October 22, 2025 • 37 mins
A spontaneous recording can reveal more truth than a polished script, and that’s exactly what happened when a set of AI-composed songs from the Book of James sparked a fierce, honest debate. We weigh the pull between faith and works, ask how much of Christianity’s shape comes from Jesus’s teachings versus Paul’s letters, and confront the reality that translation is never neutral. The conversation begins with music—how meter, rhyme, and voice can make scripture feel immediate—and opens into a bigger question: what happens to belief when one Greek word, agape, gets flattened into the generic “love”?
We unpack why the King James Version chose “charity,” how that choice clarifies selfless devotion, and why modern readers often need explicit meaning to avoid importing romance into passages that demand sacrifice. At the same time, we challenge old-language gatekeeping that shifts power to interpreters. From Latin preservation and monastic copying to English updates and concordances, we trace how the Bible traveled across languages and centuries, and what gets lost or gained at each step. It’s a tug-of-war between elegance and accuracy, tradition and access, poetry and precision.
Along the way, we revisit Paul’s historic impact—missionary travel, fundraising networks, and a communication strategy that turned a small movement into a global faith. We don’t settle for easy answers; we test the music, test the text, and test our assumptions. If words shape worship, then choosing between love and charity is more than semantics. It’s the core of how we live out faith, how we teach, and how we sing these truths into memory. Hit play, join the conversation, and tell us where you land. If this episode resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to keep the dialogue going.
Communicate with us directly on x.com by joining the Good Old Boys community! https://x.com/i/communities/1887018898605641825
Check out Gene's other podcasts -
podcast.sirgene.com and unrelenting.show
Read Ben's blog and see product links at namedben.com
Listen to Amy Clare Smith Music
Can't donate?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:00):
Well, howdy, Ben.
How are you today?
Dude, we've been talking, we'vebeen debating religion, we've
been debating text, and we had avery spirited conversation.
And I said, Why the fuck aren'twe recording this?
SPEAKER_02 (00:14):
Yeah.
So we figured we record it.
So this is a out-of-sequence orout of what's the phrase?
Out of something uh recording.
Context.
Not our normal time.
But we're gonna stick it up.
And the the main topic that wedecided to that we were talking
on that we decided to startrecording on is actually a
(00:34):
religious.
So if you're not interested inthe Bible, Christianity,
religion, non-Christianity, skipthis episode.
We'll be back to guns andpolitics and Texas stuff, and
we'll probably talk aboutIreland on the next actual.
SPEAKER_01 (00:49):
We will definitely be talking about Ireland, dude.
They are aflame right now, theyhave Calvary.
SPEAKER_02 (00:56):
Maybe it'll be more than just Ireland by the time we
record the next episode.
We'll see.
But anyway, your mouth togethertopic.
So we were talking about well,uh, I guess by the time this
comes out, this stuff will bepublished.
So I had sent you a few songsthat I had put together using
AI.
SPEAKER_01 (01:15):
And very good songs, by the way, musically.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_02 (01:19):
So what I've done is actually do a musical rendition
of James, the book of James, andit is it is sung by an avatar,
somebody that I created,generated, whatever you want to
call, who is a mid-20s Christianmusician.
(01:42):
And it it basically just breaksdown uh a lot of the chapters
into songs.
SPEAKER_01 (01:48):
Go on and tell the listeners my first reaction to
the lyrics.
SPEAKER_02 (01:51):
Your your first reaction is this is wrong.
SPEAKER_01 (01:55):
My first reaction was this was written by a Jew
more than a Muslim.
SPEAKER_02 (01:59):
Yeah, you said that, which I thought was hilarious
because the whole Bible'swritten by Jews.
I mean, that's literally whowrote the Bible, the New
Testament, not just the OldTestament.
All right, but anyway, but whenI said, Well, what'd you think
about the actual song?
Not like arguing with themessage, then you thought it was
pretty good.
SPEAKER_01 (02:18):
Oh no, the so musically, as someone who plays
an instrument who has somewhatof a musical ear.
No, I I I'm shocked that AI cando that.
SPEAKER_02 (02:31):
And I'm sure people are curious what you played.
It's a fiddle, right?
SPEAKER_01 (02:35):
Violin, yeah.
Right.
So my I wanted to play thefiddle.
So if anyone's curious, DougKershaw, uh who I've seen in
person play was my hero as achild, and I wanted to play like
Doug.
SPEAKER_02 (02:52):
Not Lindsay Sterling, you're a long one.
SPEAKER_01 (02:55):
No, no, no, no, no.
Doug Kershaw, dude, look him upfrom the hip.
You know who Lindsey Sterlingis, though, right?
I do, I do, I do.
Fantastic fiddle or violinist.
My mom said to me, You have toanyway.
My mom said to me, you know,you've got to learn to play
classical violin, then you cando whatever you want.
(03:17):
So I'm I'm a violinist.
SPEAKER_02 (03:20):
So you started off by playing Della went down to
Georgia.
Is that is that no?
SPEAKER_01 (03:24):
I started by playing the Suzuki method with
Huckleberry Cherry.
SPEAKER_02 (03:29):
I've heard of that.
SPEAKER_01 (03:30):
Twinkle twinkle little star, you know, and stuff
like that.
SPEAKER_02 (03:33):
Screech, screech, screech, screech, screech,
screech, screech.
SPEAKER_01 (03:37):
More or less.
But I I I evolved into a prettydecent classical violinist, and
then I took on stuff like DevilWent Down to Georgia or many of
Doug Kershaw's.
Like I I can never match him.
I mean, he can sit there andplay from his hip in a way that
(03:57):
I never can or could.
From his hip.
Like uh like literally the thebutt of the violin is in his hip
and he's sitting there sawing onit.
SPEAKER_02 (04:07):
Wow.
SPEAKER_01 (04:07):
And Doug Kershaw is an extremely talented
self-taught musician.
SPEAKER_02 (04:14):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I've never played anyinstruments that didn't have
buttons or keys.
SPEAKER_01 (04:20):
Well, and that's the thing is so I tried to learn in
college, I tried to learn toplay the guitar.
Yeah.
And going from a fretted to afretless instrument, or from a
fretless to a frettedinstrument, yeah, was beyond
destructive to me because in ona violin, you're playing a two
(04:42):
keys that are there by fret.
So your finger position doesn'tmatter as much.
If you're halfway between orwhatever, it it's less
impactful.
The other thing is you'replaying only two notes at once
on a violin because of bowposition.
You cannot play more than twonotes at once, versus on a
(05:02):
six-string guitar, you'replaying up to six.
It it is a mind fuck beyond allbelief from a technically harder
instrument to a simplerinstrument.
It's it's crazy.
SPEAKER_02 (05:14):
Yeah, it's uh I I could totally imagine that.
I I tried guitar in when I wasin high school, and I just found
it too frustrating and I gaveup.
Um you know, my background ispiano, organ, accordion, things
with buttons or keys.
SPEAKER_01 (05:30):
Well, and I I played the accordion and a little bit
of piano, very little.
I have I have a six-octavereach.
I'm I've got big hands with awide palm, so I can I can reach.
And those were naturalinstruments for me, but well,
you know what they say abouthaving big hands.
(05:52):
Yeah, big gloves and big hands.
At least you got something big.
unknown (05:56):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (05:56):
Anyway, but regardless, back to your music.
The point of contention and whatI brought up was hey, this was
written by a Jew, a Muslim, or aMormon.
And the reason why is becauseyou're focusing on works versus
faith.
And we kind of got into a littlebit of tiff over what James Book
(06:22):
of James says, which is writtenby Paul.
SPEAKER_02 (06:24):
I mean, I'm you know, I'm just taking what's in
the book of James, which is partof the official New Testament
Christian Bible.
So my my take is if you don'tlike it, take it up with the
Vatican for why they includedit.
SPEAKER_01 (06:36):
And my take is cool going through the gospels,
Christ's words matter more to methan anything Paul or anyone
else would say.
SPEAKER_02 (06:48):
I'm not discounting so you you're basically throwing
away a third of the Bible.
SPEAKER_01 (06:54):
Two-thirds of the New Testament, if I threw away
everything that Paul said, butthat much, I thought it was
about a third to half.
SPEAKER_02 (07:00):
So it's actually two-thirds.
Wow.
SPEAKER_01 (07:02):
Oh, easily, yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (07:03):
So you know, I've often Christianity.
SPEAKER_01 (07:05):
If you follow the books of the New Testament to
their end, it should be Paulism,not Christianity.
SPEAKER_02 (07:13):
Yeah, and then there's there's one really good
book that I read years agothat's called Paul the
Mythmaker.
And it there, like it's notanti-Christian, but it basically
puts on a historical hat ratherthan a religious hat in
interpreting who was Paul, whatdid Paul do, what how did he do
(07:37):
it, what were the individuals,and what Paul was was a
marketing guy, he was a good PRguy, and uh he latched down now.
And I'm not gonna argue whetherhe was a true believer or not,
that I I can't know that, right?
But clearly he presented himselfas a true believer, and then he
took what would have been afairly smaller offshoot.
(08:02):
Right, but it would have been asmall offshoot of Judaism, you
know, like reformed Judaism orsomething, and instead turned it
into this worldwide religion,starting with his travels around
the Mediterranean and into Romeitself.
SPEAKER_01 (08:19):
Um well, one of the things I would disagree with you
on there is I think withoutPaul, Christianity would still
be what Christianity is today.
And the reason why becauseChrist went around the
Mediterranean and did what hedid.
SPEAKER_02 (08:36):
Christ didn't stay in Judea, he went out, he
proselytized, he showed his, buthe didn't go anywhere near as
far as Paul did, and hecertainly didn't do all the
activities that Paul did inhaving charitable organizations
(08:57):
collecting money literally frommultiple countries in the
Mediterranean to go off intoother countries in order to
proselytize.
SPEAKER_01 (09:05):
I think the gospels stand alone and stand by
themselves well enough thatthat's a thing.
I I I history played outdifferently, so I can't prove my
point.
But regardless, what it comesdown to is you know, I'm what we
(09:28):
talked about last episode, andyou and I had a disagreement
whether I said James or John.
SPEAKER_02 (09:34):
Yeah, I thought you said James, which is why I went
and read the book of James,because I thought you said
James, and I'm like, all right,I'll read it.
It's short.
SPEAKER_01 (09:41):
And perhaps I misspoke.
I 100% could have.
But the the gospels are Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John.
Yeah, yeah.
And you know, Mark being myfavorite, and for many reasons.
One being the shortest, and uhtwo being the most verbose.
(10:03):
Mark's use of language there isto me a very key thing, and this
is something we keyed in on ourconversation earlier that the
audience sadly didn't hear.
SPEAKER_02 (10:15):
Yeah, well, you can kind of summarize or repeat a
little bit, but which is whichgoes to the idea of since we
don't have original texts, whatdo you want to rely on as the
most accurate text?
And you brought up the whichone?
The James.
SPEAKER_01 (10:35):
Well, I I like the King James because it uses very
specific language, and theexample I brought up is you
know, really around modern andI'm pulling it up, modern
marriages, where I hear love ispatient, love is kind, where
(11:00):
when we read the King James, itis charity is patient.
Charity is kind, charity is notself-serving.
And when we look at the strongconcordance, or we look at quite
frankly, any concordance of theera, what you see is agape.
(11:24):
So the Greek word that is usedthere is agape.
Well, and that that's the entirething is that we're not talking
about romantic love.
We're talking about a love thatis pure, that is God's love,
that is forgiving, that is avery different type of love that
(11:48):
when we hear the word love inthe English, like lexicon at
least, is drastically different.
And we have to recognize thatbecause what we're saying is
when I love you, woman, I ampatient, I am kind, I am this,
I'm that.
No, that is not what we'resaying.
(12:08):
We're saying when I haveunconditional love for you as
God has for us, I am patient, Iam this, I am that.
That is a drastically differentmessage.
SPEAKER_02 (12:21):
And the guys that are actually saying this are
neither.
No, they're usually really, it'snot about the love at that
point, it's about the lust.
Let's be honest here.
You don't get married tosomebody you're in love with,
you get married to somebodyyou're in lust with.
SPEAKER_01 (12:47):
So First Corinthians 13, 4 through 7 in the KJV reads
Charity long suffering and iskind.
Charity envieth not.
Charity Anyway, the point is,sorry, distracted.
(13:13):
The point is charity being theoperative word here, of a
selfless love, which I think ismore accurate, which again, if
you're in a Bible study andyou're not going to a
concordance, and you're notdropping into the Greek and the
Aramaic and the Hebrew, andreally looking at what those
(13:36):
words can and should mean incontext, you're being lazy and
you're doing yourself adisservice.
SPEAKER_02 (13:45):
Well, that's fine.
And then my my point was okay,well, I don't disagree with you
that it's important to have asclose a meaning as possible.
I I think it gets in the way tohave old-timey English language
from the 1600s being usedbecause what one of the knowing
(14:07):
human psychology, one of thethings that happens when people
kind of understand what thelanguage says, but they're not
sure about it, which is oftenthe case if you read Shakespeare
or certainly the King Jamesversion of the Bible, it's what
they look for is interpretationof that from somebody standing
(14:28):
on a stage, and I think thatleads to a potential for abuse,
for manipulation, for even justinnocent misinterpretation, and
all these things ideally areavoided by having a modern
translation using modernlanguage, but being faithful to
(14:49):
the original sources.
Now, when I said that, you youthought no such thing exists,
and I'm maybe it doesn't, but Iwould be shocked if it doesn't
because of how how many peoplehave obviously taken a stab at
updating and tweaking differentversions of the Bible.
(15:09):
Now the version I used was whatI don't even remember.
It was the new what was itcalled?
It is yeah, I closed the pageright here.
I can't remember what it is.
But it it's basically a fairlymodern version.
(15:32):
But it it I checked the 1Corinthians that you mentioned
there, 1 Corinthians 13 or 14,and it does just say love, it
doesn't clarify the type oflove.
And I I think that it would besuper easy to have a version you
like you don't need to translateword for word, you need to
translate idea for idea, and inthat scenario, you you can use
(15:57):
more than one word to well buthold on say instead of agape.
SPEAKER_01 (16:02):
Hold on for a second, yeah.
Because the purpose of monks fora long time was to translate
word for word, not idea foridea.
SPEAKER_02 (16:19):
Yeah, but the again, here's the problem is that first
of all, most monks shouldn'treally read more than one
language, their main goal wastranscribing, not translating.
But the ones that did thetranslation, I don't know if
they attempted to translate, youknow, maybe the word love meant
(16:39):
something that was closer to theword charity at some point.
I don't know, but certainly ifwe can agree, and uh whether
it's the two of us or justcollectively, as people that are
studying this, that the the wordclosest to what was meant by
Paul and Corinthians was theGreek word agape.
(17:03):
And again, we don't know ifthat's the case because you know
he may have meant something evendifferent than that, but let's
say that's what he meant.
SPEAKER_01 (17:11):
In Corinthians is a direct letter, right?
We have evidence of that in theDead Sea Scrolls and everything.
SPEAKER_02 (17:17):
Right, but but what was it written in?
SPEAKER_01 (17:23):
Greek.
SPEAKER_02 (17:24):
What was it written in Greek?
So Paul was writing this letterin Greek.
Yes, and he said agape.
Yes, okay.
Well, that's that's fairlydefinitive, then.
Then what we need to do is makesure that if there's a modern
version, that it accuratelytranslates, even using multiple
words if necessary, the meaningof agape as was considered the
(17:49):
meaning at the time of Paul.
Because also words changemeanings.
I'm annoyed to no end by this inmy life, which isn't nearly very
long, but nonetheless, therehave been a number of words
which have seemingly changedmeaning since I was a kid and
are now used in completelydifferent meanings.
(18:09):
I was like, this is ridiculous.
Words have meanings, why don'twe just stick with them and keep
using them?
And if you want to invent a newword, invent a new word.
I have no problem with that.
But why do we need to change themeanings of words just because
one generation followinganother, you know, didn't really
read enough to understand whatpeople used to mean by that?
SPEAKER_01 (18:29):
Well, and that's what it comes down to is people
who read versus people whodon't.
But what I would say is this isa great example of where I would
prefer transliteration versustranslation.
So when I say agape, the Englishword is love.
(18:53):
But the meaning is God'sunconditional love.
SPEAKER_02 (18:57):
Right.
SPEAKER_01 (18:58):
So let's transliterate that into God's
uncondition unconditional lovefor you.
SPEAKER_02 (19:06):
Yeah, but I I don't think it's tra transliteration,
is what you're thinking of here.
SPEAKER_01 (19:12):
Well the problem is that all the weddings would
sacrifice, right?
Yeah.
And no, transliteration isliterally what I mean.
I'm not wrong on that one.
SPEAKER_02 (19:31):
Transliteration is is converting one text into
another text.
Yes, mapping a symbol to asymbol.
Translation can involve not oneword to one word, but meaning to
meaning.
So I don't I I get what you'retrying to say, but I I don't
(19:52):
think translationtransliteration is the right
word for it.
SPEAKER_01 (19:59):
So my understanding, and I could be wrong, but I
don't think that I am, is thattranslation is literal meaning
to literal meaning versustransliteration is actual
meaning to actual meaning.
SPEAKER_02 (20:13):
It's not though.
You can look it up.
That's not what transliterationmeans.
But I I think we all understandwhat you're what you're getting
to, and this is where we're inviolent agreement with each
other, is that keeping themeaning is more important than
keeping the number of words thesame.
(20:36):
A thousand percent Yeah, it itis it is the this is the
difficulty, right?
In you think about pre-printingpress world, Europe, is how do
you maintain knowledge knowledgenot mathematical knowledge or
(20:59):
you know arbitrary, butknowledge of stories that are
the most powerful stories ofyour people?
How do you maintain those eventhough the language changes?
So I think a decision was madealong the way in the uh the
Catholic Church to basically sayour method of preservation is
(21:23):
simply to keep the language thesame forever.
So it's gonna be in Latin.
And you don't have to understandLatin, we'll interpret it for
you, we'll read it and as thethe priests, and we'll tell you
what it says.
You, as the lay person whodoesn't even know how to write
his own language, sure as hell,isn't gonna know how to read or
(21:44):
write Latin.
But Latin is the codex that wecan go back to because we can
simply have monks going throughand rewriting with identical
characters without evennecessarily those monks being
able to read, like they justhave to be able to copy pictures
(22:06):
from one book to another book,and they don't technically have
in fact it's probably better ifthey don't know how to read
because then they're not goingto ask questions like, well,
shouldn't this really say this?
Was that a mistake that aprevious generation made?
So effectively you have a a partof the part of the job of the
(22:30):
church is to have copy machines,human copy machines, whose job
is simply to reproduce somethingthat was frozen and fixed.
Now, you can also go back to thetime before it was fixed and and
then argue whether the correctinterpretation in Latin was
(22:51):
recorded or not, or maybe thosemistakes were made.
But certainly English is addingone further translation, and my
point is going from Latin to oldEnglish to modern English adds
the broken telephone game toomany times.
What you should have is aversion that goes back to
(23:12):
original text.
SPEAKER_01 (23:14):
Well, and this is why I like the KJV, is because
they went back to the theydidn't go to the Latin, they
went to the original Greek,Aramaic, and Hebrew.
SPEAKER_02 (23:23):
Yes, but we don't speak KJV.
That's the issue.
Is that like you don't?
SPEAKER_01 (23:27):
I do.
SPEAKER_02 (23:28):
No, you don't.
This is where I I heard you'rereading it, dude.
Believe me, you don't.
Where where this made totalsense was at the end of the day.
SPEAKER_01 (23:38):
So this is where you're making fun of my
dyslexia.
SPEAKER_02 (23:41):
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm making fun of.
Deal with it.
SPEAKER_01 (23:45):
Cool.
I I and I will, but what I wouldsay is my reading of it and my
comprehension of it are twodifferent things.
Yeah, yeah.
Because again, I grew up.
SPEAKER_02 (23:54):
I can give you a shit because I I know I know
you're a smart dude, so I cangive you we're we're good, dude.
SPEAKER_01 (23:59):
Yeah, you'll you will never offend me.
SPEAKER_02 (24:01):
Yeah, what it what it comes to trying, but okay.
SPEAKER_01 (24:05):
What it comes down to is I grew up going to that
strong concordancy, going backto the Hebrew, going back to the
Greek, going back to the Hebrew.
SPEAKER_02 (24:11):
And what percentage of the population does what you
do?
SPEAKER_01 (24:14):
Don't care.
SPEAKER_02 (24:15):
I do relevant.
I do, I care.
Most of the people aboutChristianity, apparently.
SPEAKER_01 (24:22):
No, no, no.
Here's what it comes down to (24:23):
a government for the people, by
the people of the people.
Government by the retarded likethat.
That is what it comes down to.
Yes, most of the population is.
SPEAKER_02 (24:36):
To me, I will happily take it because I I love
that guy.
I followed him when I was a kid.
Me too.
I not followed, followed, butlike I read everything I could
that dealt with him because itwas fascinating.
His backstory fascinating, hisyou know, his very
pro-capitalist stance in histeachings.
(25:00):
Fascinating.
You don't usually see that inmonks or priests.
Uh, the fact that he had amaster's degree and not in
religion.
Uh, he was actually a philosophystudent and he dropped out
before he finished his PhD, buthe was finished, he was work,
he's basically past master'slevel working on his
dissertation for his PhD when hedropped out, right?
SPEAKER_01 (25:23):
Um fascinating.
I I agree with that man a lot.
SPEAKER_02 (25:28):
Yeah, and I don't mind the fact that he had a
Rolls-Royce for every birth yearof his life, nor do I.
I don't care.
SPEAKER_01 (25:36):
He earned it as far as I'm concerned.
Well, they were gifts, but nowthey're buying, they were gifts,
but the but the point is themajority of the public can do
whatever the majority of thepublic wants to do.
I do not give a damn.
Yeah, what I give a damn aboutis what is the actual meaning.
And right, if I, as a fairlyintelligent person, can discern
(26:02):
that, can read, can look at themeanings of the word that was
used and say what fits besthere, that is important to me.
SPEAKER_02 (26:11):
And that's I can see why you like James or why you
like John more than one thanJames or aka Paul.
SPEAKER_01 (26:20):
Paul had to do the heavy lifting to make it.
One is the word of Christ to oneis the world.
Paul's interpretation.
SPEAKER_02 (26:26):
Right.
But again, my point is like Paulwas the guy out there schlepping
around and making sure thatChristianity spread.
SPEAKER_01 (26:36):
Okay.
SPEAKER_02 (26:36):
And well, you know, you gotta give him credit for
that.
SPEAKER_01 (26:44):
Sure, credit where credit is due.
SPEAKER_02 (26:49):
Yeah, it's it is interesting stuff, for sure.
SPEAKER_01 (26:57):
And I think it's uh I necessarily regardless, you've
got some music out.
I do, I yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (27:04):
It should be out by the time this episode's
published or thereabouts.
It all depends.
It depends how long, well, let'sput it this way it will have
been submitted.
So I don't know how long Spotifytakes, I don't know how long
Apple Music takes, I don't knowhow long any of these music
services take once you'vesubmitted.
But I've got a I'm working witha publisher, it's gonna be fully
(27:25):
legit, published to all theseservices from a publisher, and
you know, available for realmoney.
And hopefully people enjoy it.
And I've got obviously tons moreof the books of the Bibles to
keep making more music from.
SPEAKER_01 (27:43):
So again, this this entire episode spawned out of me
listening to it and going, heydude, you've got some physical
philosophical issues here.
But regardless, musically, it'svery good, and everyone should
check it out and push it outthere.
Like this is a great gatewaydrug to the podcast, right?
SPEAKER_02 (28:08):
Well, it's a good gateway drug to the podcast, and
and then honestly, good goodgateway to like you know, Gene
and Ben do other stuff too.
We're not we're not just guysthat sit and talk about guns and
politics.
Although we do spend a lot oftime doing that.
SPEAKER_01 (28:29):
I mean, you're not, I pretty much am.
I work and I do this, so butregardless, I play video games
as well, yes.
Yeah, yeah.
Put it out there, hit people inthe mouth, like say, hey, Sir
Gene and Sir Gene put thistogether, you should check out
their podcast, do things likethat.
(28:50):
But the point is, musically,dude.
Uh I think you hit the you knowbetween a 4.4, 4.5 out of five
musically on the AI.
And I I was I was I was shocked.
Like I was shocked at theverbato use, I was shocked uh at
(29:13):
the tonal use.
SPEAKER_02 (29:14):
It it I've got much finer levels of control now, and
I I mentioned this to my otherco-host, Darren, that I kind of
accidentally clicked on the buybutton that I didn't really mean
to.
I was just trying to check out aproduct, and and it instantly
billed me 300 bucks, and now I'mlike, Well, shit, I better use
(29:36):
it.
I paid for it.
SPEAKER_01 (29:38):
And dude, you're looking at Mozart level
perfection on tonal use.
Yeah, I was great.
Yeah, I would challenge anymusician to tell me otherwise.
SPEAKER_02 (29:50):
Yeah, well, there and there's been a few, and I've
also gotten a number of people,Adam Curry included, that have
now requested that I startmaking some.
End of show mixes as well, whichyou know.
I mean, it's kind of cool whenpeople actually want to hear
stuff that I do.
You're it's mostly been you andyour mom that I've been making
(30:11):
stuff for.
SPEAKER_01 (30:12):
No shit, dude.
But the the vocabulary use, thethe tone use, like musically,
rhyming scheme-wise, it is it isshocking to me.
Yeah, AI can produce that.
SPEAKER_02 (30:29):
Well, and again, you know, the the lyrics for all
this stuff.
I certainly used AI to help medo shit really fast, like
rhyming things and whatnot.
But the lyrics are basicallyjust mine based on the Bible.
SPEAKER_01 (30:44):
Well, I think you've hit on a winning structure and
you should pursue it.
SPEAKER_02 (30:49):
Yeah, and it's it's really in a uh a poetic
structure that I don't I don'tthink is very popular.
I'm not gonna say nobody uses, Ithink people do use it, but it's
not a popular one, and that it'svery Shakespearean in the
majority of the you will youwill feel something just feels a
little it it doesn't sound liketop 40, it doesn't sound like
(31:10):
comedy.
There's something a little offon the patterns and it's damn
near ambic phameter, dude.
But it's not.
SPEAKER_01 (31:18):
It it's not it's not, it's slightly off.
Yeah, you're right, but but it'sda da da da da da da da da.
I it it it's very methodical inthat way.
SPEAKER_02 (31:35):
I'll convert more Christians to Christianity.
You just watch.
SPEAKER_01 (31:40):
From your mouth to God's ears, dude.
Do it.
SPEAKER_02 (31:44):
Yeah, it takes a Jew to do that, you know.
SPEAKER_01 (31:47):
What was that you broke up?
SPEAKER_02 (31:49):
I said it takes a Jew to convert more Christians.
SPEAKER_01 (31:53):
Well, you know, there there is an irony and a uh
a full circle there that I thinkis good.
SPEAKER_02 (32:06):
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
All right, dude.
Well, let's wrap it up becausethis is like said an out of spec
or whatever episode.
So we'll make it short, but itwas something that we were
talking you know, likepassionately enough about that
Ben said, yeah, let's recordthis.
And I totally agreed.
(32:26):
I think this is a fun thing toput out there, and uh hopefully
you all enjoy it.
And obviously, if you'relistening all the way to the end
here, you weren't one of thepeople that say I don't care
about religion, I'm gonna skipthis one.
SPEAKER_01 (32:39):
So well, and what I would also say is fucking
Ireland, my Celtic peoplestanding up, doing what they
need to do.
SPEAKER_02 (32:50):
Very good.
All right, we'll talk more aboutthat that portion of stuff
later.
Yeah.
Well, howdy, Ben.
How are you today?
Dude, we've been talking, we'vebeen debating religion, we've
been debating text, and we had avery spirited conversation.
And I said, Why the fuck aren'twe recording this?
SPEAKER_02 (00:14):
Yeah.
So we figured we record it.
So this is a out-of-sequence orout of what's the phrase?
Out of something uh recording.
Context.
Not our normal time.
But we're gonna stick it up.
And the the main topic that wedecided to that we were talking
on that we decided to startrecording on is actually a
(00:34):
religious.
So if you're not interested inthe Bible, Christianity,
religion, non-Christianity, skipthis episode.
We'll be back to guns andpolitics and Texas stuff, and
we'll probably talk aboutIreland on the next actual.
SPEAKER_01 (00:49):
We will definitely be talking about Ireland, dude.
They are aflame right now, theyhave Calvary.
SPEAKER_02 (00:56):
Maybe it'll be more than just Ireland by the time we
record the next episode.
We'll see.
But anyway, your mouth togethertopic.
So we were talking about well,uh, I guess by the time this
comes out, this stuff will bepublished.
So I had sent you a few songsthat I had put together using
AI.
SPEAKER_01 (01:15):
And very good songs, by the way, musically.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_02 (01:19):
So what I've done is actually do a musical rendition
of James, the book of James, andit is it is sung by an avatar,
somebody that I created,generated, whatever you want to
call, who is a mid-20s Christianmusician.
(01:42):
And it it basically just breaksdown uh a lot of the chapters
into songs.
SPEAKER_01 (01:48):
Go on and tell the listeners my first reaction to
the lyrics.
SPEAKER_02 (01:51):
Your your first reaction is this is wrong.
SPEAKER_01 (01:55):
My first reaction was this was written by a Jew
more than a Muslim.
SPEAKER_02 (01:59):
Yeah, you said that, which I thought was hilarious
because the whole Bible'swritten by Jews.
I mean, that's literally whowrote the Bible, the New
Testament, not just the OldTestament.
All right, but anyway, but whenI said, Well, what'd you think
about the actual song?
Not like arguing with themessage, then you thought it was
pretty good.
SPEAKER_01 (02:18):
Oh no, the so musically, as someone who plays
an instrument who has somewhatof a musical ear.
No, I I I'm shocked that AI cando that.
SPEAKER_02 (02:31):
And I'm sure people are curious what you played.
It's a fiddle, right?
SPEAKER_01 (02:35):
Violin, yeah.
Right.
So my I wanted to play thefiddle.
So if anyone's curious, DougKershaw, uh who I've seen in
person play was my hero as achild, and I wanted to play like
Doug.
SPEAKER_02 (02:52):
Not Lindsay Sterling, you're a long one.
SPEAKER_01 (02:55):
No, no, no, no, no.
Doug Kershaw, dude, look him upfrom the hip.
You know who Lindsey Sterlingis, though, right?
I do, I do, I do.
Fantastic fiddle or violinist.
My mom said to me, You have toanyway.
My mom said to me, you know,you've got to learn to play
classical violin, then you cando whatever you want.
(03:17):
So I'm I'm a violinist.
SPEAKER_02 (03:20):
So you started off by playing Della went down to
Georgia.
Is that is that no?
SPEAKER_01 (03:24):
I started by playing the Suzuki method with
Huckleberry Cherry.
SPEAKER_02 (03:29):
I've heard of that.
SPEAKER_01 (03:30):
Twinkle twinkle little star, you know, and stuff
like that.
SPEAKER_02 (03:33):
Screech, screech, screech, screech, screech,
screech, screech.
SPEAKER_01 (03:37):
More or less.
But I I I evolved into a prettydecent classical violinist, and
then I took on stuff like DevilWent Down to Georgia or many of
Doug Kershaw's.
Like I I can never match him.
I mean, he can sit there andplay from his hip in a way that
(03:57):
I never can or could.
From his hip.
Like uh like literally the thebutt of the violin is in his hip
and he's sitting there sawing onit.
SPEAKER_02 (04:07):
Wow.
SPEAKER_01 (04:07):
And Doug Kershaw is an extremely talented
self-taught musician.
SPEAKER_02 (04:14):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I've never played anyinstruments that didn't have
buttons or keys.
SPEAKER_01 (04:20):
Well, and that's the thing is so I tried to learn in
college, I tried to learn toplay the guitar.
Yeah.
And going from a fretted to afretless instrument, or from a
fretless to a frettedinstrument, yeah, was beyond
destructive to me because in ona violin, you're playing a two
(04:42):
keys that are there by fret.
So your finger position doesn'tmatter as much.
If you're halfway between orwhatever, it it's less
impactful.
The other thing is you'replaying only two notes at once
on a violin because of bowposition.
You cannot play more than twonotes at once, versus on a
(05:02):
six-string guitar, you'replaying up to six.
It it is a mind fuck beyond allbelief from a technically harder
instrument to a simplerinstrument.
It's it's crazy.
SPEAKER_02 (05:14):
Yeah, it's uh I I could totally imagine that.
I I tried guitar in when I wasin high school, and I just found
it too frustrating and I gaveup.
Um you know, my background ispiano, organ, accordion, things
with buttons or keys.
SPEAKER_01 (05:30):
Well, and I I played the accordion and a little bit
of piano, very little.
I have I have a six-octavereach.
I'm I've got big hands with awide palm, so I can I can reach.
And those were naturalinstruments for me, but well,
you know what they say abouthaving big hands.
(05:52):
Yeah, big gloves and big hands.
At least you got something big.
unknown (05:56):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (05:56):
Anyway, but regardless, back to your music.
The point of contention and whatI brought up was hey, this was
written by a Jew, a Muslim, or aMormon.
And the reason why is becauseyou're focusing on works versus
faith.
And we kind of got into a littlebit of tiff over what James Book
(06:22):
of James says, which is writtenby Paul.
SPEAKER_02 (06:24):
I mean, I'm you know, I'm just taking what's in
the book of James, which is partof the official New Testament
Christian Bible.
So my my take is if you don'tlike it, take it up with the
Vatican for why they includedit.
SPEAKER_01 (06:36):
And my take is cool going through the gospels,
Christ's words matter more to methan anything Paul or anyone
else would say.
SPEAKER_02 (06:48):
I'm not discounting so you you're basically throwing
away a third of the Bible.
SPEAKER_01 (06:54):
Two-thirds of the New Testament, if I threw away
everything that Paul said, butthat much, I thought it was
about a third to half.
SPEAKER_02 (07:00):
So it's actually two-thirds.
Wow.
SPEAKER_01 (07:02):
Oh, easily, yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (07:03):
So you know, I've often Christianity.
SPEAKER_01 (07:05):
If you follow the books of the New Testament to
their end, it should be Paulism,not Christianity.
SPEAKER_02 (07:13):
Yeah, and then there's there's one really good
book that I read years agothat's called Paul the
Mythmaker.
And it there, like it's notanti-Christian, but it basically
puts on a historical hat ratherthan a religious hat in
interpreting who was Paul, whatdid Paul do, what how did he do
(07:37):
it, what were the individuals,and what Paul was was a
marketing guy, he was a good PRguy, and uh he latched down now.
And I'm not gonna argue whetherhe was a true believer or not,
that I I can't know that, right?
But clearly he presented himselfas a true believer, and then he
took what would have been afairly smaller offshoot.
(08:02):
Right, but it would have been asmall offshoot of Judaism, you
know, like reformed Judaism orsomething, and instead turned it
into this worldwide religion,starting with his travels around
the Mediterranean and into Romeitself.
SPEAKER_01 (08:19):
Um well, one of the things I would disagree with you
on there is I think withoutPaul, Christianity would still
be what Christianity is today.
And the reason why becauseChrist went around the
Mediterranean and did what hedid.
SPEAKER_02 (08:36):
Christ didn't stay in Judea, he went out, he
proselytized, he showed his, buthe didn't go anywhere near as
far as Paul did, and hecertainly didn't do all the
activities that Paul did inhaving charitable organizations
(08:57):
collecting money literally frommultiple countries in the
Mediterranean to go off intoother countries in order to
proselytize.
SPEAKER_01 (09:05):
I think the gospels stand alone and stand by
themselves well enough thatthat's a thing.
I I I history played outdifferently, so I can't prove my
point.
But regardless, what it comesdown to is you know, I'm what we
(09:28):
talked about last episode, andyou and I had a disagreement
whether I said James or John.
SPEAKER_02 (09:34):
Yeah, I thought you said James, which is why I went
and read the book of James,because I thought you said
James, and I'm like, all right,I'll read it.
It's short.
SPEAKER_01 (09:41):
And perhaps I misspoke.
I 100% could have.
But the the gospels are Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John.
Yeah, yeah.
And you know, Mark being myfavorite, and for many reasons.
One being the shortest, and uhtwo being the most verbose.
(10:03):
Mark's use of language there isto me a very key thing, and this
is something we keyed in on ourconversation earlier that the
audience sadly didn't hear.
SPEAKER_02 (10:15):
Yeah, well, you can kind of summarize or repeat a
little bit, but which is whichgoes to the idea of since we
don't have original texts, whatdo you want to rely on as the
most accurate text?
And you brought up the whichone?
The James.
SPEAKER_01 (10:35):
Well, I I like the King James because it uses very
specific language, and theexample I brought up is you
know, really around modern andI'm pulling it up, modern
marriages, where I hear love ispatient, love is kind, where
(11:00):
when we read the King James, itis charity is patient.
Charity is kind, charity is notself-serving.
And when we look at the strongconcordance, or we look at quite
frankly, any concordance of theera, what you see is agape.
(11:24):
So the Greek word that is usedthere is agape.
Well, and that that's the entirething is that we're not talking
about romantic love.
We're talking about a love thatis pure, that is God's love,
that is forgiving, that is avery different type of love that
(11:48):
when we hear the word love inthe English, like lexicon at
least, is drastically different.
And we have to recognize thatbecause what we're saying is
when I love you, woman, I ampatient, I am kind, I am this,
I'm that.
No, that is not what we'resaying.
(12:08):
We're saying when I haveunconditional love for you as
God has for us, I am patient, Iam this, I am that.
That is a drastically differentmessage.
SPEAKER_02 (12:21):
And the guys that are actually saying this are
neither.
No, they're usually really, it'snot about the love at that
point, it's about the lust.
Let's be honest here.
You don't get married tosomebody you're in love with,
you get married to somebodyyou're in lust with.
SPEAKER_01 (12:47):
So First Corinthians 13, 4 through 7 in the KJV reads
Charity long suffering and iskind.
Charity envieth not.
Charity Anyway, the point is,sorry, distracted.
(13:13):
The point is charity being theoperative word here, of a
selfless love, which I think ismore accurate, which again, if
you're in a Bible study andyou're not going to a
concordance, and you're notdropping into the Greek and the
Aramaic and the Hebrew, andreally looking at what those
(13:36):
words can and should mean incontext, you're being lazy and
you're doing yourself adisservice.
SPEAKER_02 (13:45):
Well, that's fine.
And then my my point was okay,well, I don't disagree with you
that it's important to have asclose a meaning as possible.
I I think it gets in the way tohave old-timey English language
from the 1600s being usedbecause what one of the knowing
(14:07):
human psychology, one of thethings that happens when people
kind of understand what thelanguage says, but they're not
sure about it, which is oftenthe case if you read Shakespeare
or certainly the King Jamesversion of the Bible, it's what
they look for is interpretationof that from somebody standing
(14:28):
on a stage, and I think thatleads to a potential for abuse,
for manipulation, for even justinnocent misinterpretation, and
all these things ideally areavoided by having a modern
translation using modernlanguage, but being faithful to
(14:49):
the original sources.
Now, when I said that, you youthought no such thing exists,
and I'm maybe it doesn't, but Iwould be shocked if it doesn't
because of how how many peoplehave obviously taken a stab at
updating and tweaking differentversions of the Bible.
(15:09):
Now the version I used was whatI don't even remember.
It was the new what was itcalled?
It is yeah, I closed the pageright here.
I can't remember what it is.
But it it's basically a fairlymodern version.
(15:32):
But it it I checked the 1Corinthians that you mentioned
there, 1 Corinthians 13 or 14,and it does just say love, it
doesn't clarify the type oflove.
And I I think that it would besuper easy to have a version you
like you don't need to translateword for word, you need to
translate idea for idea, and inthat scenario, you you can use
(15:57):
more than one word to well buthold on say instead of agape.
SPEAKER_01 (16:02):
Hold on for a second, yeah.
Because the purpose of monks fora long time was to translate
word for word, not idea foridea.
SPEAKER_02 (16:19):
Yeah, but the again, here's the problem is that first
of all, most monks shouldn'treally read more than one
language, their main goal wastranscribing, not translating.
But the ones that did thetranslation, I don't know if
they attempted to translate, youknow, maybe the word love meant
(16:39):
something that was closer to theword charity at some point.
I don't know, but certainly ifwe can agree, and uh whether
it's the two of us or justcollectively, as people that are
studying this, that the the wordclosest to what was meant by
Paul and Corinthians was theGreek word agape.
(17:03):
And again, we don't know ifthat's the case because you know
he may have meant something evendifferent than that, but let's
say that's what he meant.
SPEAKER_01 (17:11):
In Corinthians is a direct letter, right?
We have evidence of that in theDead Sea Scrolls and everything.
SPEAKER_02 (17:17):
Right, but but what was it written in?
SPEAKER_01 (17:23):
Greek.
SPEAKER_02 (17:24):
What was it written in Greek?
So Paul was writing this letterin Greek.
Yes, and he said agape.
Yes, okay.
Well, that's that's fairlydefinitive, then.
Then what we need to do is makesure that if there's a modern
version, that it accuratelytranslates, even using multiple
words if necessary, the meaningof agape as was considered the
(17:49):
meaning at the time of Paul.
Because also words changemeanings.
I'm annoyed to no end by this inmy life, which isn't nearly very
long, but nonetheless, therehave been a number of words
which have seemingly changedmeaning since I was a kid and
are now used in completelydifferent meanings.
(18:09):
I was like, this is ridiculous.
Words have meanings, why don'twe just stick with them and keep
using them?
And if you want to invent a newword, invent a new word.
I have no problem with that.
But why do we need to change themeanings of words just because
one generation followinganother, you know, didn't really
read enough to understand whatpeople used to mean by that?
SPEAKER_01 (18:29):
Well, and that's what it comes down to is people
who read versus people whodon't.
But what I would say is this isa great example of where I would
prefer transliteration versustranslation.
So when I say agape, the Englishword is love.
(18:53):
But the meaning is God'sunconditional love.
SPEAKER_02 (18:57):
Right.
SPEAKER_01 (18:58):
So let's transliterate that into God's
uncondition unconditional lovefor you.
SPEAKER_02 (19:06):
Yeah, but I I don't think it's tra transliteration,
is what you're thinking of here.
SPEAKER_01 (19:12):
Well the problem is that all the weddings would
sacrifice, right?
Yeah.
And no, transliteration isliterally what I mean.
I'm not wrong on that one.
SPEAKER_02 (19:31):
Transliteration is is converting one text into
another text.
Yes, mapping a symbol to asymbol.
Translation can involve not oneword to one word, but meaning to
meaning.
So I don't I I get what you'retrying to say, but I I don't
(19:52):
think translationtransliteration is the right
word for it.
SPEAKER_01 (19:59):
So my understanding, and I could be wrong, but I
don't think that I am, is thattranslation is literal meaning
to literal meaning versustransliteration is actual
meaning to actual meaning.
SPEAKER_02 (20:13):
It's not though.
You can look it up.
That's not what transliterationmeans.
But I I think we all understandwhat you're what you're getting
to, and this is where we're inviolent agreement with each
other, is that keeping themeaning is more important than
keeping the number of words thesame.
(20:36):
A thousand percent Yeah, it itis it is the this is the
difficulty, right?
In you think about pre-printingpress world, Europe, is how do
you maintain knowledge knowledgenot mathematical knowledge or
(20:59):
you know arbitrary, butknowledge of stories that are
the most powerful stories ofyour people?
How do you maintain those eventhough the language changes?
So I think a decision was madealong the way in the uh the
Catholic Church to basically sayour method of preservation is
(21:23):
simply to keep the language thesame forever.
So it's gonna be in Latin.
And you don't have to understandLatin, we'll interpret it for
you, we'll read it and as thethe priests, and we'll tell you
what it says.
You, as the lay person whodoesn't even know how to write
his own language, sure as hell,isn't gonna know how to read or
(21:44):
write Latin.
But Latin is the codex that wecan go back to because we can
simply have monks going throughand rewriting with identical
characters without evennecessarily those monks being
able to read, like they justhave to be able to copy pictures
(22:06):
from one book to another book,and they don't technically have
in fact it's probably better ifthey don't know how to read
because then they're not goingto ask questions like, well,
shouldn't this really say this?
Was that a mistake that aprevious generation made?
So effectively you have a a partof the part of the job of the
(22:30):
church is to have copy machines,human copy machines, whose job
is simply to reproduce somethingthat was frozen and fixed.
Now, you can also go back to thetime before it was fixed and and
then argue whether the correctinterpretation in Latin was
(22:51):
recorded or not, or maybe thosemistakes were made.
But certainly English is addingone further translation, and my
point is going from Latin to oldEnglish to modern English adds
the broken telephone game toomany times.
What you should have is aversion that goes back to
(23:12):
original text.
SPEAKER_01 (23:14):
Well, and this is why I like the KJV, is because
they went back to the theydidn't go to the Latin, they
went to the original Greek,Aramaic, and Hebrew.
SPEAKER_02 (23:23):
Yes, but we don't speak KJV.
That's the issue.
Is that like you don't?
SPEAKER_01 (23:27):
I do.
SPEAKER_02 (23:28):
No, you don't.
This is where I I heard you'rereading it, dude.
Believe me, you don't.
Where where this made totalsense was at the end of the day.
SPEAKER_01 (23:38):
So this is where you're making fun of my
dyslexia.
SPEAKER_02 (23:41):
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm making fun of.
Deal with it.
SPEAKER_01 (23:45):
Cool.
I I and I will, but what I wouldsay is my reading of it and my
comprehension of it are twodifferent things.
Yeah, yeah.
Because again, I grew up.
SPEAKER_02 (23:54):
I can give you a shit because I I know I know
you're a smart dude, so I cangive you we're we're good, dude.
SPEAKER_01 (23:59):
Yeah, you'll you will never offend me.
SPEAKER_02 (24:01):
Yeah, what it what it comes to trying, but okay.
SPEAKER_01 (24:05):
What it comes down to is I grew up going to that
strong concordancy, going backto the Hebrew, going back to the
Greek, going back to the Hebrew.
SPEAKER_02 (24:11):
And what percentage of the population does what you
do?
SPEAKER_01 (24:14):
Don't care.
SPEAKER_02 (24:15):
I do relevant.
I do, I care.
Most of the people aboutChristianity, apparently.
SPEAKER_01 (24:22):
No, no, no.
Here's what it comes down to (24:23):
a government for the people, by
the people of the people.
Government by the retarded likethat.
That is what it comes down to.
Yes, most of the population is.
SPEAKER_02 (24:36):
To me, I will happily take it because I I love
that guy.
I followed him when I was a kid.
Me too.
I not followed, followed, butlike I read everything I could
that dealt with him because itwas fascinating.
His backstory fascinating, hisyou know, his very
pro-capitalist stance in histeachings.
(25:00):
Fascinating.
You don't usually see that inmonks or priests.
Uh, the fact that he had amaster's degree and not in
religion.
Uh, he was actually a philosophystudent and he dropped out
before he finished his PhD, buthe was finished, he was work,
he's basically past master'slevel working on his
dissertation for his PhD when hedropped out, right?
SPEAKER_01 (25:23):
Um fascinating.
I I agree with that man a lot.
SPEAKER_02 (25:28):
Yeah, and I don't mind the fact that he had a
Rolls-Royce for every birth yearof his life, nor do I.
I don't care.
SPEAKER_01 (25:36):
He earned it as far as I'm concerned.
Well, they were gifts, but nowthey're buying, they were gifts,
but the but the point is themajority of the public can do
whatever the majority of thepublic wants to do.
I do not give a damn.
Yeah, what I give a damn aboutis what is the actual meaning.
And right, if I, as a fairlyintelligent person, can discern
(26:02):
that, can read, can look at themeanings of the word that was
used and say what fits besthere, that is important to me.
SPEAKER_02 (26:11):
And that's I can see why you like James or why you
like John more than one thanJames or aka Paul.
SPEAKER_01 (26:20):
Paul had to do the heavy lifting to make it.
One is the word of Christ to oneis the world.
Paul's interpretation.
SPEAKER_02 (26:26):
Right.
But again, my point is like Paulwas the guy out there schlepping
around and making sure thatChristianity spread.
SPEAKER_01 (26:36):
Okay.
SPEAKER_02 (26:36):
And well, you know, you gotta give him credit for
that.
SPEAKER_01 (26:44):
Sure, credit where credit is due.
SPEAKER_02 (26:49):
Yeah, it's it is interesting stuff, for sure.
SPEAKER_01 (26:57):
And I think it's uh I necessarily regardless, you've
got some music out.
I do, I yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (27:04):
It should be out by the time this episode's
published or thereabouts.
It all depends.
It depends how long, well, let'sput it this way it will have
been submitted.
So I don't know how long Spotifytakes, I don't know how long
Apple Music takes, I don't knowhow long any of these music
services take once you'vesubmitted.
But I've got a I'm working witha publisher, it's gonna be fully
(27:25):
legit, published to all theseservices from a publisher, and
you know, available for realmoney.
And hopefully people enjoy it.
And I've got obviously tons moreof the books of the Bibles to
keep making more music from.
SPEAKER_01 (27:43):
So again, this this entire episode spawned out of me
listening to it and going, heydude, you've got some physical
philosophical issues here.
But regardless, musically, it'svery good, and everyone should
check it out and push it outthere.
Like this is a great gatewaydrug to the podcast, right?
SPEAKER_02 (28:08):
Well, it's a good gateway drug to the podcast, and
and then honestly, good goodgateway to like you know, Gene
and Ben do other stuff too.
We're not we're not just guysthat sit and talk about guns and
politics.
Although we do spend a lot oftime doing that.
SPEAKER_01 (28:29):
I mean, you're not, I pretty much am.
I work and I do this, so butregardless, I play video games
as well, yes.
Yeah, yeah.
Put it out there, hit people inthe mouth, like say, hey, Sir
Gene and Sir Gene put thistogether, you should check out
their podcast, do things likethat.
(28:50):
But the point is, musically,dude.
Uh I think you hit the you knowbetween a 4.4, 4.5 out of five
musically on the AI.
And I I was I was I was shocked.
Like I was shocked at theverbato use, I was shocked uh at
(29:13):
the tonal use.
SPEAKER_02 (29:14):
It it I've got much finer levels of control now, and
I I mentioned this to my otherco-host, Darren, that I kind of
accidentally clicked on the buybutton that I didn't really mean
to.
I was just trying to check out aproduct, and and it instantly
billed me 300 bucks, and now I'mlike, Well, shit, I better use
(29:36):
it.
I paid for it.
SPEAKER_01 (29:38):
And dude, you're looking at Mozart level
perfection on tonal use.
Yeah, I was great.
Yeah, I would challenge anymusician to tell me otherwise.
SPEAKER_02 (29:50):
Yeah, well, there and there's been a few, and I've
also gotten a number of people,Adam Curry included, that have
now requested that I startmaking some.
End of show mixes as well, whichyou know.
I mean, it's kind of cool whenpeople actually want to hear
stuff that I do.
You're it's mostly been you andyour mom that I've been making
(30:11):
stuff for.
SPEAKER_01 (30:12):
No shit, dude.
But the the vocabulary use, thethe tone use, like musically,
rhyming scheme-wise, it is it isshocking to me.
Yeah, AI can produce that.
SPEAKER_02 (30:29):
Well, and again, you know, the the lyrics for all
this stuff.
I certainly used AI to help medo shit really fast, like
rhyming things and whatnot.
But the lyrics are basicallyjust mine based on the Bible.
SPEAKER_01 (30:44):
Well, I think you've hit on a winning structure and
you should pursue it.
SPEAKER_02 (30:49):
Yeah, and it's it's really in a uh a poetic
structure that I don't I don'tthink is very popular.
I'm not gonna say nobody uses, Ithink people do use it, but it's
not a popular one, and that it'svery Shakespearean in the
majority of the you will youwill feel something just feels a
little it it doesn't sound liketop 40, it doesn't sound like
(31:10):
comedy.
There's something a little offon the patterns and it's damn
near ambic phameter, dude.
But it's not.
SPEAKER_01 (31:18):
It it's not it's not, it's slightly off.
Yeah, you're right, but but it'sda da da da da da da da da.
I it it it's very methodical inthat way.
SPEAKER_02 (31:35):
I'll convert more Christians to Christianity.
You just watch.
SPEAKER_01 (31:40):
From your mouth to God's ears, dude.
Do it.
SPEAKER_02 (31:44):
Yeah, it takes a Jew to do that, you know.
SPEAKER_01 (31:47):
What was that you broke up?
SPEAKER_02 (31:49):
I said it takes a Jew to convert more Christians.
SPEAKER_01 (31:53):
Well, you know, there there is an irony and a uh
a full circle there that I thinkis good.
SPEAKER_02 (32:06):
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
All right, dude.
Well, let's wrap it up becausethis is like said an out of spec
or whatever episode.
So we'll make it short, but itwas something that we were
talking you know, likepassionately enough about that
Ben said, yeah, let's recordthis.
And I totally agreed.
(32:26):
I think this is a fun thing toput out there, and uh hopefully
you all enjoy it.
And obviously, if you'relistening all the way to the end
here, you weren't one of thepeople that say I don't care
about religion, I'm gonna skipthis one.
SPEAKER_01 (32:39):
So well, and what I would also say is fucking
Ireland, my Celtic peoplestanding up, doing what they
need to do.
SPEAKER_02 (32:50):
Very good.
All right, we'll talk more aboutthat that portion of stuff
later.
Yeah.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.