AI Bible Study Tool

[Wannabee]

Howdy Puritanboard,

It's been a bit. I think I have something a few folks here might be interested in.
With the influence of AI and the many tools out there trying to use it for Bible study, there are two main problems for anyone with strong biblical doctrine:

1. They're pretty ecumenical, shooting for the lowest common denominator in order to get the widest audience.
2. They maintain the relational training of the AI. This has caused immense harm with people getting emotionally tweaked by their interaction and even committing suicide.

But how to overcome it?
The first step was a guiding prompt that instructs the AI on Scripture first, inerrancy and the grammatico-historical hermeneutic.
The next was to constrain it to communicate with non-relational language without making it sound too robotic or mechanical. Could we keep the good communication aspects without the emotional ties?

Both were accomplished with GraceHaven.ai.

Signing up is free and includes five turns or questions per calendar month. If you want endless sessions, you can sign up for monthly or annual rates. If you want customizable folders, interlinear lexical tools and a growing theological library, Scholar is an excellent study tool. There's a resource library there with several free confessions and catechisms too.

If you try it out, like what you see and would like to test Scholar to see if it's something that would help you, shoot me a DM including the email you used to set up the account so that I can give you a month of Scholar.

On PC, you can use the Chrome feature that lets you load it as an app. This also works on Android. For Apple, they have a feature in Safari that accomplishes the same thing. It's optimized mostly for PC right now, but the mobile apps seem to be working quite well.




Here's a video showing some of what it can do.

It's been designed to not argue over some of the things we might here, such as millennial positions. But it should interact on them well.

Soli Deo gloria
Joe

 

[Brandon M.]

Thanks for making us aware of this, Joe.

When giving it a quick test drive to see what it defaults to on debated theological questions, it gave me this as part of a longer response: "Scripture names no denomination and establishes no system of church government, worship practice, or confessional identity as binding" (emphasis added).

While I'm sure there's a ton of value in many of the capabilities highlighted, it looks like it still has a ways to go in terms of relaying a biblical ecclesiology when prompted

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks for making us aware of this, Joe.

When giving it a quick test drive to see what it defaults to on debated theological questions, it gave me this as part of a longer response: "Scripture names no denomination and establishes no system of church government, worship practice, or confessional identity as binding" (emphasis added).

While I'm sure there's a ton of value in many of the capabilities highlighted, it looks like it still has a ways to go in terms of relaying a biblical ecclesiology when prompted .

Thanks Brandon,
It won't take a confessional stance when it comes to LBC, WCF, etc. It's designed to handle Scripture faithfully, not argue over confessions or enter into debates. It should be able to discuss it faithfully, without taking a stand. As for ecclesiology, that sort of surprised me. What was the prompt you used? I'll continue to refine the guiding prompts in some areas, while in other areas it steps back and will discuss without taking a stand. Here's what I get when I ask about church government.




Its response on the confessions was responsible.


And worship:

 

[Venator Veritatis]

"Nothing is well done that is not first well thought on"

-Nathanael Ranew

While I'm sure it's a helpful tool it's not something I'd ever consider using. All the "hidden" meanings it draws out of Psalm 23 are things that can be learned and understood well with basic biblical books and knowledge. We are taking the meditation and thinking out of the person, and drawing it out of a machine. Just another step in losing our ability to actually think deeply on our own.

It just seemed like spoon feeding a baby. But I'll be the first to admit I don't like the prevalence of AI and it's forced invasion into every area of life these days.

 

[Wannabee]

It just seemed like spoon feeding a baby. But I'll be the first to admit I don't like the prevalence of AI and it's forced invasion into every area of life these days.

It really depends on the prompts. If baby questions are asked, then baby answers come back.
I agree on AI. But it's not going away. My goal is to use something we're stuck with in a productive fashion and in competition with the gamut of ecumenical tools out there that don't take a firm stand on Scripture with a precise hermeneutic. When it comes to that, so far I've found it unyielding.

Thanks for the input.

 

[MW]

Its response on the confessions was responsible.

It gives a confession of its own while denying authority to confessions. That is not responsible. A sensible person should be able to see that if you leave a theological vacuum something or another will fill it. Human reasoning, communal practice, and doctrinal articulation never remain empty. Though you refuse to name your interpretive framework, you still have one, only you have made it invisible and unaccountable. A written confession can be tested and compared with the Bible. An unwritten one that masquerades as "just the Bible" assumes its correctness and shields itself from examination.

 

[Brandon M.]

Thanks Brandon,
It won't take a confessional stance when it comes to LBC, WCF, etc. It's designed to handle Scripture faithfully, not argue over confessions or enter into debates. It should be able to discuss it faithfully, without taking a stand. As for ecclesiology, that sort of surprised me. What was the prompt you used? I'll continue to refine the guiding prompts in some areas, while in other areas it steps back and will discuss without taking a stand. Here's what I get when I ask about church government.

View attachment 12984


Its response on the confessions was responsible.
View attachment 12985

And worship:

View attachment 12986

Here is a screenshot of the prompt I used (please note I used voice-to-text, so it's not edited well). However, it does seem fairly consistent with the screenshots you uploaded, except for the mentioning of a plurality of elders and deacons within a particular congregation (so it did miss at least that in its response to me).

If the programming of this AI is essentially "no Creed but the Bible," then I think it's going to be a tough sell among us within the Presbyterian and Reformed world, who do very much believe that the creeds and confessions, while not above Scripture, are indeed faithful summaries of it. Hence, theological and biblical matters such as infant baptism, covenant theology, worship practices, polity, faithful hermeneutics — which pays attention to both the historical-grammatical and redemptive-historical situations — and a host of others matters are not going to be cast aside as unimportant for Bible study.

I think a tool like this would probably appeal to those of a broadly evangelical, non-denominational, and Anabaptist heritage, but that's just my two cents. I mean no disrespect; just trying to give my evaluation after a quick test run. Perhaps others will disagree with me here.

 

[Wannabee]

It gives a confession of its own while denying authority to confessions. That is not responsible. A sensible person should be able to see that if you leave a theological vacuum something or another will fill it. Human reasoning, communal practice, and doctrinal articulation never remain empty. Though you refuse to name your interpretive framework, you still have one, only you have made it invisible and unaccountable. A written confession can be tested and compared with the Bible. An unwritten one that masquerades as "just the Bible" assumes its correctness and shields itself from examination.

But it, and I, did name an interpretive framework. It's guided by the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. That's hardly "just the Bible".

 

[MW]

But it, and I, did name an interpretive framework. It's guided by the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. That's hardly "just the Bible".

It is still “just the Bible,” only dressed up in more sophisticated language. Grammatico‑historical method is a tool, not a theological framework. It tells you how to read sentences. You still have to order doctrine, identify boundaries, and articulate the system of truth taught in Scripture. The vacuum remains and it will be filled by unspoken assumptions.

 

[Wannabee]

I think a tool like this would probably appeal to those of a broadly evangelical, non-denominational, and Anabaptist heritage, but that's just my two cents. I mean no disrespect; just trying to give my evaluation after a quick test run. Perhaps others will disagree with me here.

I take it that you won't use Logos or any computer study aides? All of them are broadly ecumenical and most even step beyond what could be considered loosely Christian.

 

[Brandon M.]

In all fairness, Joe, I don't think that's quite a fair comparison. I'll use all kinds of study tools, whether digital or print, but am selective about which I use. I hear both great and not-so-great things about Logos, but I do not use it personally (not for the reasons you mention, though). I think study tools can be great, but it depends on the quality of the tool and the purpose for which the user is using it. But the P&R should not be scared to interact with the thoughts of others, both within and even outside the church. If I want to see what a charismatic says about a matter in First Corinthians 12-14, I'll read Gordon Fee's commentary. Fee puts his cards on the table. However, I'm more concerned with churches (and resources) that claim a sort of neutrality and act like they are just being biblical and avoiding all the baggage of denominations and particular interpretive traditions throughout the history of the church.

I'm just one guy on the Puritan board. But I stand by what I said. I think this particular tool, given its biases, is not going to appeal much to those within the P&R churches in its current form. Perhaps this thread will prove me wrong. But that's not really the point. Just wanted to give you some honest feedback.

 

[philomath]

From my understanding of AI, it's typically "trained" on different material. What sort of material would that be for this AI? Would it include specific translations of The Bible? Original Hebrew and Greek? Uninspired writings such as commentaries, systematics, and histories? Content from other websites such as blogs?

Also (off topic from AI), the first post that comes up on the blog part of the site you linked contains what the Reformed would consider to be a Second Commandment Violation (2CV). Thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

It really depends on the prompts. If baby questions are asked, then baby answers come back.

I wasn't even commenting on any particular prompt. Just the Psalm 23 walk through video you posted.

 

[Wannabee]

From my understanding of AI, it's typically "trained" on different material. What sort of material would that be for this AI? Would it include specific translations of The Bible? Original Hebrew and Greek? Uninspired writings such as commentaries, systematics, and histories? Content from other websites such as blogs?

Also (off topic from AI), the first post that comes up on the blog part of the site you linked contains what the Reformed would consider to be a Second Commandment Violation (2CV). Thought I'd throw that out there.

Good catch on the image. Thanks.

It's not an onboard AI. It works via API, so it's a constrained public AI (currently Grok) rather than trained. There is an initial overriding prompt that sets its parameters. So it still has all the knowledge base of any AI, but should respond biblically. It's not "merely" Bible, but constrained by what would amount to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. Plus it has the relational language constrained so that it's not as engaging as AI typically is. The goal is to offer answers without replacing relationships. It should even point users to the local church or other sources if questions become too edgy or clearly reflect a need for personal counsel.

 

[B.L.]

I take it that you won't use Logos or any computer study aides? All of them are broadly ecumenical and most even step beyond what could be considered loosely Christian.

Have you tinkered with the new Study Assistant feature in Logos and if so what are your thoughts on its strengths and weaknesses? I've used it extensively as part of my subscription and have been thoroughly impressed by it. One thing I have found when using any AI tool is you need to ask good questions. In Logos, specifically, it allows you to engage AI on specific books or collection of books in your library (or the entire Logos library) and thus far I have not encountered any responses that are broadly ecumenical or beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

I'll check out the GraceHaven tool you created later this week.

 

[philomath]

Good catch on the image. Thanks.

It's not an onboard AI. It works via API, so it's a constrained public AI (currently Grok) rather than trained. There is an initial overriding prompt that sets its parameters. So it still has all the knowledge base of any AI, but should respond biblically. It's not "merely" Bible, but constrained by what would amount to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. Plus it has the relational language constrained so that it's not as engaging as AI typically is. The goal is to offer answers without replacing relationships. It should even point users to the local church or other sources if questions become too edgy or clearly reflect a need for personal counsel.

I see. So the constraints are very specific then? I'd be intersted to hear more about them and how far the limits have been tested.

With it pointing users to local churches and other resources (if/when questions become edgy or show need for personal counsel), what are the constraints on that? How does it filter where to send people? For instance, would it send people to a broadly evangelical church? One that holds to a type of arminianism? Pentecostal? Word of faith? Romanist? Is it constrained to churches hold to a confession such as WCF, LBCF, 3FU, 39 Articles? If so, how would it differentiate ones that actually hold those confessions from ones that merely claim them, but in actuality are filled with liberalism?

 

[Jake]

I also came across SermonAudio has an AI tool that backs up all of its references to sermons and timestamps. Pretty good, and it seems focused on solid preachers: https://ask.sermonaudio.com/

 

[Wannabee]

Have you tinkered with the new Study Assistant feature in Logos and if so what are your thoughts on its strengths and weaknesses?

I've only read about it, but haven't tinkered with it. Really, there's no substitute for Logos for most of us. The library and exegetical tools are extraordinary. The main challenges for those who aren't already knowledgeable are going to be the cost and the breadth of the resources. There simply is no gate on Logos to keep folks from going off into some pretty crazy places. The main advantage of GH is that it's not ecumenical, and it's affordable. I'll answer that in more depth in reply to philomath.
GraceHaven isn't a direct competitor, and never will be. But it is an affordable one for the layman and offers free resources to anyone who wants to see them, whether logged in or not. These include all the major confessions and catechisms. And the AI can interact on all of these too, if prompted.

 

[Wannabee]

I see. So the constraints are very specific then? I'd be intersted to hear more about them and how far the limits have been tested.

With it pointing users to local churches and other resources (if/when questions become edgy or show need for personal counsel), what are the constraints on that? How does it filter where to send people? For instance, would it send people to a broadly evangelical church? One that holds to a type of arminianism? Pentecostal? Word of faith? Romanist? Is it constrained to churches hold to a confession such as WCF, LBCF, 3FU, 39 Articles? If so, how would it differentiate ones that actually hold those confessions from ones that merely claim them, but in actuality are filled with liberalism?

The constraining prompt is pretty involved. The AI must pass through the main one before interacting at all. Then there are additional prompts depending on how GH is being used. But the canonical one is Bible first and always correct in all it states. It allows for symbolism and will discuss readily. But I'm not sure how far it will go. I push it in different directions from time to time and find flaws here and there that I try to correct. But I'm sure it'll need more work to keep it as close to "faithful" as possible. Also, it IS AI, so it'll have an element of unpredictability. But I haven't seen anything particularly concerning yet. If you do, let me know.
The other side of it is to try to dampen the relational aspect that is part of AI. They're all designed to pull you in and the relationship building training is very effective. The guiding prompts deaden this considerably and should refuse to offer personal counsel. If you ask if divorce is wrong, it'll answer biblically. But if you ask if you should divorce your spouse, it should tell you to seek counsel. If you try to get it to agree with you that your specific sin is okay, it probably will correct it and tell you to see a local pastor or counselor. The goal is to offer straight biblical answers while encouraging fellowship and oversight. The design is specifically to refuse to replace any sort of fellowship, counsel or the church in any way.

It won't point you to a particular church. You can click on the "Emergency" page for resources for real help. But it should mostly point people to find a faithful church nearby otherwise. It won't entertain RCC as a tool, and its hermeneutic results in a decidedly Calvinistic soteriology. I didn't even have to force that. It's what happens if it's faithful with the Scripture. It wouldn't embrace Pentecostalism simply because of the biblical tension. But, as for you last question, it can't really do that. And I doubt I'll ever try to get it to. There are too many variables and too many churches shift too often that GH can't really be a gatekeeper for them.
What I might do is create a few toggles or fields that a user can use to tell the AI personal preferences. So if someone holds to the WCF, for instance, then GH will interact accordingly. That might be valuable to some users.

Thanks for the good questions.

 

[Wannabee]

For anyone that's tinkering with GraceHaven, there are some upgrades.
There's a Spanish side now, GraceHaven.ai/es. We're able to provide some lexical information, but it's not as rich as the English. All the Confessions and Catechisms are translated.
The tool wasn't interacting with the Confessions and library well. That's been remedied, at least as far as my test have shown.
It also wasn't giving good answers to some questions, being a bit invasive. It's part of the challenge of keeping it Bible first, narrow in hermeneutics and yet free enough to really interact well. The restraints weren't really lifted so much as tweaked.