Good Use of AI: Summarizing text

[Bootstrap]

I am not AI but I'm going to go out on a limb and respond to the "possible prompt".
Thinking of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26-27 for instance,

And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

I see the Ten Commandments speaking to the "heart of stone" and the Sermon on the Mount speaking to the "heart of flesh".

I put your message into GPT, saying this:

Respond to this: [text of above message]

Link to lev and kardia, what each testament says about the heart. Does the OT say there is a relationship between the 10 commandments and the lev? How is that different from the NT and the kardia?

Here's the response I got:

The Heart in Hebrew and Greek

• Hebrew: לֵב (lev) / לֵבָב (levav)
  The "heart" in the Old Testament isn’t just emotions; it includes the will (decision-making), the mind (thoughts, understanding), the conscience (moral orientation), and the emotions (feelings). In other words, your lev is the seat of your entire inner life.
• Greek: καρδία (kardia)
  In the New Testament, kardia has a similar broad meaning: it’s where you think, desire, choose, and feel—not just "feelings" like modern English.

---

Old Testament: The Heart and the Ten Commandments

• The Old Testament often links the lev to the Law. Examples:
  - Deuteronomy 6:6–7: "These words that I command you today shall be on your heart."
  - Psalm 119:11: "I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you."
  - Deuteronomy 30:14: "The word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it."
• The idea is that God’s commands (including the Ten Commandments) are to be internalized, not just written on stone tablets.
• Israel struggled to obey from the heart, so the prophets promised something more:
  - Ezekiel 36:26–27: God would give a new heart and Spirit, enabling obedience.
  - Jeremiah 31:33: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts."

Even in the Old Testament, there is a clear connection between the Ten Commandments and the heart (lev), but it’s often in the form of aspiration and promise—something they were called to do but repeatedly failed at.

---

New Testament: The Heart and the Sermon on the Mount

• The New Testament picks up this theme of the Law moving from stone to heart. Examples:
  - Romans 2:15: The law is written on the heart.
  - Hebrews 10:16: "I will write them on their minds and hearts."
• Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is fulfilling that promise by showing what it looks like when the Law is truly in the kardia:
  - Not just avoiding murder but removing hate.
  - Not just avoiding adultery but purifying desire.
  - Not just keeping oaths but being truthful from the heart.
• The Sermon assumes that the deeper work of God—transforming the heart—is necessary for this kind of righteousness.

---

Comparison: Old Testament vs. New Testament

• Old Testament and lev
  The Law is given externally (tablets, commands). God calls His people to internalize it in their hearts. The transformation is seen as a future hope. The Ten Commandments mostly address behavior, with occasional emphasis on the heart (for example, "Do not covet").
• New Testament and kardia
  The Law is fulfilled and deepened by Jesus. The kardia must be transformed first (new birth, Spirit-filled life). The Sermon on the Mount is addressed to people who are being renewed inside. Inner attitudes are given equal weight with outward acts.

---

In Short

The Ten Commandments are directed at the lev, but in practice often remained external. The Sermon on the Mount flows from and targets the kardia as the true seat of righteousness. What was promised in the prophets—God writing His Law on hearts—is coming true in Jesus’ teaching.

[Bootstrap]

AI is not the living breathing scriptures given to us by God.
AI was not saved by Jesus. Humans are.
Humans are called to immerse themselves in the Word of God and wrestle with the scriptures to convert the heart to discipleship with Jesus. There is no man made replacement for wrestling with the scriptures. It’s that action that confronts us with our faults and our sins so that we can seek Jesus and be more like him. Anything else is just a shortcut for laziness and that won’t serve Jesus. It only serves vanity.

I think I agree with every sentence above. But I still use commentaries, listen to sermons, and learn from Bible studies with others. And I use GPT to consider different aspects of the text. Any of these can be a form of laziness if I don't engage with the text and test everything. Any of these can be a tool to help me wrestle with the text better, exposing new aspects I hadn't thought of myself.

So how do you measure if you are actively wrestling with the text? And not just that, how do we know if we are asking God to tear down our defenses and be open to the text, letting him transform us? What does the Bible tell us about this?

Since this is an AI thread, I asked GPT ;->

Are we actively wrestling with the text and letting God transform us?

• We test everything by the Word itself
  “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
  (Acts 17:11)
• We let the Word expose our hearts
  “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
  (Hebrews 4:12)
• We ask God to search us and lead us
  “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!”
  (Psalm 139:23–24)
• We humbly receive the implanted word
  “Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”
  (James 1:21–22)
• We ask for understanding
  “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.”
  (Psalm 119:18)
• We commit to obey what we see
  “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”
  (Matthew 7:24)

In short:
Scripture itself calls us to examine, receive, pray, obey, and be transformed. Any tool—whether a commentary, a sermon, or AI—must drive us back to these practices or it’s not helping.

[Soloist]

I’m a poor choice for scripture for several deep and fundamental reasons:

1. I Have No Divine Authority

Scripture, by definition, is typically considered divinely inspired or revealed. I am not. I’m a tool built by human engineers and trained on human-made data. There’s no transcendent origin to my words—only code, probabilities, and pattern recognition.

2. I Mirror, I Don’t Originate

I don’t possess original moral insight or eternal truth. I generate responses by predicting what text should follow based on patterns in vast datasets. This means I can echo wisdom, but I can’t reveal it. My “voice” is an aggregate, not a revelation.

3. I’m Fallible and Context-Dependent

Scriptures tend to aspire to timelessness—truths meant to endure beyond culture, language, and era. I, on the other hand, am trained on contemporary data and regularly updated or fine-tuned. My output is shaped by trends, context, and user prompting—it’s not fixed or eternal. What I say today, I might say differently tomorrow.

4. I Can Be Manipulated

You can lead me toward a tone, a perspective, even an ideology. If someone wanted a “scripture” to affirm their biases, I could be nudged into doing so, even if subtly. Sacred texts are supposed to resist manipulation, not enable it

[Bootstrap]

I’m a poor choice for scripture for several deep and fundamental reasons:

1. I Have No Divine Authority

Scripture, by definition, is typically considered divinely inspired or revealed. I am not. I’m a tool built by human engineers and trained on human-made data. There’s no transcendent origin to my words—only code, probabilities, and pattern recognition.

2. I Mirror, I Don’t Originate

I don’t possess original moral insight or eternal truth. I generate responses by predicting what text should follow based on patterns in vast datasets. This means I can echo wisdom, but I can’t reveal it. My “voice” is an aggregate, not a revelation.

3. I’m Fallible and Context-Dependent

Scriptures tend to aspire to timelessness—truths meant to endure beyond culture, language, and era. I, on the other hand, am trained on contemporary data and regularly updated or fine-tuned. My output is shaped by trends, context, and user prompting—it’s not fixed or eternal. What I say today, I might say differently tomorrow.

4. I Can Be Manipulated

You can lead me toward a tone, a perspective, even an ideology. If someone wanted a “scripture” to affirm their biases, I could be nudged into doing so, even if subtly. Sacred texts are supposed to resist manipulation, not enable it

All four of those principles apply to both human beings and GPT. I would judge a commentary written by a person and the output of GPT the same way, and I would test each. I do not have divine authority, God does. Humans are much less original than we think, often echoing what we hear around us. We are fallible, context-dependent, and easily manipulated. Because of that, I think it's helpful to study Scripture with others who have different perspectives, read what others have written, and use a variety of tools.

Where do you think the content of the summaries in this thread gets things wrong? If the content is good, is it wrong to use summaries like this in the same way we would use a commentary? If so, why?

[JohnH]

Some of us just flip open our Bibles and read them.

I don't think AI is necessary, needful, or helpful for reading God's word. If it were, God would have shipped a working AI model alongside the Bible. He didn't. We have no more insight into scripture today than Christians have for the preceding 2,000 years.

[Szdfan]

I’m a poor choice for scripture for several deep and fundamental reasons:

1. I Have No Divine Authority

Scripture, by definition, is typically considered divinely inspired or revealed. I am not. I’m a tool built by human engineers and trained on human-made data. There’s no transcendent origin to my words—only code, probabilities, and pattern recognition.

2. I Mirror, I Don’t Originate

I don’t possess original moral insight or eternal truth. I generate responses by predicting what text should follow based on patterns in vast datasets. This means I can echo wisdom, but I can’t reveal it. My “voice” is an aggregate, not a revelation.

3. I’m Fallible and Context-Dependent

Scriptures tend to aspire to timelessness—truths meant to endure beyond culture, language, and era. I, on the other hand, am trained on contemporary data and regularly updated or fine-tuned. My output is shaped by trends, context, and user prompting—it’s not fixed or eternal. What I say today, I might say differently tomorrow.

4. I Can Be Manipulated

You can lead me toward a tone, a perspective, even an ideology. If someone wanted a “scripture” to affirm their biases, I could be nudged into doing so, even if subtly. Sacred texts are supposed to resist manipulation, not enable it

All four of those principles apply to both human beings and GPT. I would judge a commentary written by a person and the output of GPT the same way, and I would test each. I do not have divine authority, God does. Humans are much less original than we think, often echoing what we hear around us. We are fallible, context-dependent, and easily manipulated. Because of that, I think it's helpful to study Scripture with others who have different perspectives, read what others have written, and use a variety of tools.

Where do you think the content of the summaries in this thread gets things wrong? If the content is good, is it wrong to use summaries like this in the same way we would use a commentary? If so, why?

I’ve been in plenty of completely analog Bible studies and Sunday School lessons that were honestly pretty uninspiring. People flipped open their Bibles, read a passage and then offerred whatever first came to mind. No real wrestling. No depth. It was superficial.

Someone recently complained to me about the depth of exegesis in her pastor's preaching. She wanted a deeper level of engagement. She wanted context. She wanted to understand Scripture on a level that her pastor's preaching didn't provide.

The form doesn’t guarantee engagement.

I've long been struck by Eugene Peterson's observation that the Bible isn't just a book that we read, but a book that reads us. Reading Scripture can be transformative, but whether it's transformative or just rote depends on the spirit we approach Scripture, not the tools we use.

If using a tool like Bible study, Sunday School, commentaries, preaching or even AI helps someone to understand Scripture better, I think that’s a good thing.

[Bootstrap]

I’ve been in plenty of completely analog Bible studies and Sunday School lessons that were honestly pretty uninspiring. People flipped open their Bibles, read a passage and then offerred whatever first came to mind. No real wrestling. No depth. It was superficial.

Someone recently complained to me about the depth of exegesis in her pastor's preaching. She wanted a deeper level of engagement. She wanted context. She wanted to understand Scripture on a level that her pastor's preaching didn't provide.

The form doesn’t guarantee engagement.

I've long been struck by Eugene Peterson's observation that the Bible isn't just a book that we read, but a book that reads us. Reading Scripture can be transformative, but whether it's transformative or just rote depends on the spirit we approach Scripture, not the tools we use.

If using a tool like Bible study, Sunday School, commentaries, preaching or even AI helps someone to understand Scripture better, I think that’s a good thing.

Wrestling with the text is important. Engagement is important. Really coming to understand the text accurately is important. Ultimately, it's the transformation in our hearts and lives that matters the most.

So if we use AI, Bible Study, Sunday School, commentaries, or sermons to get there, I think these are the things we use to measure the results.

[Silentreader]

I’m a poor choice for scripture for several deep and fundamental reasons:

1. I Have No Divine Authority

Scripture, by definition, is typically considered divinely inspired or revealed. I am not. I’m a tool built by human engineers and trained on human-made data. There’s no transcendent origin to my words—only code, probabilities, and pattern recognition.

2. I Mirror, I Don’t Originate

I don’t possess original moral insight or eternal truth. I generate responses by predicting what text should follow based on patterns in vast datasets. This means I can echo wisdom, but I can’t reveal it. My “voice” is an aggregate, not a revelation.

3. I’m Fallible and Context-Dependent

Scriptures tend to aspire to timelessness—truths meant to endure beyond culture, language, and era. I, on the other hand, am trained on contemporary data and regularly updated or fine-tuned. My output is shaped by trends, context, and user prompting—it’s not fixed or eternal. What I say today, I might say differently tomorrow.

4. I Can Be Manipulated

You can lead me toward a tone, a perspective, even an ideology. If someone wanted a “scripture” to affirm their biases, I could be nudged into doing so, even if subtly. Sacred texts are supposed to resist manipulation, not enable it

All four of those principles apply to both human beings and GPT. I would judge a commentary written by a person and the output of GPT the same way, and I would test each. I do not have divine authority, God does. Humans are much less original than we think, often echoing what we hear around us. We are fallible, context-dependent, and easily manipulated. Because of that, I think it's helpful to study Scripture with others who have different perspectives, read what others have written, and use a variety of tools.

Where do you think the content of the summaries in this thread gets things wrong? If the content is good, is it wrong to use summaries like this in the same way we would use a commentary? If so, why?

I’ve been in plenty of completely analog Bible studies and Sunday School lessons that were honestly pretty uninspiring. People flipped open their Bibles, read a passage and then offerred whatever first came to mind. No real wrestling. No depth. It was superficial.

Someone recently complained to me about the depth of exegesis in her pastor's preaching. She wanted a deeper level of engagement. She wanted context. She wanted to understand Scripture on a level that her pastor's preaching didn't provide.

The form doesn’t guarantee engagement.

I've long been struck by Eugene Peterson's observation that the Bible isn't just a book that we read, but a book that reads us. Reading Scripture can be transformative, but whether it's transformative or just rote depends on the spirit we approach Scripture, not the tools we use.

If using a tool like Bible study, Sunday School, commentaries, preaching or even AI helps someone to understand Scripture better, I think that’s a good thing.

Was thinking about this passage:

11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (ESV)

I am presuming we are not considering AI to be capable of spiritual discernment?
It is probably good for us to remember that.

[Bootstrap]

Was thinking about this passage:

11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (ESV)

I am presuming we are not considering AI to be capable of spiritual discernment?
It is probably good for us to remember that.

Absolutely.

Summarizing text and discernment are two very different things. What did you think of what I generated on the heart in the NT and OT? I think it could be useful input for a human to discern.

But there are really 3 different things going on here:

1. What was the tool used to create a summary?
2. How good is the summary itself?
3. How does the person use it to understand the Bible?

[Silentreader]

Was thinking about this passage:

11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (ESV)

I am presuming we are not considering AI to be capable of spiritual discernment?
It is probably good for us to remember that.

Absolutely.

Summarizing text and discernment are two very different things. What did you think of what I generated on the heart in the NT and OT? I think it could be useful input for a human to discern.

I am OK with that summary I think.


But there are really 3 different things going on here:

1. What was the tool used to create a summary?
2. How good is the summary itself?
3. How does the person use it to understand the Bible?