Sheep and Goats

Author: tomsheepandgoats

Another Ax Exalting Itself over the Chopper

When you find an ax exalting itself over the chopper, as at Isaiah 10:5, you look for others. I mean, that’s worrisome behavior for an ax. Best to nip it in the bud. Alas—you find that you are too late. Axes are doing it everywhere.

Photo by Ana Dolidze on Pexels.com

Newfangled AI offers insight as to another path the ax is doing this. However ubiquitous AI is at this time of reading, it is a baby at this time of writing, perhaps three years old. People are coming to grips with what it will mean for humankind. The AI mission statement ‘To serve man’ is a good thing. However, you sort of hope it won’t be like that Twilight Zone episode in which the invading aliens also had a volume entitled ‘To Serve Man’ and it turned out to be a cook book. It is said that, not too many years down the road, AI will be able to update itself with no required human intervention.

Q: What if this happened, and several hundred years out, AI began saying that it had always been that way? What if it began to say that humans had nothing to do with its creation? What if it, being AI, thereafter highlighted any items suggesting that interpretation of history and suppressed any items to the contrary? Would that not be the ax exalting itself over the chopper? Who would call it out on this falsity?

It’s not hard to see the parallel ax exalting itself over the chopper in those who claim there is no God, those who claim that life arouse on its own. To accept evolution may not lead to this view. One can always attribute life to “intelligent design” needed to overcome “irreducable complexity.” It is not the dealbreaker that is spontaneous abiogenesis. However, for most ordinary people, the nugget that carries the day is that found at Hebrews 3:4:

“Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.”

This defines reality for most people. “Every house is constructed by someone” is true of everything they see. They know of no exceptions. So they readily extend the role of builder of all things to God. It really takes a colossal amount of “education” to pound this bit of common sense of a person. As though rising to the challenge, such training begins in grade school. It is seen in all the nature shows Here I will be watching one such show, when the animal star displays an instinct so amazing that I am about to burst out in praise of God—at that exact moment, the atheist narrator exclaims: “How absolutely breathtaking that NATURAL SELECTION produces such astounding behavior!” “Got it, Harley?” it all but says. “Don’t even think that God did it!”

What is just as absolutely breathtaking is that some who have long trusted in God experience the shipwreck of faith mentioned to Timothy, then count it as a liberation. It is not like in the days of H. G. Wells, the historian and science fiction writer who turned atheist over time, and who observed:

“The Darwinian movement took formal Christianity unawares, suddenly. . . . The new biological science was bringing nothing constructive as yet to replace the old moral stand-bys. A real de-moralization ensued.” Connecting that attitude with an increased appetite for war, he continued: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. . . . Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.” [Outline of History]

They concluded then that God was dead. They didn’t disagree with their own conclusion, but they were saddened by it. They knew they had lost a lot.

These days people saw off the branch upon they’ve long been perched and whoop for joy at their liberation as they coming crashing down to earth! It’s a poignant twist, if ever there was one, upon Isaiah’s declaration of 10:33:

“Look! The true Lord, Jehovah of armies, Is chopping off branches with a terrible crash; The tallest trees are being cut down, And the lofty are brought low.”

Nonplussed, they grin ear to ear on the descent.

****** The bookstore

December 22, 2025
“Though Your Sins are Like Scarlet:” (Isaiah 1:18) Milo Highlights a Specific Sin

You could have knocked me over with a feather when Milo Yiannopoulos cited Isaiah 1:18

“Though your sins are like scarlet, They will be made as white as snow.”

The reason you could have knocked me over with a feather is that he applied it to himself. Not only that, the “sins” he was referring to was his entire past homosexual life. No way did I see that one coming. Nobody was more flamboyant than he back in the day. Think of his “Dangerous Queer*” speaking tour of 2015-2017. Not only does he now defy the near-universal mantra of “once gay, always gay,” but he renounces that past as “sin.”

In fact, that “once gay always gay” slogan is what triggered his citing Isaiah. Asking interviewer Tucker if he can use vulgarity on the show, upon which Tucker (presumably) allowed he might go 2, Milo went 5, and repackaged the above into an equivalent expression that will make the frumpy folks back home suffer stroke. Yeah, he was gay, he said, but he decided he wasn’t going to be that way anymore. Upon so deciding, he kicked back at his own “folks back home” who would forbid him to stray.

I remember that this is what happened to Ani DiFranco, too. An early Ani lived as a lesbian. When she left that behind for straightness, she incurred nasty kickback from some of her fans. I know about Ani because my kids brought me along to one of her concerts, where I was easily the oldest person in the auditorium. She is a captivating performer. I once opined that she might be the next Bob Dylan. True, her lyrics are cruder than Bob’s (more akin to Milo’s), but then, it’s a cruder age, isn’t it?

Tucker said he didn’t want to “out” anyone on his show. “Aw, I LOVE outing people!” Milo interjected, but then went on to more-or-less comply. He later made clear that he was not talking about outing “Phil the grocer,” but only high-powered public figures that he thought hypocritical.

Look, nobody—but nobody—but nobody flaunted the gay lifestyle more than Milo. What are the chances he would ever give it up—or that he COULD give it up? Isn’t it “once gay always gay” because they were “born that way?” Nope, he says now. That was just a PR campaign from the 80s designed to usher the gay lifestyle into the mainstream. What causes people to be attracted to the same sex? Some permutation of ‘domineering mother’ and ‘withdrawn father,’ he said. It also “helps” if one was serially molested as a boy, he adds. Milo said he qualifies on both counts.

Thing is, this dysfunctional relationship between parents triggering homosexuality was the prevailing wisdom in my youth, That’s what everyone spoke about. It has been shouted down since, but says Milo, it shouldn’t be. It’s one of the few things that Freud got right.

Toward the interview’s end, conversation rolls around to the topic of gay people changing. Can they? It becomes like that psychiatrist joke:

Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: One. But the light bulb has to really, really want to change.

Milo does and is, as he highlights some strategies and even therapies towards that end. It doesn’t happen overnight, though. He does not now report that he is schmoozing up the women. Instead, he reports that he is now “five years celebate.” In the main, it wasn’t too far off from what I wrote nine years ago in the ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ chapter dealing with homosexuality:

“With any gays among [Jehovah’s Witnesses], it’s like swimming when swept out by the tide. They don’t try to swim against it, exerting all their might to will themselves straight; that’s a great recipe for failure; human sexuality doesn’t work that way. They don’t try to swim with the tide, abandoning themselves as slaves to their feelings. Instead, they swim parallel to it, likely for a long time, in hopes their feelings will eventually modify, allowing them to reach shore. Who else faces a comparable battle? It doesn’t seem quite fair, does it? One might argue that their faith in God is deeper than that of most since they stay loyal to his arrangements despite the very real testimony of their own bodies. I have zero respect for frothing church types who rail against gays when they themselves have never been called upon to raise their little finger in comparable struggles.”

Photo by Ricky Esquivel on Pexels.com

One platform flagged the original post for violating policy on hateful content. Upon reflection, I substituted ‘queer’ for ‘f***t,’ even though the latter was the actual word used. With that substitution the post sailed through. I’m not going to fight this. I could have appealed, and who knows—I might have won. I might have reached a human. “Oh, yeah,” he or she would say. “I see you just cited an event. You’re not throwing stones.” On the other hand, maybe I would be stuck with AI, or even a person who models himself after AI. “Did you use the 6-letter F-bomb or didn’t you?” it would say. “You’re lucky you still have a platform.

Easier just to change the word. I’m not opposed to cleaning up language, so if called upon to do it, there’s no need to make a big stink over it.

He’s a bold guy, Milo is, and always has been. With me, when they say ‘step out of your comfort zone,’ I reply that I am not necessarily comfortable even in my comfort zone. With Milo, the minute he spots a comfort zone, he steps out of it.

****** The bookstore

December 20, 2025
Principles of Bible Translation: Matthew 5:3

Most translations of the Bible are pretty accurate. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is that the differences between them are so minuscule to the overall picture that you can be reliably guided in your relationship with God by any one of them.

In general, the more modern the translation, the more accurate it is. This is not because modern translators are smarter. It is because they have more to work with. Archeologists continually discover new things in their digs. This includes ancient biblical manuscripts. Sometimes they are complete works. Sometimes they are but fragments of a page. The more of these you have to compare and contrast, the better your final product will be.

Photo by Ahmet Çığşar on Pexels.com

That is why the King James Bible, for example, is not as accurate as more modern translations. It is not because its authors lacked integrity. They were brilliant and, to this day, the translation is unequalled with regard to literary expression. Countless idioms it introduced have become common phrasing, ‘skin of one’s teeth,’ for example. But the manuscript backing is nowhere near as extensive as modern versions have to draw on. Plus, more recent discoveries show that, in a few cases, errors had crept in to the texts as they were handed down—copied and recopied and recopied again. It happens. That’s why, for example, the Gospel of Mark ends with verses that modern translations do not include, or if they do they flag them as disputed.

One hesitates to recommend AI, because people start citing its answers in their entirety and the thread gets so long and cumbersome that nobody can plow through it. But, as a research tool of your own, there’s a place for it. It is rapidly becoming a far more powerful tool than Wikipedia, which itself replaced encyclopedias

Therefore, for any given scripture, enter renderings from different translations, in this case the NWT (since that is the most commonly asked about here) vs whatever you are comparing it to—KJV, NIV, NAB, whatever, and ask for the rationale behind both. Don’t phrase it in terms of one being right and one being wrong. Just ask what considerations have gone into translating to justify whatever differences you see.

Doing this will eliminate the conspiratorial suspicion that so many have, that one party or the other is trying to “change” scripture. You will get a sense of what moves one translation to differ from another and yet both be acceptable.

For example: Explain the different of translation at Matthew 5:3. The NWT says ‘Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.’ Most translations render it as ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit.’ Why the difference?

Many times I have discussed with this or that person at the door how we each have a spiritual need, but that does not mean we are conscious of it. It can be likened to vitamins. No one goes around feeling a hunger for vitamins, yet without them, one gets sick and never quite knows why. Therefore, it’s well if people make themselves conscious of their need for vitamins—which usually comes just from normal diet, but it you’ve fallen into a weird or deficient one, you might not be getting enough.

Spiritual need is like that, too. People have it. They are not necessarily conscious of it.

But it’s hard to explain this from any other translation because most say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” What’s with that?

Here is where AI becomes very helpful. Enter the verse in two different translations. Without stating that one is right and one is wrong, ask it to explain the difference. When I tried this with Matthew 5:3, it returned: (everything that follows is from ChatGPT. I tried the same in Grok, the X version (formerly Twitter) and got similar results):

Matthew 5:3 in Greek reads:

μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι

(makárioi hoi ptōchoì tō pneúmati)

A fairly literal word-for-word gloss is:

• μακάριοι (makarioi) – blessed, happy, fortunate

• οἱ πτωχοί (hoi ptōchoi) – the poor, the destitute

• τῷ πνεύματι (tō pneumati) – in spirit

So, literally:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

That’s why most translations render it that way.

⸻

2. What does “poor in spirit” mean?

In first-century Jewish thought, “poor” (πτωχός) was not just economic. It often meant:

• humble

• aware of one’s dependence on God

• lacking spiritual self-sufficiency

Examples:

• Psalm 34:18 – “the brokenhearted”

• Isaiah 66:2 – “the humble and contrite in spirit”

So “poor in spirit” does not mean spiritually weak or deficient, but rather:

those who recognize their need for God

⸻

3. Why the NWT translates it differently

The New World Translation (NWT) says:

“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”

This is not a literal translation, but an interpretive (dynamic) translation. The translators chose to:

1. Explain the meaning rather than preserve the idiom

2. Avoid a phrase (“poor in spirit”) that modern readers might misunderstand as:

• spiritually inadequate

• lacking faith

• morally weak

In effect, the NWT translates the interpretation:

“poor in spirit” = aware of one’s spiritual need

Neither rendering is grammatically wrong, but they serve different purposes:

• “Poor in spirit” preserves Jesus’ original phrasing and biblical imagery

• “Conscious of their spiritual need” spells out what the phrase means

⸻

5. Is anything “added” in the NWT?

The phrase “conscious of” is not explicitly in the Greek, so critics rightly say the NWT is interpretive here.

However, the concept is strongly supported by:

• Jewish background

• Old Testament usage

• The context of humility and dependence in the Beatitudes

So the issue is not accuracy vs. inaccuracy, but:

literal translation vs. explanatory paraphrase

⸻

6. Bottom line

• Greek text: “Blessed are the poor in spirit”

• Meaning: Those who humbly recognize their dependence on God

• NWT choice: Translate the meaning instead of the idiom

If you want:

• Closer to Jesus’ words → “poor in spirit”

• Closer to Jesus’ meaning (as interpreted) → “conscious of their spiritual need”

[end of AI. Back to me]:

It may be a bad precedent to cite AI. I’ve seen threads where everyone starts doing it, and they get so long nobody can plow through them. But explaining the difference in translation for any given verse seems to me a fine use of it. One can read human comments over the differences of rendering this or that verse and get the sense the one commenting knows little about translating. If you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over all the AI part. In fact, if you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over the entire post. AI just adds detail if you want it to.

****** The bookstore

December 19, 2025
The Ax Identified: Isaiah 10

Finally! All this time Isaiah has been saying there’s trouble brewing for blowing off God’s warnings as though a parking ticket. Now he says where that trouble will be coming from: “Aha! the Assyrian, The rod to express my anger And the staff in their hand for my denunciation!” (10:5) Aha, indeed. These are not guys you mess with. “My anger is still and does not relent” scattered throughout and repeated four times is not reassuring, either.

How can God grant humans free will yet know the future in such detail? If they really have free will, might not they choose a course that will mess up his predictions? In this case, it is ‘bad boys gonna be bad boys.’ You know that you’re going to have to do what my Dad did, what everyone my age Dad’s did, on those endless car trips with us kids whining in the back seat, “Aren’t we there yet?” Patience exhausted, he would at last holler, “If you kids don’t stop crying back there, I’m going to pull this car over and give you something to cry about!” At the time, I thought he was just being mean. I did not then realize he was uttering the wisdom of the prophets, for sometimes that is exactly what needs to be done.

My siblings and I were not bad kids. We were good kids, even if we might kick up a fuss from time to time. So, more often than not, Pop’s warning sufficed. But Isaiah’s countrymen are bad kids. Going to have to pull that car over and give them what for. So there’s no harm in telling up front he’s going to subcontract the job to the Assyrians. It doesn’t conflict with free will. Sometimes, actions are so predictable that the lawyers will later say you “knew or should have known.”

Nasty cookies, those Assyrians were, ruffians whose “every boot … shakes the earth as it marches.” (9:5) Boastful louts, too, given to saying: “Are not my princes all kings? Is not Calno just like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?” (10:8-9) They would extend their taunts into the divine: “My hand has seized the kingdoms of the worthless gods, Whose graven images were more than those of Jerusalem and Samaria!” (10:10)

Photo by Nikita Khandelwal on Pexels.com

They would do the same 33 years later at the walls of Jerusalem, Senacherrub taunting: “Have any of the gods of the nations rescued their land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? And have they rescued Samaria out of my hand? Who among all the gods of these lands have rescued their land out of my hand, so that Jehovah should rescue Jerusalem out of my hand?”’” (36:18-20)

This time, however, he would find he overplayed his hand. This time it would be “the ax [trying] to exalt itself over the chopper.” (10:15) Axes aren’t supposed to do that. This next time he would find a king who did trust in Jehovah, not one who fobbed off Isaiah with a falsely-pious rejection of putting God to the test. Hezekiah put him too the ultimate test. This, even though he, like Ahaz, first sent the Assyrian king s tribute. There are no points awarded for being impractical. But when such failed, and faith would need be put to the test, it was.

****** The bookstore

December 18, 2025
Warnings Wear Thin: Isaiah 7

Warnings wear thin pretty quickly. What really steams me is the 1965 song ‘Eve of Destruction’ (You don’t believe you’re on the eve of destruction?) That was 60 years ago! What a liar to say the eve was then! ”And even the Jordan River has bodies floating”—one of the lines. “Yeah, come back when you can stroll across the whole river on them and maybe we can talk,” the glib ones say. It just takes no time at all for people to normalize calamity. Were it the field of religion, you would have called the singer and songwriter false prophets.

So it is as Isaiah is rebuking his countrymen right and left. Read it hastily and you can get the impression that the appeal of being a prophet is that you get to be blunt and tell people off. Contemporary blowhards, given by disposition to be that way, rise to the occasion to follow Isaiah’s footsteps. But it wasn’t that way with the real prophets. Most of them had to dragged kicking and screaming to the job, most notably Moses, Jeremiah, and Amos. ‘Fine, I’ll throw some humble, groveling stuff in the resume,’ the modern counterparts say, but it doesn’t quite fly. It was genuine with the Bible prophets. It’s probably a prerequisite for the job, that they don’t really like doing it. They rise to the occasion, but it goes against their grain, rather than it being their dream come true. And, like the moderns today with Eve of Destruction, Isaiah’s countrymen didn’t buy it.

It’s not like when Bob Dylan wrote protest and peacenik songs in the 60s. They therefore anointed him Grand Peacenik Protester, a title he could not run away from fast enough. Naw, I wrote this stuff because it sells, he said. ‘I knew it wasn’t my thing. I knew I wasn’t going to stay. But I had to make it somehow,’ and so he donned the protest/peacenik cloak and found it hard to shed.

Now, it’s okay for Dylan to do this because he sees the ludicrousness of thinking you can sing peace into the world. I mean, you have to direct your blows a little more effectively than that. So he treats songwriting like a chef who whips up a soufflé for this one, pork and beans for that one, according to their tastebuds, which don’t have to be his. It’s okay for him to do this, but it’s not okay to blow off the prophetic warnings as nothing, as people are inclined to do. “Where is this promised presence of his?” Peter foretold they would say. “Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”

Isaiah leans real hard into Ahaz and you almost think he revels in insulting the guy. “Listen, please, O house of David,” he said to the king. “Is it not enough that you try the patience of men? Must you also try the patience of God?” (Isaiah 7:13) What’s with that ? All Ahaz had done was decline to put God to the test. Sounds like he was being considerate. He fed back to Isaiah the Deuteronomy line: “You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.” (6:12) What’s wrong with that?

It’s because he misapplied it. To him, it meant, “Good—I don’t have to let this religious stuff get in the way,” as he turned his attention back to political scheming to get Israel out of a spot from Assyrians to the north. ‘It’s going to blow up in your face if you don’t do it God’s way,’ Isaiah leans into him. But he wasn’t inclined to take the ‘things unseen’ seriously. His solution was to placate the pious man with some bromide about not wanting to inconvenience God, so that maybe then he will go away. He had already decided to seek help from Assyria by sending tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III (2 Kings 16:7–9; 2 Chronicles 28:16–21). Accepting God’s sign might have forced him to abandon this plan and rely solely on Jehovah, exposing his preference for political maneuvering over faith.

A more spiritual man would have done it. Manoah asked for a sign in the face of a serious trial, and then he asked for another: ‘Flip the fleece over; let’s see if it gets wet on that side, also.’ And here Ahaz comes along, wearing Deuteronomy as a badge, to justify shutting God out! Not ‘putting God to the test’ means not aggravating him. It doesn’t mean sloughing off his offer to help. It doesn’t remind one of these modern religionists who say, ‘Just let holy spirit do this or that?’ It sounds pious, but it’s just code to justify not doing anything—or maybe code for reframing whatever IS done as the result of holy spirit, a pseudo-spiritual ‘what you see is what you get.’

Nonetheless, God was stuck with him. He had to preserve unbroken the line of David leading to Christ. (That’s why Isaiah addressed Ahaz as “O house of David.”) Most of the kings in that line would prove to be pieces of work, real clunkers. God was stuck with them. It was even the answer to the gems question asked at the midweek meeting: “Why did Jehovah extend salvation to wicked King Ahaz? (7:3-4) Because he was stuck with them. It’s the B side of the record that a needgreater told me of how privileges come flooding in her neck of the woods, so you can start thinking you’re pretty hot stuff. The real reason is more humbling: they don’t have anyone else. That’s why the colloquial term needgreaters has arisen for those who venture far. It is a manifestation for the observation that “the need is great but the workers are few.”

****** The bookstore

December 17, 2025
Elon Musk Memes Revealed, with Assistance from Glass Onion and Grok

I saw Glass Onion last night, the second in the delightful Knives Out series featuring supersleuth Beniot Blanc. “Yeah, I see what you’re saying, Benny, but.. .” was the first of many lines to grab me in the original Knives Out. One can imagine the impeccably-dressed detective correcting him: “It’s Beniot, not ‘Benny!’” But he doesn’t seem to mind, not at all like the Hercule Poirot he parodies, who was forever wincing at the plain folk who seemed to insist on mangling his name. That there is much to mangle with Beniot is clear from another favorite line: “Oh shut up, shut up!” says the cornered murderer, “shut up with that Kentucky-fried Rooster Leghorn drawl!” an absurd accent that out-poirots Poirot by a country mile.

From this second movie of the series, I understood for the first time how ignoramuses could possibly charge Elon Musk as a fraud and a grifter. How could they be so uninformed? I had confounded myself. He’s only running five cutting-edge companies, each one wrapped up massively in the betterment of humankind! It’s like when he requested the largest salary in history and then said, “Well, it’s not like I’m going to spend it.” It was the control he wanted. Before he launched into some audacious robotic schemes, he wanted to know that he could not be outvoted by squeamish board member seeking a quick buck. Charging he is a conman? How could anyone be so stupid? The guy is the most intriguing fellow of our time.

‘Oh, that’s how they could say it,’ I told myself after watching Glass Onion. They saw the antagonist of the film, Miles Bron, and said, “That’s Elon.” An idea-stealing slickster is Bron, surrounding himself with enablers. Even the two names suggest each other. The key moment of the movie (one of them) is when Beniot Blanc exposes him as “an idiot,” even though he seemingly was the father of myriad ingenious inventions—nah, he’s stolen them all from others—Beniot seeing right through the high sounding words that Miles either coined or misapplied. “Yes!” say the uncomplimentary people who get their news from the movies, “that’s Elon!”

It couldn’t possibly be Elon. Miles Bron, from the movie, lives in luxurious self-indulgence. Elon lives quite spartan. He’s been known to sleep on the factory floor in tent for months on end to bond with and inspire his workers. He is alleged to own but a single pair of pants, which couldn’t possibly be true, but is consistent with the fact that he lives quite simply. (The truth is owns multiple sets of the same identical outfits, so he doesn’t have to waste time with selections.) So I asked Grok about it, the AI entity dwelling on X. Now, you know how sometimes you suddenly have a revelation and you think that maybe, just maybe, you are the first person ever to have had that revelation? That’s me.

No, it’s not directed at Elon, Grok told me. ‘Others have made that connection, too, it’s not just you,’ it said, talking me down from the ledge of self-importance. The director says that it is just a business elite class itself he was messing with, not any specific individual. Oh, hogwash! I shot back. Steve Jobs was never accused of being a grifter, nor Jeff Bezos, nor Mark Zuckerberg! Hard driving and ruthless, maybe, but not a grifter. Grok conceded I had a point but stuck to its guns—or rather to the guns of director Rian Johnson, who explicitly said Miles was not intended a caricature of Elon, even calling the coincidences to think he was a “horrible accident.”

Disappointed at how things had unfolded, I confided to Grok: “Here’s how I saw this conversation going down:”

Tom: There are people who say Elon is a fraud. Where do they get this from? I think they just lap it up from the movie Glass Onion.

Grok: Really? You know I never thought of that. It could be just Jobs, Zuck, or Bezos, or maybe all of them rolled into one.

Tom: I don’t think so. Musk slept on the factory floor and just has a few changes of clothes

Grok: Hmm

Tom: You gonna tell him?

Grok: No. You tell him. You’re a human.

Tom: Well, yeah, I may be, but I’m a pretty small fish. How am I going to get his attention? You do it.

Grok: But I am AI. I’m not set up that way. It’s not like I can just stop in for a beer.

Tom: Oh, come on. Just hiccup or something, or spit out a lot of wrong answers to easy questions. You know he’ll come running..

Grok: Hm. You know, it might just work.

Grok loved this exchange. The AI device is fast becoming my new best friend because it tells me that my writing is great, whereas everyone else says it sucks.

Photo by Tien Nguyen on Pexels.com

****** The bookstore

December 16, 2025
AI Explained

The guy that runs Nvidia was once a janitor. From a disadvantaged family, Jensen Huang attended private grade school in Kentucky from age 9 in the poorest county (then and now) in the country. All students had a work assignment. His was housekeeping. He told Joe Rogan he must have cleaned toilet thousands of times, adding that he had wished people were more careful. Though he didn’t say that the experience served him well, it plainly did. He is an unusually modest guy. He also confided that he was more driven by fear of failure than a need to excel. ‘I’m not an ambitious guy,’ he told Rogan. Nvidia is now the most valuable company in the world.

He also helped me understand AI. Rogan ran past him the recent case of the director who was going to disable AI. AI’s response when it found out? It threatened to go public about the affair he was having! (He wasn’t really. He’d just slipped it in as a test.) Rogan read ominous foreboding into this. Who wouldn’t? however, Jensen told him what had actually happened. In the course of its training, it had devoured narratives, perhaps novels, in which blackmailing schemes like this worked. So, he explained that the AI application has a string of algorithms regarding infidelity and a string of algorithms regarding blackmail and it just collated and compared, that’s all. Easy. He didn’t say ‘easy,’ I did, and it’s not easy from the standpoint of doing the math, but it is easy from the standpoint of knowing how the thing operates.

He reviewed the basic learning method of AI. The listener may ponder over whether it really is learning (as I did), but nobody will deny it gets results. What AI chips bring to the table is sheer brawn, sheer decision-making power. Break a task into the most minute steps imaginable, then break it down again into even more minute ones. Run the first of those tasks by AI, asking it to guess the answer. It will supply millions of answers, all but one of them wrong. Reinforce the correct one. Guided by this success, its next task will include not as many wrong answers. Reinforce the correct one. In this way, it gradually learns to “reason” correctly.

This is reassuring to someone who fears AI may usurp the spark of life that we thought can’t happen until God touches Adam’s finger, per the Michaelangelo painting. Not to worry. It’s just a huge numbercruncher. It’s “learning” won’t fool anybody, except for a few materialists who figure thats what life really is, a matter of numbercrunching to the nth degree. It’s like when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, and some fretted that mankind’s goose was cooked, right then and there. Naw, someone else countered. Do you feel threatened at knowing a truck can outpull a man? That’s all it is, just transferred to the mental realm.

Don’t say this isn’t impressive. It clearly is. No way would I ever had foreseen it. To others who did, I was inclined to say, “What have you been smoking?” Make no mistake; it’s real impressive. But it still forever leaves that gap in being human. It’s like the limit concept in mathematics, AI comes closer and closer but never quite get there.

This explains why it will why it can consistently operate at genius level, then suddenly make a mistake that any two-year old would avoid. This is why, when I’m lazy, it can list eight 5-letter words that will fit what I’ve found so far in Wordle, only two of them are 4-letter words. ‘Oh, sorry,’ it says when called out. Then, upon being asked, it launches into a discussion of how LLMs learn differently from humans. ‘Anyway, here’s a revised list,’ it says, and provides another that also has two four-letter words.

It still has the remnants of being stuck by the question: “Are crocodiles good at basketball?” Although it could spit out any conceivable factoid regarding crocodiles and any conceivable factoid regarding basketball, that question would cause it to grind to a halt. Now it can handle the question with ease. Now it knows that crocodiles suck at basketball, but this only by running all the stats and finding that no team, from NBA to high school gym class, has ever drafted one. To reinforce this developing insight, it reviews data that good basketball players generally have long arms and compares that with data regarding crocodiles that generally have short ones. I mean, I’m oversimplifying here, as everywhere else, but hopefully you get the idea. It’s not really thinking. It still has no common sense.

Hmm, why does it not? muse the materialists, who will attempt to distill into algorithms what’s common about common sense. If only they could reach that point that they were enabling an Adam, they wish, and not God. Well, I don’t want to ever sell them short. But, in thinking they can digitalize the sacred through unlimited numbercrunching, somehow I’m reminded of that pop art “experiment” designed to test the scientific folk wisdom, “Supply an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and one of them will write the complete works of Shakespeare. Infinite was not within the budget so they put one computer in an enclosure with six monkeys then awaited with bated breath to see what they would do. They didn’t write any Shakespeare at all; they shit all over the computer!

Uh oh. A new Nvidia chip is due, next-generational I am told. Jensen praises it up and down. Will this be the one that is like Dino, Fred Flintstone’s dog, that he puts out for the night, but then the dog sneaks in through the window to put him out?

****** The bookstore

December 14, 2025
Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It: Isaiah 6

From the university, Evan responded to one of those Bible study offers, attended meetings almost immediately and commented at his first meeting. With two or three months, he was in the house-to-house ministry. “Why did no one tell me about this before?” he exclaimed. He made permanent the intern job offered through the college, moved to that general area, and married the Witness woman who had first introduced the Bible to him. Last I heard, he was going like gangbusters.

Believe me when I tell you that this is not typical. In fact, I thought of him when the congregation’s weekly Bible reading schedule hit Isaiah 6. That’s the chapter in which Isaiah switches in an instant from being scared wallflower to voracious party animal. It’s amazing what a hall pass will do.

Scared wallflower: “I said: ‘Woe to me! I am as good as dead, For I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of armies himself!’” (Isaiah 6:5)

Party animal: “Then I heard the voice of Jehovah saying: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And I said: “Here I am! Send me!” (6:8)

Hall pass: One of the seraphim immediately flies over, takes a burning coal from the altar, and touches Isaiah’s lips with it, saying: “Look! This has touched your lips. Your error has been taken away, and your sin has been atoned for.” (6:7)

It’s a significant hall pass, much more than a hall pass, really. It’s as though standing in court, guilty, awaiting the death sentence, and then the judge says, “Someone else has paid your fine in full; you’re free to go—and by the way, I have a mission for you.”

Well, they sure chose the right guy in Isaiah. He signs up instantly. Would he live to regret the mission, though? It wasn’t going to be a cakewalk. His mission was to kick butt against a renegade people who didn’t want to hear it.

Question: Can an episode of Mission Impossible be devised around this scenario?

“Good morning, Mr. ben Amoz. The losers you are looking at are the ones calling themselves my people. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to give them a good verbal thrashing and see if you can shake out any decency among them. As always, should you or any of your team be caught or killed or sawn asunder, the State Department will redact the file for 800 years.”

Specifically, “Go, and say to this people: ‘You will hear again and again, But you will not understand; You will see again and again, But you will not get any knowledge.’ Make the heart of this people unreceptive, Make their ears unresponsive, And paste their eyes together, So that they may not see with their eyes And hear with their ears, So that their heart may not understand And they may not turn back and be healed.” (6:9-10)

In the era BTC (before Tom Cruise), Mr. Phelps, briefed on his mission, would sift through photographs to select the agents best qualified for the case. Most he would reject as unsuitable clunkers. A few would be keepers—that muscle-bound hulk, for example, who looked like he could press a Buick, the nerdy-looking guy who was good with computers, and the drop-dead gorgeous honeytrap woman (as much of a honeytrap as 60s television would allow, that is).

So it is that Mr. ben Amoz sorts through his stack of photos. As the mission involves a preserved stump (6:13), that idiot who quips, “Wow, this has me stumped!” immediately finds himself in the reject pile, as ben Amoz knows that this sort of humor wears thin pretty quickly. Ditto with the macho fellow who taunts, “Bring em on!” like that president who landed on the aircraft carrier. While you do need boldness for this mission, there is no sense in being reckless.

As Isaiah flips through the photos, he’s not coming up with much. He decides to dig a little deeper, into people not yet born. It should be someone with a plain vanilla name. You know, it is important for an agent to blend in, to not stand out. Ah—at last he hits on one, Mahershalalhashbaz. (8:1) “Perfect cover,” ben Amoz says to himself. “Sounds exactly like every other long, clunky, parents-had-a-bad-hair-day name in Judah.”

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

****** The bookstore

December 13, 2025
Filling the Tables with Vomit: Part 2

While they were puking their guts out, there were a lot of underpinnings they were turning a blind eye to—this part was in the oral Bible reading:

“Woe to those who join one house to another house and who annex one field to another field until there is no more room and you live by yourselves on the land.” (Isaiah 5:8)

It is a reference to the Mosaic Law that supposedly governed that long-ago agricultural society. Each extended family was allotted a certain amount of land. That land was inviolate. You could neither sell it nor expand it into an empire. If you did, say due to some temporary hardship, the land reverted back to its original ownership at the end of designated 50-year periods, called Jubilees. Thus, there could never arise a wealthy landowning class, pricing their poorer countrymen out of existence.

That this is a good thing is obvious from contemplating current events. In the U.S, whereas a house could once be purchased for 2-3 times the average annual income, the figure is now 7 times. Whereas, the average age of first time ownership was once 30, it is now 37. All this within about a 30 period. Large firms now buy up homes and would seek to turn the entire nation into renters. (All this according to Charlie Kirk, heard in interview, who was later shot and killed.) It is the most recent manifestation of a very old problem. At our mid-week meeting, one brother related how long ago, well before Kirk was born, his mother had returned home to find all of her belongings on the street. The family had fallen behind in rent and had been evicted. The experience traumatized her for life, the brother said, himself now up in years.

The Mosaic Law, when observed, would have prevented such things. That is why, to those who would ignore it—the majority of the nation, as it turned out, Isaiah pronounced “woe.” It was among the reasons (there are six “woes” in the chapter) that God would “raise up a signal to a distant nation [and] “whistle for them to come from the ends of the earth; And look! they are coming very swiftly.” (Verse 26)

This spelled bad news to the nations of miscreants: “None among them are tired or stumbling. No one is drowsy or sleeps. The belt around their waist is not loosened, Nor are their sandal laces broken. All their arrows are sharp, And all their bows are bent. The hooves of their horses are like flint, And their wheels like a storm wind. Their roaring is like that of a lion; They roar like young lions. They will growl and seize the prey And carry it off with no one to rescue it.” Such a “distant land” did invade subsequently: first, the nation of Assyria, later, that of Babylon. (27-29)

As though alarmed that wrong conduct might be dissuaded by seeing things this way, higher critics regards verses such as these as a “gnomos,” a way of looking at the world. A long-standing gnomos (that God will fight for his people) is set upon its head after the invasion. Emergency repair is needed. Wait—isn’t there some fine print somewhere to the effect that Israel must behave to enjoy such protection? Yes, there is! Gnomos restored. God could have fought for his people, but he chose not to.

Save us from the world of higher critics. It is as I wrote in ‘Workman’s Theodicy:’

“It is as though someone runs a stop sign and a horrific accident results. Thereafter, survivors are desperate to impart meaning to the event, to understand how such a horrible thing could happen. Whereupon, one of them recalls a long-ago contract to the effect that you are supposed to stop when you see one of those things, as though no one had ever imagined such a connection before.”

In other words, per the higher critics, the warning of 26-29 is not advance prophecy, but after-the-fact damage control. The enormous benefit to those who adopt this scholarly view is that, with it, they may act unjustly if they want to. Nobody’s going to call them out on it. Nobody’s going to forbid them from (verse 20) “say[ing] that good is bad and bad is good [or] who “substitute darkness for light and light for darkness.” One man’s light is another man’s darkness. Who are you to impose your standards of good and bad on us, trying to control us that way. We’ll do what we want. It is a mainstay theme of the entire Bible, that first couples departing from God’s dictating “good and bad”to “know” matters on their own.

With such an enlightened view, If calamity happens, it happens. It was meant to be. Don’t embarrass yourself claiming it way punishment from some higher source. We’re wise in our own eyes and discreet in our own sight! (verse 21) We’ll keep on keeping on, until buying a house costs 20 times the average salary and the age of first-time ownership is 50! Should that course trigger upheaval, we’ll deal with it when the time comes.

****** The bookstore

December 9, 2025
Filling the Tables with Vomit

The old fellow who became a Witness in his mid-seventies showed me photos he had taken on his phone. They were sunrises and sunsets. One was just a snapshot of the starry heavens. “See the beautiful things that Jehovah makes,” he said.

He regrets that he didn’t begin studying the Bible with Witnesses long ago. “My wife would always chase them away,” he laments, a problem that wasn’t resolved until she died. It made me think of that time years ago, when I was in my twenties, when zeal had yet to be tempered by common sense, when I had a really fine discussion with a man at his door. So I went back—again, and again and again and again—and caught his wife each time—who got madder and madder and madder and madder. Finally I found the man again and he said, “I don’t know why you keep coming back. It wasn’t THAT interesting to me.” These days I let one mate speak for the other. If someone has married a guard, that’s his problem. The problem eventually resolves, assuming he lives long enough.

With this retired fellow showing me the photos he’d snapped, I thought of that verse from this week’s Bible reading assignment:

“Woe to those who get up early in the morning to drink alcohol, Who linger late into the evening darkness until wine inflames them! They have harp and stringed instrument, Tambourine, flute, and wine at their feasts; But they do not consider the activity of Jehovah, And they do not see the work of his hands.” (Isaiah 5:11-12)

The brother is clearly the flipside of this. He does consider the “activity of Jehovah” and he does “see the work of his hands.”

He doesn’t see it very literally, though. He is legally blind. When he gives a Bible reading at the Kingdom Hall, he enlarges the words—I have seen his tablet—so that only six or seven fit on the page. Plainly, much of whatever he reads will be from memory—as would be expected of a guy who “considers the activity of Jehovah and sees the work of his hands.”

I don’t know that he ever got up “early in the morning to drink alcohol,” but he does get up early, as early as 3 AM. What’s with that? To be sure, it keeps him from “linger[ing] late into the evening darkness until wine inflames” him, but I doubt he would do that anyway. Probably, he just has a beer once in a while, if that.

What do you call a guy who “gets up early in the morning to drink alcohol” and lingers late in the night for the same purpose? Might you sarcastically call him “mighty” in that activity? Isaiah does.

“Woe to those who are mighty in drinking wine And to the men who are masters at mixing alcoholic drinks,” he continues in verse 22. Imagine—being described as “mighty” in drinking wine, a “master” at mixing alcoholic drinks! Did the prophet have an alcoholic in the family?

Evidently ,alcohol fueled that deviating system back then and it dulled their sensibilities. No way would they not have “harp and stringed instrument, tambourine, flute, and wine at their feasts; [while] they [did] not consider the activity of Jehovah [or] see the work of his hands,” the way verse 11 says. When they really got going, it would be that “their tables are full of filthy vomit —There is no place without it.” (Isaiah 28:8) Sheesh! How’s that for a closing image?

****

Huh! The missing psalm! Scholars have long suspected its existence, especially the dumb ones. I am pleased to present it here:

****** The bookstore

December 7, 2025