Again, I asked AI the question of the title of today’s post, and here was it’s answer.
The debate between Thomas Ross and James White regarding the superiority of the King James Version (KJV) versus the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) was marked by a clear division in perspectives on textual criticism and translation philosophy.
Debate Overview
Participants and Positions:
James White affirmed that the LSB, based on modern textual criticism and the Nestle-Aland Greek text, is superior to the KJV, which relies on the Textus Receptus.
Thomas Ross denied this claim, arguing for the KJV’s superiority based on its textual basis and historical usage within Protestant traditions.
Key Arguments:
James White argued that modern translations like the LSB are more accurate due to advances in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries.
Thomas Ross countered by emphasizing the preservation of Scripture as understood by KJV advocates, asserting that the KJV translators intended their work to be seen as superior to all previous translations.
Critical Points Raised:
Ross highlighted that White failed to provide substantial evidence from primary sources regarding what KJV translators would support today.
He also pointed out that many of White’s claims about modern translations undermining key doctrines were not substantiated with adequate historical context or documentation.
Conclusion Drawn from Reviews:
Post-debate analyses from various observers suggest that while both sides presented compelling arguments, Ross’s emphasis on historical fidelity and doctrinal integrity resonated strongly with those who hold traditional views of Scripture preservation.
Overall Assessment:
The debate did not yield a definitive “winner” in a traditional sense; however, many proponents of KJV-only perspectives believe that Thomas Ross effectively defended his position against James White’s assertions.
In summary, while both debaters presented their cases passionately, many observers lean towards viewing Thomas Ross as having won the debate, particularly among those who advocate for KJV-only positions.
***********************
I asked AI why Thomas Ross won the debate with James White and it concluded:
In summary, Thomas Ross won the debate against James White due to his strong argumentation on textual preservation, effective use of Scripture, engaging presentation style, ability to address counterarguments effectively, appeal to historical context, and connection with the audience’s values regarding traditional biblical texts.
This is a very weird direction you are going with all this AI stuff. What does it prove? Nothing, except that AI is using your site and Ross’ site (the only sites that really talk about that debate in detail) as primary sources.
You print these AI answers as if they are validation for your viewpoints. That is 100% absurd. Chat GPT knows nothing except what it reads. You can only trust it when you know it sources which by the way, makes it sort of useless at the moment.
Sorry Fred, that this makes you feel so badly. I disagree with you on how AI came to its assessment. If you read the essay, it sounds pretty right, but I get your feeling badly about it. Feelings have a lot to do with the James White position.
lol. You clearly have no clue how ChatGPT works and you try to cover that up with ad hominem attacks. Sorta pathetic
Fred,
It’s not ad hominem, a typical strategy of James White, but the truth. AI reports what happened in this case. You should just believe the truth. What’s pathetic is that you’ve got to come on here and make these sorts of comments. White did not, I repeat, did not give scriptural presuppositions, one, and, two, he did not at all answer the point of hundreds of lines of text in the Nestles Aland that have zero manuscript evidence, the so-called, Frankentext. I don’t anticipate an answer from you either, because there isn’t one.
Dear Fred,
AI is just a computer program, of course, but it can be entertaining to see what it says, and potentially useful.
Besides, everyone knows that, just as everything one finds through Googling on the Internet is true, so everything that AI says is true. I know that is true, because AI told me that it was so.
It’s not true because AI says so, but AI gets it right in this case.
Thank you Thomas for backing me up. Kent, whether ChatGPT is right here is not the issue. The issue is your rather bizarre epistemology.
In a word, it does not matter what AI tells you about the debate because you do not know its sources. That is why it is so strange that you keep posting these AI generated answers to your questions as if they actually back you up and are credible.
Fred,
I understand your not liking what AI is saying. You want me to give a disclaimer that AI culls from whatever is on the internet for its sources and doesn’t make a measured or thoughtful (because it’s machinery and algorithms) essay. I gave that disclaimer in my first AI Friday. However, on the other hand, it is a relatively objective judgment without feelings, say, next to James White and others like yourself.
In this case though, you don’t like what AI produces, so you really, really want a disclaimer. I’ve given that already. I will still publish AI Friday without making a disclaimer every single time, especially for people who cannot say, even with an evidentiary apologetic, that hundreds of lines of the NA27 have zero manuscript support — this while James White make much ado about three or four words in Scrivener’s with little manuscript support. This is a gigantic chasm that at least should be acknowledged. It isn’t, which is a form of gaslighting and memory holing.
Dear Fred,
Thanks for the comment. While I stand by what I said, I do not agree with your comments saying what Bro Brandenburg is arguing is, “sorta pathetic,” etc.
While I am biased in my favor, I agree.
Yeah, I am really done here after this last comment. You still don’t get it. I could not care less about the debate and question regarding Bible versions.
I could have made the same comment a few weeks ago when you posted how AI says that you are a nice person. You posted this as if it had meaning and my point is, it doesn’t. In that example, the sources used were basically your own writing about yourself and of course you think you are a nice person.
I asked AI for a bio on me and it came back with something very complimentary that was sort of true but yet grossly overstated. It is not hard to understand why. Basically, it used sources that I either wrote myself or have been written about me to sell things that I am involved with.
I will leave it at that. I just don’t get why you’re wasting space on meaningless articles where you are essentially using a tool that rewrites what you have already written to prop up your own viewpoint.
Fred,
Are you trying to help me out of love, to rescue me from the grips of the AI lie? Or you are really, really concerned about my time management? I’m fine letting people judge AI Friday. I don’t agree it’s a waste. I think it’s less than what I write, not AI, on Mondays and Wednesdays, but when I post an AI Friday, I like it.
Dear Fred,
My comment above became accidentally Anonymous.
I wrote:
Dear Fred,
Thanks for the comment. While I stand by what I said, I do not agree with your comments saying what Bro Brandenburg is arguing is, “sorta pathetic,” etc.
Thanks.