I have been developing a Bible study method utilizing AI to enforce reading the Bible as the text exists rather than as a mirror which reflects back your image of what the Bible says. Think of it as theologically neutral as it requires all the presuppositions and theology that you bring to the text be identified as such. The most familiar example is creation out of nothing - the belief is stated elsewhere in the Bible but Genesis 1:1-3 permits out of nothing, ordering of preexistent matter … What being strict about what the Bible says before applying theology keeps one from using texts unsuccessfully in apologetics situations - you can rationally prove that your reading of the text is sound not just what you've been taught. Turns out that Asians have a number of tools that help identify errors of interpretation that our Western tools miss. My request based on samples below is that Logos make a conscious decision to add tagging or tools that utilize non-Western methods as equals to Western approaches. It doesn't change the meaning but it does change the pitfalls.
Chinese-style philological bounding.
The aim is not to choose meanings, but to bound permissible meanings and exclude illegitimate ones based on attested usage and immediate textual constraints.
Category | Data |
|---|
Attested range | Bring about; produce; effect |
Subject constraint | Used with God as subject |
Object constraint | Can take material or abstract objects |
Excluded meanings | Creation ex nihilo as technical doctrine |
Permitted range | Divine origination without mechanism specified |
Category | Data |
|---|
Attested range | Bring about; produce; effect |
Subject constraint | Used with God as subject |
Object constraint | Can take material or abstract objects |
Excluded meanings | Creation ex nihilo as technical doctrine |
Permitted range | Divine origination without mechanism specified |
This catches premature narrowing of semantic meaning, backloading doctrine, treating terms used poetically as technical …
Mīmāṃsā (India) — Text as Rule-Governed Linguistic Act
Mīmāṃsā is unusually strict: it generates deterministic interpretive artifacts governed by linguistic priority rules.
Element | Textual Form | Governs | Governed By | Evidence | Scope Decision |
|---|
Desire Clause | “one who desires X” | A | — | Conditional particle introducing eligibility | Limits who the injunction applies to |
Action | “perform A” | B, C | Desire Clause | Imperative verb form | Core governing action |
Instrument | “with instrument B” | — | Action | Instrumental case ending | Restricted to this action only |
Time | “at time C” | — | Action | Temporal adverbial | Mandatory timing condition |
Justification | “for Y” | — | Action | Explanatory connective | Non-governing (arthavāda) |
This keeps clauses in their syntactic domains, catches justifications from sliding into injunctions etc.
Scope Determination -sorry I'm no sure where this one is from
Scope Determination Ledger
Pericope: Matthew 1:18–25
Ledger Type: Narrative–Directive Hybrid
Ledger ID: SD-Matt-01
I. Clause Inventory (Segmentation Prerequisite)
The pericope contains five functional clause groups:
- Narrative Situation Clause (vv. 18–19)
- Revelatory Directive Clause (vv. 20–21)
- Naming Injunction (v. 21)
- Scriptural Fulfillment Frame (vv. 22–23)
- Compliance Report (vv. 24–25)
Only (2) and (3) are governing; the others are scope-delimited.
II. Governing Clauses
Governing Unit A — Angelic Directive
“Do not fear to take Mary as your wife” (v. 20)
Governing Unit B — Naming Injunction
“You shall call his name Jesus” (v. 21)
These are the only clauses with directive force.
III. Scope Determination Ledger
Clause / Element | Textual Form | Governs | Governed By | Linguistic / Narrative Evidence | Scope Decision |
|---|
Narrative Situation | “before they came together… found to be with child” (v. 18) | — | — | Past-tense narrative, no imperatival force | Context-setting only |
Joseph’s Intention | “resolved to divorce her quietly” (v. 19) | — | Narrative Situation | Volitional verb, superseded | Explicitly overridden |
Angelic Appearance | “an angel of the Lord appeared… saying” (v. 20) | Directive A, B | — | Speech-introduction formula | Establishes authority |
Directive A | “do not fear to take Mary” (v. 20) | Joseph’s action | Angelic authority | Negative imperative | Governs marital action only |
Causal Explanation | “for what is conceived in her…” (v. 20) | — | Directive A | Causal γάρ | Non-governing explanation |
Birth Prediction | “she will bear a son” (v. 21) | Naming Injunction | Angelic speech | Future indicative | Precondition, not command |
Naming Injunction | “you shall call his name Jesus” (v. 21) | Naming act | Angelic authority | Imperatival future | Governing, specific |
Salvific Explanation | “for he will save his people…” (v. 21) | — | Naming Injunction | Explanatory γάρ | Non-governing |
Fulfillment Frame | “all this took place to fulfill…” (vv. 22–23) | — | Narrative | Editorial formula | Metatextual only |
Prophetic Citation | Isaiah quotation (v. 23) | — | Fulfillment Frame | Quotation marker | No directive force |
Compliance Report | “Joseph did as the angel commanded him” (v. 24) | — | Directives A, B | Aorist obedience verb | Confirms scope closure |
Sexual Abstention | “knew her not until…” (v. 25) | — | Narrative report | Temporal modifier | Descriptive only |
Name Execution | “he called his name Jesus” (v. 25) | — | Naming Injunction | Fulfilled imperative | Terminates injunction |
IV. Explicit Scope Assertions
- Directive Scope Is Individual and Local
- Commands apply only to Joseph
- No general marital, sexual, or naming norms are generated
- Explanatory Clauses Are Non-Governing
- Conception explanation (v. 20)
- Salvific rationale (v. 21)
These justify commands but do not extend them
- Fulfillment Citation Has Zero Directive Force
- Isaiah 7:14 is not issuing a command
- It governs no behavior in the pericope
- Compliance Terminates Scope
- Once Joseph acts and names the child, injunctions are exhausted
V. Exclusion Ledger (Required)
Proposed Reading | Reason Excluded |
|---|
Universal command about virginity | No imperatival form beyond Joseph |
Normative rule on marriage secrecy | Narrative, not directive |
Mandatory doctrinal inference from Isaiah | Citation framed as fulfillment, not instruction |
Ongoing obligation tied to the name | Injunction completed in v. 25 |
