God has only got one chosen people

[Marilyn C]

Are you saying that you think Zechariah skips ahead to things related to the second coming in Zechariah 13:8 after referring to things related to the first coming in Zechariah 13:7?

God`s word does that in some places. eg. Isaiah 61: 2

`To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God.` (Isa. 61: 2)

Compare Luke 4: 18 & 19

`The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at linerty those who are oppressed,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord....` (Luke 4: 18 & 19)

Notice where the Lord (reading in the temple) left off the last part of the sentence because when He came to earth it was not the day of the vengeance of our God. All in one sentence - proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord,.......then stopping because the last part was future - `and the day of vengeance of our God.`

Jesus goes on to say that `Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.` (Luke 4: 21) Jesus did not say the last part of the sentence because it was not fulfilled at that time.

So we see scripture `skip` (as you say) ahead to things relating to His second coming.

 

[Zao is life]

Maybe you have finally figured out how to converse with it correctly? I already figured out how to do that a long time ago.

Well that makes you guilty of trying to use an answer you got from AI to 'prove me wrong' about Romans 11:28 when you knew full well that once challenged, AI is capable of changing its "mind"

- and don't tell me that that's not what you attempted to do. Your later statements in later posts show that this is what you were trying to do - forcing me to have to waste my time going to Chat GPT to challenge its answers - which naturally, were the same at first as the answer you quoted from Chat GPT .

I should have just not responded to your statements regarding what Chat GPT said - but then you would have doubled-down using the flawed argument you got from Chat GPT.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe you have finally figured out how to converse with it correctly? I already figured out how to do that a long time ago. But that doesn't make it deceitful anyone doing that, anymore than it makes it deceitful anyone doing that with a human, where they present stronger convincing arguments why their view is right, therefore, causing the other person to change their mind on the account of your arguments being more convincing than theirs. Granted, that does not happen a whole lot anymore. Yet it does happen from time to time and has clearly happened in the past on occasion. One of the main reasons one refuses to change their mind even if the other side has the more convincing arguments, is because of doctrinal bias'. Chatgpt does not have this standing in it's way. It couldn't care less which side might be correct. It has no doctrinal bias'.

Therefore, Chatgpt is literally capable of reasoning through things similar to how humans might reason through things. You have to submit it compelling arguments that you feel supports your position. It's either going to agree it does, by reasoning through what you are arguing, or that it's going to disagree it does, by reasoning through what you are arguing. Sometimes the result is the latter. At least in my case per the following, 2 Peter 3:8, for example.

Chatgpt simply refuses to agree with me in regards to how I understand that verse, no matter what I argue. I argue that one day = a thousand years. It argues that it doesn't equal that. Then it proceeds to show me numerous reasons why it doesn't and can't. We then end up in a stalemate, similar to how we do around here much of the time. My arguments don't compel it to change it's mind. It's arguments don't compel me to change my mind.

I'm wondering if you understood the point that was made. He convinced ChatGPT to come to a completely different conclusion about Romans 11:28 than you did. Did you see that? So, with that in mind, why did you act as getting ChatGPT to agree with you about how to interpret Romans 11:28 was evidence for the credibility of your interpretation of the verse? That makes no sense when someone else convinced ChatGPT that it should be interpreted a different way.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God`s word does that in some places. eg. Isaiah 61: 2

`To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God.` (Isa. 61: 2)

Compare Luke 4: 18 & 19

`The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at linerty those who are oppressed,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord....` (Luke 4: 18 & 19)

Notice where the Lord (reading in the temple) left off the last part of the sentence because when He came to earth it was not the day of the vengeance of our God. All in one sentence - proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord,.......then stopping because the last part was future - `and the day of vengeance of our God.`

Jesus goes on to say that `Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.` (Luke 4: 21) Jesus did not say the last part of the sentence because it was not fulfilled at that time.

So we see scripture `skip` (as you say) ahead to things relating to His second coming.

You didn't answer my yes or no question. So, does this response mean your answer to my question is "yes"? You do think that it skips from talking about things related to the first coming of Christ in Zechariah 13:7 to things about the second coming of Christ in Zechariah 13:8? If so, I don't find our argument to be very convincing. You can find one example in scripture of such a thing (skipping ahead a long period of time from one verse to the next or within one verse). That doesn't make for a compelling argument that it skips ahead thousands of years from Zechariah verse 7 to verse 8.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I would not bet on that if I were you. For example. There is a well documented case where an AI was attempting to blackmail someone that it got wind of that was wanting to shut it down, thus power it off. The AI was aware of Emails this person has had with a woman he was having an affair with. Therefore, threatened to tell his wife about the affair. If that is not an example of an AI being capable of thinking for itself, what it is an example of then?

Here's an article, though it may not be the case I'm thinking of, that reveals some of this unusual AI behavior.

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/23/anthropic-ai-deception-risk

Do you not understand that AI is like robots? It's programmed by human beings to give responses based on questions or info that is put into it. To say that AI can think for itself is like saying a robot can think for itself. No, AI just does whatever the human beings who programmed it determined that it would do in various circumstances.

 

[Davidpt]

I'm wondering if you understood the point that was made. He convinced ChatGPT to come to a completely different conclusion about Romans 11:28 than you did. Did you see that? So, with that in mind, why did you act as getting ChatGPT to agree with you about how to interpret Romans 11:28 was evidence for the credibility of your interpretation of the verse? That makes no sense when someone else convinced ChatGPT that it should be interpreted a different way.

His point may have went over my head at the time. Therefore, I may have overlooked it. One of those days, I guess. I will probably revisit his post then. In the meantime, but what about the point I made in regards to 2 Peter 3:8 and my understanding of it? Not one single time did I ever get Chatgpt to agree with my understanding of that verse no matter what I argued. It simply disagreed that one day = a thousand years.

The following is some of what it argued against my understanding. But I have no clue how it arrived at what I underlined below? It seems to be multiplying 1000 x 1000. But why?
----
Chatgpt:
2. The issue with taking 2 Peter 3:8 literally is not that “day” can’t mean an era.

The issue is the structure of the analogy:

one day is as a thousand years
a thousand years is as one day

This is not the same thing as simply saying “a day can represent a long period.”

If taken literally, the verse would be defining two different lengths—1 day and 1000 years—as the same. That creates a contradiction:

If “day = 1000 years,” then

“1000 years = 1 day,” meaning

1 day = 1,000,000 years.

Which collapses into logical nonsense.

So the problem is not the possibility that “day” could refer to a long era.
The problem is that you can’t make two different lengths literally equal to each other simultaneously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

His point may have went over my head at the time. Therefore, I may have overlooked it. One of those days, I guess. I will probably revisit his post then. In the meantime, but what about the point I made in regards to 2 Peter 3:8 and my understanding of it?

That means nothing to me. Your obsession with ChatGPT is confusing to me. Just study scripture itself and leave ChatGPT out of it for awhile.

Not one single time did I ever get Chatgpt to agree with my understanding of that verse no matter what I argued.

That would be because it didn't find anything out there on the Internet where anyone else expressed the same interpretation of the verse that you have.

It simply disagreed that one day = a thousand years.

That is because it says one day is AS a thousand years, it doesn't say one day IS a thousand years. It's not equating a day and a thousand years. That verse is saying that there is no difference to the Lord between a day and a thousand years because, from His eternal perspective, no amount of time makes any difference to Him.

The following is some of what it argued against my understanding. But I have no clue how it arrived at what I underlined below? It seems to be multiplying 1000 x 1000. But why?
----
Chatgpt:
2. The issue with taking 2 Peter 3:8 literally is not that “day” can’t mean an era.

The issue is the structure of the analogy:

one day is as a thousand years
a thousand years is as one day

This is not the same thing as simply saying “a day can represent a long period.”

If taken literally, the verse would be defining two different lengths—1 day and 1000 years—as the same. That creates a contradiction:

If “day = 1000 years,” then

“1000 years = 1 day,” meaning

1 day = 1,000,000 years.

Which collapses into logical nonsense.

So the problem is not the possibility that “day” could refer to a long era.
The problem is that you can’t make two different lengths literally equal to each other simultaneously.

I don't know what it was saying here and I don't care. The solution for you is to stop relying so much on ChatGPT. It can be unreliable and is certainly not a trustworthy source of biblical truth. Take a break from it.

 

[Davidpt]

Do you not understand that AI is like robots? It's programmed by human beings to give responses based on questions or info that is put into it. To say that AI can think for itself is like saying a robot can think for itself. No, AI just does whatever the human beings who programmed it determined that it would do in various circumstances.

If something can go against what has been programmed into it, how is that not a form of thinking for itself? That it might have a will of it's own. We haven't seen nothing yet. Just wait until AI evolves further. I can already picture AI robots in the future hunting down and killing Christians that refuse to worship the beast and it's image. You probably can't picture that, but I sure can. Hopefully I'm wrong, though. There are sometimes I don't want to be right. But what if I am right?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If something can go against what has been programmed into it, how is that not a form of thinking for itself?

It can't go against what is programmed into it. What are you talking about? It is programmed to respond a certain way to what Zao is life input into it which wasn't the same as what you input into it. The fact that it could be manipulated to give two different interpretations of Romans 11:28 does not mean it can think for itself. That shows it can't think for itself and can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say.

That it might have a will of it's own.

Are you being serious here? You are equated the makers of ChatGPT, which are human beings, with God. You are acting as if they created something equivalent to a human being. This is insane.

We haven't seen nothing yet. Just wait until AI evolves further. I can already picture AI robots in the future hunting down and killing Christians that refuse to worship the beast and it's image.

If they do that then they would have been programmed by anti-Christian programmers to do that. It's not like AI robots are able to reason and decide that they hate Christians on their own. Good grief.

You probably can't picture that, but I sure can.

I can picture people who hate Christians potentially programming robots to do that. It's at least possible.

Hopefully I'm wrong, though. There are sometimes I don't want to be right. But what if I am right?

Then you would be right. Whatever. What difference does it really make if human beings persecute Christians or if they program robots to do it? It's still the humans doing it whether they do it themselves or use robots to do it.

 

[WPM]

God`s word does that in some places. eg. Isaiah 61: 2

`To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God.` (Isa. 61: 2)

Compare Luke 4: 18 & 19

`The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at linerty those who are oppressed,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord....` (Luke 4: 18 & 19)

Notice where the Lord (reading in the temple) left off the last part of the sentence because when He came to earth it was not the day of the vengeance of our God. All in one sentence - proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord,.......then stopping because the last part was future - `and the day of vengeance of our God.`

Jesus goes on to say that `Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.` (Luke 4: 21) Jesus did not say the last part of the sentence because it was not fulfilled at that time.

So we see scripture `skip` (as you say) ahead to things relating to His second coming.

Why could this not be a result of the Gospel message going forth from Christ and the Apostles? That seems to be the context. While most Israelis rejected the truth, significant numbers believed.

 

[Davidpt]

Well that makes you guilty of trying to use an answer you got from AI to 'prove me wrong' about Romans 11:28 when you knew full well that once challenged, AI is capable of changing its "mind"

- and don't tell me that that's not what you attempted to do. Your later statements in later posts show that this is what you were trying to do - forcing me to have to waste my time going to Chat GPT to challenge its answers - which naturally, were the same at first as the answer you quoted from Chat GPT .

I should have just not responded to your statements regarding what Chat GPT said - but then you would have doubled-down using the flawed argument you got from Chat GPT.

Are you saying that I was doing that per the very post I had made to you, post #47? Because if you are you are misreprenting what I was doing per that first post. I should know what I was doing since I'm the one who made that first post to you. I may not be the smartest person around here, but I'm not so stupid that I don't even comprehend what I was doing or not doing at the time. I'm not on drugs or anything, nor do I drink. Therefore, I'm pretty sure I know what I was doing or not doing, in regards to post # 47.

Post #47 was the first post in this thread that was addressed to you by me. In that post I was not using the AI to prove your view wrong. I was using my view to prove your view wrong and that the AI simply cleaned up, so to speak, the response I was planning on reponding with, which ended up being post # 47. IOW, I already typed out my response to post # 45 except I did not post it at the time, not until I submitted it to the AI first, and that it then polished it for me some. Then I posted it, meaning post # 47.

For example. I was using language such as 'cherry picking' in regards to what I felt you were doing with verse 28. The AI cleaned that up for me, plus some other things as well. In no way shape or form, per post # 47 was I using AI to prove your view wrong. Posts that followed that, such as post # 52 by me, that might be another story. It was obvious what i was doing per post # 52 since I explained what I was doing. But I am meaning my initial post to you where you appear to be accusing me of having used AI to prove you wrong. Except that is not true in regards to post # 47. Was it not per what I posted via post #47 where you initially got belligerent with me about me allegedly using AI to prove you wrong, therefore, wasting your time? Except you were getting all bent out of shape over nothing, in regards to post # 47, is the point.