Loss of salvation???

[GWH]

4 For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come,

6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance


This is interesting no matter how people choose to interpret it. But we believe that Paul is the author of the Book of Hebrews and this would be something incredible for him to have added.

The NIV should make MM happier:

HB 6:4-6, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

 

[lrs68]

The NIV should make MM happier:

HB 6:4-6, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

Yes, a much clearer way to understand the point being made.

Thank You!

 

[Musicmaster]

4 For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come,

6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance


This is interesting no matter how people choose to interpret it. But we believe that Paul is the author of the Book of Hebrews and this would be something incredible for him to have added.

Yes, you are right, no matter how anyone interprets it, it is interesting. What makes a difference, however, is that was not spoken to anyone under the Gospel of Grace. It was written to those who were under the Kingdom Gospel.

MM

 

[lrs68]

Yes, you are right, no matter how anyone interprets it, it is interesting. What makes a difference, however, is that was not spoken to anyone under the Gospel of Grace. It was written to those who were under the Kingdom Gospel.

MM

Are you saying the Gospel Jesus preached is different than the Gospel of Grace?

 

[Musicmaster]

Are you saying the Gospel Jesus preached is different than the Gospel of Grace?

You bet it is. What Jesus preached was true for those to whom He spoke that gospel. What Paul spoke to Gentiles was/is also true, and was/is meant for Gentiles all the way up to this very day and beyond until the rapture.

Now, the acid test for this is the very words of Paul. Some believe he was an outright liar, and that's on them. Paul clearly stated that his gospel was hidden in God from before the creation of the world, and was a mystery until revealed to him first.

What that means is that his gospel given to him directly be Jesus was not ever spoken before, because it would then NOT have been a mystery. Can we agree with that?

For them out there to call Paul a liar runs directly into calling Jesus a liar as well, given that Paul received it from Jesus Himself.

MM

 

[lrs68]

You bet it is. What Jesus preached was true for those to whom He spoke that gospel. What Paul spoke to Gentiles was/is also true, and was/is meant for Gentiles all the way up to this very day and beyond until the rapture.

Now, the acid test for this is the very words of Paul. Some believe he was an outright liar, and that's on them. Paul clearly stated that his gospel was hidden in God from before the creation of the world, and was a mystery until revealed to him first.

What that means is that his gospel given to him directly be Jesus was not ever spoken before, because it would then NOT have been a mystery. Can we agree with that?

For them out there to call Paul a liar runs directly into calling Jesus a liar as well, given that Paul received it from Jesus Himself.

MM

I am going to read, reread this a couple of times and chew the cud until I digest it because this is a very well thought out answer that I feel like I believe but want to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions based upon initial understanding.

It feels right but I just want it to become right in my spirit.

 

[Musicmaster]

I am going to read, reread this a couple of times and chew the cud until I digest it because this is a very well thought out answer that I feel like I believe but want to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions based upon initial understanding.

It feels right but I just want it to become right in my spirit.

I fully understand this, and appreciate your being careful in all that you read in forums. I always encourage others to read scripture for themselves and allow the Bible to speak for itself apart from the filters of churchianity and religion in general out there that is always misleading the masses with all manner of man-made doctrines and doctrines of demons.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I am going to read, reread this a couple of times and chew the cud until I digest it because this is a very well thought out answer that I feel like I believe but want to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions based upon initial understanding.

It feels right but I just want it to become right in my spirit.

Far too many people out there mistake their emotions for spirituality. In other words, they shun logic and reason in order to embrace their emotions as being spiritual unctions and direction from the Spirit. I'm always a believer in what I call "acid tests" for what we think is spiritual, in that if it doesn't align with scripture, then it's likely our own fleshly emotions or corruptions from the father of lies.

This is the basis for the rejection of the fact that there are two gospels at play in what they call the NT. As an Israeli, I fully reject the division considering that the Law was in full force up to the point of Christ's crucifixion, and was still observed and followed by the Church populated only by Jews at the very beginning. They did not continue the practice of sacrifices and peace offerings, but the rest they were still zealous.

If the "single gospel" gang thought this through with simply reading and accepting the differences between what Peter spoke as being the Kingdom Gospel of works toward salvation to the Jews and the Grace Gospel to the Gentiles for salvation that was utterly and completely without works, they instead rely upon their emotions so much so that some even go so far as to accuse Paul of allegedly having only summarized his gospel, as if the list were long and arduous.

The sheer rubbish that so many will pile around themselves in order to project the usual aroma from the garbage of socially engineered theologies has an appeal only to those with itching ears out there because of their love for the false teachers in their lives and all that they hear from them...after all, they all are such nice people...right, some who even raised some of these people who follow them?

The thought of calling their precious "pastor" out onto the carpets of accountability, given that most modern "pastors" are not at all accountable to anyone but the board that hired them to the position of the "hirelings" that they are...even if they FELT the "calling..."

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Something else disturbing are some of the preachers on BOTT and AFR, who speak to those seeking salvation, and offer "sinners prayers" that are horrid and downright evil because of their failure to include the resurrection of Christ Jesus. I heard one such sermon from Greg Laurie. Yep. His message was about salvation, and in his prayer, he led whomever out there thought was right, he only mentioned the death, but not the resurrection, which is the pivot-point for salvation in that Christ defeated death and sin with His having gained the victory over it all according to the scriptures, Just as Paul stated in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Folks, when people can't even be taught by famous super-star preachers who have such fame across the world, that leaves the responsibility to you and me to clean up their messes. Failing to bring others to salvation by way of the complete message of the Gospel of Grace, we cannot let the carnage left behind by those famous charlatans. We must be diligent to get the message of salvation out there in its entirety without cluttering it with all the religious jargon and false teachings of those men behind pulpits, even if they have nationwide coverage with cameras, books, syndications and all other of the devices used to make famous men who have no business behind a pulpit!

MM

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

Garbage would be the teaching that says those whom God gave his free irrevocable gift of eternal life through Salvation can lose that gift that was of God,not their own doing. But they can do something to give it back.
Meanwhile,we have to labor to keep the gift. And hope to the end of our lives that we put in enough work to be granted Heaven.

Everything Jesus worked and died to give as his gift is renounced by that abomination and falsehood.

Lucifer and his follower angels mission even in Heaven was to overcome God's dominion.

And they haven't stopped working to that end yet.

 

[Inquisitor]

Yes, you are right, no matter how anyone interprets it, it is interesting. What makes a difference, however, is that was not spoken to anyone under the Gospel of Grace. It was written to those who were under the Kingdom Gospel.

MM

Hello Musicmaster.

I will hand your understanding of the gospel over to AI for a literal and theology examination.

Here is the question I asked.

Is there a difference between the, "Gospel of grace", and the so called, "Gospel of the kingdom". Jesus was sent t the Jews and not the Gentiles. Gentiles were grafted in at a later time. Did Jesus at times speak of the gospel of grace but at other times directly to the Jews? Are there two gospels?

ChatGPT said:
This is a deep and important theological question, and one that has been debated among Christians—especially within dispensational and covenant theological frameworks.
Short Answer:
No, there are not two different gospels, but there are different emphases or stages in the unfolding of one gospel—God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. The "Gospel of the Kingdom" and the "Gospel of Grace" are best understood as complementary aspects of the same gospel, revealed progressively in Scripture.
Key Terms Explained:
1. Gospel of the Kingdom

• This phrase appears often in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Matthew).
• Jesus preached: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17)
• The message focused on the arrival of God's reign through the Messiah, offering Israel the promised kingdom.
• This kingdom was not merely political but spiritual—though the Jews largely expected a political Messiah.

2. Gospel of Grace

• This is the message emphasized in Acts and the Epistles, particularly Paul's writings.
• It stresses salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection (Eph. 2:8–9).
• It explicitly includes Gentiles as co-heirs with Jews (Eph. 3:6).

So, Did Jesus Preach a Different Gospel Than Paul?
No, but... Jesus’ earthly ministry focused on Israel, in fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 15:24). However, Jesus did foreshadow the inclusion of the Gentiles (e.g., the faith of the Centurion, the Samaritan woman, His Great Commission).
Paul later clarified and expanded the implications of Jesus’ work, especially concerning how Gentiles are included by faith, without the Law of Moses (Romans, Galatians).
Were There Two Gospels?
No. Paul is very clear in Galatians 1:6–9 that there is only one true gospel. He condemns anyone who preaches a "different gospel."
However, in dispensational theology, some distinguish between:

• The "Gospel of the Kingdom" (to Israel, about the literal reign of Christ),
• and the "Gospel of Grace" (to all people, centered on Christ's death and resurrection).

But even within dispensationalism, these are generally not seen as two separate ways of salvation, but as distinct stages in God's single redemptive plan.
Summary:

• One gospel, revealed in stages.
• Jesus preached the Kingdom, fulfilling Jewish prophecy—but not excluding Gentiles.
• Paul emphasized grace and clarified how all people, Jew and Gentile, are saved by faith.
• Any apparent "two gospels" are actually one gospel viewed from different redemptive-historical angles.

 

[Musicmaster]

Hello Musicmaster.

I will hand your understanding of the gospel over to AI for a literal and theology examination.

Here is the question I asked.

Is there a difference between the, "Gospel of grace", and the so called, "Gospel of the kingdom". Jesus was sent t the Jews and not the Gentiles. Gentiles were grafted in at a later time. Did Jesus at times speak of the gospel of grace but at other times directly to the Jews? Are there two gospels?

ChatGPT said:
This is a deep and important theological question, and one that has been debated among Christians—especially within dispensational and covenant theological frameworks.
Short Answer:
No, there are not two different gospels, but there are different emphases or stages in the unfolding of one gospel—God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. The "Gospel of the Kingdom" and the "Gospel of Grace" are best understood as complementary aspects of the same gospel, revealed progressively in Scripture.
Key Terms Explained:
1. Gospel of the Kingdom

• This phrase appears often in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Matthew).
• Jesus preached: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17)
• The message focused on the arrival of God's reign through the Messiah, offering Israel the promised kingdom.
• This kingdom was not merely political but spiritual—though the Jews largely expected a political Messiah.

2. Gospel of Grace

• This is the message emphasized in Acts and the Epistles, particularly Paul's writings.
• It stresses salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection (Eph. 2:8–9).
• It explicitly includes Gentiles as co-heirs with Jews (Eph. 3:6).

So, Did Jesus Preach a Different Gospel Than Paul?
No, but... Jesus’ earthly ministry focused on Israel, in fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 15:24). However, Jesus did foreshadow the inclusion of the Gentiles (e.g., the faith of the Centurion, the Samaritan woman, His Great Commission).
Paul later clarified and expanded the implications of Jesus’ work, especially concerning how Gentiles are included by faith, without the Law of Moses (Romans, Galatians).
Were There Two Gospels?
No. Paul is very clear in Galatians 1:6–9 that there is only one true gospel. He condemns anyone who preaches a "different gospel."
However, in dispensational theology, some distinguish between:

• The "Gospel of the Kingdom" (to Israel, about the literal reign of Christ),
• and the "Gospel of Grace" (to all people, centered on Christ's death and resurrection).

But even within dispensationalism, these are generally not seen as two separate ways of salvation, but as distinct stages in God's single redemptive plan.
Summary:

• One gospel, revealed in stages.
• Jesus preached the Kingdom, fulfilling Jewish prophecy—but not excluding Gentiles.
• Paul emphasized grace and clarified how all people, Jew and Gentile, are saved by faith.
• Any apparent "two gospels" are actually one gospel viewed from different redemptive-historical angles.

The flaw in that AI nonsense is that Paul stated that his gospel given to him by Christ Jesus directly was not known by any other man, prophet, angel or demon since the creation of the world until his time. So, the final analysis is that AI is actually saying Paul was a liar or Jesus was a liar or both. Which is it? Can that silly AI answer that?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Garbage would be the teaching that says those whom God gave his free irrevocable gift of eternal life through Salvation can lose that gift that was of God,not their own doing. But they can do something to give it back.
Meanwhile,we have to labor to keep the gift. And hope to the end of our lives that we put in enough work to be granted Heaven.

Everything Jesus worked and died to give as his gift is renounced by that abomination and falsehood.

Lucifer and his follower angels mission even in Heaven was to overcome God's dominion.

And they haven't stopped working to that end yet.

You paragraph breaks and sentence structure lead to confusion, so could you clarify precisely what you believe?

Thanks

MM

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

You paragraph breaks and sentence structure lead to confusion, so could you clarify precisely what you believe?

Thanks

MM

Alt Write.

I posted in English. If you cannot understand what I said it could be because you aren't meant to.

 

[Inquisitor]

The flaw in that AI nonsense is that Paul stated that his gospel given to him by Christ Jesus directly was not known by any other man, prophet, angel or demon since the creation of the world until his time. So, the final analysis is that AI is actually saying Paul was a liar or Jesus was a liar or both. Which is it? Can that silly AI answer that?

MM

Is Paul unique in the presentation of a gospel to the Gentiles?

Was the gospel in the whole unique to Pau?

ChatGPT said:
These are excellent and historically significant questions about the New Testament (NT) and Paul’s role in the development of Christian theology. Let’s address each one carefully using only the NT:
1. Was Paul's Gospel unique to Paul and not known to anyone else?
Paul does emphasize that he received his gospel by direct revelation from Jesus Christ, rather than from human sources:

• Galatians 1:11–12 (ESV):
  “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

However, Paul does not claim that the content of the gospel (e.g., salvation through Jesus) was completely unknown to others. He argues instead that his insight into the implications—especially for Gentiles—was part of a mystery that had been revealed more fully through him.

• Ephesians 3:4–6:
  “...the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs…”

So, Paul presents his gospel as:

• Directly revealed,
• Previously a "mystery" now disclosed,
• Consistent with (but more fully developed than) the gospel preached by others.

2. Did Paul claim that no one else understood Paul's insight to the Gospel?
In part, yes—regarding the full inclusion of the Gentiles and the nature of salvation by grace through faith apart from the law, Paul saw his understanding as uniquely revealed.

• Romans 16:25–26:
  “...according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed...”
• Galatians 2:7:
  “...they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised...”

Still, Paul doesn’t say no one else understood it—just that his role was crucial in making it known.
3. Did Peter defer to Paul in 2 Peter?
Yes, 2 Peter 3:15–16 explicitly refers to Paul’s letters and grants them a level of authority:

• “...our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters... There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

This indicates:

• Peter respected Paul's writings,
• He considered Paul’s wisdom as divinely given,
• He equated Paul’s letters with Scripture.

That is a strong endorsement, even if not a direct “deference” in authority.
4. Was the difference that Paul understood salvation by grace through faith?
Paul is certainly the most theologically developed in expressing salvation by grace through faith, especially apart from the works of the Law:

• Ephesians 2:8–9:
  “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works...”
• Romans 3:28:
  “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

However, this concept is not exclusive to Paul. Peter expresses a similar idea in:

• Acts 15:11 (Peter speaking):
  “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

So while Paul articulated and emphasized it most systematically, the concept itself is present elsewhere in the NT.
Summary
Question NT Answer Was Paul's gospel unique? It was directly revealed to him and emphasized Gentile inclusion, but consistent with other apostolic teaching. Did Paul claim no one else understood it? He claimed it was a revealed "mystery," not previously known in full, but now disclosed to apostles and prophets Did Peter defer to Paul? Peter affirmed Paul’s writings as authoritative and equated them with Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16).Was salvation by grace through faith Paul's unique insight? Paul explained it most thoroughly, but others like Peter also affirmed it (Acts 15:11).

 

[Magenta]

The flaw in that AI nonsense...

Chat GPT will contradict itself depending on how you word your question....

 

[Inquisitor]

Chat GPT will contradict itself depending on how you word your question....

Take it easy folks.

AI is taking it's first steps just like the early versions of DOS or Windows.

It is the fastest information retrieval I have ever witnessed.

It is as quick as lightning.

 

[Musicmaster]

Is Paul unique in the presentation of a gospel to the Gentiles?

Was the gospel in the whole unique to Pau?

ChatGPT said:
These are excellent and historically significant questions about the New Testament (NT) and Paul’s role in the development of Christian theology. Let’s address each one carefully using only the NT:
1. Was Paul's Gospel unique to Paul and not known to anyone else?
Paul does emphasize that he received his gospel by direct revelation from Jesus Christ, rather than from human sources:

• Galatians 1:11–12 (ESV):
  “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

However, Paul does not claim that the content of the gospel (e.g., salvation through Jesus) was completely unknown to others. He argues instead that his insight into the implications—especially for Gentiles—was part of a mystery that had been revealed more fully through him.

• Ephesians 3:4–6:
  “...the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs…”

So, Paul presents his gospel as:

• Directly revealed,
• Previously a "mystery" now disclosed,
• Consistent with (but more fully developed than) the gospel preached by others.

2. Did Paul claim that no one else understood Paul's insight to the Gospel?
In part, yes—regarding the full inclusion of the Gentiles and the nature of salvation by grace through faith apart from the law, Paul saw his understanding as uniquely revealed.

• Romans 16:25–26:
  “...according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed...”
• Galatians 2:7:
  “...they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised...”

Still, Paul doesn’t say no one else understood it—just that his role was crucial in making it known.
3. Did Peter defer to Paul in 2 Peter?
Yes, 2 Peter 3:15–16 explicitly refers to Paul’s letters and grants them a level of authority:

• “...our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters... There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

This indicates:

• Peter respected Paul's writings,
• He considered Paul’s wisdom as divinely given,
• He equated Paul’s letters with Scripture.

That is a strong endorsement, even if not a direct “deference” in authority.
4. Was the difference that Paul understood salvation by grace through faith?
Paul is certainly the most theologically developed in expressing salvation by grace through faith, especially apart from the works of the Law:

• Ephesians 2:8–9:
  “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works...”
• Romans 3:28:
  “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

However, this concept is not exclusive to Paul. Peter expresses a similar idea in:

• Acts 15:11 (Peter speaking):
  “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

So while Paul articulated and emphasized it most systematically, the concept itself is present elsewhere in the NT.
Summary
Question NT Answer Was Paul's gospel unique? It was directly revealed to him and emphasized Gentile inclusion, but consistent with other apostolic teaching. Did Paul claim no one else understood it? He claimed it was a revealed "mystery," not previously known in full, but now disclosed to apostles and prophets Did Peter defer to Paul? Peter affirmed Paul’s writings as authoritative and equated them with Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16).Was salvation by grace through faith Paul's unique insight? Paul explained it most thoroughly, but others like Peter also affirmed it (Acts 15:11).

Again, the new god among many today known as AI has yet again missed the mark:

1 Corinthians 2:7-8
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Now, the crucifixion of Christ and the resurrection of Christ was known before it happened, so that was not the mystery. The god AI missed all that. That false god did mention that Paul preached what he had received from no other man. When you put all this together, the claim of it not being unique is just plain false. The fact that this false god missed the differences between Peter's gospel and Paul's gospel, that too drives home in a very hard and violent manner the fact that they are not one and the same. Peter's preaching of the crucifixion of Christ the Messiah was spoken as an indictment against Israel, which is what pricked their hearts.

No man, angel or demon knew of Gentiles being able to enter in, apart from becoming Jews, for not only salvation but also partakers of the blessings of Abraham.

Dude, that god of this world among many is misleading and downright incapable of biblical reasoning. It presents only data that is bereft of theological rules for interpretation that align with what the word of God is saying. It's my hope that you do not begin to worship that false god and accept what it teaches you. It's as false as many of the religions out there that teach works-based salvation for us today, which Peter taught for Israel, and was true for them at that time, but is now long past.

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Peter's gospel was true to those to whom it was intended, but it was not intended for us today. Do you get the picture here? Not all truth is FOR us today, was not written TO us today to be followed.

You and most all the rest of us here are all dispensational, because I have money in my cloths that says you and they do not run out and offer up animal sacrifices for your sins. There are many Jews and Hebrew Roots people out there who think that animal sacrifices MUST be reinstated, with all of them having various claims for emphasis as to the significance for that reinstatement rather than to realize that such acts are nothing but a continued denial of the Blood of Christ Jesus.

Please consider what the word of God says rather than what that new, man-made god called AI tells you. It may seem logical, but it is not consistent with the word of God gleaned through systematic study. Notice how that silly god you appeal to left out the mystery the princes (demons and Satan) of this world did not know, and had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. Man, how much more clear could it be? AI is under the control of Satan because it originated from this world and the flawed wisdom of men...

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Nobody will be foolish enough to stand before the Lord at judgement and try to say, "But, Lord, AI said this was true. It had more data available to it than I could have ever held in my head!"

Fear what the Lord will say to such nonsense.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Chat GPT will contradict itself depending on how you word your question....

That is true in some respects. My contention is that it will always have some mixture of falsehoods to varying degrees in almost ALL that one asks of that database. AI is nothing but data and grammatical complexity when compared to the dumbed down grammar most have learned through their pubic education. K-12 is woefully degenerate with so much emphasis being placed upon social engineering.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Chat GPT will contradict itself depending on how you word your question....

One more edit:

That is true in some respects. My contention is that it will always have some mixture of falsehoods to varying degrees in almost ALL that one asks of that database. AI is nothing but data and grammatical complexity when compared to the dumbed down grammar most have learned through their pubic education. K-12 is woefully degenerate with so much emphasis being placed upon social engineering, with higher learning joining in with that party of stupidity. I'm floored by the sheer volume of college graduates still placing "like" in almost every sentence they speak. "I was, like...," "He was, like...," "She was, like...," "It was, like...," on and on and on and on they go with that zinger of nonsense so deeply engrained in their psyche that they don't even notice it, not knowing it to be wrong and so very lacking in any expression of intelligence and coherent reasoning. That is worse than the old time, "Gag me with a spoon...," mantra that was so popular in its day.

MM