Can AI Interpret Tongues?

General Faith
43

Alright @SincereSeeker , let’s cut through the cloud of suspicion with the sword of the Spirit. You’ve accused, implied, and drawn the line—so let me answer plainly, not with pretense, but with power from the Word of God. If you want to test spirits, then test mine by Scripture, not speculation. You say you fear God, so let’s see if you’ll tremble at His Word more than at your own assumptions.

“Do not speak evil against one another, brothers” (James 4:11)—the verb katalaleite means to slander or speak down, to accuse from a posture of superiority. When you suggest someone’s using AI as if it’s a badge of shame, not evidence, you’re not rebuking in righteousness, you’re posturing in presumption. Scripture warns against that. You’re not testing spirits, you’re testing personalities, and that’s not discernment, it’s division.

“Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). You’re judging tone, polish, format, maybe even fluency. But God judges motive. Whether truth comes from a prophet or a donkey, the test isn’t the voice,it’s the source. If it aligns with the Word, it is truth. Period. Jesus said, “Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Not your impressions. Not your suspicions. The Word.

Paul said plainly, “Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, others from goodwill… but what does it matter? Christ is preached. And in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:15–18). Paul didn’t wring his hands over motives, methods, or messengers. He rejoiced in the message. You want fruit? There it is. Rejoicing when Christ is preached, even if the preacher has a stutter or a keyboard.

Elijah thought he was the only one left, but God had 7,000. So be careful, your zeal may be sincere, but it’s not always according to knowledge (Romans 10:2). If you think discernment means sniffing out artificial influence instead of searching the Scriptures like a Berean (Acts 17:11), then your guard is up in the wrong direction. The Bereans didn’t ask “who wrote it?” They asked, “Is it written?”

Paul told Timothy, “Preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2). Not, “Make sure people know you wrote every syllable yourself.” He said, “Rightly divide the Word of truth” (2:15). That’s the standard. And if what I say divides rightly, then whether it came from parchment, printer, or pixel, it stands. Because the authority isn’t in the medium, it’s in the message.

You said you test by Scripture. Then do it. Test my words. Not my grammar, not my style, not my speed,my words. Like the Spirit says through Isaiah, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20). That’s the only test that matters. If there’s light in what I write, then argue with the Light, not the lamp.

So here’s my exhortation. Put down your magnifying glass and pick up your sword. Stop policing optics and start proving all things by the Word. Don’t confuse eloquence with error, or fluency with fraud. And don’t muzzle truth just because it’s packaged with clarity. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17)—freedom to speak, write, proclaim, and feed the flock. I’ll use ink, voice, screen, or flame. And if it glorifies Christ and feeds His sheep, I won’t apologize for how it got here. I’ll give glory to the God who makes donkeys speak and sinners preach.

I’m not hiding. I’m heralding. And if you’re more concerned with tracing fingerprints than testing fruit, then brother, you’ve lost sight of the harvest. The fields are white. The Word is fire. The sheep are hungry. Let’s stop sniffing for smoke and start lighting torches.

P.S. Words without action are dead weight. Truth demands traction. Doctrine without obedience is dust in the wind.

J.

44

Johann,

Your question has nothing to do with topic, but I’ll give a short reply. I have encountered both scenarios and altho the first time I was very flustered, in subsequent encounters have just pulled out my Bible. I read John 1:1 and calmly stated the whole of Scripture teaches …..

If you cannot accept the whole of Scripture, our conversation is done. It is not advisable to entangle and argue a point for the other closes their mind.

Thank you for pointing out your knowledge.

Let me clarify here….. my second paragraph was NOT written to or of @Johann. It was written as if speaking to a Mormon or JW. They obviously do not accept the whole of Scripture.

45

And BTW @Johann, I don’t consider AI a “source” with which to study my Bible.

46

@Dogmum

If you believe I reject the whole counsel of God, then bring chapter and verse, not accusation. “Do not accuse without cause, if you have done no harm” (Proverbs 3:30). You claim I dismiss Scripture, yet offer no Scripture to prove it. That’s not discernment, it’s deflection.

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). So here I am, examining. Test me with the Word, not with your assumptions.

Paul said, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). I aim to do the same. If I have omitted, then correct with Scripture. But if I have submitted to it, then accusing me of denial is slander, diabolos, the very word for accuser.

Truth does not fear scrutiny, and I welcome every test that comes from the Book. But I reject every loaded charge that comes from the tongue of man without the sword of the Spirit.

Until you can show where I’ve twisted the Word, you speak not as a brother in correction, but as a man in contention. And “as for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him” (Titus 3:10).

So I say this, if you have the Word, open it. If you have rebuke, anchor it. But if all you have is accusation without proof, then you stand condemned by your own standard.

J.

47

@Dogmum

You said you don’t use secondary sources. Then what exactly are your Bible chapter divisions, your concordance, your English translation, your cross-references, your grammar, your syntax, your punctuation? Because none of those were breathed out by God. They are all secondary. Every time you open a study Bible, follow a verse map, or quote an English word like grace or faith, you are leaning on centuries of translation, transmission, and scholarship, none of which dropped from heaven.

Even the apostles used sources. Luke says explicitly, “It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account” (Luke 1:3). The verb παρηκολουθηκότι (parēkolouthēkoti) means to investigate thoroughly. That’s source analysis. Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit, but he still consulted prior material, interviewed eyewitnesses, and arranged his gospel carefully. That’s what you call textual work. Spirit-filled, yes. But not divorced from process.

Paul quotes Greek poets (Acts 17:28). Jude quotes from 1 Enoch (Jude 14). The chronicler cites external sources repeatedly: “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon… are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?” (1 Kings 11:41). Scripture itself affirms the use of material outside the canon when rightly handled under the Spirit’s guidance.

So if you claim you never use secondary sources, then be honest, rip out your footnotes, shut your Strong’s, abandon your commentaries, delete your language tools, and start memorizing Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew from scratch. Because the moment you open a concordance, consult a definition, or even compare verses by chapter number, you are using secondary material. The issue is not secondary sourcing. The issue is spiritual submission.

The Bereans were noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to test what they heard (Acts 17:11). They did not idolize isolation. They tested content. That’s what I do. I test everything by the Word. But I will not pretend that clarity, tools, and study helps are evil just because they did not appear on Mount Sinai.

The Holy Spirit is my teacher. But He also gave teachers to the Church (Ephesians 4:11). Refusing to learn from them is not discernment, it is arrogance. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). So until you can show me that your refusal to learn from the labor of faithful saints is Spirit-led and not self-glorifying, I’ll stick with those who rightly divide the Word of truth, even if they use more than just a raw scroll and candlelight.

J.

48

@Johann, where did I say this?

50

@Dogmum

Can AI Interpret Tongues? - #39 by Johann .

I asked you if you would use secondary sources, and you said “as a manner of fact, no…..”

”As a matter of fact, no. I use several translations of Scripture and several study Bibles.”

Thanks for making my case.

J.

51

A post was merged into an existing topic: Do the Gifts of the Spirit, Including Speaking in Tongues, Still Operate Today?

52

Johann… if you’re swinging the sword of the Spirit, then I’ll stand under it. I won’t dodge it. But I’ll also hold mine firm, because iron sharpens iron and you swung heavy.

Let’s get something straight. I didn’t accuse you. I cautioned the Church. I never named you a heretic, a fraud, or a deceiver. I named a trend… one where truth is reduced to output, discernment is outsourced to screens, and spiritual depth is replaced with theological convenience. If that stung, it might be conviction. Or it might be misunderstanding. Either way, let’s clear the fog.

You say I’m posturing in presumption. But if quoting James 4 means no one can challenge methodology without being labeled divisive, then every prophet in Scripture was guilty of slander. Paul called out Peter to his face. Jesus called out the Pharisees with names that would get Him banned from most modern pulpits. There’s a difference between judgmentalism and judgment. I’m not speaking down… I’m speaking up. For a Church that’s been lulled into thinking every voice that prints verses is automatically safe. The Bereans didn’t just say “is it written”… they examined. Daily. Carefully. Spiritually. Not just for content, but for distortion. That’s the bar.

You say I’m judging tone and polish. No… I’m judging weight. There’s a difference between quoting truth and carrying it. You can press a Bible verse into a fortune cookie and it’s still technically true. But it doesn’t feed. Truth with no tremble isn’t power… it’s parroting. And that’s what I’m calling out. Not your motives. Not your use of tools. But the dangerous comfort with speed over sanctification… clarity without cruciformity.

You quoted Philippians. Good. Let’s read the full thrust. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached… but he didn’t say all preaching was equal. In Galatians 1, he said if anyone preaches another gospel… let him be accursed. That includes articulate ones. That includes viral ones. That includes polished ones. The test was never the presence of Jesus’ name. It was the faithfulness to the whole counsel of God.

You said I should test your words. I have. Some of them hold. Others lean too hard on delivery and not enough on formation. You say the Spirit brings freedom. Amen. But the same Spirit convicts. Warns. Draws lines. And freedom without holiness is just spiritual noise. The goal isn’t freedom to speak… it’s the power to speak what’s true and costly.

You said the fields are white and the sheep are hungry. Exactly. That’s why I’m so fierce about this. Because hungry sheep will eat anything if the shepherd’s asleep. And if they start thinking anything that quotes Scripture is automatically shepherding… they’ll end up fed by bots and led by algorithms. That’s not paranoia. That’s pastoral burden.

You’re not hiding. I see that. But don’t mistake fire for suspicion. What you called sniffing for smoke… I call guarding the flock. Not out of fear. Out of fierce loyalty to the Word and the weight it demands from those who dare to carry it.

Truth isn’t fragile. It doesn’t need protection from platforms. But it does need preachers who tremble more than they trend.

And yes… I’ll feed the sheep. I’ll light the torch. But I won’t trade the altar for a keypad. The Word became flesh… not code. The Spirit descends on people… not programs.

So I’ll keep the sword in hand. Not to slice brothers. But to defend the Book.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

53

@SincereSeeker

You say you stand with sword in hand. Then stand under what the sword actually says.

You talk of caution, but your entire post smells of suspicion wrapped in poetic righteousness. You didn’t just warn the Church. You took aim at methodology while implying compromise. You built your rebuke on the assumption that tools cheapen truth. That is not Berean vigilance. That is Pharisaic gatekeeping dressed in discernment.

You want Scripture? Let’s start there.

The Word became flesh (John 1:14). True. But that same Word is now inscribed in hearts (Hebrews 8:10), preached by messengers (Romans 10:14), and committed to faithful men who teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). Are you claiming that if Paul had access to print, he would have dismissed it as algorithmic? Was his pen less anointed than his voice? Then why did he tell the Colossians, “when this letter is read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans” (Colossians 4:16)?

God did not bind His Word to one delivery system. He bound it to truth, to Spirit, to Christ crucified. What matters is not the medium, but whether the message conforms to the gospel once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

You quoted Philippians but downplayed it. Paul said plainly, “Some preach Christ out of envy… what then? Christ is preached, and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:18). He did not pause to audit their sanctification. He rejoiced because Christ was truly proclaimed, even if motives were tangled. You invoke Galatians 1 as a counterweight, but you misapply it. Paul condemned those preaching a different gospel, not those using different means.

The test is not delivery. The test is doctrine.

You claim truth must tremble or else it’s parroting. But Scripture says the Word of God is living and active (Hebrews 4:12), not depending on the volume of the vessel but on the power of the Spirit. Paul himself came not with eloquence, but with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that faith might rest not on men’s wisdom but on God’s power (1 Corinthians 2:4–5). If anything, you are the one elevating polish over substance by assigning more holiness to slower methods.

The Bereans tested apostles, not interfaces.

You say quoting verses is not enough. True. Satan quoted verses too. But the difference wasn’t in his delivery. It was in his distortion. Truth is not threatened by clarity. It is threatened by subversion. And the standard for measuring that subversion is Scripture rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15), not whether someone writes it on parchment or types it on a screen.

You talk about feeding sheep. Christ asked Peter, “Do you love Me? Feed My sheep.” He didn’t ask Peter what platform he used. He asked him what gospel he preached. He didn’t ask him how slowly he crafted the message. He asked whether he loved the Shepherd and would carry His words to starving souls.

You want trembling? Then tremble before this: “Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). That applies not just to the one using a keypad. That applies to the one presuming to define who may teach, and how, and when, and by what format.

If the Spirit truly burns in you, then test the words. Not the medium. Not the rhythm. Not the typing speed. The words.

The Word of God is not bound (2 Timothy 2:9). It thunders through prophets, through fishermen, through tentmakers, through letters, through pulpits, through prisons. And yes, it can shine through code if Christ is truly preached.

You are right to warn against counterfeit gospels. But you are wrong to equate boldness with betrayal. What matters is not who speaks, or how loud, or how digital. What matters is whether the message exalts Christ, conforms to Scripture, pierces the heart, and feeds the flock with sound doctrine.

The Word became flesh. But now that Word is preached in power through jars of clay. And God gets the glory, not the format.

So hold your sword. But remember who forged it. It was not forged to cut down fellow laborers. It was forged to uphold truth.

If that’s your aim, then we are not enemies. But if the measure of fidelity becomes delivery style rather than doctrinal content, then you are no longer contending for the faith. You are shadowboxing a ghost while the sheep go hungry.

Let the Word speak. And let the Spirit judge.

image
image194×184 64.2 KB

You have a blessed day.

J.

54

Johann… that was a clean swing. You came hard with Scripture, history, and boldness, and for that I won’t return silence. Let’s meet in the open, blade to blade, with the Book between us.

You say I took aim at methodology. I did. And I stand by it. Not because method is the enemy, but because method shapes message more than most want to admit. You’re right to say the Word is not bound… but that’s precisely why we don’t dare treat the means lightly. The medium isn’t sacred, but it is strategic. And when the method starts shaping expectations, forming habits, and dulling spiritual muscle, it’s no longer just delivery… it’s discipleship. That’s not suspicion. That’s stewardship.

You quoted Colossians and Hebrews and 2 Timothy to say the Word is not chained. I agree. But Paul didn’t hand the scrolls to untested hands. He told Timothy to entrust the truth to faithful men. He told Titus to silence deceivers. The New Testament never separated the message from the messenger. In fact, the reliability of the vessel was part of the test. Paul didn’t shrug at delivery… he guarded doctrine by guarding who delivered it.

You said I misused Galatians. That I downplayed Philippians. No. I drew a distinction. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached even by rivals… but not by manipulators preaching a different gospel. That’s the whole point. The question isn’t can truth be spoken by odd vessels… it’s can truth be trusted without a tested life behind it. And AI doesn’t have a life to test.

You say I’m elevating slow methods. I’m not. I’m elevating sanctified ones. God can use speed. God can use stillness. But we both know He tends to work deep when He works slow. Burning bushes don’t flicker in passing. Mount Sinai didn’t stream in real time. Christ wasn’t formed in Paul in a download… He was pressed in over time, through pain, prayer, and obedience. That’s not romanticism. That’s reality.

You say Bereans tested apostles, not interfaces. Sure. Because interfaces didn’t exist. But the Berean impulse remains. Examine everything. Not just is it biblical… but is it being handled by someone under the weight of it. That’s not gatekeeping. That’s guarding the flock.

You quoted James 3. So will I. Let not many become teachers. That means whoever speaks with the authority of truth… human or artificial… should do so with trembling. That’s why this matters. Because we are surrounded by a generation who confuses speed with wisdom and thinks a fluent answer equals a faithful one. If I have to hold the line and take fire for saying not every quote is a sermon and not every output is discipleship… so be it.

You’re not my enemy. But I’ll say this plainly. If the Church becomes so enamored with technological eloquence that it forgets what it means to be conformed to Christ in weakness, suffering, humility, and obedience… we’ve already lost more than we realize.

So yes. Let the Word speak. Let the Spirit judge. But don’t let the screen become the new sacred. God breathed life into dust… not data.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

55

Yes, I did say that. I use Scripture to study Scripture in several translation and the Bible study notes.

I’m not a “scholar”, obviously you are. I did not take Bible theology in Bible school.

If God can’t speak to me through His Word and study notes then He has compromised His omniscience.

56

@Dogmum

Yes, God speaks through His Word, but hearing without obeying is self-deception. Scripture is not a mirror for admiration, it is a sword for mortification. Knowing verses, quoting translations, and reading notes means nothing if the truth is not obeyed. James 1:22 says plainly, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

You say God speaks through His Word, good. But He speaks to be followed, not admired. Theology isn’t for scholars only, it’s for saints who live crucified lives. The Spirit is not impressed with head knowledge that never bears fruit.

God’s omniscience isn’t compromised if we miss His voice, our hearts are. It’s not about how much we know, but whether we submit to what He’s already said. And if we refuse to practice what we read, we turn His living Word into dead words in our hands.

Truth unpracticed becomes vanity. Light ignored becomes judgment. The Pharisees knew Scripture better than anyone, and still crucified the Word made flesh.

So the issue isn’t if God can speak. The issue is whether we’re walking in what He’s already said.

J.

1 Like
57

Friends
Reading news reports this morning, I saw two articles about AI; both are alarming in the potential negative effects of artificiality.

The first was an AI trading-bot that was more nimble at trading stocks than human traders, and seemed to out perform human traders, most likely because it was trading against human traders. This potential intrusion into the stock trading process will obviously have some anticipated and some unanticipated effects on the global economy.

The second was an AI obituary-bot. A writer can supply some biographical data and the AI bot will write a glowing obituary. For a grieving family an obituary is not only a published “Death Notice”, but a memorial written to commemorate and honor the life of a loved one. How honoring would it actually be to the deceased if the obituary was sourced in artificiality.

For both applications of AI mentioned above, the soundness of the trading stock and biographical data is not at issue. AI did both jobs better than humans by efficiency metrics. What is concerning is the way humans perceive the data once artificially manipulated; how different the data is internalized by the human after having passed through an artificial sieve. Personally, I think introducing artificial intelligence into the presentation of data introduces the high risk of adulteration, as seen in the examples above. If data can be seen as sourced from data strata, there is the supernatural strata, the natural strata, and then the subnatural (artificial) strata. Philosophically, compiling data through a subnatural sieve hoping it will better inform me of supernatural reality seems opposed to rationality. Theologically, all permanent understanding of eternal reality comes directly from the supernatural Holy Spirit, and implants into the human person; transforming the living saint by renewing the human mind.

I know we all use tools in our efforts to grasp and relate reality. I know we have a human proclivity to rely on convenient tools that seem to be the most efficient for the task, as measured by efficiency metrics. Surely, using AI as a tool is more efficient in this way. But I submit, that in our process of acquiring valid understanding of the supernatural, our reliance is firmly on The Holy Spirit of God, and not on our ability or skill to wield the various efficiency tools at our disposal.

AI is a “Large Language Model” tool, and therefore functions much like an unknown tongue. We know a real “Spirit Given” unknown tongue is not artificial, and we know not every unknown tongue comes from The Holy Spirit. If AI can be read into the biblical admonishments concerning unknown tongues, how would that affect our understnding? Try it below…

And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. 1 Corinthians 12:6-11

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church (among the saints of God) I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. 1 Corinthians 14:18-21

I hope this makes some sense to you, the reader. I struggle to commit my thoughts into communication that can be understood, as I lack the skills to concisely convey a principle. AI is better at this than I am, I admit. I’m hoping the humanness of my writing will not distract, but actually enhance the message.

Much Love
KP

3 Likes
58

@KPuff

KP, thank you for sharing your thoughts sincerely. But could you walk us through the Scripture passages you quoted, especially 1 Corinthians 12 and 14? What exactly do those verses mean in their context, and how do they support the idea that AI functions like unknown tongues?

Who was Paul addressing? What problem was he correcting? What was the role of tongues, and how did interpretation function within the body? More to the point, how do you see any of those Spirit-given gifts paralleling the use of a language model that doesn’t speak by revelation, doesn’t edify supernaturally, and doesn’t originate from the Spirit?

It would be helpful if you could explain what Paul meant when he said, “five words with understanding” and how that applies here. Because if anything, clarity, not obscurity, is what Paul insists on in 1 Corinthians 14.

Can you show how these passages, when read in context, support your comparison?

Thanks.

J.

59

@Johann

I thought (hoped actually) that you would respond. I appreciate knowing someone at least reads what I write. Your question is hard for me to explain, difficult for me to put into words that communicate my thoughts.

I know Paul is not specifically speaking about an unknown language that comes from a suspect or ungodly source. He was not questioning the sincerity of the speaker. He is referencing an unknown language that all agree is given by The Holy Spirit of God. He is not questioning the validity of the language, but of the application; how these gifted “glossa” were being used by the “ecclesia”. It was at this point I saw a connection to our modern “large language model” artificial intellect. Not so much in the validity of the model, or in the interpretation of the machine language, but in the application of its output for the ecclesia. I am not questioning the sincerity of the user, or the validity of the output, but, just like in the first century problem, I am cautioning on how the output is received by the hearer. In the first century, the unknown language problem was causing disunity, specifically because the hearer could not understand what was being spoken; the expression of the gift did not edify the observer (hearer). The similarity to AI is not that the hearer can not understand the output, but the similarity I was suggesting was in the effect it had on the hearer. I was suggesting that even good information can fail to edify the observer (hearer), surreptitiously sew disunity, which is contrary to the stated objective of The Holy Spirit. I was not sugesting abandoning AI, but taking the output and reprocess it through a compassionate human heart. We have heard the old adage, a message derived from the head reaches a head, a message derived from the heart reaches the heart.

I know Paul is not condemning AI, so technically what I am suggesting is an extrapolation of a principle. That principle is edification of The Body of Christ, and encouraging unity.

I’ll think more on this, and maybe I can come up with a better explanation as I muse on it a bit.

Your Bro – working toward the same goals

KP

2 Likes
60

Thanks, @KPuff I’ll hold off and wait for your fuller explanation as you continue to think it through. Looking forward to hearing more when you’re ready.

Your brother,

J.

61

@KPuff, my brother… this was rich. Thoughtful, anchored, and pulsing with a kind of holy hesitation that too few stop to honor. You didn’t shout a conclusion. You invited reflection. And that, in itself, is a rare gift in a world addicted to certainty at speed.

You’re not tossing a stone at the tool. You’re sounding a watchman’s bell about what the tool does to the soul if left unfiltered by the Spirit. That’s not suspicion. That’s wisdom. The kind that remembers edification is not just about content accuracy, but heart clarity. A message can be technically correct and still spiritually sterile if it bypasses the life of the one receiving it.

Your comparison to unknown tongues was striking. Not because you forced a rigid parallel, but because you exposed a principle. Communication that bypasses the heart can also bypass the Body. Paul’s concern wasn’t about the language itself, but about the edifying effect on the gathered Church. And in that, your question lands hard. Can AI, no matter how articulate, substitute for Spirit-soaked, heart-carried ministry? Not in function. Not in fruit.

You’re not asking us to fear AI. You’re asking us to reprocess its output through the same filter the Spirit uses when He ministers through men: love, compassion, clarity, and Christlike aim. Because information, no matter how efficient, is not the same as transformation. And transformation has always been the Spirit’s domain, not the system’s.

I think of how Paul told the Corinthians that even prophecy, even tongues, even knowledge, all of it must bow to love. What does not edify does not build. And if a tool, even a powerful one, circumvents that living connection between truth and tenderness, then yes, it risks producing not fruit, but friction.

You are not sounding an alarm against advancement. You are calling for re-alignment to the deeper call. To serve the Body in a way that leaves no one cold, confused, or disconnected. And that kind of caution is not hesitation. It is holy.

So thank you. For slowing the tempo. For raising the question. For reminding us that the best tools still need a sanctified grip.

Your bro, in Christ and truth

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

62

@Johann

To technically answer the question in the OP, I say it is infeasible to expect sub-natural artificiality to accurately interpret supernatural reality. The sub-natural artificial intelligence would have to train on data sourced in supernatural reality, a realm (database) in which it has no access. No training input, no accurate output. So my short answer is NO.

Regarding the human effect of AI on ministry, service, and The Gospel, the above principle should be considered. The output of AI is simply a quickly collated presentation of stored (or retrievable) data, and so the output can never exceed the accuracy of the training data. We in the trade used to say “Garbage in – Garbage out”, but in practice it was usually “pretty good data in – Garbage out”. AI wants us to believe in “Garbage in – pretty good information out” and that is oxymoronic, contradictory logic. Proponents want us to no longer speak of the term “artificial” to mean “a reduced image of the original (less than the original), but as something “better than the original”; turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

My warning is about spiritual deception. The “deceptions” of this propaganda are manifold. If the First deception is the illogicality of the sub-natural artificiality properly reflecting the ideals of the supernatural reality, the second deception is revealed in AI’s claim to fame. AI is built on its notable ability to fascinate the user in one very narrow quality, with being “better” at “speed” (those words are in quotes because I’m not convinced speed = better, but that is my personal philosophy. Speed loses its power when understood from the perspective of one who will live forever. That is another conversation). Being enamored with speed and ease, we risk becoming like Pope’s proverbial fools, who rush in where angels fear to tread. We are so naturally wowed by speed that we heartily accept all that goes with it as “acceptable artifact”, nuisance “side effects” to the medicinal AI wonder-drug. One obvious side-effect is addiction; overuse of a useful tool that slowly becomes a controlling need. We can see that coming, and hopefully take positive steps to curb lawful activities without becoming “brought under the power of any” (1 Corinthians 6:12).

That bring me to the third deception – the unseen, unfelt, unknown effects. I am suggesting not all the wonder-drug’s side-effects are immediately felt, or systematically guarded against; some are slowly and surreptitiously destroying our liver and eating away at the lining our alimentary canal. I am worried that too much exposure to this wonder-drug will render us unable to properly metabolize good nutrition, if you get my metaphor. I can already see there is very small print written on an enclosed pamphlet; dire warnings of “rare but possible” side effects; “If you do experience rash, depression, thoughts of suicide, organ failure, spontaneous amputations of arms or legs, or death, contact your physician right away”. I feel there are surely heretofore unknown destructive side-effects that will only be brought-to-light after it is too late for remediation.

The fourth latent deception I point out is the slow onset of “atrophy”. This malady has mercilessly affected mankind with every technological advancement I can remember. When I was in school, math was done on paper, or in your head. BUT, the calculator is faster an more accurate, so we ALL paid big-money for the latest Texas Instruments model. It was surely faster, and more accurate, but soon we could no longer divide 12 by 3 without “it” (it backwards is TI). Now there is only a rare store clerk who could even make simple change without the electronic brain on the counter. We used to remember about 30 – 50 phone numbers in our head, now most people cannot remember their own phone number. I know, we all slowly just accept these “advances” as positive, as our brains slowly atrophy, like the apologue of the frog complacently boiling in the proverbial kettle (see Sorites paradox). As for this frog, I’m jumping out of the pot now.

The last deception I will warn about is that of the effects AI may have on ministry. This is the more complicated one. This is where I tried to use the principles of “tongues” (unknown, not understood phonemes) from which I tried to extrapolate a principle; a test that asks “does it edify?”; “who, or what is being glorified through its employment?” In the 1 Corinthians teachings, Paul encourages the readers to consider doing everything motivated by Love for the other person, and to act to encourage unity of The Body of Christ. Jesus said our observable unity (love) is how other people will know we are His disciples; how we relate to one another is evangelistic “gospel”. For me, AI output inherently lacks much of the necessary components of unity, and communication, because it lacks soul. AI cannot “touch” your hand or put its arm around your shoulder. AI cannot listen compassionately, it cannot express love, caring, gentleness, kindness, patience, understanding, etc. It cannot look you in the eye, feel your pain, or rejoice with your joy. With no access to humanness, AI lacks the major components of Christian fellowship, and therefore also lacks Spirit led teaching or evangelism. The affective (soul) part of communication must start with fellowship between Jesus and the saint, to be effectively transmitted saint to saint. While AI may be an effective tool to convince someone of facts, convincing others of facts has never been our commission. Connecting, caring, loving, sharing, are in our tool bag. These are celestial tools, and given only to a yielded, trusting, obedient, church. We must improve our skill with these heavenly tools, even if we never gain any skill with the artificial tools of the world.

I hope I haven’t said too much.
My grandkids want me to make French toast for breakfast, so I have to go.

Much Love
KP

2 Likes
63

@KPuff

You are not guarding truth, you are fearing tools. Your issue isn’t with AI specifically, it’s with anything that doesn’t come to you in raw, unfiltered form. But that’s not biblical discernment, it’s suspicion dressed in piety. God has always used means. He used Moses’ staff, tablets of stone, parchment, ink, scribes, prophets, and translators. Ezra gave the sense so the people could understand the Law, not just hear it read. Nehemiah 8 makes that clear. Were they less spiritual for explaining the Word? No, they were doing exactly what God ordained.

Rejecting every mediated tool, whether it’s a commentary, lexicon, AI engine, or sermon transcript, doesn’t make you a purist, it just leaves you blind to the help God has provided through His people. The Bereans were not praised because they refused to hear Paul, but because they tested everything he said against the Scriptures. Acts 17 commends testing, not retreat. Fear of deception should lead you to Scripture, not away from resources that help you understand it better.

Do you think Paul wrote in a vacuum? He quoted Greek poets, reasoned in synagogues, engaged culture, used scribes, and even left room for tradition rightly submitted to Christ. The Holy Spirit uses teachers for a reason. Ephesians 4 says pastors and teachers are Christ’s gift to the church for building up the saints. To reject every secondary source is to reject the very gifts Christ gave.

And let’s be honest. If you think quoting a commentary or allowing a tool to help explain Scripture is somehow spiritual compromise, then you’d have to throw out Strong’s Concordance, interlinear Bibles, Bible dictionaries, and every footnote in every study Bible ever printed. That’s not sola Scriptura, that’s solo scriptura. And solo scriptura isolates you from the very body Christ gave you for discernment and growth.

So no, the problem isn’t AI. The problem is when believers fail to test all things by Scripture. Whether the words come through paper, airwaves, or a digital model, the standard is still the same. Isaiah 8 says if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them. That’s the issue. Not the form, but the content.

Stop fearing the tool. Start fearing false doctrine that goes unchallenged because you’re too afraid to examine the means God may be using. Truth doesn’t tremble when handled through tools. It only suffers when we stop testing what we hear against what God has already spoken.

There is no atrophy in my handling of Scripture, none. I contend for the faith daily, not from the safety of online forums, but face-to-face with Muslims and Jews who challenge the very foundation of the gospel. I don’t merely quote verses, I wield them, rightly dividing the Word of truth in real-time apologetics.

Are you out there doing the same, defending the Word in real conversations, contending with those who deny Christ, or are you just critiquing from behind a screen?

J.