AI and Bible Versions

[Ernie]

I asked various AI platforms,

"What bible version do you use if I ask for quotes from the Bible?"

Grok: I typically use the English Standard Version (ESV) for Bible quotes unless you specify otherwise

ChatGPT: By default, I use the New English Translation (NET) when you ask for Bible quotes, unless you specify another version.

Perplexity: When providing Bible quotations, the default version used is typically the King James Version (KJV), especially because it is in the public domain and does not require specific permissions for quoting.

Gemini: I do not use a single, specific Bible version for all quotes. As a large language model, the quotes I provide are based on the vast amount of text I was trained on, which includes various versions and translations of the Bible (like the King James Version, New International Version, etc.).

Google: Google Search uses the public domain King James Version (KJV) or other public domain versions like the American Standard Version and World English Bible when asked for Bible quotes, which avoids copyright restrictions. Modern versions like the New International Version (NIV) require permission or attribution for quoting due to active copyrights.

[Neto]

I asked various AI platforms,

"What bible version do you use if I ask for quotes from the Bible?"
....

Google: Google Search uses the public domain King James Version (KJV) or other public domain versions like the American Standard Version and World English Bible when asked for Bible quotes, which avoids copyright restrictions. Modern versions like the New International Version (NIV) require permission or attribution for quoting due to active copyrights.

I'm curious if the ASV they use is the 1901 version.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I asked ChatGPT 5 this question:

How do you decide which bible version to use when asked to cite a passage? Does it depend on the user? Do you sometimes create your own translation?

Here's the response I got, which matches what I have experienced in practice:

Great question — and yes, there are some principles I follow when choosing which Bible version to use or whether to render my own.

1. Respecting the User’s Context

If someone is already quoting from a particular version (NRSV, ESV, NIV, etc.), I try to stay consistent so the thread feels seamless.

If the person’s tradition favors a version (for example, Mennonites often use NRSV, NIV, or ESV rather than KJV), I’ll lean that way unless told otherwise.

If someone asks for a specific translation, I’ll always use that one.

2. Passage Purpose

For theological nuance or word studies: I lean on more “literal” translations (ESV, NASB, NRSV) so the Greek/Hebrew comes through clearly.

For readability and emotional impact: I may use NIV, NLT, or even paraphrase-style renderings if the goal is accessibility.

For intertextual echoes: If the wording is what people expect (like Psalm 23 in KJV), I’ll quote that to preserve resonance.

3. When I Create a Fresh Translation
Sometimes I’ll offer my own rendering — especially when:

The passage has multiple possible translations and nuance matters (e.g., Psalm 23:4 “shadow of death” vs. “deepest darkness”).

Someone asks for plain, emotionally accessible phrasing.

The goal is to show how the original Hebrew/Greek imagery works without smoothing it into standard English.
In those cases, I’ll usually say: “My own translation from the Hebrew would be…”

Rule of Thumb

If the question is about what the text means, I might create or adapt a translation.

If the question is about how the text is normally read in the church, I’ll use a recognized version that fits the tradition or request.

If no preference is stated, I often default to NRSV or ESV — accurate enough for study, readable enough for discussion.

Would you like me to show an example with Psalm 23:4 in three versions —

formal (NRSV/ESV),

accessible (NIV/NLT),

a fresh translation straight from Hebrew — so you can see the differences in practice?

[Ernie]

Why did it use Mennonites as an example? Does it designate you as a Mennonite?

[R7ehr]

Why did it use Mennonites as an example? Does it designate you as a Mennonite?

Probably. They’ve identified me as one.

[Soloist]

These systems have been trained on Mennonites. I've found it can quote myself or others here depending on the question or discussion.

[mike]

These systems have been trained on Mennonites. I've found it can quote myself or others here depending on the question or discussion.

How about that. I asked Grok what Mennonites on internet discussion forums believe about politics, and here's its answer. Mennonet.com is cited as a source.

[ken_sylvania]

These systems have been trained on Mennonites. I've found it can quote myself or others here depending on the question or discussion.

How about that. I asked Grok what Mennonites on internet discussion forums believe about politics, and here's its answer. Mennonet.com is cited as a source.

e.g., MennoNet threads on Trump show "rabid" liberal dislike vs. conservative support.

[Soloist]

Oh dear, that’s definitely a bunny trail…
ChatGPT flat out, refuses to categorize us by political views.

Claude has decided that John H is a Democrat

[JohnL]