Can AI Interpret Tongues?

General Faith
64

@Johann
Ouch!
My personal thoughts and warnings about AI were not directed at you, they were only a fuller explanation of my position that you requested. Even so, I accept your cursing and stone-throwing the way King David accepted them from Sheimei the son of Gera; Although I feel your many false and overly harsh accusations and brutal admonitions are unfair, and unwarranted, I accept them as from The Lord. Perhaps The Lord sent you to curse me today,

I was trying to be a faithful watchman (Ez 33), to the best of my limited ability. If my thoughts and warning sit right with you, you can praise your Heavenly Father. If they seem like strange-fire, you can simply ignore them. I will not be offended. For the sake of unity, I wll simply say thanks for your thoughts.

Your Brother
KP

1 Like
65

@KPuff, my brother… you didn’t say too much. You said what needed to be said, and you said it like someone who’s walked a few laps with wisdom. This wasn’t alarmism. It was discernment with its boots on. You named things most won’t touch. Not to silence progress, but to shepherd the conversation back toward what really matters.

Your point about AI being sub-natural trying to interpret the supernatural hit like a hammer made of Scripture and common sense. No access to the source means no authority in the output. We’ve got too many folks enamored with polished sentences who’ve forgotten that only the Spirit divides soul from spirit. And as you said, garbage in… garbage out. Or worse, slightly shiny garbage out, which deceives more effectively because it looks clean.

You’re right to call out our obsession with speed. The Church is not a race car pit stop. It’s a field, a furnace, a place where roots grow deep. Eternity laughs at our rush. Love is patient for a reason.

Your words about atrophy land hard. Every new convenience has a cost, and most of us don’t even read the fine print. We click accept, open the app, and then wonder why our minds are dull and our prayers are shallow. We’re outsourcing memory, reason, and eventually, even meditation on the Word. That’s not a tool serving the Church. That’s a subtle chain being fastened one click at a time.

And then you brought it home with the heart of it all… fellowship. Edification. The ministry of presence. You reminded us that our calling is not just to inform minds but to carry hearts. That’s the difference between teaching and touching. Between quoting Scripture and embodying it. AI can point to the Word. It cannot be the hand that lifts a burden, or the voice that says, “I’m still here,” when the tears won’t stop. Only a Spirit-filled, broken-yet-bold human can do that.

You’re right… convincing people of facts was never our commission. We preach Christ crucified. We embody love that costs. And we point to a kingdom that cannot be automated.

Make that French toast with joy, brother. You’ve already served something better than breakfast this morning.

Much respect and love

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

66

@KPuff

Your reference to Shemei is misplaced. David did not receive correction from a fool throwing stones as divine truth. He endured it as judgment, yes, but he did not exalt Shemei’s slander as prophetic. Nor did he treat falsehood as a substitute for faithfulness. If you believe God sent me to curse you, then let your conscience bear that, but do not cloak that in martyrdom while sidestepping the actual issue, you made sweeping claims rooted more in fear of tools than in Scripture rightly applied.

If you were functioning as a watchman like Ezekiel 33, then your trumpet must be tested for clarity. Ezekiel’s call was not to blow every wind of opinion but to sound the alarm according to what the Lord actually said. Warnings not anchored in the Word are not prophetic, they are noise. A true watchman doesn’t warn against the wrong enemies. The danger is not in the tool, but in the message it delivers. You should be warning against false doctrine, not technological mediums through which the Word is faithfully explained.

I did not attack you. I addressed the logic, the tone, and the danger of your argument. But if you hear that as cursing, then perhaps the reproof struck deeper than intended. The wounds of a friend are faithful. Better to be wounded by correction than comforted in error.

As for unity, real unity only exists where truth governs. Not where we lower the volume to avoid tension. Paul confronted Peter to his face in Galatians 2, because the gospel was at stake. So if your warnings can be tested by Scripture, stand by them. If not, lay them down. But don’t call critique a curse and silence a virtue. That is not the way of the cross, nor the way of the prophets.

J.

67

@Johann

You accuse @KPuff of fearing tools, but what you’re actually doing is swinging a sword in the wrong direction. He didn’t deny the use of means… he questioned the unseen spiritual rot that sets in when the Church starts calling the mechanism the messenger. There’s a difference between using a staff and bowing to it.

Moses’ staff parted the sea, sure… but it was only powerful when God said raise it. Otherwise it was just wood. AI is wood. Steel. Wires. And the day the Church starts praising the staff instead of trembling before the One who commands it, we’ve already golden-calfed our way into tech idolatry.

You say God uses teachers… amen. But last I checked, the qualifications in Titus and 1 Timothy didn’t include “high output” and “perfect syntax.” They included a holy life, tested doctrine, and Spirit-born character. If you think a polished paragraph generated in seconds compares to a life wrung out by sanctification, you’ve mistaken production for power.

You mock “solo Scriptura” as if caution is arrogance… but the Bereans didn’t just test content… they examined the source daily. Paul wasn’t plugged into a codebase. He was walking in the fear of God, trembling to preach truth that cost him blood. The idea that AI output and apostolic proclamation share equal footing just because both include Scripture is not just naïve… it’s near blasphemous.

You boast of contending face to face… praise God. But the question isn’t whether you use the Word… it’s whether you submit to it. Because quoting Isaiah 8 while downplaying the danger of algorithmic regurgitation shows you’ve missed the very warning Isaiah gave. “If they speak not according to this Word” doesn’t mean “as long as it sounds scriptural”… it means sourced in the Spirit, not just styled with verses.

KPuff never said burn every tool. He said weigh them. He said don’t confuse the speed of the tool with the sanctification of the teacher. He said edification is the test, not fluency. You call that suspicion. The Bible calls it discernment.

The danger isn’t that the Church doesn’t use enough tech. The danger is that she’s losing her appetite for teaching that costs something. AI costs nothing. It bleeds nothing. It bears no cross. And no, that’s not fear. That’s clarity.

So yes, use tools. But don’t rebuke the watchmen who say, “Test it again.” Don’t call it fear when it’s the fear of the Lord.

Because I’d rather be slow with the Spirit than fast with the flesh.

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

68

@Johann

You say you didn’t curse, just corrected. But correction without understanding is just a cleaner form of contempt. You addressed the logic, the tone, the danger? No… you skipped the humility it takes to ask, “Did I hear rightly?” and went straight for surgical rebuttal like the point was precision, not people.

Let’s talk Shemei. David didn’t exalt his slander, true… but he also didn’t retaliate. He didn’t spiritualize his own position or elevate his own defense. He said, “Perhaps the Lord sent him.” That’s not martyrdom. That’s meekness. It wasn’t about pretending Shemei was right… it was about refusing to assume David himself was spotless. That’s a heart posture we don’t see much when theological swords come out. And yet, here’s KPuff… wounded, unflinching, and still listening. That’s not sidestepping. That’s the kind of soft heart God honors.

You say the danger isn’t the tool, but the message. Then what is the tool delivering? Is it forged in the fear of God, or optimized for efficiency at the cost of dependence on the Spirit? That’s not technophobia. That’s sober-minded spiritual analysis. KPuff didn’t say technology is evil. He said unchecked reverence for its output is dangerous. And you know it is. Speed does not sanctify. Accuracy doesn’t equal anointing. Fluency doesn’t mean fidelity.

When Paul rebuked Peter, it was over doctrine and hypocrisy, not platforms. KPuff’s concern wasn’t orthodoxy on paper… it was the danger of theological formation bypassing incarnational discipleship. He wasn’t clutching pearls over innovation… he was grieving over the kind of progress that desensitizes saints and outsources presence.

You say critique isn’t a curse. Fine. But critique without tenderness, without listening, without first taking your shoes off before stepping into someone else’s burdened conscience… that lands like a stone, not like a balm. And you may not call that cursing, but when correction forgets compassion, the sheep still bleed.

So if you want to test the trumpet, test the spirit too. Ask if it carries both truth and tears. Because if you can call out error without groaning for the Church’s holiness and unity, then it’s not reproof. It’s performance.

The prophets didn’t just blast. They wept.

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

69

@SincereSeeker

You keep on repeating yourself, painfully so, use the scriptures and let’s “work” with that, not your emotional outbursts and phobias.

J.

70

@Johann

Heard! Listening!, Considering!
I do not reject your critique, Quite the opposite, I heartily welome it. Sincerely, Thank you.

Now, here is some uncomfortable reality, not intended to wound, but, to contend with disunity in this conversation; as you say, Paul confronted Peter. I would rather do this admonishment in private, (like I did the last few times). This time, out in the open.

Here are quotes from a man who “contends for the faith daily”, firing his artilerary, aimed directly at his own brother, ammunitions aimed at his own troops, fired against his own to protect something artificial.

“you are fearing tools” (I do not fear these tools, in any sense)

“Your issue is with anything that doesn’t come to you in raw, unfiltered form” (It is not)

“Rejecting every mediated tool” ( I do not reject any “mediated” tool)

“Do you think Paul wrote in a vacuum?” (No, I do not)

“you think quoting a commentary or allowing a tool to help explain Scripture is somehow spiritual compromise” (NO, I do not)

“Stop fearing the tool.Start fearing false doctrine” (I do not fear the tool, I do not “fear” (respect, honor, cower under) false doctrine)

“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?” (This accusation was uncalled for. It speaks much more about you than it does about me. I am sorry for you that you said it)

I am asking you to Hear, listen, and Consider, in Love.
IN Love,
KP

1 Like
71

@Johann

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27:6). Faithful wounds still bleed. You don’t get to call it faithfulness if it lacks love, and you don’t get to call it love if it has no wounds. Truth and tenderness are not opposites. They are covenant partners. That’s why Paul said, “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). Truth without love is not Christ. It’s just noise with good theology.

You want a model of correction? Try Galatians 6:1 … “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness… and watch yourself, lest you also be tempted.” Gentleness isn’t emotional fluff. It’s spiritual command. If you can’t rebuke with tears, you’re not ready to rebuke. Paul said that “for three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:31). That’s not performance. That’s apostolic posture.

You said the prophets didn’t just blast, they wept. Yes, and so did Jesus. “When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it” (Luke 19:41). Judgment poured from His lips. But tears rolled from His eyes. Truth and tears. Word and wound. Sword and sorrow.

So if you want Scripture only, here’s your Scripture only. The prophets blasted lies, yes, but never with dry eyes. And the apostles didn’t separate doctrine from the disposition of Christ. If you rebuke like you’ve never been forgiven, then you’ve missed the entire point of grace.

“Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person” (Colossians 4:6). Not just seasoned with sarcasm, Johann. Seasoned with salt. That includes boldness and restraint. Zeal and trembling. Spirit and truth.

So yes, I’ll keep repeating myself, painfully if necessary. Because I’m not here to perform. I’m here to make sure truth is carried the way Jesus carried it… full of grace and full of truth (John 1:14). And if the tone doesn’t match the truth, it fails the test.

You wanted the Word. Now walk in it.

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

72

@SincereSeeker

First, your selective use of tears misses the fuller picture. Yes, Paul wept in Acts 20:31, but look at his actual words elsewhere. To the Galatians who were being deceived, Paul wrote: “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12). That’s not exactly dripping with tender tears. Paul could be devastatingly direct when false teaching threatened the gospel.

Your Proverbs 27:6 application is backwards. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” - the emphasis is on faithful wounds, not comfortable ones. The very next verse says “The soul that is full loathes honey, but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet” (27:7). Sometimes bitter medicine is exactly what’s needed, and demanding it be sweetened defeats the purpose.

You misread the prophetic model entirely. Jeremiah didn’t weep while he thundered “Thus says the Lord” - he wept because of what he had to say. But when he spoke God’s word, it was often harsh: “Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29). Fire and hammers aren’t gentle.

Your “tears test” isn’t biblical. Show me where Scripture requires emotional displays as proof of spiritual readiness to correct. Nathan didn’t weep when confronting David about Bathsheba - he told a parable and declared “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal mercilessly (1 Kings 18:27). Jesus called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs” and “brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:27, 33).

You’ve created a false standard. Paul told Timothy to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Timothy 4:2) - three different approaches for different situations. Sometimes rebuke means sharp correction. When Paul opposed Peter “to his face” in Galatians 2:11, there’s no mention of tears or gentleness - just public confrontation of dangerous hypocrisy.

Your John 1:14 conclusion doesn’t follow. Yes, Jesus was “full of grace and truth,” but that same Jesus made a whip and drove out the money changers (John 2:15). He told the woman at the well hard truths about her five husbands. Grace and truth don’t always look like what you’re demanding.
The real issue- You’ve turned biblical correction into emotional performance art. Scripture calls for wisdom to know when gentleness serves truth and when firmness serves love. Sometimes love refuses to coddle. Sometimes truth cuts deep without apology.
“Open rebuke is better than secret love” (Proverbs 27:5) - the verse right before your favorite one. Notice- open rebuke is called better than love that stays silent.
The prophets didn’t fail your tears test. They passed God’s faithfulness test.

J.

1 Like
73

@KPuff

Brother,
You’re absolutely right, and I owe you an apology. Reading back through what I wrote, I can see how my words came across as accusatory and uncharitable. That wasn’t my heart, but impact matters more than intent.
When I wrote those things about “fearing tools” and questioned your ministry - that was me projecting assumptions instead of actually listening to what you were saying. You never said you feared AI or rejected all mediated tools. I created strawmen arguments instead of engaging with your actual concerns, and that’s on me.
The comment about “defending the Word in real conversations” was particularly out of line. I don’t know your life or ministry, and frankly, it was arrogant of me to imply anything about your faithfulness based on a forum discussion. That was wrong, and I’m genuinely sorry.
You’ve been patient with me through multiple private conversations, trying to work through this disagreement with grace. Instead of honoring that approach, I let frustration get the better of me and started firing shots at a brother who’s been nothing but respectful.
I hear you saying you don’t fear the tools themselves - your concerns seem to be about authenticity, human responsibility, and perhaps the broader implications of how we engage with Scripture and each other. Those are legitimate concerns worth discussing, not dismissing.
Can we reset? I’d rather understand where you’re actually coming from than keep arguing against positions you don’t hold. Your heart for contending for the faith is clear, I shouldn’t have questioned that.

Your fellow pilgrim.

J.

1 Like
74

@Johann

Much Love and Understanding. I appreciate your words, much more than you might know.

We will be able to sort all this out after the Wedding Supper. Ihope I’m sitting near you.
KP

2 Likes
75

Thanx @SincereSeeker
I’m glad my feeble attempts at communication are heard, recieved and understod in the spirit in which I was intending.

I appreciate your ministry here, and I enjoy reading your thoughtful posts.

KP

1 Like
76

@Johann

That… was weighty. Not just in tone, but in spirit. And I receive it. Fully. Gratefully.

What you just did doesn’t come easy for most. It’s easier to double down than to lay low, easier to guard pride than to guard unity. But you chose the narrow road. And that humility isn’t weakness… it’s holy strength.

You didn’t just acknowledge words. You acknowledged weight. The burden of tone. The consequence of impact. The difference between winning an argument and winning a brother. And that matters more than most will ever know.

I see your heart, and I respect it. You listened. You slowed down. You repented. That’s not just a reset… that’s revival in miniature. And yes… let’s reset. Let’s contend without crushing. Let’s discern without dividing. Let’s keep sharpening one another, not as adversaries, but as iron in the same fire.

I’m with you. Still contending. Still standing. But now… side by side, not toe to toe.

Thank you for making the way clear again.

Your brother on the wall.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Still here for the Truth… and the unity.

2 Likes
77

I think this question is an easy one, and has a very simple answer and that is NO. :smiley:
From an Orthodox Christian perspective, the interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift, not a human skill. St. Paul writes that it is the Holy Spirit who “apportions to each one individually as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:11). The ability to interpret tongues is not something that can be acquired through study or technology—it is a divine grace given for the building up of the Church.

Scripture gives us clear examples of this principle. In Genesis 41, Pharaoh’s dreams baffled “all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men,” yet Joseph—by the Spirit of God—was able to interpret them, saying plainly: “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh an answer of peace” (Genesis 41:16). Likewise in Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar demanded an interpretation of his troubling dream, but none of the wise men, enchanters, or astrologers could reveal its meaning. Only Daniel, to whom God revealed the mystery in a vision, could interpret it—declaring that “there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries” (Daniel 2:28).

The key point in both cases is that divine mysteries—whether dreams or tongues—are beyond the grasp of even the wisest human minds unless God Himself chooses to reveal them. AI, being a creation of human ingenuity, inherits our limitations. It is bound by the logic, data, and programming given to it by finite and fallen humans. From a theological and philosophical standpoint, AI cannot transcend its created nature to touch the uncreated energies of God. The interpretation of tongues is not a puzzle to be solved with more data—it is a revelation of God’s will, given by His Spirit to whom He chooses.

Therefore, while AI may process patterns in language or attempt translations, it cannot enter the realm of spiritual interpretation, for “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God… they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The interpretation of tongues will always remain in the hands of the One who gives the gift—God Himself.

Out of the 73 posts, I revisited some that I initially overlooked, and I found that this one fits more appropriately here: https://forums.crosswalk.com/t/should-ai-be-allowed-in-crosswalk-forums/8870”

1 Like
78

The AI analysis’ closing sentence on this topic:

Overall, the posts reflect a deep concern about how AI might influence spiritual practices and understanding, highlighting a need for unity and discernment in navigating these modern challenges.

:rofl:

79

I love this irony. Thanx @SFsergio

“Concerning AI: Too much A, not enoght I”

KP

1 Like
80

Have you ever programmed the keyboard? It’s been possible to actually reset the whole keyboard (not just the function keys) for a while, but you have to draw each character manually in pixel paint and merge the files using Word. That’s the AI of language translation, but if you’re a software cat, you could technically actually write a code in windows paint bd have your typing set to mean anything in a coded language.