Rhyming Bible - What are your thoughts?

[davejonescue]

Hello all. I went to sleep last night thinking about using AI/API to create the entire Bible in Poem. But I know I couldn't do it without notes. So, I spent a little time this morning finding a few things.

1. A way to create a csv. with every verse, that included the original Hebrew-LC/Greek-TR/ and KJV in separate columns. This will serve as the textual basis for the Poem.

2. Working with Chat to create the perfect code that would provide the poem, provide the notes, create a txt. file for each verse, and compile a docx. file at the end.

So far so good. Now, there are no promises this will eventually work out. But I had to give it a go, and, so far, it is running smoothly.

I don't think there would be an attempt to do this outside of AI. Nor do I think there has ever been an attempt to do this solely by human effort. So, this is kind of stepping out in uncharted territory. But I am hoping the Notes are kind of a big deal to letting people peek into the method of why AI chose which poetic verses for what. And of course, if this does work out, and I do publish it (PD), there will be a huge warning that says "this is not the Bible." With that being said, I am really interested what the results will be. It might even serve as a unique commentary to possibly get a glimpse into the text that may have previously been missed? I dont know. We will see, L.W.

 

[Charles.Sullivan]

This is intriguing. I love the Scottish Metrical Psalter and the Metrical Paraphrases that were later added to it, and this feels right in line with that sort of work. I would buy a copy if this was ever printed.

 

[davejonescue]

This is intriguing. I love the Scottish Metrical Psalter and the Metrical Paraphrases that were later added to it, and this feels right in line with that sort of work. I would buy a copy if this was ever printed.

Me too. The hard thing would be though it seems, getting a traditional publisher to print something AI. Most likely, if it does go in print, it will have to be through KDP or Lulu. While the initial passes seem easy enough, as it just runs in the background. If I dont figure something out, I dont look forward to adding 31,000 footnotes, one for each line of Poem. But I will have to deal with that later, right now the task is getting each verse converted to poem. I started with Genesis. This will give me an idea of the cost, as I can look what it took and multiply that by about 30. But, API is relatively cheap. I did 4 volumes of Caryls Job and it only cost $23. Those pages were a lot more extensive than each one of these pages of notes.

 

[davejonescue]

Kind of a little snippet of what I imagine it. Looks like altogether, Genesis is going to cost me around $7, which is 1,500 or so verses. The Bible has 31,000 or so verses, so I am thinking around $200. The thing that is going to take the longest is doing the end-notes. I, L.W. plan on making this PD, as, you cant copyright AI generated works. But, regardless, I still think it will be really beneficial to the church to have something like this in existence.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Brother, you are very creative. But I honestly think the scriptures should be treated with solemn reverence. I know you are not intending to be disrespectful, and we all have liberty in matters of conscience, but it just feels really wrong to me. We have way too many Bible translations and paraphrase Bibles - I think God's Word should be translated as literally as possible and always treated very seriously.

 

[davejonescue]

Brother, you are very creative. But I honestly think the scriptures should be treated with solemn reverence. I know you are not intending to be disrespectful, and we all have liberty in matters of conscience, but it just feels really wrong to me.

I do take that into consideration. And that is the reason I spent a lot of this morning hunting down the original languages in csv. to add to the texts for it to pull from, for the creation of the poems. Last night, I was thinking about only using the KJV. The reason I do not see it as disrespectful per se, is because there is already a precedent of people putting scripture into meter and poetry. Not only that, there is a precedent for people putting scripture into fictional allegory as well. It is my hope, that AI is not introducing any doctrinal biases or erroneous commentary into the formulation of the poetic verses, but that it is solely drawing from either the Hebrew/Greek/or KJV. Reverence for the Word is also why I wouldn't have attempted this if there were not a way to include the notes on every single line of poetry it creates, which, if it stays on course, will be over 31,000 footnotes. I am in no way, nor will I proffer this as a replacement for scripture. That will be in bold in the front of the book. But I do think there is use in doing something like this, especially since it is kind of out of the bounds of singular human intellect, and more than that, out of the budget for most organizations to think of ever hiring a team of authors to attempt it; which seems evident as it looks like it has never been attempted before. I do hear what you are saying though, so it will probably not be for everybody. And that is perfectly fine as well. In honesty, I don't plan on titling it a Bible or even giving it that name. But, I will of course reference that it was a computer-generated, automated publication based solely on the Biblical text.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

A few thoughts.

1) I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with making a rhyming paraphrase of Scripture (although it's not something I'd attempt myself).

2) It seems very unlikely to me that the AI is putting the Greek and Hebrew to good use, and the output would probably be of similar quality of you just fed it the KJV. I've complained about AI's poor Latin before, but its Greek and Hebrew is worse. One reason for this is that 99.99% of the training data available to it is going to be modern Greek and modern Hebrew, and the corpus of ancient language data is even smaller than that of Latin.

3) This is necessarily going to be a rather loose or poetic paraphrase. Have it do the Psalms and compare it to the Scottish Psalter, the Bay Psalm book, or another more literal metrical Psalter alongside the KJV and you'll see what I mean.

4) This seems like the sort of thing where you'd want a competent human to check it before putting it out for the general public's consumption.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Hello all. I went to sleep last night thinking about using AI/API to create the entire Bible in Poem.

Very interesting my friend.
I had an interesting time about a month ago.

I had watched a musical version of Pilgrim's Progress and thoroughly enjoyed the the rhyming aided aided by music.

For the next 24 hours or so, I was rhyming everything in my head. It just flowed naturally. And then then it began began to ware off. It was delightful.

I'm eager to hear more from what others say. I am pleasantly surprised that no one has cried foul yet. someone surely, with a Scottish accent, will say some stern words obout abusing the Word. But until then, let's have some fun.

 

[davejonescue]

Thank you all for your feedback so far. I finagled with Chat with code, and supposedly now it will produce a docx. with end notes for each verse, which will, L.W. save me the trouble of having to do it by hand. I will have to go back and do the Genesis one, or at least see if I can automate the process of footnoting. But, even if not, 1,500 or so footnotes is way better than 31,000. Below is linked a PDF of the raw output. The Notes will be at the end of the PDF, and they are not linked. You can see that instead of putting a note indicator at the end of each line of the poems, it put a single indicator at the bottom of each poem for all the notes on each line. To me, that is acceptable, that is, one eventual end note for each verse instead of each line. As far as waiting for someone competent to go over it, I plan on putting it in the PD, so it will be open to anybody to do anything with it. A singular person going over it would take years. If someone wants to spend that amount of time doing it, and improving on it, they are free to, like I mentioned, it is AI, I cannot copyright it, so it will be open to all. And I would love for this to possibly be a base or inspiration for something as epic as the whole Bible in verse.

Link to PDF of Genesis_Poem

 

[davejonescue]

Very interesting my friend.
I had an interesting time about a month ago.

I had watched a musical version of Pilgrim's Progress and thoroughly enjoyed the the rhyming aided aided by music.

For the next 24 hours or so, I was rhyming everything in my head. It just flowed naturally. And then then it began began to ware off. It was delightful.

I'm eager to hear more from what others say. I am pleasantly surprised that no one has cried foul yet. someone surely, with a Scottish accent, will say some stern words obout abusing the Word. But until then, let's have some fun.

No one has said anything about abusing the word just yet, though some have pointed to their own disapproval, which is perfectly fine. For me, at least with this L.W., I am going to try to avoid all of the pitfalls from previous paraphrases, mainly, calling it a Bible to begin with. I did on here because it is a way to get straight to the point, but for wide dispersion I will name it something else and indicate in the Preface what it is. On another note, this is something that will most likely never be attempted outside this method, i.e. automation and AI. I don't think that is from a form of zealous reverence, as I stated before, extremely reverent people in the past have had no qualms with putting scripture into Meter, or making portions of scripture into Poems, or creating entire fictional allegories based on it. Instead, I think the reason it has never been done is just the sheer amount of work and imagination it would take to put every verse in the Bible into poetry. I have tried to ensure to my best ability that all due reverence is being sought, by not only including the original languages for it to draw from, but by prompting it to make notes for every line it created. For instance, the PDF for Genesis is 355pgs of Poem, and 376pgs of Notes!

 

[Ed Walsh]

Remember that someday...

Zechariah 14:20-21 NKJV
[20] In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

[21] Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the Lord of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.

 

[MW]

It's the sort of thing that I might regard as "nice" and keep moving; but when it comes to thinking about the text I want what is actually written because every jot and tittle matters.

 

[davejonescue]

It's the sort of thing that I might regard as "nice" and keep moving; but when it comes to thinking about the text I want what is actually written because every jot and tittle matters.

Nice. Yes, it wont be for everybody, and I am perfectly fine with that. It isnt going to replace my Bible either.

 

[davejonescue]

Just for a heads up. I was able to get it to do the footnotes (which I can easily turn into endnotes in Word) and prep a separate docx. which will be more suitable for PDF's, like on Archive, etc. Admittingly, I have yet to separate by book and chapter, I will see if I can get Chat to help me code that next, but I have this file to fall back on if not, which I think is really clean, and, saves me a ton of work.

PDF version.


eBook version.

 

[davejonescue]

This is Genesis & Exodus completed, at least in PDF form. The eBook will be a bit different. Right now I am going with the name "Poetic Commentary on Scripture" hopefully completely removing it from the sector of being mistook for a Bible, and into the realm of only being a tool to possibly get a glimpse into what a specific verses poetic alternative may be. Now, all that is really left to do, is go through the process 64 more times, L.W.. It runs in the background, so it isn't an issue. The download version is Bookmarked, so jumping to different scriptures should be easy. G.B.

Poetic Commentary on Scripture - Genesis
Poetic Commentary on Scripture - Exodus

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

This is Genesis & Exodus completed, at least in PDF form. The eBook will be a bit different. Right now I am going with the name "Poetic Commentary on Scripture" hopefully completely removing it from the sector of being mistook for a Bible, and into the realm of only being a tool to possibly get a glimpse into what a specific verses poetic alternative may be. Now, all that is really left to do, is go through the process 64 more times, L.W.. It runs in the background, so it isn't an issue. The download version is Bookmarked, so jumping to different scriptures should be easy. G.B.

Poetic Commentary on Scripture - Genesis
Poetic Commentary on Scripture - Exodus

Wouldn't "paraphrase" be more accurate than "commentary"?

 

[davejonescue]

Wouldn't "paraphrase" be more accurate than "commentary"?

I don't know just yet. It is a very loose title, and not final, but I do know one thing, I do not want to title it a Bible in any way, and paraphrase comes close to doing that for many people. I kind of went with commentary, and probably still will, because with all the added notes for every line, there is a form of explanation of the text, even if that is only explaining why it chose to create the Poem the way it did. And though it did start off in my mind as somewhat of a poetic paraphrase of scripture, I am starting to see more utility in it as a kind of duel use commentary. That is, possibly another glass people inquiring of scripture may look into, only if to see how any particular verse in poem form may allude to something previously not seen. But also serving as a Christian poem-writer/song-writer help-tool, where, if they are trying to capture and express a thought on any particular point of scripture, it may assist in getting the creative wheels churning. Right now the main focus is to go through and repeat the process until completion. And in the meanwhile I will be thinking about the best title. It will still take about a week and a half or so, L.W. So no rush.

 

[WithinThePale]

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.

 

[davejonescue]

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.

Yes, and that is what this mainly is (creative writing aid) as opposed to an exegetical commentary. It is turning every verse to poem, and then giving notes why it chose each line. I didn't want to base it only on the KJV, because the first cry would be that it didn't look at the original languages, so I included them as well. But it is, at least to me, interesting to look at the poem and its explanation. And while AI may have not been trained in millions of Biblical Hebrew documents, it has been trained in most likely billions of English ones; so it forming coherent poems, shouldn't be a problem. So while yes, I have asked it to look at the Biblical Hebrew & Greek, I think it may lend more to its accuracy that I have inserted the proper Hebrew & Greek for each verse, as opposed to AI having to draw it itself, so that what it does know about Biblical Hebrew & Greek can be applied to the the task of that specific verse if that makes sense. None of the prompts asked AI to give me exegetical feedback of the text. But because I did ask it to explain why it chose to word each line in the poem the way it did, it has produced (at least in my opinion) quite a collection of useful notes.

Ruth 1:1
[1]

In the days the judges held their sway,
A famine struck the land one day.
From Bethlehem, a man did roam,
To Moab's fields, he sought a home.

[1] Notes:

[1] "In the days the judges held their sway," reflects "in the days when the judges ruled," maintaining the era when judges governed Israel, using "sway" for poetic rhythm.
[2] "A famine struck the land one day," captures "there was a famine in the land," using "struck" to convey the suddenness and severity of a famine.
[3] "From Bethlehem, a man did roam," mirrors "a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went," keeping "Bethlehem" for geographical faithfulness, with "roam" suggesting travel.
[4] "To Moab's fields, he sought a home," aligns with "to sojourn in the country of Moab," using "fields" for "country" to fit rhyme, and "sought a home" indicating the intent to settle temporarily.

Ruth 1:2​

[2]

Elimelech and Naomi, his wife of grace,
With sons Mahlon, Chilion, left their place,
From Bethlehem, Judah, they journeyed afar,
To Moab's fields, where they stayed for a scar.

[2] Notes:

[1] The names "Elimelech" and "Naomi" are kept for recognition. "Wife of grace" reflects Naomi's name meaning ("pleasant" or "grace").
[2] The names "Mahlon" and "Chilion" are preserved. "Left their place" conveys their departure from home.
[3] "Bethlehem, Judah" is directly mentioned for clarity. "Journeyed afar" captures the distance traveled to Moab.
[4] "Moab's fields" reflects "country of Moab," and "stayed for a scar" hints at the ensuing hardship without extra doctrine.

Ruth 1:3​

[3]

Elimelech, Naomi's spouse, did die,
Leaving her alone with sons nearby.
In sorrow's shadow, she remained,
With two sons, her heart sustained.

[3] Notes:

[1] The name "Elimelech" and his relationship to Naomi are retained for clarity and fidelity to the text. The phrase "did die" reflects the finality of "וַיָּמָת" (vayamat).
[2] "Leaving her alone" captures the sense of "וַתִּשָּׁאֵר" (vatisha'er), meaning "she was left," while "sons nearby" ensures the presence of "two sons" is implied, maintaining the rhyme.
[3] "In sorrow's shadow" suggests the emotional impact of the loss, aligning with the narrative's tone without adding doctrinal content.
[4] "With two sons, her heart sustained" reflects the original's mention of "שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ" (shnei vaneha), emphasizing the sons' role in her life, while maintaining dignity and rhyme.

 

[davejonescue]

After some consideration, instead of going the route of making this a sort of poetical paraphrase of the the Bible, it seems more practical to make it a Bible Poetry Commentary for the use of creating Poems or Hymns on the Bible. It will have 2 examples of each verse in poetical form. the first, a simple 4-line poem, and the second, what I have tried to prompt as a 8-line, elegant, Miltonic type poem. The Commentary will look something like below, but better formatted, while there will also be a "Readers" edition with the Notes end-noted instead of under the text.

Genesis 1:15

[29] - SV-AABB

Let lights adorn the sky so vast,
To shine upon the earth below,
Their purpose set, their place steadfast,
And thus it was, ordained to glow.

[29] Notes:
[1] The phrase "Let lights adorn the sky so vast" reflects the original intent of "lights in the firmament of the heaven." "Adorn" captures the sense of placing or setting, while "sky so vast" conveys the expanse of the heavens.
[2] "To shine upon the earth below" parallels "to give light upon the earth" from the KJV, preserving the imagery of illumination and the relationship between heaven and earth.
[3] "Their purpose set, their place steadfast" reflects the Hebrew וְהָיוּ (ve-hayu), indicating a fixed purpose and position, emphasizing the intentionality and order of creation.
[4] "And thus it was, ordained to glow" mirrors "and it was so," capturing the fulfillment of God's command with "ordained" to highlight the divine authority and "glow" to suggest the enduring light.

[30] - LV-ABAB

Let these bright orbs in heaven's vast expanse,
Beacons of light to gild the earthly sphere,
Their radiant flames shall pierce night's sable dance,
And shed their glow on all that doth appear.
Set high upon the firmament's wide floor,
They cast their beams to guide and to adorn,
By their decree, the dark retreats before
Their light, as heaven’s will was duly sworn.

[30] Notes:
[1] The phrase "bright orbs" reflects the Hebrew "מְאוֹרֹת" (lights), capturing the celestial imagery. "Heaven's vast expanse" translates "בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם" (in the firmament of the heaven) with a poetic flourish.
[2] "Beacons of light" conveys their purpose "לְהָאִיר" (to give light), while "gild the earthly sphere" suggests the illumination of "עַל־הָאָרֶץ" (upon the earth) with an elevated tone.
[3] "Radiant flames" and "night's sable dance" create vivid imagery, emphasizing the contrast between light and darkness inherent in the text.
[4] "Shed their glow" continues the theme of illumination, with "all that doth appear" emphasizing the comprehensive reach of the light.
[5] "Set high upon the firmament's wide floor" reflects the positioning within "בִּרְקִיעַ" (in the firmament), capturing both the grandeur and the placement.
[6] "Cast their beams to guide and to adorn" combines utility and beauty, aligning with the purpose of light "לְהָאִיר" (to give light).
[7] "By their decree, the dark retreats before" echoes the authoritative establishment of light, akin to the phrase "וַיְהִי־כֵן" (and it was so).
[8] "Their light, as heaven’s will was duly sworn" captures the fulfillment of the divine command, maintaining the solemnity of "וַיְהִי־כֵן" (and it was so).

 

[LilyG]

Personally I love the idea! Maybe it's the INFP in me. Maybe it's because I have children and they naturally take to songs and rhymes to learn.

Of course I get the paraphrasing, and the argument that it's not the actual Scriptures. I don't think it should be avoided for that reason.

 

[davejonescue]

Personally I love the idea! Maybe it's the INFP in me. Maybe it's because I have children and they naturally take to songs and rhymes to learn.

Of course I get the paraphrasing, and the argument that it's not the actual Scriptures. I don't think it should be avoided for that reason.

That is what I am hoping this can be a good tool for. If not to copy directly, but maybe as a stepping stone to inspiration. I will be, L.W. also offering it for something like Logos, so in Logos you will have scripture already linked, the examples of the poems by this commentary, the notes referencing H&G being able to be verified by dictionaries and lexicons in Logos, and all your Bible commentaries in Logos as well.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

1 Corinthians 12:1-20

My question is, why on earth should artificial intelligence be involved? Would it not be extremely valuable to your own meditation to attempt to paraphrase the Bible in rhyme? Would your labors not be the more blessed?

God created man to know Him. In this one specific area, you are essentially asking a robot to "know" Him for you. You are asking the robot to accomplish your chief end so that you can do some other end. It's probably not true of your devotional life in general. But it is true of this task: you have an idea for something that would be a blessing to you and the people of God and you are putting a machine's "intellect" to work on it rather than exercising your own intellect.

Perhaps this particular task is something you esteem as worth a little of your time but not as much as actually making it would be. I'm sorry to say that if you take this route you will in fact not have accomplished the task you set out to do. God gifts His church by His Spirit and edifies them by what each member supplies and I'm sorry to say that if you do not do this from your spirit, the text of your paraphrase will not be a blessing. We are not blessed today by the bare text or content of John Owen's works alone - AI can summarize those - but we are blessed by his spirit and by God's Spirit in him when we spend time reading what he really wrote. Or when you read him in a Puritan Paperback, you are blessed by his spirit and Richard Rushing's too.

All of our such endeavors should be a good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringing forth good things. I am so disappointed to see more and more Christians (the Babylon Bee did it today!) buying into this technology to the neglect of their own intellects. It's artificial intelligence - artificial intellect - artificial rationality. AI is not a time-saving technology but something we employ to "be human" for us. It's not only that its results are a poor substitute for the good treasure of a good man's heart, but that its very existence and use is the abdication of our duties to think and create. We rob ourselves of spiritual and mental growth by using this stuff.

If it's not worth the time to actually do, don't make a poor substitute.

 

[davejonescue]

1 Corinthians 12:1-20

My question is, why on earth should artificial intelligence be involved? Would it not be extremely valuable to your own meditation to attempt to paraphrase the Bible in rhyme? Would your labors not be the more blessed?

God created man to know Him. In this one specific area, you are essentially asking a robot to "know" Him for you. You are asking the robot to accomplish your chief end so that you can do some other end. It's probably not true of your devotional life in general. But it is true of this task: you have an idea for something that would be a blessing to you and the people of God and you are putting a machine's "intellect" to work on it rather than exercising your own intellect.

Perhaps this particular task is something you esteem as worth a little of your time but not as much as actually making it would be. I'm sorry to say that if you take this route you will in fact not have accomplished the task you set out to do. God gifts His church by His Spirit and edifies them by what each member supplies and I'm sorry to say that if you do not do this from your spirit, the text of your paraphrase will not be a blessing. We are not blessed today by the bare text or content of John Owen's works alone - AI can summarize those - but we are blessed by his spirit and by God's Spirit in him when we spend time reading what he really wrote. Or when you read him in a Puritan Paperback, you are blessed by his spirit and Richard Rushing's too.

All of our such endeavors should be a good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringing forth good things. I am so disappointed to see more and more Christians (the Babylon Bee did it today!) buying into this technology to the neglect of their own intellects. It's artificial intelligence - artificial intellect - artificial rationality. AI is not a time-saving technology but something we employ to "be human" for us. It's not only that its results are a poor substitute for the good treasure of a good man's heart, but that its very existence and use is the abdication of our duties to think and create. We rob ourselves of spiritual and mental growth by using this stuff.

If it's not worth the time to actually do, don't make a poor substitute.

I see your points, I really do. But the reality of the situation is I don't think there may possibly be a singular intellect alive that can put every single verse in the Bible into poem. Not only a single example, but duel examples; and if I prompted it for a 3rd or 4th, it would give it too. At first, the goal of this endeavor was admittingly to see how the entire Bible would look in poem. But, at the counsel of others, I see now that it is a bad idea to prompt it to create yet another paraphrase or translation. Instead, this has morphed into something a tad broader, and that is, the hopes of being a tool for possibly Spirit filled individuals to utilize, to start creating poetry or hymns on single books, chapters, or verses of scripture (not saying that some have not already). The thing is, God has created all things to be subject to him, even AI. The more people are understanding it, examining it, and seeing how it can be harnessed for Kingdom good, the more it is utilizing its purpose for existing. I cant think of really any invention, aside from obvious components specifically for depravity, like crack pipes, and torture devices; that has not been utilized by the church for the furtherance of Gods kingdom.

The task that this "artificial intelligence" will complete in 2-3 weeks, for $200-$300, would alternatively have taken a group of people 5-10 years if not more, and $100,000's if not more. And it would never be offered to the world for free, ever. At close to 66 volumes, (Genesis alone is close to 700,000 words) it would be out of reach for most of the world, like most contemporary Commentary sets are now. If anything, this will be a good test case to see AI deal with the entire Bible on a verse by verse basis, for better or worse. At worse, I lost $200 in the process, at best, it will become a tool that may benefit the church for years to come.

I am not asking a robot to "know" God. I am asking a robot to look at the individual verses of scripture, which is a form of literature, and come up with poetic forms for each one. This isn't about considering the endeavor "worth my time," this is understanding that I couldn't come up with close to 400,000 verses (4sv, 8lv) in my entire lifetime. While you may limit your definition of a "good man, out of the good treasures of his heart, bringing forth good things" to only those things where every facet of said endeavor is wrought by the indwelling Spirit, I think if carried logically, there are a lot of things man does with good intent, where very little more than that good intent and initial effort comes into play; like a farmer. He can plant and water a seed, but it isn't up to him if it grows. Or consider the Christian student in a secular university, taking an English class, studying over a textbook most-likely written and published by secular sources void of the Spirit. Is that source naught because it was not published by a Christian? Or can he use that education to do something Spirit wrought? I apologize if you do not believe God is sovereign over AI, like he is over any other secular source. I do. I believe if he can split the Red Sea, make water come out of rocks, make the walls of Jericho tumble, make the Sun stand still, or create the universe from nothing, it is no problem for him to subject AI to his plans and purposes. And it is just another tool for Christians to use for his glory as any other. It isn't about shunning AI, it is about finding out what it can be useful for, and what it cant be. I think people have to understand that AI will most likely only get better and better and more accurate; and not worse. And find a way to live with that. The best way to do that is not bah-humbug AI, it is to do what all saintly men have done with every innovation since time began; that is, subject it to mans dominion and use it as an instrument to glorify God.

It is perfectly fine if you disagree with this, it really is. People disagreed with the Project Puritas idea, (beforehand the majority of Christians seeing almost no use in EEBO-TCP) and that project has rendered the global distribution of close to 200 Puritan & Reformed books so far, at no cost, which outside of that endeavor, would most likely never would have happened. It also created a specific software for Puritan research, has provided a cleaned up base for 7,000 books, and has been viewed/downloaded over 2,000 times in Logos. I honestly do not expect less at new ideas. All I can do is attempt it, and see if any fruit can come out of it. It isn't a personally laborious endeavor. It is something that runs in the background. So, we shall see. And if not, chalk it up, and keep it pushing. You win some, and you lose some; but you can rarely know for certain, if you never try.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

the reality of the situation is I don't think there may possibly be a singular intellect alive that can put every single verse in the Bible into poem.

Okay. Then why have a fake one do it? If it's worth doing do it for real. If it's not worth the trouble, it's not worth the trouble.

Instead, this has morphed into something a tad broader, and that is, the hopes of being a tool for possibly Spirit filled individuals to utilize, to start creating poetry or hymns on single books, chapters, or verses of scripture (not saying that some have not already).

With all due respect yecch. I hate to think of someday getting a new psalter and knowing some of the lines might have been churned out by a robot.

The thing is, God has created all things to be subject to him, even AI. The more people are understanding it, examining it, and seeing how it can be harnessed for Kingdom good, the more it is utilizing its purpose for existing. I cant think of really any invention, aside from obvious components specifically for depravity, like crack pipes, and torture devices; that has not been utilized by the church for the furtherance of Gods kingdom.

Perhaps. I would contend that this sort of text-generative AI is specifically for depravity. I'm reminded of the people on the dark side of the moon, briefly mentioned in That Hideous Strength, who sterilize themselves, have intercourse with robots, and "fabricate their own children in a secret place with vile arts." It is perverse to assign a machine to the best and most beautiful parts of being made in God's image - indeed, some would say our rationality is chiefly what constitutes our imago Dei - in order to better serve earthly employments. At any rate, even if a legitimate use for this technology exists, I think as long as the companies exist (in practice) to help college students cheat (to say nothing of the truly vile uses this technology has found) it is not time for us to be giving them our money.

The task that this "artificial intelligence" will complete in 2-3 weeks, for $200-$300, would alternatively have taken a group of people 5-10 years if not more, and $100,000's if not more. And it would never be offered to the world for free, ever. At close to 66 volumes, (Genesis alone is close to 700,000 words) it would be out of reach for most of the world, like most contemporary Commentary sets are now. If anything, this will be a good test case to see AI deal with the entire Bible on a verse by verse basis, for better or worse. At worse, I lost $200 in the process, at best, it will become a tool that may benefit the church for years to come.

You are restating the fact that this is easy and the other way would be extremely hard, something I never disagreed with. In fact, it's more or less my point.

I am not asking a robot to "know" God. I am asking a robot to look at the individual verses of scripture, which is a form of literature, and come up with poetic forms for each one.

You are not asking a robot to "know" God, you are asking it to think about the Bible and make a creative work inspired by it. It's a distinction without a difference.

While you may limit your definition of a "good man, out of the good treasures of his heart, bringing forth good things" to only those things where every facet of said endeavor is wrought by the indwelling Spirit,

I do not limit my definition to that, no.

I think if carried logically, there are a lot of things man does with good intent, where very little more than that good intent and initial effort comes into play; like a farmer. He can plant and water a seed, but it isn't up to him if it grows.

Yes, more than good intent and initial effort do come into play! Absolutely, Amen! If the farmer waters his crops with Agent Orange instead of water, even if he intends well and works hard, the effort will be ruined. Your intentions are good but your tool is ill-chosen. It's a poison to society and a condemnation upon the rational life of man.

Or consider the Christian student in a secular university, taking an English class, studying over a textbook most-likely written and published by secular sources void of the Spirit. Is that source naught because it was not published by a Christian? Or can he use that education to do something Spirit wrought?

Unbelievers are also made in God's image and while I wouldn't consider that "a good man out of" (etc.) he is learning and benefiting from other divinely-made intellects. Also, this isn't a secular topic.

I apologize if you do not believe God is sovereign over AI, like he is over any other secular source. I do.

This is pure condescension and unfitting for this forum. Of course I believe He is sovereign over AI, just like He is sovereign over crack pipes and torture devices. The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those that are revealed, to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. God has His good ends for allowing this to come into the world, and they are secret. We have been given the good sense not to touch it ourselves.

I believe if he can split the Red Sea, make water come out of rocks, make the walls of Jericho tumble, make the Sun stand still, or create the universe from nothing, it is no problem for him to subject AI to his plans and purposes.

Yep. What about our plans and purposes? You're using God's sovereignty to avoid having to exercise prudence.

And it is just another tool for Christians to use for his glory as any other. It isn't about shunning AI, it is about finding out what it can be useful for, and what it cant be.

Let me tell you what it can't be. A poet. A theologian. A Bible commentator. An artist. An artistic aid. An intellect for any end but (maybe) the most menial intellectual tasks.

I think people have to understand that AI will most likely only get better and better and more accurate; and not worse. And find a way to live with that.

Many inventions that are evil have only gotten "better" at what they were designed for. The accuracy is not my concern. At all. It's what we do to ourselves and our brains by using it.

The best way to do that is not bah-humbug AI, it is to do what all saintly men have done with every innovation since time began; that is, subject it to mans dominion and use it as an instrument to glorify God.

Yep, all saintly men loved movie theatres when those showed up on the scene.

It is perfectly fine if you disagree with this, it really is. People disagreed with the Project Puritas idea, (beforehand the majority of Christians seeing almost no use in EEBO-TCP) and that project has rendered the global distribution of close to 200 Puritan & Reformed books so far, at no cost, which outside of that endeavor, would most likely never would have happened. It also created a specific software for Puritan research, has provided a cleaned up base for 7,000 books, and has been viewed/downloaded over 2,000 times in Logos. I honestly do not expect less at new ideas.

This goes a bridge further than Project Puritas. It is not identifying nonstandard spellings in human works of theology but processing, interpreting, and creating work inspired by the very word of God. If that isn't a job for a man in God's image, what is? And if no man in God's image sees it as a fit use of the time it would take, then it simply won't be done, and that's fine.

All I can do is attempt it, and see if any fruit can come out of it. It isn't a personally laborious endeavor. It is something that runs in the background. So, we shall see. And if not, chalk it up, and keep it pushing. You win some, and you lose some; but you can rarely know for certain, if you never try.

Again, whether it is technically accurate is not the issue.

 

[davejonescue]

Okay. Then why have a fake one do it? If it's worth doing do it for real. If it's not worth the trouble, it's not worth the trouble.


With all due respect yecch. I hate to think of someday getting a new psalter and knowing some of the lines might have been churned out by a robot.


Perhaps. I would contend that this sort of text-generative AI is specifically for depravity. I'm reminded of the people on the dark side of the moon, briefly mentioned in That Hideous Strength, who sterilize themselves, have intercourse with robots, and "fabricate their own children in a secret place with vile arts." It is perverse to assign a machine to the best and most beautiful parts of being made in God's image - indeed, some would say our rationality is chiefly what constitutes our imago Dei - in order to better serve earthly employments. At any rate, even if a legitimate use for this technology exists, I think as long as the companies exist (in practice) to help college students cheat (to say nothing of the truly vile uses this technology has found) it is not time for us to be giving them our money.


You are restating the fact that this is easy and the other way would be extremely hard, something I never disagreed with. In fact, it's more or less my point.


You are not asking a robot to "know" God, you are asking it to think about the Bible and make a creative work inspired by it. It's a distinction without a difference.


I do not limit my definition to that, no.


Yes, more than good intent and initial effort do come into play! Absolutely, Amen! If the farmer waters his crops with Agent Orange instead of water, even if he intends well and works hard, the effort will be ruined. Your intentions are good but your tool is ill-chosen. It's a poison to society and a condemnation upon the rational life of man.


Unbelievers are also made in God's image and while I wouldn't consider that "a good man out of" (etc.) he is learning and benefiting from other divinely-made intellects. Also, this isn't a secular topic.


This is pure condescension and unfitting for this forum. Of course I believe He is sovereign over AI, just like He is sovereign over crack pipes and torture devices. The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those that are revealed, to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. God has His good ends for allowing this to come into the world, and they are secret. We have been given the good sense not to touch it ourselves.


Yep. What about our plans and purposes? You're using God's sovereignty to avoid having to exercise prudence.


Let me tell you what it can't be. A poet. A theologian. A Bible commentator. An artist. An artistic aid. An intellect for any end but (maybe) the most menial intellectual tasks.


Many inventions that are evil have only gotten "better" at what they were designed for. The accuracy is not my concern. At all. It's what we do to ourselves and our brains by using it.


Yep, all saintly men loved movie theatres when those showed up on the scene.


This goes a bridge further than Project Puritas. It is not identifying nonstandard spellings in human works of theology but processing, interpreting, and creating work inspired by the very word of God. If that isn't a job for a man in God's image, what is? And if no man in God's image sees it as a fit use of the time it would take, then it simply won't be done, and that's fine.


Again, whether it is technically accurate is not the issue.

Now that I have a little time I was try to answer more fully. To me, many of your opinions do not seem to come from prescribed biblical prudence, but from your personal qualms with AI. One of the benefits of having AI is to possibly do those things outside of the realm of human possibility (or likelihood). I don't mean intellectually, I mean industrially. You keep going on about self-effort. This isn't a matter of self-effort nor considering it not worth my time. It is a matter of feasibility. Furthermore, I am not the only one using AI. Logos Bible Software has implemented a form of AI into its software. Universities all across the US, top-tier ones such as Harvard, Vanderbilt, MIT use it, just to name a few. Also, some theological translators use it, to produce base texts to do the bulk of their work, in which they can go over the text instead of translating every single word. I am not saying AI is almighty, not at all. What I am saying is that it is a tool. If you want to shun its use, realize that is a personal choice, and one a lot of people do not share. It would be one thing if I were asking AI to output a 200-300 page book for me on a topic, so that I can bypass any effort of personal research; that would be lazy, because that feat is something many people in humanity have done before. I am not doing that. I am asking AI/API Automation to do something no human to my knowledge has ever done, nor attempted, nor likely would ever attempt. Your attitude is "well if humans cant/wont do it, it shouldn't be done." But again, that is your personal qualm.

How many pages of posts on this site alone have been dedicated to calling out what people perceive as erroneous conclusions, doctrines, beliefs, etc. from the most highly educated, experienced, aged, theological writers, Pastors, etc.? Some people on here (and other places), will take a brother or sisters work, who are formally educated to the highest human standards, and endued with the same Spirit of God you say sets someone apart as the sole entity that should be doing such a task as I am automating, and pick it apart like a cat eating fish scraps; acting as if it is nothing more than a wasted effort if they disagree. If so, what is it about this sanctity of inspiration of the Spirit, or the preciousness of the Imago Dei that is stopping people from doing that? Nothing. Most people only consider such reverence due to those they agree with.

If you hate AI, that is OK. Nobody is forcing you to use it. But to say there are no applications for it in art generation, literature, education, music, languages, etc. I think, is being a tad dishonest. AI has applications for all of these. And has already been applied to these areas. Not just by unintelligent commoners like myself, who possibly don't know any better and are being duped; but by major corporations, universities, religious ventures, etc. It is not without its errors, but neither are humans. The conclusion: whether it is AI, or another brother or sister, the only thing that seems to matter is if we agree. And if not, both AI and their works will be considered "slop" equally. So why get disgruntled?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Being a novice in the realm of AI it seems very clear to me that at least a few things are true about it.

1. It was made and programmed by people who are by nature children of wrath, at emnity with God, unwilling and unable to submit to His will.

2. It has no ability to be led by the Spirit in the decisions it makes translating or making word choices in poetry that certainly do have theological importance. If words are important at all, and they are, this is a huge deal.

It is a tool, that is true, but one that processes information and makes decisions on your behalf. You are offloading cognitive processes into a machine that has no ability to "think" spiritually. 1 Corinthians 2:14. If a natural person sees the things of God as foolishness, why put the very Word of God into the manipulating hands of a Spiritless AI.

So at best you might churn out something that is theologically ok, but spiritually lifeless. Just as an AI prompted sermon might make good points but it totally devoid of the Spirit. And at worst you might produce something that will be detrimental for others for years to come, similar to horrible paraphrases of scripture we see propagated today.

This "tool" is unlike anything the world has had before. It should be used by Believers with extreme caution when it comes to having it process and manipulate information for us.

 

[davejonescue]

Being a novice in the realm of AI it seems very clear to me that at least a few things are true about it.

1. It was made and programmed by people who are by nature children of wrath, at emnity with God, unwilling and unable to submit to His will.

2. It has no ability to be led by the Spirit in the decisions it makes translating or making word choices in poetry that certainly do have theological importance. If words are important at all, and they are, this is a huge deal.

It is a tool, that is true, but one that processes information and makes decisions on your behalf. You are offloading cognitive processes into a machine that has no ability to "think" spiritually. 1 Corinthians 2:14. If a natural person sees the things of God as foolishness, why put the very Word of God into the manipulating hands of a Spiritless AI.

So at best you might churn out something that is theologically ok, but spiritually lifeless. Just as an AI prompted sermon might make good points but it totally devoid of the Spirit. And at worst you might produce something that will be detrimental for others for years to come, similar to horrible paraphrases of scripture we see propagated today.

This "tool" is unlike anything the world has had before. It should be used by Believers with extreme caution when it comes to having it process and manipulate information for us.

I see your point, but this brings me back to some things I touched on earlier. 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. I may be mistaken, but I think the ICC, the Anchor Yale, the Hermeneia, and the Continental Commentaries all draw on the opinions of what we would deem "unregenerate" men (i.e. meaning that some of the contributors are Secular, Jewish, and Muslim scholars), to critically analyze the Bible, yet these commentaries are used by many in the church today.

And this also brings me back to my previous point about particularity in who we deem as worthy to attribute inspiration to when it comes to works produced by Christians. We will be gung-ho to acknowledge our favorite theologians, but in the same breath dismiss or degrade those we do not agree with; even if those we disagree with are not only professing believers, but formally trained in theology and pastoral care to the highest human standards. So is it really about theological production being "led by the Spirit" or, are only those we agree with are those who are genuinely "led by the Spirit"?

Also, I see a distinction between what I am automating, and the work of a Pastor. If I am understanding correctly, the Pastor facilitates the office of Prophet. This means their sermon formulation is actually a scripturally based form of spiritual-impartation, which is used to speak to the people on Gods behalf. Christian books and Commentaries do not mimic that role, neither does everything done based off the Word or in Gods name. This is peculiar to the office of Pastor.

Lastly, we have to ask is it the literature that is spiritually life-giving (not talking about the Word) or is it the Spirit in us that brings to life the literature we read? There is a reason the Bible is the book of books, and that no theological work done by man, no commentary, no discourse, etc. is on the same shelf as it. Because no Christian holds any by-product on the same level as the-product. This is the same for this endeavor. It is yet another by-product, not the-product of the Word of God. And since there is already a well-established historical precedent of by-products of the Word stemming from people void of the Spirit (whether that is a critical commentary, people we theologically disagree with, etc.) then I do not see a problem with another one that may be a literary aid to produce works wrought by the Spirit, if in fact Spirit indwelled individuals use it as a tool, (which it is intending to be), rather than a source of infallible spiritual nutrition or a replacement for the Bible (which it isn't intending to be). All it is intending to be, is a literary aid to possibly help Christians see examples of the Scriptures in poetic form, or, be used as a possible glass to see if Scripture in poetic form may draw something from the text that was previously missed.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

To me, many of your opinions do not seem to come from prescribed biblical prudence, but from your personal qualms with AI.

Absolutely no idea what this means. My "personal qualms" are reasoned and come from my understanding of the intellect and the image of God, something you have not interacted with at all.

One of the benefits of having AI is to possibly do those things outside of the realm of human possibility (or likelihood). I don't mean intellectually, I mean industrially. You keep going on about self-effort. This isn't a matter of self-effort nor considering it not worth my time. It is a matter of feasibility.

Look man if I can't write an opera I just won't write an opera (and I haven't). I'm not going to have a robot make a garbage "opera."

Furthermore, I am not the only one using AI. Logos Bible Software has implemented a form of AI into its software. Universities all across the US, top-tier ones such as Harvard, Vanderbilt, MIT use it, just to name a few.

This is irrelevant.

Also, some theological translators use it, to produce base texts to do the bulk of their work, in which they can go over the text instead of translating every single word.

They shouldn't.

I am not saying AI is almighty, not at all. What I am saying is that it is a tool. If you want to shun its use, realize that is a personal choice, and one a lot of people do not share.

You're not even interacting with my opinion or my arguments at this point. You're just devaluing it by reminding me that it's my stance on the issue and some people disagree. Of course it is, and I think I'm right and other people are wrong. If I didn't, I would go and think the other thing, or at least not waste my time arguing something I wasn't pretty convinced of.

I am asking AI/API Automation to do something no human to my knowledge has ever done, nor attempted, nor likely would ever attempt.

And why wouldn't they attempt it?

Your attitude is "well if humans cant/wont do it, it shouldn't be done." But again, that is your personal qualm.

That is exactly the opposite of my attitude. My position is "If humans were made specifically to do it, it shouldn't be done by machines."

How many pages of posts on this site alone have been dedicated to calling out what people perceive as erroneous conclusions, doctrines, beliefs, etc. from the most highly educated, experienced, aged, theological writers, Pastors, etc.? Some people on here (and other places), will take a brother or sisters work, who are formally educated to the highest human standards, and endued with the same Spirit of God you say sets someone apart as the sole entity that should be doing such a task as I am automating, and pick it apart like a cat eating fish scraps; acting as if it is nothing more than a wasted effort if they disagree. If so, what is it about this sanctity of inspiration of the Spirit, or the preciousness of the Imago Dei that is stopping people from doing that? Nothing. Most people only consider such reverence due to those they agree with.

This is untrue and irrelevant. I have been benefited by the work of the Spirit in a lot of people I have great disagreements with. John & Charles Wesley, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Piper, Tony Evans, the band Tenth Avenue North. But the point is moot. I'm not a spokesman for every man, woman, and child on this website. Maybe genuine labors of love and works of the Spirit have been unfairly picked apart. But this is not a labor of love nor a work of the Spirit, which is my point.

If you hate AI, that is OK. Nobody is forcing you to use it. But to say there are no applications for it in art generation, literature, education, music, languages, etc. I think, is being a tad dishonest. AI has applications for all of these. And has already been applied to these areas.

To our great shame as a culture. It's not art. It is not a work of our God-given intellects. I never once denied that it has been so wrongly applied. You are intentionally misunderstanding me. This is an "ought" question, not an "is" question. Do people make "art" and other such with AI? Yes. Should they? My position is, no, and you are treating my position like it is as much a matter of personal preference as whether to get Cracked Pepper Triscuits or Tomato Basil Wheat Thins. I have reasons and you are not interacting with them. In fact, you are just being condescending.

Not just by unintelligent commoners like myself, who possibly don't know any better and are being duped; but by major corporations, universities, religious ventures, etc.

Who do you think would be doing the duping?

It is not without its errors, but neither are humans. The conclusion: whether it is AI, or another brother or sister, the only thing that seems to matter is if we agree.

Again, you seem to be attributing to me a general Zeitgeist you have perceived in the online Reformed community. I have said again and again: the technical rectitude is NOT. THE. PROBLEM. I will sing Fanny Crosby's semi-Arminian hymn lyrics all day and all night before I put one verse of robot-churned slop in my mouth.

 

[davejonescue]

Absolutely no idea what this means. My "personal qualms" are reasoned and come from my understanding of the intellect and the image of God, something you have not interacted with at all.


Look man if I can't write an opera I just won't write an opera (and I haven't). I'm not going to have a robot make a garbage "opera."


This is irrelevant.


They shouldn't.


You're not even interacting with my opinion or my arguments at this point. You're just devaluing it by reminding me that it's my stance on the issue and some people disagree. Of course it is, and I think I'm right and other people are wrong. If I didn't, I would go and think the other thing, or at least not waste my time arguing something I wasn't pretty convinced of.


And why wouldn't they attempt it?


That is exactly the opposite of my attitude. My position is "If humans were made specifically to do it, it shouldn't be done by machines."


This is untrue and irrelevant. I have been benefited by the work of the Spirit in a lot of people I have great disagreements with. John & Charles Wesley, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Piper, Tony Evans, the band Tenth Avenue North. But the point is moot. I'm not a spokesman for every man, woman, and child on this website. Maybe genuine labors of love and works of the Spirit have been unfairly picked apart. But this is not a labor of love nor a work of the Spirit, which is my point.


To our great shame as a culture. It's not art. It is not a work of our God-given intellects. I never once denied that it has been so wrongly applied. You are intentionally misunderstanding me. This is an "ought" question, not an "is" question. Do people make "art" and other such with AI? Yes. Should they? My position is, no, and you are treating my position like it is as much a matter of personal preference as whether to get Cracked Pepper Triscuits or Tomato Basil Wheat Thins. I have reasons and you are not interacting with them. In fact, you are just being condescending.


Who do you think would be doing the duping?


Again, you seem to be attributing to me a general Zeitgeist you have perceived in the online Reformed community. I have said again and again: the technical rectitude is NOT. THE. PROBLEM. I will sing Fanny Crosby's semi-Arminian hymn lyrics all day and all night before I put one verse of robot-churned slop in my mouth.

Yes, but these again, are all your opinions. And as you admit, you think you are right, and other people are wrong. I can live with that. You are entitled to that stance. I felt I have addressed the main thing you keep pushing, which is you feel there are certain things only humans should do, in that, you feel God created man, and man only to facilitate certain expressions of the Imago Dei, like art, music, poetry, etc. And I am treating your opinion as a personal preference, because it is; and, people are going to utilize this tool for those purposes despite your apprehension or not. There is no use arguing the same things with you over and over. We disagree, and that is OK. G.B.

P.S. I am glad you have shared your opinions on the matter, because that is what I was requesting when I posted "what are your thoughts?"