AI and Logos API

What do you think?

My thoughts: Franzen, Grisham and Other Prominent Authors Sue OpenAI - The New York Times (nytimes.com), 'New York Times' sues ChatGPT creator OpenAI, Microsoft, for copyright infringement : NPR, etc. combined with the percentage of Logos users that are tech savvy and aware of the legal issues combined to make me think it is best to wait until the legal dust settles a bit. But planning for some implementation after the legal wrangling would be wise.

I am familiar with that lawsuit. In light of this, it makes even more sense for the user to enable their own direct AI account, rather than Logos being a mediator or surrogate.

In light of this, it makes even more sense for the user to enable their own direct AI account, rather than Logos being a mediator or surrogate.

Perhaps, but I would double check the Logos contracts with regards to an API that would facilitate the AI use of the API. I would prefer that Logos spend at least another year shoring up the current app and completing some features before stepping into a potential quagmire. I agree that your idea is a good idea and one that will likely be adopted - so plan for it. But don't implement it until the legal landscape and technical implementation is more settled.

My caution is built from experience. I managed the first implementation of an administrative web application to replace paper input at the departmental level at a major research university. Unfortunately, some other administrative apps tried to follow before the technology could be scaled up to handle the data - they essentially threw away tens of millions of dollars for glitz and prestige, not user experience. There are large swathes of applications that the current chat bots are ready for and where there are no ethical questions. Let those apps pave the way for others.

Thanks for those additional thoughts! That sounds like quite an experience at the university : )

Yasmin Stephen

AI Full Logos book access ...

Wouldn't publishers/copyright holders have to give consent to this for their books? If so, it seems like a moot point pitching it to Logos (except for Lexham books?). I'm still missing the L6 Send-to-Kindle feature; I don't see much hope for this 'radical' idea, though I would love to be wrong.

Beloved Amodeo

John,

All the useful comments have been stated. I'm curious. As a trainer, what is your vision for using AI with open access to the API?

Let's just say, at this point, the possibilities are nearly limitless. I have several ideas I am testing out behind the scenes. Sorry, I can't be more specific, but it's exciting. There are practical issues I am working through as I type this out.

Thomas Sipe

Has there been any more news/info on this? I think it would be a fantastic idea to expose the tools and library through an API. It could be a pay per use model similar to most other software companies. I'm not sure that the big companies would be all that interested in using the data to train their models given all of the data they currently have. But in the latest on agentic AI, I could see combining the Logos API with other AI agents to create some really awesome apps.

You are right to be concerned with AI and it's implication. History has proven that with every innovation, their are risks and implications. As Christians, we are called to obey the word while also engaging the world with wisdom and grace (Colossians 4:6). Keep in mind, that new technologies have often been met with fear, but they have also been tools for spreading the Gospel and improving lives.

I have an idea. Don't know if it works? I would suggest Logos to give us the API to allow our resources then each user can build his/her own LLM model using data trained from the resources that he/she owns, by enriching an existing small LLM model. The resulting LLM would be run locally in a machine with private credentials, in that case the user will not share data with any AI operators and thus copyright would not become an issue.

Hi John,

Your API idea is great! Connecting Logos to my own AI tools would make studying easier—better searches and nicer slides for school. Logos could earn more by charging for it and stay the best Bible software. Copyright might be an issue, and it could cost them some money, but starting with a small test for students like me could work. I’m excited—hope they go for it!
Bless,
Renold

Bear in mind AI search engines give incorrect answers at an alarming 60% rate, study says - Ars Technica

@MJ. Smith
Yes, it’s true—AI search engines flunked at a 60% rate in that study. It’s real data, but it’s about news queries, not everything.

@Alvin Tam Getting an API from apps isn’t that hard usually—just grab a key and go. But Logos? Nope, they haven’t shared one yet. So, no easy Mac fix here—it’s not out there, and trying to force it could get dicey with the law. Waiting game it is!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362504#Comment_1362504

Have you checked how much of Libronix Corporation. Libronix DLS Object Model Reference. Libronix Corporation, 2002. still applies?

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

None of that documentation applies to Logos 4 (and later versions).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362501#Comment_1362501

I have another idea. Maybe we can use AI agent like Open Manus to extract all the resources content in Logos and use them to train our own LLM. Not sure if it is workable?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362682#Comment_1362682

I have an even better idea - let's extract all the credible content in Logos and use it to train our own biological intelligence (and heart). 😀

@MJ. Smith "I agree! Our 'biological intelligence'—is vital but limited. I get that my mind and soul need to grow through all this, but honestly, I’m struggling. I know I’m not using my brain’s full potential, and with so much material to cover in this information age, I can’t keep up. Time’s slipping away, and there’s just too much to process. We don’t use our full brain capacity and often drown in data overload. I need AI to sort through it, filter the noise, and let me focus on what really matters—deeper understanding. That’s my take."

@Renold Burke You have more confidence in AI than I. I rarely trust it if I don't already know the answer.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362481#Comment_1362481

@MJ. Smith "Maybe your right about that. But I lean on AI to save time and dig up more info and ideas, but my trust stays with the Lord. It’s like my Mac—I’m not scribbling manuscripts like a scribe; I type. I don’t ride a donkey to travel; I drive my car. AI’s a tool, not my God and certainly not sacrificing my biological intelligence for it —a handy help, not the core."

Always Learning

I came here to say the same thing, having access to an API so we can use our private and local solutions would be greatly beneficial for performing research while also maintaining data privacy.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362707#Comment_1362707

That's so funny. And also so true.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362491#Comment_1362491

The Future of Logos in an AI-Driven World…It closer than you think!

Background

As a 27-year Logos user, former Logos sales employee, and Logos trainer since 2009—Lord willing, soon to hold a PhD with my dissertation focused on Logos for sermon preparation—I have witnessed firsthand the evolution of this incredible tool. Additionally, my experience in programming and leveraging AI both in my secular work and in the pastorate makes me deeply invested in how Logos adapts to the rapidly changing technological landscape.

The Urgent Concern

In my opinion, if Logos Bible Software does not offer API access to its content (books, datasets, tools, reports—essentially everything), it risks being replaced by AI-driven Bible study tools.

A Lesson from the Past

Logos thrived because it embraced technology that automated and aggregated biblical content in a way that far surpassed paper-based methods of the 1990s. It was revolutionary—praise the Lord!

The Reality of the Present

Today, AI combined with APIs is an even more powerful tool for automating and aggregating content. Logos maintains a temporary advantage due to its unique data—its vast library and tagged information. However, technology is advancing rapidly.

AI in Bible Study Today

Already, I have shifted 10% of my research off the Logos platform to AI. Why? Because AI allows me to save time, go deeper, and extract more precise insights while also generating charts and slide images. AI is not writing my sermons—it’s helping me research more effectively.

Moreover, AI enables tasks that Logos struggles with. For instance, finding a passage based only on an idea or concept—something even Logos' fuzzy search cannot do.

Current Development Limitations

Consider the ever-growing list of user feature requests. It keeps expanding, with no end in sight. Now, imagine a store of authorized plugins where Logos users could integrate AI-powered tools at will. The platform would become exponentially more powerful—fueled not only by Logos' development team but by an entire ecosystem of developers and users.

The Conclusion: Logos Must Evolve

As AI becomes an integral part of research and study, a new reality will shape customers' purchasing decisions—not only their initial choice to buy Logos but also their ongoing decision to expand their library.

Logos must embrace, not retreat from, AI and API access. By empowering developers and users to enhance, integrate, and innovate, Logos can secure its place as the premier Bible study tool for the future. The alternative? Becoming just another Bible software program that fades into history.

For me, the choice is clear. What saith you?

John

@John Fallahee

As AI becomes an integral part of research and study, a new reality will shape customers' purchasing decisions—not only their initial choice to buy Logos but also their ongoing decision to expand their library.

As people rely more and more on AI, they will have less reason to invest in a large and expensive Library to do their own research.

I asked Grok “What should Logos Bible software do to prosper in the future?”

Ensuring that AI enhances rather than replaces the user’s engagement with Scripture will be critical, maintaining a balance between innovation and the integrity of Bible study. - Grok 3

It seems obvious to me that AI will replace traditional methods, some of which are even taught and commanded in scripture. Christians have always had to draw a line of separation somewhere between the church and the world. Where is that line? Are robot pastors and teachers ok?

NetworkGeek

@John Fallahee posts an interesting thought. Having been a software developer for 30+ years, while the concept is an intriguing one, "the devil is in the details".

The challenge will be in how the "APIs", the inner workings of Logos are exposed. I think time has proven that, in an era of increasing need to support multiple platforms (Windows, Mac, Android, Apple, other?), plus the dangers of exposing deep access to the low-level functions of Logos makes this a daunting challenge. Some of the risks that need to be overcome:

What technology is used to expose "Logos API"? If it's just raw entry points into existing code, the number of add-ons that work well could be surprisingly small due to bugs, data integrity issues, unintended consequences, and damage to working systems. Microsoft recognized this great risk early by inventing "COM", and successors, as a way to access specific functions in software in a much more protected way. However, there is not an industry-wide way of doing this. Microsoft "API" technologies don't run on all platforms. And without some robust, secure, integrous, safe implementation of API access on all platforms, this effort becomes effort times four or five.
Who, what customers, will write these add-ons? This would have to be a large market, with a robust commerce/advertising capability, to justify the potentially massive cost. Is there really justification to Logos for this effort? Does just having an arguably large set of add-ons make commercial sense? Even something like "Personal Books" was not successful (yes Logos didn't support it, but probably because there was no economic justification to do so) - and PBs were much easier for a user to do than "API" access to Logos functions.
And what of the user creating an add-on? API access to Logos will be a greater effort and require more expertise than building a Personal Book. What is their market potential - 10, 50, 100 copies in sales? Could it be several thousand or more? It seems doubtful to me unless the cost is prohibitively low.
Usually, if a large software product is going to open itself up to third party access, a major "refactoring" effort is required. You can look that up, but basically, it's done to remove unintended consequences from API access, ensure maintainability, ensure the right set of functions are exposed to completely offer complete user functions (example - access to tools may require ample data validation, access, and presentation functions just to mention a few areas) - along with other reasons. In short, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that Logos might have to be rewritten, as this would be a significant new "product requirement" not supported in the existing system.
Given some of these issues and Logos' current business/financial picture, do we really think they have the resources to embark on such a significant effort? Won't it likely take away from moving the product forward in ways most users would want today?

So, to me - very interesting idea - hugely expensive to build and support - questionable economic sense for Logos or most customers - small customer base - major opportunity cost taking away from current product needs. Maybe the evolution of AI offers the same intended benefits without using a problematic technology imho.

NetworkGeek

As @John Fallaheedid, I asked ChatGPT 4.5 the same question:

Logos Bible Software is already a well-established platform, but to continue prospering in the future, here are several strategic recommendations:

1. Embrace AI and Machine Learning

•Personalized Bible Study: Leverage AI to offer personalized study plans, devotional recommendations, and dynamically generated study guides tailored to individual learning styles and theological interests.

•Intelligent Search and Discovery: Improve natural language queries, semantic search, and cross-referencing capabilities, making biblical texts more accessible, even to newcomers.

2. Strengthen Mobile and Cross-Platform Experiences

•Enhance synchronization capabilities, ensuring seamless transitions between desktop, tablet, smartphone, and web applications.

•Improve app speed, stability, and usability—especially on mobile—to encourage regular and spontaneous use.

3. Expand Multimedia and Interactive Content

•Offer richer multimedia integrations, such as audio-visual commentaries, interactive maps, 3D archaeological reconstructions, and augmented reality (AR) experiences for immersive learning.

•Partner with seminaries and theological institutions to create and deliver exclusive content that leverages interactive technologies.

4. Community Building and Social Features

•Facilitate social interactions within Logos by enhancing tools for sharing notes, study plans, sermons, and devotionals, enabling collaborative study groups.

•Incorporate social networking elements such as profiles, forums, online classes, and webinars led by respected scholars or pastors.

5. Focus on Accessibility and Globalization

•Prioritize accessibility features, including voice controls, screen reader compatibility, and intuitive navigation for elderly or disabled users.

•Expand the internationalization of resources, adding more translations, non-English study materials, and supporting a wider range of cultural contexts.

6. Affordability and Subscription Flexibility

•Introduce more modular and customizable subscription packages, enabling users to pay specifically for resources they need most.

•Consider special pricing tiers for students, church leaders, pastors in developing countries, or smaller congregations.

7. Integrate with Broader Ministry Tools

•Deepen integration with existing popular church and ministry-management platforms, sermon preparation tools, and learning management systems (LMS).

•Strengthen interoperability with platforms like YouVersion, Faithlife, Planning Center, and church live-streaming solutions.

8. Continuous User Experience (UX) Refinement

•Regularly conduct user research, surveys, and usability testing to reduce friction points, improve interface intuitiveness, and adapt quickly to evolving user preferences.

•Invest significantly in simplifying the interface for new users, reducing the learning curve, while retaining advanced power-user features.

9. Emphasize Trust, Credibility, and Scholarship

•Continue building relationships with reputable seminaries, publishers, theologians, and scholars, highlighting academic rigor and trustworthiness as core brand values.

•Publish more original, peer-reviewed content, positioning Logos as an essential scholarly resource.

10. Security, Privacy, and Data Ethics

•Clearly communicate transparent and robust privacy policies, emphasizing data security, confidentiality, and ethical AI practices.

•Allow greater user control over data usage, especially given potential sensitivities related to religious or spiritual data.

These strategies position Logos Bible Software to stay relevant, expand its reach, and sustainably thrive in the changing digital, cultural, and spiritual landscape.

EastTN

This is a huge issue for me. Professionals who should have known better (e.g., lawyers and AI experts) have gotten into serious trouble incorporating incorrect AI-generated content into their work.

Hi John,

I hope and pray, pastors and teachers will never be AI robots!

I have seen anecodtal evidence where sermons and lesson are leverageing AI significantly for content creation, and that is worrisome.

EastTN

It seems obvious to me that AI will replace traditional methods, some of which are even taught and commanded in scripture. Christians have always had to draw a line of separation somewhere between the church and the world. Where is that line? Are robot pastors and teachers ok?

No, they are not o.k. Neither is it o.k. to replace what scripture commands with AI.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1362996#Comment_1362996

These are all excellent points. I envision, an incremental approach, in which you have API endpoints and json formatted data returned.

@John Fallahee

I hope that there are strong denominational divisions in the acceptance of AI for Bible study. First, the purpose of Bible study is for a person to listen to God, converse with God, be molded by God. AI does not do this - it treats the Bible like any other secular book. Second, there is a ton of misinformation to kooky outer-space Bible interpretations (I'm thinking Velokovsky who gathers a great deal of information together and is a great read but …), AI has yet to develop robust evaluation skills so it provides a mish-mash answer based on incompatible assumptions rather than a cohesive answer. My worst experience here was an inability to stick either to the 1 year or the 3 year Jewish readings cycles - I consistently got garbage results mixing the two. When AI is able to be a consistent chavrusa partner using a robust logic system, then I will consider it more than an excellent, unreliable search tool. Those who consider the Bible to be dried ink on dead trees can justify adopting it more quickly.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363026#Comment_1363026

Hi MJ,

You raise genuine concerns. However, AI can function very well with excellent data…and Logos has that data.
AI is improving. Below is a sample prompt and output. Of course, this can all be cross-referenced and checked in Logos as anyone would do with any source. However, the custom aggregration of data is powerful and time saving.

This would take a considerable amount of effort in Logos. Just as Logos saved me time from turning print pages, AI saves me time from multiple Logos searches and reports. I am sure when you find an author making a claim in a Logos book, you will check other authors to confirm that claim. AI is just another "author" to be checked as well.

PROMPT
Provide an scholarly analysis outputting a table for textual issues, lexical definitions from scholarly resources, full morphological parsing, grammatical rules relevant for the genre, syntactical analysis, and relationship this verse has to the immediate context, paragraph, and chapter of 2 Peter 2:4 for each word in a table format. Please use the following Greek text: 2 Peter 2:4 (NA28) 4 Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους 1

(NA28) 1 Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

RESULTS
Here is a table of the results (you can user the slider at the bottom of the table to see the other columns) which of course needs to be double checked like any resource in Logos.

eek Word	Textual Issues	Lexical Definition	Morphological Parsing	Grammatical / Genre Notes	Syntactical Function	Contextual Relationship
1. Εἰ (Ei)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“if” (conditional particle) [BDAG εἰ §1].	Particle (conjunction).	Common conditional particle; used to introduce a protasis in conditional sentences (frequent in Koine epistolary style).	Introduces the protasis of a long conditional sentence that extends through 2 Pet 2:4–10. The sentence structure implies “If God did not spare… then (he will also judge false teachers).”	Sets up the rhetorical/conditional argument linking examples of divine judgment (angels, flood, Sodom) to the condemnation of false teachers in the immediate paragraph (2:1–10) and the broader chapter context emphasizing God’s sure judgment of unrighteousness.
2. γὰρ (gar)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“for” (causal/explanatory conjunction) [BDAG γάρ §1].	Conjunction (postpositive).	Typically introduces an explanation or reason; in epistolary and rhetorical literature, γάρ often signals further development or substantiation of a point.	Links the statement to the preceding context in 2:1–3, providing an example or basis (“For if…”).	Ties this verse to the broader argument that false teachers are certain to be judged, grounding the statement with Old Testament-like examples (angels, Noah’s world, Sodom and Gomorrah).
3. ὁ (ho)	No major variants noted in NA28.	Definite article “the” [BDAG ὁ/ἡ/τό].	Definite article, nominative masculine singular.	Functions as the article modifying “θεὸς.”	Signals that “God” is the subject of the clause.	Helps identify “God” as the subject performing the action. Contextually sets up God’s role as both judge and deliverer within this pericope and the larger argument.
4. θεὸς (theos)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“God” [BDAG θεός §1].	Noun, nominative masculine singular.	In a Christian epistolary context, “God” is the divine subject acting in judgment.	Subject of the main verb ἐφείσατο and παρέδωκεν.	Centrally important to the argument: God’s previous judgments demonstrate His authority and willingness to judge falsehood.
5. ἀγγέλων (angelōn)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“angels” or “messengers” [BDAG ἄγγελος §1].	Noun, genitive masculine plural.	In Jewish and Christian texts, “angels” often serve as exemplars of either obedience or rebellion. Here they exemplify rebellious beings.	Dependent genitive indicating whose “not sparing” is in view: “God did not spare angels.”	Launches the first historical example of judgment within the broader rhetorical illustration. Sets the stage for subsequent examples (Flood generation, Sodom) in 2:5–6.
6. ἁμαρτησάντων (hamartēsantōn)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“having sinned” or “who sinned” [BDAG ἁμαρτάνω §1].	Aorist active participle, genitive masculine plural, from ἁμαρτάνω.	Agrees with ἀγγέλων in case/number/gender. The aorist participle indicates a completed action.	Participial phrase modifying ἀγγέλων, describing them as “angels who sinned.”	Reinforces the cause for judgment: they are angels “who sinned.” The rhetorical power: If God judges even angels for sin, He will judge false teachers.
7. οὐκ (ouk)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“not” (negation) [BDAG οὐ §1].	Negative particle.	Standard negative adverb used with indicative verbs. Emphasizes the statement “did not spare.”	Negates the verb ἐφείσατο.	Stresses the severity of God’s judgment: there was “no sparing” for even angels. Fits the broader warning motif in 2 Peter.
8. ἐφείσατο (epheisato)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“spare” [BDAG φείδομαι §1: “to refrain, spare”].	Aorist middle indicative, 3rd person singular, from φείδομαι.	The middle voice often has a nuance of personal interest: God Himself did not hold back. The aorist points to a past, punctiliar action of not sparing.	Main verb (negated) in the protasis (“did not spare”).	Central to the argument about divine judgment: sets up the pattern that if God did not spare angels, He will not spare false teachers either.
9. ἀλλὰ (alla)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“but” (adversative conjunction) [BDAG ἀλλά §1].	Conjunction.	Marks a contrast: “not this…but rather that.”	Contrasts οὐκ ἐφείσατο with the subsequent action (παρέδωκεν).	Heightens the rhetorical effect: God’s action is not mere neutrality or hesitancy; He actively “handed them over.”
10. σειραῖς (seirais)	Some manuscripts read σιροῖς (sirois) or σειροῖς (seirois) instead of σειραῖς (seirais). NA28 retains σειραῖς with strong support.	“chains” (literally “cords, ropes,” extended to “chains” in some contexts) [BDAG σειρά §1].	Noun, dative feminine plural, from σειρά.	Typically means “cords” or “chains”; dative indicates the means or instrument (“by/with chains”). Usage in apocalyptic/judgment contexts is somewhat specialized (cf. Jude 6).	Likely indicates the means or instrument of confinement: “with chains of gloom.”	Connects to the vivid depiction of punishment, echoing Jewish apocalyptic imagery (e.g., 1 Enoch). Strengthens the theme of divine judgment upon the angels.
11. ζόφου (zophou)	No major variants noted in NA28 (though σκότος [darkness] sometimes appears elsewhere in similar contexts, here ζόφος is well attested).	“gloom, darkness” [BDAG ζόφος §1].	Noun, genitive masculine (or neuter) singular, from ζόφος.	Connotes dense darkness, often in contexts of judgment or the underworld.	Genitive modifying σειραῖς: “chains of gloom/darkness.”	Evokes the imagery of a dark, punitive holding place. Ties to a larger theme of end-time or subterranean judgment (cf. Jude 6, also references to darkness in 2 Pet 2:17).
12. ταρταρώσας (tartarōsas)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“to cast into Tartarus” [BDAG ταρταρόω §1: “consign to Tartarus”].	Aorist active participle, nominative masculine singular, from ταρταρόω.	Rare term in the NT, derived from Greek mythological concept of “Tartarus” as a subterranean abyss. Used in 2 Peter’s rhetorical style to evoke graphic imagery of judgment.	Circumstantial participle describing God’s action that accompanies παρέδωκεν (“having cast [them] into Tartarus, He handed [them] over…”).	Deepens the apocalyptic coloration: God’s judgment is so thorough that angels were “tartarus-ed,” emphasizing the severity of divine punishment. This matches the paragraph’s aim: God’s past acts of judgment underscore the certainty of judgment on the present false teachers.
13. παρέδωκεν (paredōken)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“he delivered/handed over” [BDAG παραδίδωμι §1].	Aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular, from παραδίδωμι.	Main verb in the second half of the contrasting statement: God “did not spare…but delivered.”	Completes the contrasting action (ἀλλά… παρέδωκεν).	Indicates God’s active role in judgment, paralleling biblical and Jewish traditions of God “handing over” the wicked to punishment. Contextually anchors the statement’s climax: the angels are delivered “for judgment.”
14. εἰς (eis)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“into, to” (preposition) [BDAG εἰς §1].	Preposition (governing accusative).	Common preposition denoting direction or purpose.	Introduces the object “κρίσιν.”	Points to the end or purpose of the “handing over”: the angels are delivered “unto/for judgment.”
15. κρίσιν (krisin)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“judgment” [BDAG κρίσις §1].	Noun, accusative feminine singular, from κρίσις.	Often used of divine judgment or eschatological reckoning in biblical contexts.	Object of the preposition εἰς.	Highlights the reason for the angels’ confinement: they are kept for the eventual final judgment. Bridges to the broader paragraph’s theme that false teachers likewise face impending judgment (2:9).
16. τηρουμένους (tēroumenous)	No major variants noted in NA28.	“being kept/guarded” [BDAG τηρέω §1: “keep watch over, guard”].	Present passive participle, accusative masculine plural, from τηρέω.	Passive form indicates the angels are under divine confinement. The participle modifies the implied direct object (“angels”), clarifying their present state.	Dependent participle explaining the condition of the angels “being kept” or “held” for judgment. Accusative masculine plural modifies the same implied object as παρέδωκεν.	Emphasizes the ongoing status of their punishment/judgment (the angels remain held until the final judgment). Reinforces the unstoppable nature of God’s eschatological plan in the paragraph and whole chapter, foreshadowing 2 Peter’s eschatological emphasis (3:7–13).

Additional Observations on Context and Structure

Immediate Context (2 Peter 2:4–10)
- This verse begins a lengthy conditional sentence extending through verse 10. Peter provides examples of divine judgment (angels, the ancient world, Sodom and Gomorrah) to underscore that God will judge false teachers and simultaneously rescue the righteous.
Paragraph Context (2 Peter 2:1–10)
- Verses 1–3 warn about false teachers and their impending condemnation. Verse 4 exemplifies God’s consistent pattern of judging the wicked. The paragraph develops a sustained argument: if God judged angels and other notorious sinners, He will certainly judge present corruptors of the faith.
Chapter Context (2 Peter 2)
- The entire chapter details the character, behavior, and fate of false teachers. Verse 4 sets a precedent: no one—even the heavenly beings—is beyond God’s judgment. The rest of the chapter expands upon the certainty and severity of that judgment.

Overall, 2 Peter 2:4 demonstrates Peter’s rhetorical and theological strategy: using past examples of divine wrath to guarantee future judgment. The careful, solemn portrayal of fallen angels “being kept” in “chains of gloom” underscores that God’s justice is neither arbitrary nor escapable—an essential theme that resonates throughout the chapter and the entire epistle.

Like any tool, it takes wisdom, discernment to use it properly.

You just showed that on certain manuscript issues, treating the Bible as it would any other book, AI can assemble and present neutrally data already known. That is useful for academic work but what does it contribute to your conversation with God?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363047#Comment_1363047

Hi MJ,

I don't think anyone here is seeking to replace a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, nor quench or grieve the indwelling Holy Spirit, or neglect their love and devotion to bring glory to God the Father.

My point and example of using AI is just one of a multitude of ways of studying the word of God and heeding to Paul's exhortation in 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Are we not to avail ourselves of any helps, tools, and other believers to search and study the Scriptures like the noble Bereans? Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Don't we want to be equipped to guard against false teachers and those who distort the words of the APostle Paul and the rest of Scriptures? 2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his letters (Apostle Paul), speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I think history has proven time and time again, that ignorance of the written word leads to ignorance of God.

And James, the half-brother of the Lord Jesus warns teachers in particular to be careful in what they say/teach for they will incur a sticter judgment. James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

For me personally, I want as much accurate data, and the most efficient path to know and study God's word, so that I can grown and know the Lord and please Him.

Psalm 119:11
11 Your word I have treasured in my heart,
That I may not sin against You.

I appreciate your thoughts and concerns as they are an important consideration, but their are many considerations, wide and varied. AI can be beneficial tool. However, a tool is often neutral in of itself, but it ultimately depends upon how one uses it.

@John Fallahee

John, I’m 100% with you! Logos’ evolution has been amazing, but without API access, it risks losing ground to AI tools. Time’s ticking. Like you, I’ve shifted some research to AI for its speed and depth—finding passages by concept is a game-changer. It’s the BlackBerry debacle redux: the innovator’s dilemma. API access and a plugin ecosystem could keep Logos ahead, but are they too comfy to see it? It’s about keeping us long-timers invested. Logos must evolve. Thoughts, everyone?

@MJ Smith, I hear you on keeping intimacy with God central—I agree that’s the heart of it. I just see AI differently. Like I said before, AI’s a tool that frees me up for deeper time with Him, not a replacement.

Instead of waiting Logos to release their API which may never be materialized, can use AI agents (such as Open Manus?) to access our own personal Logos resources and incorporate the data into another database which we can use to train our own LLM? In that sense we don't have to rely on logos releasing an API.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363067#Comment_1363067

Logos is quite locked down, and such tools have limited to no access to Logos, it's tools, reports, and datasets. Even with new tools to make trianing LLMs ( https://builders.mozilla.org/project/transformer-lab /) is getting easier, it requires a lot of data, time, and skill. Unfortunately, trianing a LLM is not practical at this time.

@Renold Burke

@MJ Smith, I hear you on keeping intimacy with God central—I agree that’s the heart of it. I just see AI differently. Like I said before, AI’s a tool that frees me up for deeper time with Him, not a replacement.

It is a very useful but unreliable tool … because of its training materials it is highly biased towards what I refer to as the American secular religion, it is highly biased towards the Western Church not the church world-wide. If I had a dollar for every time it (multiple bots) tells me something does not occur in scripture, or rabbinic literature, or para-Biblical books and I tell if what about and it responds ah, yes, my bad … here are other examples … my stack of dollars would be getting quite high.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363073#Comment_1363073

Hi MJ,

You have my curiosity .

Could you share the AI you are using, a prompt, and output example?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363066#Comment_1363066

I'll have to recreate the situation on a topic I've not trained AI on - I'm in the habit of editing queries until I get the desired results which overwrites the bad answers.

Donovan R. Palmer

Logos is pretty much the only gig in town now when it comes to premium Bible software. I don’t know what their development roadmap is, but “Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory defines a process where a smaller company with fewer resources successfully challenges established incumbents by offering simpler, more accessible, or more affordable alternatives that eventually overtake the mainstream market.“ (summarised by ChatGPT)

So whether it be in advancements in contextual computing or AI, the powerful operating system of a business platform can be a double edged sword. On one hand it can be very focused and curated, making it easy for a user to achieve the tasks at hand. On the other hand, it can be a walled garden. This wall becomes even higher if it is a monopoly. So returning to Clayton’s theory, it is the new startups that can suddenly expose a new business model and paradigm as they seem to explode onto the scene over night. (i.e. Netflix and Blockbuster, Compuserve/AOL and Internet)

I am encouraged by Logos’ leaning into AI, clearing up a lot of legacy stuff, revenue flow, etc. This is step one to staying agile as I suspect that we are at the dawn of a new era in technology enabled Biblical studies.

ASUNDER

This is what AI is going to do to Gen Alpha. This will be them in a few short years: (it would happen to anyone; they are just the ones who happened upon this age of technology).

Not knowing how to do anything or have any faculty at all. This is the generation that bought an amazon echo so they don't have to turn off a light switch.

I've been recently learning about the science of learning.

A bot doing it for you is the antithesis of learning something.
Just as sitting in a chair destroys the muscles by lack of use; likewise, sitting in a mental AI helper chair destroys the mind.

AI is the most horrible thing to happen to humanity, in multiple ways. I have more respect for fentanyl. It destroys the few who encounter it, and yet AI destroys everyone. It hasn't even been deployed in military applications yet. Oh this is going to be fun.

@ASUNDER

Interesting Youtube video titled: A history of technology and Christianity | Wesley Huff

I get the skepticism about AI in Bible study—Wesley Huff’s video ‘A History of Technology and Christianity’ sold me on why it’s not so scary. I use Grok (xAI’s AI) to dig into Scripture, like parsing Colossians 2:10’s Greek (‘you are complete in Him’) or brainstorming API ideas. It’s not about replacing my Bible—it’s a tool to spark insight, break down grammar, or draft posts like this. I double-check it (AI can flop 60% on some stuff, per Ars Technica), but it’s like a study partner that never sleeps. Huff says Christians have used tech for centuries to share truth—why not AI, if we keep it in check?

How do I create my exegetical prompt?
As a self-taught student fueled by stale chips, biological intellect, and simple logic, I try to make my thought process in crafting prompts so ludicrously thorough and detailed, it’d make imaginary professors giggle like loons and snort their nonexistent latte out their noses!

Using AI in Exegetical Research: A Student’s Approach

As a student passionate about biblical studies, I am eager to explore how modern technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), can enrich my exegetical research while preserving the primacy of my own critical thinking. Tools have long played a role in Christian scholarship—consider the transition from scrolls to codices, or the advent of Bible software like Logos. AI, in my view, is a natural extension of this tradition. I use Grok, an AI developed by xAI, not as a substitute for my intellect but as a partner that sharpens my questions and broadens my perspectives. I am the one driving the process through detailed prompting; Grok lacks cognitive intelligence of its own and merely responds to my guidance.

My Research Process: Logos as the Foundation; My study begins with traditional exegetical methods within the Logos Bible Software ecosystem. For a passage like Colossians 2:10, I rely on tools such as the Exegetical Guide to analyze Greek syntax and semantics, the Passage Guide to establish historical and literary context, and the Heiser Workflow to structure my observations systematically. This initial phase is entirely my own—I draft a preliminary thesis and compile a list of observations and questions before involving AI. This ensures that my intellectual engagement with the text remains the cornerstone of my work.

Crafting Comprehensive Prompts; When I turn to Grok, I bring a robust framework to the table. My prompts are intentionally lengthy—often spanning a full page—because I aim to test the AI’s capacity to handle complexity. These prompts incorporate insights from seminal works such as:

G.K. Beale’s hermeneutical approach, which informs my interpretive lens;
D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, which helps me avoid common pitfalls;
The Counterpoints series, which exposes me to scholarly debates and diverse perspectives.
and more resources like exegetical commentaries, dictionaries, lexicon.

I weave my observations, questions, and ideas into these prompts, drawing from a wide array of resources in my Logos library. While this might seem excessive, it reflects my curiosity and willingness to push technological boundaries in pursuit of deeper understanding.

Leveraging My Logos Library with Grok; To maximize Grok’s utility, I’ve uploaded a PDF cataloging my Logos library, which includes the Diamond package, Academic Pro features, and Logos Max. This equips Grok with an awareness of my available resources. Due to copyright restrictions, Grok cannot access the full texts of these works, but it can suggest relevant articles, book reviews, or abstracts based on titles and metadata. This often leads me down unexpected but fruitful “rabbit trails,” prompting me to explore new directions in my research.

Assigning Grok an Academic Role; I enhance Grok’s functionality by assigning it the persona of a professor from a leading institution, such as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, or Westminster Theological Seminary. In this role, Grok provides structured feedback on my thesis, mimicking the rigor of a seminary mentor. Additionally, I direct it to academic databases where I hold subscriptions, enabling it to recommend peer-reviewed articles from reputable sources. This deepens my research and ensures I engage with current scholarship.

Testing My Understanding with Grok; Beyond feedback, I use Grok to refine my grasp of the text. I instruct it to:

Create an exam based on my thesis, with questions that challenge my understanding of the passage;
Grade my responses, offering critiques or suggestions for improvement.

This process is not about outsourcing my thinking—rather, it’s a way to test my mastery of the material. I critically evaluate Grok’s responses, recognizing its limitations (e.g., studies suggest AI can have a significant error rate in certain contexts, such as news queries). I cross-check its output against my own analysis and primary sources, ensuring I remain the final arbiter of my conclusions.

Conclusion: AI as a Partner, Not a Proxy; For me, Grok is akin to a tireless study companion—ready to brainstorm, critique, or suggest new avenues of inquiry, yet incapable of replacing my own interpretive labor. I remain the exegete, wrestling with Scripture and synthesizing insights through my biological intellect. My enthusiasm for this approach stems from its ability to spark fresh ideas and challenge my assumptions, all while keeping me firmly in control.

Cheers,

Renold

On X, following

Scholarship for PhD, Postdoc, Fellowship & many more things related to the Scholarship & Research.
Ryan Hart
and more AI nerds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363166#Comment_1363166

Superb!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363075#Comment_1363075

Here is an example drawn from a series of questions trying to identify the traditions with the most frequent reading of the complete psalter or the complete Gospels. I started with the knowledge that the Ethiopian recite the psalter daily but some letters from the 11th century in Logos imply monks recited the entire psalter multiple times a day. I also knew that the Kellia readings (in Logos) read the entire gospels monthly - annually is the closest competitor that I know off the top of my head.

The prompt

Are there other traditions beside the Kellia that read the entire Gospels monthly or even more frequentlyAre there other traditions beside the Kellia that read the entire Gospels monthly or even more frequently

The answer:

Yes, there are several other traditions and reading plans that encourage frequent or monthly reading of the entire Gospels:
Eastern Orthodox Church: During Great Lent, the full Psalter is recited twice weekly, and Gospel readings are integrated into daily Synaxarion readings1.
Monastic Traditions: Many monastic orders, including Benedictines, incorporate daily Gospel readings alongside Psalms in the Divine Office3.
Bible Reading Plans:The 5x5x5 New Testament Bible Reading Plan: This plan covers the entire New Testament, including the Gospels, in one year by reading 5 days a week, 5 minutes a day5.Chronological Bible Reading Plans: Some plans arrange the Old Testament chronologically while including daily New Testament readings, allowing for multiple complete readings of the Gospels per year4.
30-Day Gospel Reading Challenge: This plan encourages reading three chapters of the Gospels daily, completing all four Gospels in 30 days10.
Gospels and Acts in a Month: This reading plan covers the four Gospels and Acts in 31 days, with daily readings taking approximately 25 minutes11.
Personal Practices: Some individuals, like Tim Keller, have adopted personal habits of reading through entire books of the Bible monthly. While Keller's example focuses on Psalms, similar approaches could be applied to the Gospels7.
These practices demonstrate that regular, comprehensive reading of the Gospels is valued across various Christian traditions and personal devotional habits.

Notice it doesn't even recognize the hint of the Kellia readings for the Eastern Orthodox.

Note my initial prompt was "I am aware of the Kellia reading plan and the Breviary's use of the Psalter. Look across the globe for two thousand years what denominations or orders used the entire Gospels or the Psalters most frequently." It's response ignored daily readings making it garble-de-gook.

After several tries, I gave the prompt after a particularly silly answer:

You're being silly none of those read the entire Gospels as the Kellia does

It responded in a very low-church manner:

You're right; the examples I provided earlier don't match the intensity or frequency of the Kellia plan, which involves reading the entire Gospels monthly. However, there are some plans and traditions that encourage frequent engagement with the Gospels, though they might not be as rigorous as the Kellia plan:
Professor Grant Horner’s Reading Plan: This plan involves reading the entire Gospels four times a year, which is quite frequent but not monthly3.
Annual Gospel Reading Plans: Some plans allow readers to complete the Gospels in a year, with daily readings spread across 365 days4.
Three-Month Plans: There are plans that cover all four Gospels in three months, which is more frequent than a yearly plan but not as frequent as monthly2.
12-Week Chronological Plans: These plans cover the Gospels over 12 weeks, which is less frequent than monthly but still a structured approach5.
While these plans don't match the Kellia's monthly frequency, they demonstrate a commitment to regularly engaging with the Gospels. The Kellia plan remains unique in its intensity and frequency.