Logos - this is what I can do with AI but you could do better.

I am one of those strange people who want to study the Bible when I study the Bible - not commentaries, not theologians, not confirmation of my own beliefs. My rule for Bible study is the text, the text, and nothing but the text. Logos was at the forefront of allowing me to do that but I fear AI is getting more and more of my time. Why? because with AI I am able to hone in on what is genuinely open to debate and am able to keep a strict division between studying the Bible text and people's interpretation of the text. How? by identifying where there are stress points in the text -- by stress points I mean places in the texts where one is forced to make interpretative choices. I'll admit to skipping over the text criticism step for the most part but when I ask AI to show me the places in the text where words are ambiguous i.e. have homographs, are polysemeous, have ambiguous morphology, are hapax legomenas, for Hebrew have ketiv/qere or vocalization ambiguity, have alternative segmentationm or is a multiword lexical unit I get a pretty decent map of where in the text I should pay attention to the word whether in the original language or in translation. Logos has the data to do a better job of this but it takes me lots of time to pull it together

Similarly, Logos has done serious work in coding antecedents for pronouns and impliied subjects. But I can ask AI to show me the deixis (think antecedents and words that take their meaning from context) and it will show me spatial, temporal, discourse, social cases as well as the simple pronouns. Here AI not only is faster but it is more comprehensive than Logos ... but not as accurate.

For figurative speech, both classical and modern linguistics, Logos has the data and it is easy to access - Logos has a definite win despite AI allowing me to use alternative theories of figurative speech that are not available in Logos.

In wordplay, again Logos is the definite winner. In syntactic force Logos is the clear winner ... But I can get AI to add structural, narrative, discourse ...etc to the mix to show many types of stress point. Then comes the fun part. I can take an excerpt from a commentator and it will tell me what choices were made at these points and what suppositions are at play. Then comes the super fun part - I can ask if a passage e.g. Gen 1:1-3 teaches creation out of nothing. AI was honest - it said that that was one of three possible interpretations that the passage left open but that it, by itself, could not be used to prove the point.

Remember how scripture study has traditionally been a study partner or debate active. AI is serving that role when constrained to the text, the text, and nothing but the text. Now I will admit it took more than a month to write the rules that keep AI text centered and, yes, I have to frequently remind it of the rules when it reverts to it natural behavior ... But Logos ... please rethink your model to truly be Bible text based - without interpretation and truly revolutionize Bible study. Let us learn how to wrestle with the text as if we were in a yeshiva, or a monastery ...

@Phil Gons (Logos) @Mark Barnes @Rick Brannan

Find more posts tagged with

Features

Desktop App

Comments

DMB

Smiling, but "I can ask if a passage e.g. Gen 1:1-3 teaches creation out of nothing" should have drawn a blank. Literalist, here.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1397026#Comment_1397026

😀 But see what I get when I move up the chain to discourse and pragmatics:

II. Syntactic Stress Inventory

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-001

Location
Gn 1:26

Observed Structure
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Stress Category
CMP — Complement / Adjunct Force

Structural Tension
The prepositional phrases may function as complements defining the act of making or as descriptive adjuncts specifying the nature of the created being.

Possible Structures

A. Complement interpretation
[make] [man] [in our image / after our likeness]

B. Descriptive adjunct interpretation
[make man] — who will exist [in our image / after our likeness]

Trigger Source
Prepositional phrases following the verbal complement without explicit syntactic marker distinguishing complement from adjunct.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-002

Location
Gn 1:26

Observed Structure
“and let them have dominion”

Stress Category
DEP — Clause Dependency

Structural Tension
The clause may function as a coordinated continuation of the deliberative speech or as a purpose/result clause related to the creation action.

Possible Structures

A. Coordinated deliberative clause
[Let us make man …] AND [let them have dominion]

B. Purpose/result clause
[Let us make man …] so that [they may have dominion]

Trigger Source
Conjunction introducing a clause without explicit marker distinguishing coordination from purposive relation.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-003

Location
Gn 1:26

Observed Structure
“over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock …”

Stress Category
ATT — Modifier Attachment

Structural Tension
The prepositional sequence may modify either the dominion clause specifically or the broader clause describing human function.

Possible Structures

A. Direct attachment to dominion clause
[have dominion] over X

B. Functional description of humanity
[humankind] — characterized by dominion over X

Trigger Source
Prepositional phrase series following the dominion clause without structural boundary marker.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-004

Location
Gn 1:27

Observed Structure
“in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”

Stress Category
APP — Apposition vs Predicate Relation

Structural Tension
The phrase “male and female” may function as an appositional clarification of the created humans or as a predicate description within a separate clause.

Possible Structures

A. Appositional clarification
[humanity created in the image of God] — namely male and female

B. Predicate clause
He created them as male and female.

Trigger Source
Nominal phrase following clause boundary without explicit syntactic marker indicating apposition or predicate structure.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-005

Location
Gn 1:28

Observed Structure
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it”

Stress Category
PAR — Participial / Imperative Force

Structural Tension
The imperative sequence may represent coordinated commands or a structured sequence of dependent actions.

Possible Structures

A. Coordinated imperatives
[Be fruitful] AND [multiply] AND [fill the earth] AND [subdue it]

B. Sequential functional structure
[Be fruitful and multiply] → [fill the earth] → [subdue it]

Trigger Source
Imperative series joined by conjunction without explicit hierarchy marker.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-006

Location
Gn 1:29

Observed Structure
“every plant yielding seed … and every tree with seed in its fruit”

Stress Category
REL — Relative-Clause Attachment

Structural Tension
The participial phrases may define the plant categories or function descriptively within the enumeration.

Possible Structures

A. Restrictive modification
[plants which yield seed]
[trees which have seed in their fruit]

B. Descriptive elaboration
plants — yielding seed
trees — containing seed-bearing fruit

Trigger Source
Participial modifiers following noun phrases without explicit relative pronoun marker.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-007

Location
Gn 1:30

Observed Structure
“to every beast of the earth … I have given every green plant for food”

Stress Category
CMP — Complement / Adjunct Force

Structural Tension
The phrase “for food” may function as a complement specifying purpose or as a descriptive adjunct characterizing the gift.

Possible Structures

A. Complement
I have given [plants] as food.

B. Adjunct description
I have given plants, which function as food.

Trigger Source
Prepositional phrase following the object without explicit syntactic indicator distinguishing complement from adjunct.

Entry ID: SSR-P#2-008

Location
Gn 1:31

Observed Structure
“and behold, it was very good”

Stress Category
DEP — Clause Dependency

Structural Tension
The clause may function as a narrative evaluation clause or as part of the preceding divine speech frame.

Possible Structures

A. Narrative evaluation clause
Narrator assessment of creation.

B. Continuation of divine declaration
Divine evaluation within speech context.

Trigger Source
Clause introduced without explicit speech boundary marker.

DMB

Impressive. I'm guessing you'd love to relive your life (the tools).

Not criticizing but you're working off the 'top layer' linguistic-wise? Does that bother you, or getting started. I'm referring to your other pursuit … the mystic as original.

MJ. Smith

I actually have a three level system Level I is the text and only the text which is where I think Logos has the best low hanging fruit opportunities Level II is scripture interprets scripture plus external reference material Level III is reception history/theology where I have the most fun and am making great progress in learning how Syriac Christianity thinks which opens several texts I've struggled with. But no, this is Bible study for the sake of Bible study not spiritual formation …

NichtnurBibelleser

@MJ. Smith may I ask a question? Your priority is

text, the text, and nothing but the text

but isn‘t that opposed to

skipping over the text criticism step for the most part

The text we have are the texts we have, or not?

MJ. Smith

No … for the simple reason that I am not competent in most text criticism skills … I would love to be able to include that step and I will add a bit it on the next level which allows comparison of texts. But I decided for the entry point - the text is the text in front of you — any language, any translations. I would suspect that if anyone borrowed my approach they might want to limit the acceptable texts and/or start with text criticism.

John

@MJ. Smith

How are you giving AI the rules? Are you strictly discussing Logos AI now?