Experiment in prompting Google Bard Artificial Intelligence

I'm experimenting with prompting in AI Google Bard by asking exegetical questions which I extracted from some of my Logos Resources.

For now I used these resources:

Porter, S. E., & Stovell, B. M., eds. (2012). Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. IVP Academic.
Porter, S. E., & Studebaker, S. M., eds. (2018). Evangelical Theological Method: Five Views. IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.
Comfort, P. W. (2008). New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
And by reading through some peer reviewed journals, I extracted questions, which I already know the answer off from those resources in Logos. Just checking to see if Google Bard can come up with something sound and reliable. Something that doesn't lie or even look like a parody.

Please, understand,...

I'm NOT saying that AI can be trusted or even can be used to do serious bible research for now. This is just an experiment.

John Lennox said, (me paraphrasing here):

Christian must engage in AI early and be a moral compass in this quickly developing revolution. Important ethical questions needs to be answered when using AI with reference to the bible.

Allow me to share with you some prompts I used with Google Bard.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Renold Burke

My prompt to Bard:

Is there textual evidence for the variant reading of 1 Cor.15:49?
Compare the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament edition the variant in Textus Receptus.
Explain which reading has been taken by most scholars to be the one that best suits the context.
Which textual evidence for the variant reading is far more extensive and earlier.
Is it likely that a few scribes changed the hortatory (“let us bear”) to the future (“we will bear”) to make for easier reading or to conform the verb tense to the prevailing future, as evidenced the pericope of 1 Cor.15:49

Bard respons:

Yes, there is textual evidence for the variant reading of 1 Corinthians 15:49. The Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament (NA28) and the United Bible Society Greek New Testament (UBS5) both list two variant readings for this verse:

We will bear the image of the heavenly. (NA28 and UBS5)
Let us bear the image of the one who is from heaven. (Fuldensis, some minuscules, and some lectionaries)

The first reading is found in the vast majority of manuscripts, including the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. The second reading is found in a small number of later manuscripts.

The Textus Receptus, which is a 16th-century edition of the Greek New Testament, also includes the second reading. However, the Textus Receptus is not considered to be a reliable text of the New Testament. It is based on a small number of late manuscripts, and it has been shown to contain many errors.

Most scholars believe that the first reading, "We will bear the image of the heavenly," is the original reading. This reading is supported by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, and it is also the reading that is found in the earliest manuscripts.

It is possible that a few scribes changed the hortatory ("let us bear") to the future ("we will bear") in order to make for easier reading. The future tense is more common in this passage, and it may have been easier for scribes to read and understand. It is also possible that the scribes changed the tense to conform to the prevailing future tense of the pericope.

However, it is also possible that the original reading was "Let us bear the image of the one who is from heaven." This reading is found in a small number of manuscripts, and it is possible that it was the original reading that was later changed by scribes.

Ultimately, it is impossible to know for certain which reading is the original. However, the overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the first reading, "We will bear the image of the heavenly," is the original reading.

Checking with Logos Bible Software, NTTTC resource:

NTTTC; Comfort, P. W. (2008). New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

1 Corinthians 15:49

WH NU (the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament edition)

φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου

“we will also bear the image of the heavenly man”

B I 630 1881 cop^sa

all

Variant/TR (Textus Receptus)

φορεσωμεν και την εικονα του επουρανιου

“let us also bear the image of the heavenly man”

𝔓⁴⁶ א A C D F G Ψ 075 0243 1739 Maj cop^bo Clement Origen

nkjvmg rsvmg nrsvmg esvmg nasbmg nivmg tnivmg njbmg nltmg

In a fuller context, a rendering of the WH NU is as follows:

“as we bore the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the heavenly man.” Despite its slender documentary support, this reading has been taken by most scholars to be the one that best suits the context—which is didactic, not hortatory (TCGNT). But the textual evidence for the variant reading is far more extensive and earlier than for the WH NU reading. Thus, it is likely that a few scribes changed the hortatory (“let us bear”) to the future (“we will bear”) to make for easier reading or to conform the verb tense to the prevailing future, as evidenced in 15:51–54. Therefore, Fee (1987, 787) argues that the second reading “must be the original, and if original it must be intentional on Paul’s part as a way of calling them [the Corinthians] to prepare now for the future that is to be.” Not one English version has gone with this reading, though many note it.

END.

What do you think of this?

Renold Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258068#Comment_1258068

My follow up prompt says:

Are there scholars who argues that the second reading “must be the original, and if original it must be intentional on Paul’s part as a way of calling them [the Corinthians] to prepare now for the future that is to be.” Are there English version who gone with this reading.

Bard respons:

Yes, there are some scholars who argue that the second reading of 1 Corinthians 15:49, "Let us bear the image of the one who is from heaven," is the original reading. They argue that this reading is more consistent with the context of the passage, which is about the future resurrection of the dead. They also argue that the second reading is more consistent with Paul's style of writing, which often uses hortatory language.

There are a few English translations that have adopted the second reading of 1 Corinthians 15:49. These include the Revised Standard Version (1952), the New English Bible (1970), and the Revised English Bible (1989).

However, the majority of scholars and English translations still prefer the first reading of 1 Corinthians 15:49, "We will bear the image of the heavenly." This reading is supported by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, and it is also the reading that is found in the earliest manuscripts.

Ultimately, the question of which reading is the original is a matter of scholarly debate. There is no clear consensus on the matter, and both readings have their own merits.

END

What do you think believers?

Renold Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258070#Comment_1258070

My book reading plans:

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258070#Comment_1258070

I note your cautionary, just testing.

Also, you had to check against a known scholar. But users less knowledgable than you?

I think MJ's (?) point, a source to start, is probably as good as it gets. Folks decry Wikipedia, and embrace a chatting anonimous computer?

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258070#Comment_1258070

Let’s see where we will be in three to five years.

Yes ethical guidelines for the use of the technology needs to be put in place early on.

Renold Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258072#Comment_1258072

You seems to know more than me though. So I like to learn. Engage and try it yourself and let me know what you find out.

Renold Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258076#Comment_1258076

I Agree about the ethical guidelines. But I need to know NOW what this thing is and can't wait three or more years.

My reading plan for now is:

2084 Video Study: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity by John C. Lennox
Pastoral and Spiritual Care in a Digital Age: The Future Is Now by Kirk A. Bingaman
Staying Human: A Jewish Theology for the Age of Artificial Intelligence by Harris Bor

Available on Logos.

I'm just trying to get understanding.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258103#Comment_1258103

You seems to know more than me though. So I like to learn. Engage and try it yourself and let me know what you find out.

I remain on the sidelines. I began my journey in AI maybe 30+ years ago. First, Prolog, and moving on to neural nets, evolutionary digital optimization, and fuzzy logic. More recently, hebrew and greek analytics (authorship, dating, and style-shifting).

I applaud progress. But note that folks are still folks, and life remains a challenge. Like google, it'll speed up inquiry. But also, bias inquiry. Pastors can only watch.

I also don't buy into 'ethics' or 'morality', as if daily behavior isn't already the key metric. The sad part, will be people lonely enough to need AI, and bots. Jeremiah's warnings return (there's no beings inside, you guys!) ... how's that for irony?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258141#Comment_1258141

But ... but .. but I still use prolog at times although I don't buy into the propositional view of scripture.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258143#Comment_1258143

But ... but .. but I still use prolog at times although I don't buy into the propositional view of scripture.

I used to love Prolog, even though it was hard to debug, unless you coded it.

Having sat on wooden pews, sermon after sermon (my father; repent!), a Prolog's loop's theological weakness, was the initial loop performing evil, and the return loop, begging forgiveness. Only to repeat the loop again ... well, the test-state was negative ... try it again! (Equivalent to Paul's argument, more sin, more grace!).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258144#Comment_1258144

Neither of us has bothered to mention that AI often uses paraconsistent logic which applies better than deductive/inductive logic to religious topics beyond human speech e.g. where words apply only by analogy.

Having sat on wooden pews

Horse or human powered saw mill in the mountains specially providing one-piece slabs for back and seat, right?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258148#Comment_1258148

Horse or human powered saw mill in the mountains specially providing one-piece slabs for back and seat, right?

Don't really know! Except they were curved and impossible to sit straight, without slowly sliding down (with attendent frowns from the preacher's wife).

As time passed, we encountered padded pews, clearly suggesting the Holy Spirit was not in full attendence at that church.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258163#Comment_1258163

they were curved

Dead give-a-way ... not a true old-fashioned, pioneer church ... they were completely flat, with a completely flat back at bit more than a 90 degree angle ... padded pews - I think that is sacrilegious. I do know someone storing the original pews (1884 vintage) if you know someone into authenticity. Because they are not pieced together, they are quite valuable just for the wood if you're not into historical pews.

Renold Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258141#Comment_1258141

DMB (&MJ), Prolog? That's the higher level of knowledge I don't understand. But thanks for your reply.

Let me react on your statement that 'Pastors can only watch'.

I'm counseling youth. They are talking about this stuff and using it and laugh about it. Imagination in action.

And while some pastors will keep watching and waiting, young people are experimenting without any restrain. It's like A.I. is becoming their Artificial Holy Spirit. Pastors need to engage earlier so that they can warn their congregations, especially their youth. Leading from behind is not an option.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258199#Comment_1258199

It's like A.I. is becoming their Artificial Holy Spirit.

Exactly, Renold. That's why I pointed to Jeremiah above, confronted with foreign gods, his argument was wood! Made by guys! I don't doubt pastors need to deal with the new 'toy'. My point was (1) you've not seen evil yet; mainly curious, interesting, useful, and amusing. And (2) when evil appears, you won't be able to do much (as pastors). They did little with Facebook, and now, TicToc. Nor much with politics. The reason isn't AI. The reason is social needs ... people need contact, assurance, and enjoyment. All right down AI's path.

We watch Japanese media. Last night was AI driving anime' .. I'd assume soon you can go to AI church ... cheaper too. Pray, if you like. Good bands. Plan on it.

Renold Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1258215#Comment_1258215

DMB, thanks for your wise and kind explanation. I‘ll pray like never before.
Blessings.