Rhyming Bible - What are your thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet, again, it explains why it chose such wording. You dont have to agree with it, neither do I. If you dont, reword it. But there are plenty of commentaries used everyday in Christianity that proffer views and theological differences we dont agree with.


You act as if somehow you are removed from this work of AI. Are there lots of heretical works, and works that should be worded much more carefully out there? Sure! Do I support them, write them, advocate for them or bring them into existence with the help of computers? By no means.
[automerge]1757474891[/automerge]
There are no guarantees to its accuracy.
Conversion facilitated by D. Jonescue - 2025 - CC BY-NC-ND

On once being told by "a gentleman", "Mr. Rogers, I like you and your company very well, only you are too precise." "Oh sir," replied Rogers, "I serve a precise God." -The Genius of Puritanism
 
I'm without words.

So let me ask ChatGPT to respond for me.
This is what I got when I asked it to tell me what the Poem and Notes were trying to convey:

1757475232363.png

This then will leave it up to the individual, to deal with the Notes, for each Verse and each Poem, and use it as a guide just like any other Commentary or aid. Either agree with the exact wording, or don't and change it when composing your own original works. I gave full warning that the entire thing was created by AI, and I provided the Notes so that people can do just what you are doing now; scrutinizing it. The point of the project was not so everybody would agree with everything that was returned, but that people could see the process of each verse turned into a Poem. Nothing more, and nothing less.
 
Last edited:
1) I don't care what it says. You can't share a bible version that says Christ was created.

2) Even its defense of itself repeats the claim that "wisdom is the first of God's works," which, again, is heretical.

3) Can't you think for yourself?
Not in this project, because this is a work, as labeled, rendered solely by AI. If I intervene, it is no longer a work rendered solely by AI. Also, this isn't a Bible, it is a work that turns each verse of scripture into a poem. And the Notes for each poem fully explain why it chose each line. It is up to the individual who may use it as a literary aid, to use some other line of poetry or not. It is not meant to be copied verbatim, it is meant to explain the process of rendering each verse into poetry. I do not know why this is such an issue? People read and utilize all sorts of theology from all sorts of people who hold differing opinions (if the proposed Arianism is what you think it is doing.) Yet, what do people say in that instance "chew the meat and spit out the bones." Well, do the same here. If you feel AI is wrong, don't use that line. Or don't use any of it. Simple enough.

Lastly, I have seen people make a bigger fuss over redactions of what editors thought were heretical or errant contents in books they have republished, than if the editor themselves were to go against their conscience or beliefs and produce the text verbatim as the original author wrote it. In this case, I am following along the same pattern, that for better or worse, this project was authored by AI; and people can deal with the contents as it produced it.
 
Last edited:
Welp, spent time thinking about it, and researching a little how much drama was caused over that single word "create". Yes, even though I do not like to admit it, that is a pretty glaring error. As a result, I will chalk the whole project. It isn't worth promoting heresy, and, I simply do not have the time nor theological aptitude to go over every verse, or every line of poem, and find out if it is the proper rendering of the Hebrew, Greek, etc. As in the case of the Prov. 8 verse, it could have chose multiple words for that line, but it chose the one causing the biggest controversy it could. That's not off to a good start. While I still don't agree with many of the opinions of AI as inherently evil, or necessarily that this was a flippant way to use scripture (that is the automated formulation of the poems); I can agree that though I can put this out, I shouldn't. I wouldn't want to knowingly lead anybody into heresy, no matter how much time or money something cost me. Thank you to all, especially you Charles, who didn't just criticize, but took the time to offer an example from the actual product for why your criticism was sound. I have deleted or restricted access to this project from all platforms. And now know that this is something that should not be attempted with AI, unless you are willing to spend the years reading all 12,000,000 words and correcting the output. You win some, you lose some, that's the way she goes. G.B.
 
Last edited:
Welp, spent time thinking about it, and researching a little how much drama was caused over that single word "create". Yes, even though I do not like to admit it, that is a pretty glaring error. As a result, I will chalk the whole project. It isn't worth promoting heresy, and, I simply do not have the time nor theological aptitude to go over every verse, or every line of poem, and find out if it is the proper rendering of the Hebrew, Greek, etc. As in the case of the Prov. 8 verse, it could have chose multiple words for that line, but it chose the one causing the biggest controversy it could. That's not off to a good start. While I still don't agree with many of the opinions of AI as inherently evil, or necessarily that this was a flippant way to use scripture (that is the automated formulation of the poems); I can agree that though I can put this out, I shouldn't. I wouldn't want to knowingly lead anybody into heresy, no matter how much time or money something cost me. Thank you to all, especially you Charles, who didn't just criticize, but took the time to offer an example from the actual product for why your criticism was sound. I have deleted or restricted access to this project from all platforms. And now know that this is something that should not be attempted with AI, unless you are willing to spend the years reading all 12,000,000 words and correcting the output. You win some, you lose some, that's the way she goes. G.B.

Well, as someone who agrees with you that AI is not inherently evil in and of itself (yet!), I cannot agree that the project itself is not a flippant use of Scripture particularly in this context.

If it is true from the beginning that you do not have time nor grammatical-theological aptitude to go over every verse or line of poem (and hey brother, neither do I!), and if you go ahead and shoot it out in order to see what happens (also, brother, a tendency I am very prone to from my training in experimental science), and if it is also true that the algorithms are codified by secularism and global usage, and if that is true, it is a foregone conclusion that there will be error, then the dangers I warned about to you before were just on display.

In order to remove bias and test the AI, you began to defend an obvious error. To your credit, you saw it and stepped back. In your defense, the idea is not totally a bad one, but one that would require such care and such precision that I imagine multiple experts would be needed to comb the text. Committees upon committees and would be much more exhaustive than the normal committees needed for new translations like NIV, ESV etc.

And so thankfully when you see the error, you now run up on the challenge that such a project is mostly untenable.

AI is not inherently evil. But the dissenters are right: it is very unique and very dangerous - designed by very evil people that have been proven to be studying for decades the neural pathways of our brains in order to "hack" and "engineer" us for purely profitable gain (for now - I think even more nefarious motives are underlying for the future).
 
I just have a humble suggestion for you. I know it is the "fad" today in evangelical circles to "fast" from caffeine, alcohol, social media, online shopping, etc. when they feel that it has taken an unhealthy place in their lives. May I challenge you to an "AI fast?" Would you be able to abstain from artificial intelligence for a month?

I just think some things in this thread, especially since I left, were really troubling (particularly defending the AI heresy with AI argumentation).

I don't wanna come at you with a challenge without acknowledging my own shortcomings. I was not as charitable in this thread as I could have been. So if you abstain from AI for a month, I won't argue with any strangers online for that same span of time. :)
 
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
 
I just have a humble suggestion for you. I know it is the "fad" today in evangelical circles to "fast" from caffeine, alcohol, social media, online shopping, etc. when they feel that it has taken an unhealthy place in their lives. May I challenge you to an "AI fast?" Would you be able to abstain from artificial intelligence for a month?

I just think some things in this thread, especially since I left, were really troubling (particularly defending the AI heresy with AI argumentation).

I don't wanna come at you with a challenge without acknowledging my own shortcomings. I was not as charitable in this thread as I could have been. So if you abstain from AI for a month, I won't argue with any strangers online for that same span of time. :)
I do not consider physically abstaining from anything outside of food fasting (as well as the spiritual disciplines that accompany it.) And no, I wont take you up on your suggestion to abstain from AI for a month. I use it sometimes in my employment for the transcription of texts, etc. And outside of that, I really only use it for miscellaneous projects, and creating the code for those projects; in which, those projects are rare. I do not use it for any sort of research, etc. And don't use it most days outside of work tasks. Also, I still feel very much the same way about AI, and the arguments I provided. Especially given that Keil and Delitzsch Commentary notes that the word in that verse can be translated as "create" and, I think he said much like Rev. 3:14, (KJV, ESV) that it isn't so much erroneous in itself, as that is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word (and also the correlating word in the LXX), but that it can be a point of contention, and abused like it was in the Arian Controversy, and this is why Christians as opposed to Jews use different terminology for it when translating it. This is the inevitable result when you ask something to deal with literature, as literature, and not literature, as theology or with distinct theological biases. But, despite that, Charles was right, that this will mostly be used by Christians, and as such, it really isn't worth the risk of possibly leading someone astray on such a foundational doctrine, and I don't have the time presently to go over it. I still have it, and can personally use it, but that is on me. As far as publicly dispersing it, well I guess one could just as easily ask AI to produce a poem on any verse they desire apart from my effort; though they may not ask for the notes. Again, thank you for your comments, and feel free to argue with as many people on the Board as you wish. G.B.
 
Last edited:
I just have a humble suggestion for you. I know it is the "fad" today in evangelical circles to "fast" from caffeine, alcohol, social media, online shopping, etc. when they feel that it has taken an unhealthy place in their lives. May I challenge you to an "AI fast?" Would you be able to abstain from artificial intelligence for a month?

I just think some things in this thread, especially since I left, were really troubling (particularly defending the AI heresy with AI argumentation).

I don't wanna come at you with a challenge without acknowledging my own shortcomings. I was not as charitable in this thread as I could have been. So if you abstain from AI for a month, I won't argue with any strangers online for that same span of time. :)

I disagree with this.


hahaha just kidding!

God bless you! :)
 
I do not consider physically abstaining from anything outside of food fasting (as well as the spiritual disciplines that accompany it.) And no, I wont take you up on your suggestion to abstain from AI for a month. I use it sometimes in my employment for the transcription of texts, etc. And outside of that, I really only use it for miscellaneous projects, and creating the code for those projects; in which, those projects are rare. I do not use it for any sort of research, etc. And don't use it most days outside of work tasks. Also, I still feel very much the same way about AI, and the arguments I provided. Especially given that Keil and Delitzsch Commentary notes that the word in that verse can be translated as "create" and, I think he said much like Rev. 3:14, (KJV, ESV) that it isn't so much erroneous in itself, as that is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word (and also the correlating word in the LXX), but that it can be a point of contention, and abused like it was in the Arian Controversy, and this is why Christians as opposed to Jews use different terminology for it when translating it. This is the inevitable result when you ask something to deal with literature, as literature, and not literature, as theology or with distinct theological biases. But, despite that, Charles was right, that this will mostly be used by Christians, and as such, it really isn't worth the risk of possibly leading someone astray on such a foundational doctrine, and I don't have the time presently to go over it. I still have it, and can personally use it, but that is on me. As far as publicly dispersing it, well I guess one could just as easily ask AI to produce a poem on any verse they desire apart from my effort; though they may not ask for the notes. Again, thank you for your comments, and feel free to argue with as many people on the Board as you wish. G.B.
Yeah fast was not the correct terminology. Always learning.
 
Yeah fast was not the correct terminology. Always learning.
Of course. Even with this project: I may not have made something that should be indiscriminately dispersed, but I did learn how to make it. And who knows how the Lord may use that in the future? Rom. 8:28.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top