct itself (which I know I can because I've done that a number of times before).

It's not right for you to base your argument upon AI's argument about "lexicon" when AI is ignoring the context of the passage that verse 28 is found in (besides basing its argument upon a word that does not exist in the original text), and then expect me to first debate with AI just so I can debate with you.

If I wanted to I could have got Chat GPT to admit that the two groups in verse 28 are based on Paul's statements: Some have been broken off and some are part of the elect remnant - and Gentiles have been joined to the elect remnant - making their covenants ours too.

Look at what your post says and see if you can see anything wrong with it or why you should not have expected me to have to debate with Chat GPT just to be able to debate with you:

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

The interpretation you’re providing seems to split the two occurrences of “they” into two different groups:

“They are enemies for your sakes” = the Jews who were broken off (unbelieving Israel).

“They are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” = the remnant (believing Israel).

But grammatically and contextually, that doesn’t work. The same subject (“they”) must be carried through the whole sentence. The first clause defines who “they” are, and it is clearly the group presently “enemies” with respect to the gospel---the unbelieving portion of Israel. That same group is then called “beloved” with respect to election on account of the fathers.

This does not mean the unbelieving are presently saved or part of the remnant. Paul’s point is that even though they are currently in unbelief and therefore “enemies,” they are nevertheless still beloved in terms of God’s covenantal purpose rooted in the patriarchs. That’s why Paul immediately adds that God’s gifts and calling are “without repentance” (v. 29)---God has not abandoned His covenant promises, even though many Israelites have abandoned belief.

But this in no way removes the requirement for salvation. Just like Gentiles, any Jew who was “cut off” must come to Christ the same way anyone else does---by faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The remnant did not need to be grafted back in because they never left, they believed from the beginning. But that does not change the fact that the “they” in verse 28 refers to unbelieving Israel, not the remnant.

The flow of Romans 11 supports this reading.

Verses 1–7---Paul describes the remnant---those already saved.

Verses 11–24---Paul speaks of branches broken off through unbelief.

Verse 25---He describes Israel’s current state as 'hardening in part'.

Verse 28---He refers to this unbelieving portion of Israel as enemies yet still beloved because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Verse 23---These same enemies can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief.

This is completely consistent with--the remnant = the believing Jews.

The enemies/broken-off = the unbelieving Jews.

But the unbelieving Jews remain beloved---not saved, but still within the scope of God’s covenant promises---because of the fathers.

 

[WPM]

It's very frustrating that you seek to "correct" me with AI so that I then have to debate with AI - even though its whole argument - and therefore yours - is based on a word ("they") - which appears in italics in the KJV because it does not even exist in the original text,

Just because you choose to use Chat GPT's opinions that are based on false information fed into it, doesn't mean I'm going to go to Chat GPT to correct your correction by first debating AI and getting AI to correct itself (which I know I can because I've done that a number of times before).

It's not right for you to base your argument upon AI's argument about "lexicon" when AI is ignoring the context of the passage that verse 28 is found in (besides basing its argument upon a word that does not exist in the original text), and then expect me to first debate with AI just so I can debate with you.

If I wanted to I could have got Chat GPT to admit that the two groups in verse 28 are based on Paul's statements: Some have been broken off and some are part of the elect remnant - and Gentiles have been joined to the elect remnant - making their covenants ours too.

Look at what your post says and see if you can see anything wrong with it or why you should not have expected me to have to debate with Chat GPT just to be able to debate with you:

That is the source of his beliefs. I imagine he spends his day engaging with AI. That is where he gets his fellowship, because he doesn't believe in going to church and engaging directly with humans.

 

[Davidpt]

Look at what your post says and see if you can see anything wrong with it or why you should not have expected me to have to debate with Chat GPT just to be able to debate with you:

In this initial post that you are quoting here, that was all my position, 100%. I only used Chatgpt to polish it up for me some. First I submitted my view, then I used Chatgpt to rephrase it for me some. As a writing tool, so to speak. Even @Spiritual Israelite has been on record and said he sees no problem with someone using Chatgpt in that manner. The next time I used Chatgpt that was a bit different. In that case I submitted your arguments vs what I was anticipating arguing, in order for it to analyze any strengths or weaknesses in both arguments. The first time around I did not do that. Therefore, you were basically getting all hostile against me over simply using Chatgpt as a writing assistant, so to speak. As if I should be ashamed of having to do that. Granted, it's embarrassing enough that I'm not the best writer there is, but it shouldn't be shameful if one wants to use Chatgpt from time to time to polish what they are trying to convey. That's what Chatgpt calls it anyway, polishing.

So do you then owe me an apology for shooting first then asking questions later, so to speak? That's up to you not me. Do what your conscience leads you to do, based on what I told you above.

 

[Davidpt]

That is the source of his beliefs. I imagine he spends his day engaging with AI. That is where he gets his fellowship, because he doesn't believe in going to church and engaging directly with humans.

You imagine wrong. When I initially found out about Chatgpt, guess what? At the time it didn't even cross my mind that Chatgpt might be useful for Biblical subjects. But then eventually for some reason, I then decided to ask it about Biblical subjects. Initially I was using Chatgpt to build apps for me that I can run locally on my PC. I still use Chatgpt for things like that even now. It has thus far built several python and HTML apps for me from scratch. Then from time to time I use Chatgpt to add new features to some of those apps. If I were to guess how many hours a week I log with Chatgpt, it couldn't possibly be more than a cpl of hours. No way in a million years do I spend hours and hours at a time each day conversing with Chatgpt. Therefore, keep your wrong opinions about me to yourself. You have no right to tell me what you imagine I do everyday when you are clearly gossiping about me doing something I'm not even doing to the degree you imagine me doing. Isn't gossiping a sin to begin with? Wouldn't it even be more sinful to gossip about someone doing something they are not even doing? Thus bear false witness about them.

 

[Zao is life]

In this initial post that you are quoting here, that was all my position, 100%. I only used Chatgpt to polish it up for me some. First I submitted my view, then I used Chatgpt to rephrase it for me some. As a writing tool, so to speak. Even @Spiritual Israelite has been on record and said he sees no problem with someone using Chatgpt in that manner. The next time I used Chatgpt that was a bit different. In that case I submitted your arguments vs what I was anticipating arguing, in order for it to analyze any strengths or weaknesses in both arguments. The first time around I did not do that. Therefore, you were basically getting all hostile against me over simply using Chatgpt as a writing assistant, so to speak. As if I should be ashamed of having to do that. Granted, it's embarrassing enough that I'm not the best writer there is, but it shouldn't be shameful if one wants to use Chatgpt from time to time to polish what they are trying to convey. That's what Chatgpt calls it anyway, polishing.

So do you then owe me an apology for shooting first then asking questions later, so to speak? That's up to you not me. Do what your conscience leads you to do, based on what I told you above.

Your input to Chat GPT decides its output - and you weren't just using Chat GPT to help you with grammar - you posted its theological position - which was based on your input - and your argument in your post to me was based entirely on the fact that Chat GPT's theological position agreed with yours.

And Chat GPT's theological position (because it was based on your input) was based on:-

* The meaning of a word in Romans 11:28 which does not even exist in the original text ("they"); and
* Ignoring the fact that the chapter divisions in Romans are artificial; and
* Ignoring the fact that Paul starts his comparison between the elect remnant who believed and the rest who were broken off in Romans 9:1; and
* Ignoring the fact that Paul speaks about wishing he could save some of those who are not part of the elect remnant in verses like Romans 9:1-6 and Romans 11:14

etc etc etc

In short, in its output Chat GPT's reply completely ignored the context of what Paul said in Romans 11:25-28 - because its output was based on your input

.. and I knew that if I debate you on that, you will use Chat GPT's output to double-down on your position (which is what you did) - which is why I became irritated right in the beginning - because I was not interested in wasting my time going to Chat GPT to point out its errors and getting it to change its "mind" (which I would have forced it to do - as I have done a few times before) merely in order to be able to point out your errors - and my irritation showed in my tone.

Even decades ago I already had enough sense to realize that both 'they's in that verse are referring to the same group of ppl. In this case, unbelieving Jews. I didn't need Chatgpt to tell me that. Yet Chatgpt appears to agree with my reading of that verse. But since some are unwilling to accept my reading of that verse, thus I was apparently unconvincing, I then thought, maybe Chatgpt might be more convincing since it is capable of arguing things I never considered for arguments, such as--

# **1. GRAMMAR: The two “they”s in v.28 must have the same referent**

So I apologize - not to you for my tone - but to @Spiritual Israelite and @WPM for my hypocrisy in gunning at them in order to stand up for you when they had the exact same issue with your use of Chat GPT in the past.

 

[WPM]

You imagine wrong. When I initially found out about Chatgpt, guess what? At the time it didn't even cross my mind that Chatgpt might be useful for Biblical subjects. But then eventually for some reason, I then decided to ask it about Biblical subjects. Initially I was using Chatgpt to build apps for me that I can run locally on my PC. I still use Chatgpt for things like that even now. It has thus far built several python and HTML apps for me from scratch. Then from time to time I use Chatgpt to add new features to some of those apps. If I were to guess how many hours a week I log with Chatgpt, it couldn't possibly be more than a cpl of hours. No way in a million years do I spend hours and hours at a time each day conversing with Chatgpt. Therefore, keep your wrong opinions about me to yourself. You have no right to tell me what you imagine I do everyday when you are clearly gossiping about me doing something I'm not even doing to the degree you imagine me doing. Isn't gossiping a sin to begin with? Wouldn't it even be more sinful to gossip about someone doing something they are not even doing? Thus bear false witness about them.

I apologize if I misrepresented you. For clarity: are you now attending church? Are your presentations here not primarily based on the result of your conversations with AI?

 

[Scott Downey]

Ask Copilot AI and see what it says. Thing is these AI are useful for organizing your thoughts. You have to decide what is right or wrong to your own reading of scripture. So far Copilot has been right on the money for me. They do pull info from the web too, so I view it as another way to search the web, AI does draw conclusions, it is conversational.

If you want give me a question that was being discussed, I will post back what it says.
I gave up on ChatGPT as it always times out, I guess thy want you to have a paid account.
So far Copilot, and I am signed in as I have a Microsoft account, has never limited me, pictures, text whatever.