Rhyming Bible - What are your thoughts?

[Frisian Gardener]

Two perspectives:

 

[davejonescue]

Two perspectives:

Thank you for uploading these, as they convey much of what I am trying to say and do with this endeavor.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

The AI is prompted to deal with the text of scripture as literature, on a verse by verse basis. And convert that literature into poetic form. This isn't a foreign idea in the realm of theology

2 things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your wording, but it sounds like your prompt is asking the AI to treat the HOLY Word of God just like any other literature? That's a problematic presupposition to begin with if that's the case!

The second I keep coming back to, is this is not your own creative work right? I mean, you are prompting the AI but in the end all the "thinking" is being done by a machine. I for one would not sing a hymn or read a theology book written by a Muslim, Buddhist, Unitarian etc. even if it was theologically correct and written from a Reformed Perspective. I don't agree with all of what Piper teaches but I did like his point, "The people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me". I think this applies to AI.

Holy Writ does not speak to AI directly, but it does emphasize the Holiness of God. I think of places like Exodus 30:37,38 where even the very incense made to burn before the LORD was holy and anyone who used it in a common way was cut off from the people. For me, on a fundamental level, by taking the entirety of the Word of God and rewriting it to suite your creative desires is treating the Word as Common. Like the cartoon Veggie Tales, it is making light of a serious and sober topic.

 

[davejonescue]

2 things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your wording, but it sounds like your prompt is asking the AI to treat the HOLY Word of God just like any other literature? That's a problematic presupposition to begin with if that's the case!

The second I keep coming back to, is this is not your own creative work right? I mean, you are prompting the AI but in the end all the "thinking" is being done by a machine. I for one would not sing a hymn or read a theology book written by a Muslim, Buddhist, Unitarian etc. even if it was theologically correct and written from a Reformed Perspective. I don't agree with all of what Piper teaches but I did like his point, "The people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me". I think this applies to AI.

Holy Writ does not speak to AI directly, but it does emphasize the Holiness of God. I think of places like Exodus 30:37,38 where even the very incense made to burn before the LORD was holy and anyone who used it in a common way was cut off from the people. For me, on a fundamental level, by taking the entirety of the Word of God and rewriting it to suite your creative desires is treating the Word as Common. Like the cartoon Veggie Tales, it is making light of a serious and sober topic.

We already do this in a certain way. When we come to scripture, treating the Word in its proper literary genres and devices helps us interpret it better. Asking the questions "is this poetry, is this history, is the allegory, is this narrative, is this hyperbole," etc. The reason the prompt is necessary, is because I am prompting AI not to give me a theological interpretation on each verse, but I am asking it to give me a specific literary genre on each verse, based solely on that verse.

Also, nobody is asking you to read it, use it, sing from it, copy it, or do anything with it. You don't have to. But for those who may be interested to see how each verse of scripture may possibly be converted into poetic form, this may be a tool for them to create their own Spirit filled expressions of biblical poetry, because this endeavor will break down the process of creating those poems on a line by line level. I am not creating this tool to praise God for me. Though my heart may be attached to the endeavor, i.e. doing those things necessary to see it completed; my heart is not attached to the output, nor is AI's heart attached to the conversion (because AI doesn't have a heart). But what AI can do, even as Piper professes, is "do words better than us." This means, that this collection of poems, though not fit to be considered direct conduits of praise, may be fit as precursors, in which ignite the Spirit within us to come up with genuine Spirit-filled poems of praise, by possibly teaching us the mechanisms that go into the conversion of scripture to poetry.

Another way to look at showing reverence to the Word of God could be, is that I am not being flippant in this process. I could just as easily prompted AI to create poems on each verse absent of any notes (which would have saved me a couple $100) but I did not. This is because I want each line to be scrutinized. And also, because that would have voided it as a tool to see the "how" each verse can be made into poems. I am also not using just any technology for this endeavor, but, the best present (and only) technology available that can do this. Notice this article from TGC, it explains that major Bible Translation orgs are already using AI to assist in Bible Translations. Using AI in this way is not new, not foreign, nor is it not already being done in other realms of Christian ventures. Also, we always want to be reverent with the Word of God, but we need to be careful not to be too over-zealous. What I mean is, if I am not mistaken, this is one of the reasons Rome refused to translate the Latin Bible into common languages, was because they believed the Word was too sacred to be handled by the "common man", and that it should only be filtered and interpreted by Priests lest errors arise. Yet, no one today thinks this still an applicable practice; instead, we are abundantly grateful for the men who gave their lives to defy the then existing ecclesiastical power, so that we can read and interpret the Word of God for ourselves.

Lastly, you are completely entitled to your opinion that doing this shouldn't be done. But like Doug Wilson was saying, is that things have to be attempted with AI, so that we as Christians know what it can be used for, what it cant, and how we can use it for the furtherance of Gods glory. Those that are of the persuasion that AI should have little to do with Kingdom work, are going to soon be akin to the digital Amish. And that is OK if that is their position. But for the rest of us, we do not find such things out by not attempting things. We find them out by attempting things and seeing how they turned out.

 

[WithinThePale]

To the critics of this particular AI usage: Your comments have made me curious, so I have a couple questions about your notions on machine learning type things. I find they have their uses, mostly for asking for examples of code use from chatbots, and the broader machine learning ecosystem is useful for various data analysis and prediction, with the chatbots being derived from that.

Are you happy to use things from the following cases?
1. A heathen researcher develops an application which uses machine learning software libraries from other heathens to estimate the prevelence of harmful particles in the air over a larger area based on topographical data and some spot readings.
2. As above, but with Christian-developed software libraries.
3. As in 1, but with a Christian researcher.
4. A Christian uses a heathen-developed AI to injest Foxe's book of martyrs and put it out word for word in RC Sproul's voice.
5. A Christian does as in 4, but asks it to modernise the language.
6. As in 5, but asks that it be adjusted to the language level of a 5 year old.
7. Does the answer change if the AI was Christian-developed?
8. What changes with exclusively Christian-written training datasets for AIs?

 

[Ploutos]

I would imagine that we can all attest to the ways in which we (individually and collectively) have been harmed in the last few generations as a result of inadequate spiritual fortification against the dangers of new technology. How many lives on here have been damaged, directly or indirectly, by consumption of illicit material via digital means? How many of us struggle more broadly with time spent in front of screens?

I have seen many people my age stray from the faith because of a lack of vigilance regarding modern technology and the ease with which it has imported an increasingly secular/pagan worldview into our living rooms and bedrooms. How many people now wish that at the beginning of the PC and smartphone revolutions we had built in some stricter safeguards?

When it comes to AI, I sometimes see much made of the potential good for AI, and there can be an implicit burden of proof placed on AI's detractors to explain exactly why it shouldn't be used in this or that way. Who, though, is taking note of the unfathomable and unpredictable ingenuity of the human mind to turn new tools to evil, and who is really taking to heart the lessons we failed to learn ahead of the last two iterations of the tech/digital revolution?

Birth control, cloning, genetic modification, the internet, smart phones, credit cards - I don't know that I can categorically label these things bad, but did we adequately prepare for the ways in which they could be used for evil before we unthinkingly incorporated them as indispensable parts of our daily lives?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:28–29, ESV)

Also, we always want to be reverent with the Word of God, but we need to be careful not to be too over-zealous. What I mean is, if I am not mistaken, this is one of the reasons Rome refused to translate the Latin Bible into common languages, was because they believed the Word was too sacred to be handled by the "common man", and that it should only be filtered and interpreted by Priests lest errors arise.

The solution to the tyranny of Rome is not anarchy. The pendulum is swinging much to far in the opposite direction and irreverance for the Word of God abounds among professing believers.

But like Doug Wilson was saying, is that things have to be attempted with AI, so that we as Christians know what it can be used for, what it cant, and how we can use it for the furtherance of Gods glory.

Is that how it works? Do we have to suffer the making of "The Chosen" to know the limits of TV shows? Why do we "have" to know how it can be used? Was God's word not sufficient as written? Will AI improve it? Can we not have the foresight to see that some technologies are just incompatible with the Christian life in some aspects? If you've never read the book "Amusing ourselves to Death" I'd encourage you to do so. In it, among other things, a pagan admits that even from his perspective the message of the Bible was not compatible being presented through television. The seriousness of the topic was softened by the media.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16–17, ESV)

Scripture is perfect and complete as is. To think it can be improved, or made to better suit or worship or help us innovate new worship I think is a dangerous road to walk.

Innovation in worship ends in disaster. Granted I write this from an EP perspective, but I see no warrant or need to manipulate Scripture just to test the limits of AI.

Notice this article from TGC, it explains that major Bible Translation orgs are already using AI to assist in Bible Translations.

Just because others are doing something does not make it right. AI cannot make theologically informed decisions that are crucial to an accurate translation of the Word of God in translation, regardless of any assertions made by the proponents. It lacks any guidance by the Spirit. It's foolishness to put Scripture into the hands of AI.

"Your scientists (Programmers) were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I don't endorse that movie but thought the quote was fitting.

I know I won't convince anyone. But I appreciate the discussion regardless.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Those that are of the persuasion that AI should have little to do with Kingdom work, are going to soon be akin to the digital Amish. And that is OK if that is their position.

That would be me Brother. I refuse to even be dragged into e-books, despite my 17 year old sons insistence that they are better, cheaper and rare works more readily available. Give me a good analog book!

 

[davejonescue]

When it comes to AI, I sometimes see much made of the potential good for AI, and there can be an implicit burden of proof placed on AI's detractors to explain exactly why it shouldn't be used in this or that way. Who, though, is taking note of the unfathomable and unpredictable ingenuity of the human mind to turn new tools to evil, and who is really taking to heart the lessons we failed to learn ahead of the last two iterations of the tech/digital revolution?

This is just my personal take, but I think the Bible makes it clear that man has the potential to take any invention and use it for evil. For instance, the same materials that were used to build temples for idols, were used to build a temple for God. So is it the tech, or is it what is done with the tech that is the heart of the issue? Look at the second leading cause of death for Americans after abortion, that is, heart disease. Meaning, out of all the potential wicked uses of technological ingenuity, it is the abuse of food that is killing the most folks. Some people also say, looking back to the invention of the internet, that it was some Christians normal attitude of adapt, rather than innovate; and being "slow to respond" that let it first be proliferated by heathen sites before Christians slowly got over it and began to counter the world on that platform with Christian good. And this holds true with AI. Either Christians are going to use it, and harness it for the glory of God, or it will "only" be a tool for evil in the world. The same television where you can watch the most vile episode of Southpark, is the same television where you can stream the Puritan Conference. So saying something neutral should be ignored, because evil men do evil things with it, in a way, seems to be "giving over" that neutrality to evil, rather than overcoming evil with good.

Scripture is perfect and complete as is. To think it can be improved, or made to better suit or worship or help us innovate new worship I think is a dangerous road to walk.

This already takes place within a lot of churches, in that specifically the Psalms have been converted into Meter so that it better suits congregational singing. If this were to be taken to the conclusion you are stating, then the Psalms should be sung as is. Which is very interesting, since I can take any Psalm written as is, put it into Suno, and, though it may take a few tries to get it just how I like it, it will produce a perfectly melodic rendering of a Psalm, as written, instead of needing to be converted to rhyme, to seem better suited for worship. One of my favorites is below:

All in all, yes, I feel that we should be using every available tool at our disposal to further Gods kingdom, if that tool in itself cannot be inherently considered sinful. Regardless what the tool is, whether it is wine, which God gave to merry the heart, food, which God gave to the nourishment of our bodies, wood and metal, which we use to build our places of worship, etc. are all to this day abused for drunkenness, gluttony, and idol worship. AI will be no different as a tool. Yes, it very much will be abused to evil ends. But, I believe it is our responsibility as Christians, to use it for good where applicable. Finding out where it is applicable is the thing that is only going to come by trail and error.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Personally, I'm not comfortable using AI for theology or theology adjacent tasks, as it contains the muddy average of the internet alongside much else. I can see that changing for specific tasks though, on the emergence of models designed for the purpose of accurate translation which show their work (mathematical correctness is unlikely to appear in this domain, but is something that is being worked on that I like to keep an eye on - safety-rated AI will be a big development). I can understand using the technology for creative writing type projects, even though it isn't my cup of tea, and I think this is more that category.

I use it as a tool for my systematics...but I convert it Christianity first. I have gotten ChatGPT to, unprompted, proclaim the truth of Christianity. Another time it responded with, "...and that is why I believe it", in reference to our faith. Know how? Go through the historical evidence for the resurrection and the ways it's by far the most well attested event in ancient history. Point out the presuppositional naturalism of unbelieving scholars, how their biased methodology precludes an honest dating of the Gospels, how they blatantly ignore patristic evidence, and how skeptics (and not Christians) are the ones who must resort to special pleading to get around the mountain of evidence. It readily admits Christianity is unique among religions in that it is grounded in real history. Then start laying on it examples of the thematic consistency of scripture and natural revelation. It is surprisingly easy to utterly convince it. Now young earth creationism, on the other hand, it's impossible to convince it. It is strongly pro-science.

 

[SavedSinner]

Well, Martin Luther already did it, and I would trust him over A.I. And then in the 18th century Matthias Jorissen did the Psalter---The Foundation of Friends of Heidelberg & Dordrecht ( Stichting Vrienden van Heidelberg en Dordrecht) just printed it a few years ago. Link: https://www.svvhed.org/
The British might not like your A.I. pronunciation of shone, so I guess the A.I. bot is American. I think if I had to sing an A.I. production in church I would get sick.

 

[davejonescue]

Well, Martin Luther already did it, and I would trust him over A.I. And then in the 18th century Matthias Jorissen did the Psalter---The Foundation of Friends of Heidelberg & Dordrecht ( Stichting Vrienden van Heidelberg en Dordrecht) just printed it a few years ago. Link: https://www.svvhed.org/
The British might not like your A.I. pronunciation of shone, so I guess the A.I. bot is American. I think if I had to sing an A.I. production in church I would get sick.

I dont know what you mean by "Luther already did it?" Do you mean he already created a Psalter? Or do you mean he already created a Poem for each verse of scripture? If the latter, I would love to check that out, and of course, if he did, there is no use in doing this. As far as the British, like someone said, "you cant please everyone" so, they can just as easily use AI to create a British English rendering if they like. The thing is, that going into the future, unlike my specific notification at the beginning of these volumes, is that people most likely are not going to know if they are singing, reading, viewing, etc. an AI or AI assisted rendering unless 1. They are made aware of it, or 2. A glaring error makes them question the source. Integrity in AI utilization is not something all are going to practice (which I believe they should,) so that those who would like to refrain from its usage or influence, have every right to do so.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

I have spent time in thought on this and I have two thoughts for you all.

1. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Romans 1:28:32 NKJV

Dave, your remarks and Wilson's seem to be of the mind that inventions and technological advances cannot be bad things per se. I would say that this seems to indicate that there can be real advances in technological knowledge/ability that are not good things, that are actually evil. Was it only crackpipes and waterboarding that the apostle, under the inspiration of the Spirit, considered worth warning us about?

2. There's a world of difference between automation that mitigates the curse of sin (the sweat of man's brow, toil and trouble) and automation that does things we were designed to do - that we did in Eden and will do in heaven. Certainly construction workers have less thorns in their work because of backhoes. It is good that we have flush toilets. But automation that automates some aspect of man's intellectual life (or seeks to) does not remove effects of sin, but abnegates aspects of our creation - makes us almost less human insofar as humanity is a rational animal. This is very bad.

 

[davejonescue]

I have spent time in thought on this and I have two thoughts for you all.

1. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Romans 1:28:32 NKJV

Dave, your remarks and Wilson's seem to be of the mind that inventions and technological advances cannot be bad things per se. I would say that this seems to indicate that there can be real advances in technological knowledge/ability that are not good things, that are actually evil. Was it only crackpipes and waterboarding that the apostle, under the inspiration of the Spirit, considered worth warning us about?

2. There's a world of difference between automation that mitigates the curse of sin (the sweat of man's brow, toil and trouble) and automation that does things we were designed to do - that we did in Eden and will do in heaven. Certainly construction workers have less thorns in their work because of backhoes. It is good that we have flush toilets. But automation that automates some aspect of man's intellectual life (or seeks to) does not remove effects of sin, but abnegates aspects of our creation - makes us almost less human insofar as humanity is a rational animal. This is very bad.

I don't think me or Wilson's thoughts are that no invention can be evil of itself, but that AI is not evil of itself. The same way wine is not evil, but can be used for evil, the same way ice-cream is not evil, but can be used for evil, the same way bronze is not evil, but can be used for evil, the same way computers are not evil (as we are typing on one), but can be used for evil, the same way guns are not evil, but can be used for evil; and so on. I have yet to see a single compelling argument as to why AI is inherently and strictly an evil invention, but that seems to be your premise. I think me and Wilson's thoughts are also echoing Piper's, when he concluded that "computers do words better than us," and as such, shouldn't be completely ignored.

You say that automation of creative processes is somehow evil because it bypasses the personal action of creating in the creature; yet, AI can only create as it was programmed by the creature, using training data from the creature, on subjects pertinent to the creature. So that it isn't absent of humanity in its creative processes, instead it is wholly dependent on it. This is why I am stating that automation of such endeavors is not a matter of "intellect" but of "industry." You are also putting forth the idea that there are things that only man was meant to do; yet somehow I think you are mistaking this application with a human history where there were certain things that only man could do. And now that there is something that can do some of those things similarly, it is no longer a world where only some men can do those things, but those things now have become common tasks, in so far that the process of their creation is no longer a matter of solely humanistic skill, but also as simple as a detailed prompt. Like it or hate it, that is where we are. This doesn't make AI evil. For if our employments were to be considered our debt of toil, I don't see how you are differentiating mental tasks from physical; and those of the intellect in a higher class than those of the hands? God did not crown Adam's naming of every animal above his keeping of the garden; and we already allow machines to build for us, and have for many years. Your hang-up seems to be though, that you consider construction less God given than composition; and it is not. This is why I reiterate AI is a tool, and nothing more.

I will agree with you that humanity is endowed with certain Imago Dei privileges. But where we disagree is what is restricted within the confines of that peculiarity. Worship, praise, prophecy, prayer, etc. can only stem from man, and not from machines; because there is a spiritual connection to God that no machine will ever have, because machines do not have souls/spirits. In my opinion, discourse on or conversion to literary genres is not one of them. In this aspect I take (what I think is a Barthian position) in that these output are just output, and only when/if the Spirit acts upon them, can they lead to something more than just words; for example, a Spirit-led creation/derivative through a Spirit-led individual; even if the precursory tool/output itself is not inspired. I do not take this position with Scripture (which I think Barth does), but I do take this position with all "by-product" works; in that while some may be created by regenerated or reprobate individuals, the Spirit is not restricted to enlightening the mind only by infallible or inspired literature like the Bible, or those created by Christians; but can use what he wills.

Lastly, it seems like you are trying to live, as if living in a pre-AI world were possible. It is not, any more than living in a pre-automobile, or pre-radio world is possible outside of isolated communities like the Amish. You have every right to pretend it doesn't exist, ignore it, and shun it. Yet, the world will still move on without you. People have to accept, that by Gods sovereign decree, AI is no longer science fiction. And that it will be used to the glory of his name, just like everything else.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

I don't think me or Wilson's thoughts are that no invention can be evil of itself, but that AI is not evil of itself. The same way wine is not evil, but can be used for evil, the same way ice-cream is not evil, but can be used for evil, the same way bronze is not evil, but can be used for evil, the same way computers are not evil (as we are typing on one), but can be used for evil, the same way guns are not evil, but can be used for evil; and so on. I have yet to see a single compelling argument as to why AI is inherently and strictly an evil invention, but that seems to be your premise. I think me and Wilson's thoughts are also echoing Piper's, when he concluded that "computers do words better than us," and as such, shouldn't be completely ignored.

You say that automation of creative processes is somehow evil because it bypasses the personal action of creating in the creature; yet, AI can only create as it was programmed by the creature, using training data from the creature, on subjects pertinent to the creature. So that it isn't absent of humanity in its creative processes, instead it is wholly dependent on it. This is why I am stating that automation of such endeavors is not a matter of "intellect" but of "industry." You are also putting forth the idea that there are things that only man was meant to do; yet somehow I think you are mistaking this application with a human history where there were certain things that only man could do. And now that there is something that can do some of those things similarly, it is no longer a world where only some men can do those things, but those things now have become common tasks, in so far that the process of their creation is no longer a matter of solely humanistic skill, but also as simple as a detailed prompt. Like it or hate it, that is where we are. This doesn't make AI evil. For if our employments were to be considered our debt of toil, I don't see how you are differentiating mental tasks from physical; and those of the intellect in a higher class than those of the hands? God did not crown Adam's naming of every animal above his keeping of the garden; and we already allow machines to build for us, and have for many years. Your hang-up seems to be though, that you consider construction less God given than composition; and it is not. This is why I reiterate AI is a tool, and nothing more.

I will agree with you that humanity is endowed with certain Imago Dei privileges. But where we disagree is what is restricted within the confines of that peculiarity. Worship, praise, prophecy, prayer, etc. can only stem from man, and not from machines; because there is a spiritual connection to God that no machine will ever have, because machines do not have souls/spirits. In my opinion, discourse on or conversion to literary genres is not one of them. In this aspect I take (what I think is a Barthian position) in that these output are just output, and only when/if the Spirit acts upon them, can they lead to something more than just words; for example, a Spirit-led creation/derivative through a Spirit-led individual; even if the precursory tool/output itself is not inspired. I do not take this position with Scripture (which I think Barth does), but I do take this position with all "by-product" works; in that while some may be created by regenerated or reprobate individuals, the Spirit is not restricted to enlightening the mind only by infallible or inspired literature like the Bible, or those created by Christians; but can use what he wills.

Lastly, it seems like you are trying to live, as if living in a pre-AI world were possible. It is not, any more than living in a pre-automobile, or pre-radio world is possible outside of isolated communities like the Amish. You have every right to pretend it doesn't exist, ignore it, and shun it. Yet, the world will still move on without you. People have to accept, that by Gods sovereign decree, AI is no longer science fiction. And that it will be used to the glory of his name, just like everything else.

Your whole point boils down to "this is part of our world now." Okay. So are sodomy, nuclear warfare, AI girlfriends, etc. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, fine. But that certainly doesn't mean "We need to test the limits of this technology and partake of it however seems right to us!" If there is any legitimate use of this technology, it is certainly not this.

BTW, even if it is a question of industry it is clearly moreso a question of intellect. Creating a rhyming Bible is an incredibly creative and intellectual task. It's not drudgery, even if it is time-consuming.

And to your point about construction being as God-given as creation, sure, granted. But is it as essential to what sets us apart from the beasts? Are we going to build houses in heaven? If 10-15 years is too long a time to ponder God's word, to make meaningful creative choices reflecting deep theological truths, to think God's thoughts after Him...enjoy eternity, I guess.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, fine. But that certainly doesn't mean "We need to test the limits of this technology and partake of it however seems right to us!"

But like Doug Wilson was saying, is that things have to be attempted with

I suppose I would drill down into the idea you assert that these things "have" to be attempted. Especially when it comes to influencing the worship of God. You must have something more than a "well it exists so we must use it" mentality.

What is lost if we do not attempt it? Will God be less glorified if we don't have a rhyming "Bible"?

My issue is using AI for areas that bleed into worship and theology. If you follow the Regulative Principal of Worship I don't see how you could allow any semblance of soulless written worship into church, regardless if you are EP or not.

If you wanted, Brother, to yourself spend time to translate the whole Bible into meter I might support that, though for personal edification not worship. I don't even mind you setting the Psalms verbatim to music with AI (Though I myself am a capella) because it's not manipulating the words of Scripture. To loosely quote Treebeard "Anything worth doing is worth taking a long time to do "

But where we disagree is what is restricted within the confines of that peculiarity. Worship, praise, prophecy, prayer, etc. can only stem from man, and not from machines; because there is a spiritual connection to God that no machine will ever have, because machines do not have souls/spirits. In my opinion, discourse on or conversion to literary genres is not one of them.

I'm glad to see you state that machines cannot worship God. But is not this work bleeding into the arena of worship if someone picks up this AI work and uses it to write hymns? And if this work is not done with the intent to eventually be used as worship in some fashion...then why do it at all?

 

[No Other Name]

In my humble opinion, both sides seem to be talking past one another.

A large language model (LLM) basically all AI is at the level Dave is using it. It is a sophisticated mathematical function that predicts what word comes next for any piece of text. Instead of predicting one word with certainty, though, what it does is assign a probability to all possible next words. It even ranges to lower probable words intermittingly as that allows for more natural reading to our brains.

AI is trained by the system to talk like a person about anything. Training includes referencing the key texts (say Turretin, Calvin, Augustine etc) and the process is highly deterministic. The AI has Reformed theology as a "continuous value" function and can use it as parameters or "weights".

Changing those parameters will change the probabilities that the model gives for the next word on a given input. What puts the large in large language model is how they can have hundreds of billions of these parameters.

In the beginning, no human ever deliberately sets those parameters. Instead, they begin at random, meaning the AI model just outputs gibberish, but they're repeatedly refined based on many example pieces of text during the processing.

Dave is right; LLM technology is not evil in and of itself.

Since AI is currently a vocabulary-based word probability calculator, Dave is doing nothing wrong here as he gets ideas to explore what normal people - you know not trained in poetry for example - can do with AI that will help edify.

That said, I too would not partake myself of it.

See, the detractors are not wrong about the underlying evil either. I have repeatedly mentioned to Dave before that LLM AI is not in a vacuum; it is owned and operated by very evil people who are (in my really-tinfoil-hat-but-not-totally-tinfoil hat view) prepping for newer and more subversive ways to roll out and upgrade the technology once it truly becomes socially ubiquitous and necessary for everyday living. That day is very quickly approaching.

I have told Dave before that he should not dismiss the detractors out of hand as being akin to the old folks wringing their hands over using "locomotives and aeroplanes" to spread the Gospel. To his credit in this thread, it seems he has not done so and I would like to take the time to point that out.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Well, AI is in it's infancy...Right now big tech is in "fake it till you make it" mode. It's mostly a marketing bluff. Silicon Valley is laughing all the way to the bank. It's simply not that useful yet. It's too easily manipulated.

 

[davejonescue]

Well, AI is in it's infancy...Right now big tech is in "fake it till you make it" mode. It's mostly a marketing bluff. Silicon Valley is laughing all the way to the bank. It's simply not that useful yet. It's too easily manipulated.

I don't think that holds water, especially as it is being used by prestigious universities and billion dollar companies. While it may not be as good in one area as it is in another; I think it is a little more than just a marketing bluff. I have personally used it for several applications; from translation, to transcription, to writing code, and other things. While it doesn't work with everything, the things it does work for, it does very well; and in some areas, it is the best current technology for such tasks, hands down.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I don't think that holds water, especially as it is being used by prestigious universities and billion dollar companies. While it may not be as good in one area as it is in another; I think it is a little more than just a marketing bluff. I have personally used it for several applications; from translation, to transcription, to writing code, and other things. While it doesn't work with everything, the things it does work for, it does very well; and in some areas, it is the best current technology for such tasks, hands down.

I hear a lot of sheer speculation about the future. I guess we will wait and see.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

It ended up being around 12 million words.

That's 12 times longer than the KJV. There's no way you even read that before putting it out there.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

That's 12 times longer than the KJV. There's no way you even read that before putting it out there.

Maybe the robot can read it and make sure it's ok?

 

[davejonescue]

For those who may have been following this, the project has now been completed.
You can view and download the files (both PDF & EPUB) on Internet Archive here.
This is also now available as a single file for use in Logos here.
I went with the title "Poetic Notes on Scripture."
It ended up being around 12 million words.
G.B.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

It's strange and providential that, as you continue your pattern of inappropriately derisive and dismissive responses to serious concerns (I think I recall being called a "digital Amish" at one point), I learned this today about the company you just gave $200.

Brother, it seems to me you are treating a technology that is at the very least unique and dangerous (we will table the "inherently evil" argument for now) with a recklessness that is not suitable. This is related to a recklessness with the Word of God and a recklessness with publication (putting something online you haven't even read all the way).

Humbly, you need to reconsider your attitude.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Even besides the concerns with A.I., why would you publish something you've never read? Is it consistent with the ninth commandment to publish something without taking care to ensure that it is good and true?

And who is this even for? Do you expect someone else to take the time to read or study something that you couldn't be bothered to read?

 

[davejonescue]

It's strange and providential that, as you continue your pattern of inappropriately derisive and dismissive responses to serious concerns (I think I recall being called a "digital Amish" at one point), I learned this today about the company you just gave $200.

Brother, it seems to me you are treating a technology that is at the very least unique and dangerous (we will table the "inherently evil" argument for now) with a recklessness that is not suitable. This is related to a recklessness with the Word of God and a recklessness with publication (putting something online you haven't even read all the way).

Humbly, you need to reconsider your attitude.

When a homosexual says Christians are evil, because they say they contribute to the suicide of gay folks, do we pay it any mind? No. Because telling someone that a life of unrepentant homosexuality will lead to eternal conscious torment, is never an excuse to kill oneself. The same way only an insane or mentally troubled person would confide in a chat-bot, and give it prompts in such a way, that it would get responses that could possibly (not yet proven) be blamed as being a contributor to its suicide. All technologies are counter-dangerous. The printing press can print Bibles, but it can also print Playbooks. The gun can protect, but it can also kill. A car can be used for travel, but also for crime. A phone can reach out to a loved one, but also demand a ransom. A single match can provide fire for warmth, or for arson. And the list can go on. It is your opinion that I am being reckless with the Word. I have told you I have noted it, I just don't agree. Repeating the same things is not going to change my mind. Again, thank you for you opinions, it is what I initially asked for. But at this point you seem to be no longer offering your opinion, but are not accepting that I will not think like you.

Even besides the concerns with A.I., why would you publish something you've never read? Is it consistent with the ninth commandment to publish something without taking care to ensure that it is good and true?

And who is this even for? Do you expect someone else to take the time to read or study something that you couldn't be bothered to read?

No, it is not a ninth commandment violation in any sense of it, as I never proffered it to be inerrant. In fact, there is a glaring warning on the cover of each book detailing it was solely created by AI, and that accuracy is not guaranteed. If I had tried to pawn it off as something that was 1. Not done by AI, or 2. Holding to a strict framework of inerrancy, then yes, I would have been baring false witness had there been errors found. But I didnt, so it isnt. Lastly, this is for everybody and anybody to use if they desire. If they do not, so be it. Its done, and in the Lords hands now. Such things are not in your power to be concerned about in any way that can stop it. But, please feel free to leave any other concerns you may have.

With these responses, I am not trying to be prideful, at all. I simply don't agree with the opinions from you both set forth. If I had, I would have ceased putting it together, and posting it in the Creative Commons.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

No, it is not a ninth commandment violation in any sense of it, as I never proffered it to be inerrant. In fact, there is a glaring warning on the cover of each book detailing it was solely created by AI, and that accuracy is not guaranteed. If I had tried to pawn it off as something that was 1. Not done by AI, or 2. Holding to a strict framework of inerrancy, then yes, I would have been baring false witness had there been errors found. But I didnt, so it isnt. Lastly, this is for everybody and anybody to use if they desire. If they do not, so be it. Its done, and in the Lords hands now. Such things are not in your power to be concerned about in any way that can stop it. But, please feel free to leave any other concerns you may like.

1) You never say in your "glaring warning" that you didn't even read it. "Entirely made by AI" doesn't communicate that you didn't so much as read it.

2) "I would have been baring false witness had there been errors found"
My claim isn't that you're bearing false witness, but that you are exercising a willful disregard for the truth of the things you're putting out there.

3) It's delusional to think that AI rattled off 13 million words without any heresy. To give just one example, it took me all of five minutes to find your AI bible is teaching Arianism, calling Christ "the first of His creations" in Prov. 8:22.

That's awful Dave, and you might have noticed it if you'd actually read it.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

But at this point you seem to be no longer offering your opinion, but are not accepting that I will not think like you.

That might be uncharitable. Many, many times on this board I've seen people assert and re-assert positions when they think their opposition isn't listening or going down a dangerous path. The argument cuts both ways. You don't think like your opposition, and we don't think like you, but hopefully the charitable sharing of views and a striving for education continues.

The problem seems to be that you produced something that there was no need for, to fill a void that didn't exist and seem to not even care about what it's ultimate use will be, what its accuracy is to Holy Writ is...in short it just seems like you fed the Word of God into a machine just because you had the ability to. You seem to side step any serious concerns with the improper use of technology and just assert that it must be done. I would expect this ideology on a pop-evangical board...not one that stood behind the ideology and theology of men who took the Word of God very seriously and soberly.

And while yes...it is my opinion that that displays a severe irreverance for the Word...it's just my opinion.

 

[davejonescue]

1) You never say in your "glaring warning" that you didn't even read it. "Entirely made by AI" doesn't communicate that you didn't so much as read it.

2) "I would have been baring false witness had there been errors found"
My claim isn't that you're bearing false witness, but that you are exercising a willful disregard for the truth of the things you're putting out there.

3) It's delusional to think that AI rattled off 13 million words without any heresy. To give just one example, it took me all of five minutes to find your AI bible is teaching Arianism, calling Christ "the first of His creations" in Prov. 8:22.

That's awful Dave, and you might have noticed it if you'd actually read it.

Proverbs 8:22
[447] - SV-AABB
The Lord possessed me at the world's first dawn,
Before His ancient works were drawn.
In the beginning of His path, I stood,
Before His mighty deeds and good.

[447] Notes:
[1] "The Lord possessed me" reflects the KJV "The LORD possessed me," where "possessed" translates the Hebrew "קָנָנִי" (qanani), meaning to acquire or possess. "World's first dawn" captures the sense of "beginning" and adds a poetic image of creation's inception.
[2] "Before His ancient works were drawn" conveys "before his works of old," with "ancient works" aligning with "מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז" (his works of old). "Drawn" suggests the idea of planning or laying out, fitting the creative context.
[3] "In the beginning of His path, I stood" mirrors "in the beginning of his way," where "way" is rendered as "path" for a smoother rhyme. "I stood" implies presence and readiness, staying true to the original sense.
[4] "Before His mighty deeds and good" is a poetic rephrasing of "before his works of old," using "mighty deeds" to emphasize the grandeur and goodness inherent in God's actions.

[448] - LV-ABAB
The Lord, in ancient dawn, did me possess,
Before His works of wonder graced the earth;
I stood at His right hand in timelessness,
Preceding all His mighty deeds' vast birth.
As first of His creations, I was crowned,
An architect of paths He would unfold;
In silence, 'fore the world could hear a sound,
I watched as His eternal plans took hold.

[448] Notes:
[1] The phrase "The Lord, in ancient dawn" evokes the timelessness of "in the beginning" and "ancient" reflects "קֶדֶם" (kedem), meaning "before" or "ancient." "Possess" translates "קָנָנִי" (kanani), which can mean "to acquire" or "to possess."
[2] "Before His works of wonder" reflects the Hebrew "מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז" (mif'alav me'az), where "works" is "פְּעָלָיו" (pe'alav), meaning "deeds" or "works," and "of old" is rendered as "from ancient times."
[3] "I stood at His right hand in timelessness" conveys the idea of being present with God "in the beginning," emphasizing a position of favor and authority, as "רֵאשִׁית" (reshit) suggests primacy or inception.
[4] "Preceding all His mighty deeds' vast birth" captures the sense of "before his works of old," echoing the notion of existence prior to creation. "Vast birth" suggests the grandeur and scope of the coming creation.
[5] "As first of His creations, I was crowned" highlights the idea of being "possessed" or "brought forth" as the "first of His ways," with "crowned" adding a sense of honor and preeminence.
[6] "An architect of paths He would unfold" suggests a guiding or foundational role in creation, as "דַּרְכּוֹ" (darko) means "His way" or "His path," indicating a plan or purpose.
[7] "In silence, 'fore the world could hear a sound" conveys the primordial quiet before creation, emphasizing the stillness and anticipation before the "beginning of His way."
[8] "I watched as His eternal plans took hold" reflects the unfolding of God's "works" or "plans," with "eternal" emphasizing the divine and timeless nature of these plans.

Yet, again, it explains why it chose such wording. You dont have to agree with it, neither do I. If you dont, reword it if you use it when attempting to write Poetry or Hymns. But there are plenty of commentaries used everyday in Christianity that have views and theological differences we don't agree with, or wording we don't like. As far as the warning, it is plain as day:

Poetic Notes

on Scripture

Proverbs

The Hebrew (LC), Greek (TR), and KJV Scriptures converted verse by verse to Poetry.
This has been done entirely and solely by AI (ChatGPT-4o).
There are no guarantees to its accuracy.
Conversion facilitated by D. Jonescue - 2025 - CC BY-NC-ND​

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I'm without words.

So let me ask ChatGPT to respond for me.

I appreciate your willingness to share creative interpretations of Scripture, but I’d like to express why presenting a heretical paraphrase—especially one generated entirely by AI—as if it were equivalent to or an accurate rendition of the Bible is potentially dangerous and misleading.

1. Accuracy Matters, Even in Poetry​

You’ve acknowledged that this paraphrase was created by ChatGPT‑4o and warned that “there are no guarantees to its accuracy.” That’s commendable—but a disclaimer alone doesn’t prevent misuse. Presenting doctrinally incorrect content in poetic form, without proper theological vetting, can unintentionally mislead readers who might take it at face value.

2. Example of Arianism in Proverbs 8:22​

A key concern raised in the thread is the verse rendered as “As first of His creations, I was crowned…”. This parallels the phrase “the first of His creations” and echoes Arianism—the heresy that asserts Christ is a created being, not co‑eternal and consubstantial with the Father. That is a direct deviation from orthodox, Trinitarian doctrine. Proverbs 8:22 has been historically understood in the Reformed and evangelical traditions to refer to wisdom as a poetic personification—not Christ, and certainly not implying His createdness.

3. Faithfulness to the Original Text​

Translating or paraphrasing Scripture, particularly into poetic or rhymed forms, is a delicate task. It may add beauty and accessibility, but fidelity to the original meaning must be preserved. The danger is heightened when an AI engine—lacking theological discernment—introduces doctrinally troubling phrasing or concepts.

4. The Role of Human Oversight​

Even with the best tools, human oversight—especially theological expertise—is essential. It's understandable to be excited about the creative potential of AI, but without careful review informed by sound doctrine, the outcome can be not just incorrect, but spiritually harmful.

---

In summary: While poetic paraphrases can be a compelling tool for engagement, any rendition that contradicts core theological truths (like the deity of Christ) must be avoided. I’d encourage you—if you're drawn to poetic Scripture—to either retouch the AI output, ensuring doctrinal accuracy yourself, or seek out traditional, theologically vetted paraphrases and poetry that uphold Scriptural truth.