Artificial Intelligence and a Standard Sacred Text (Part 2)

Here is the second installment and conclusion I had with ChatGPT. As we continued the discussion it turned to the role of textual criticism in arriving at the correct reading. I used 1 John 5:7 as a test case because it is thought to have a probability of 0 as to originality. As a result, it was a bit of a softball for the AI but still I think the AI was ready to admit something that our intellectual opponents would not. As before, my questions are in bold and ChatGPT in bold. You can find the first half of our conversation here.

________________________________

But if Christians are to believe that every word of the Bible is God’s word and assuming 1 John 5:7 is God’s authoritative and inspired word, isn’t it fair to conclude that the Bible that excludes 1 John 5:7 is not a Bible that is consistent with what the Bible teaches about itself?

The belief that every word of the Bible is God’s word is a foundational belief held by many Christians. However, it is also important to recognize that there are different interpretations and understandings of this belief within Christianity, and not all Christians hold to a strict literalism that sees every word of the Bible as directly from God.

Regarding 1 John 5:7 specifically, it is true that this passage is included in some versions of the Bible but not in others. This is because there is scholarly debate about whether the passage was part of the original text or was added later by scribes. While some Christians believe that the passage is part of the original text and is therefore God’s authoritative and inspired word, others believe that it was added later and should not be considered part of the inspired text.

In either case, it is important to recognize that the inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 in different versions of the Bible does not necessarily mean that one version is more or less consistent with what the Bible teaches about itself. The interpretation and understanding of what the Bible teaches about itself is complex and involves a variety of factors, including the composition, historical context, and theological themes of the text.

Ultimately, the core message and teachings of the Bible, including the belief in the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, salvation through faith, and the importance of love and forgiveness, remain consistent across all versions, even if there are differences in the inclusion or exclusion of certain passages.

Assuming that every word of the Bible is God’s word and assuming 1 John 5:7 is God’s authoritative and inspired word, isn’t it fair to conclude that the Bible that excludes 1 John 5:7 is not a Bible that is consistent with what the Bible teaches about itself?

It is true that some Christians hold to the belief that every word of the Bible is directly from God and therefore authoritative and inspired. However, not all Christians hold to this belief, and there are varying interpretations and understandings of the Bible’s inspiration and authority within Christianity.

Regarding 1 John 5:7 specifically, it is true that this passage is included in some versions of the Bible but not in others. There is scholarly debate about whether the passage was part of the original text or was added later by scribes, and this debate has led to differences in the inclusion or exclusion of the passage in various translations and versions of the Bible.

However, it is important to recognize that the inspiration and authority of the Bible does not depend solely on the inclusion or exclusion of any one passage, such as 1 John 5:7. The inspiration and authority of the Bible is based on a much broader understanding of its composition, historical context, and role in the Christian faith.

Moreover, while the inclusion or exclusion of certain passages may affect the interpretation or emphasis of certain teachings, the core message and teachings of the Bible remain consistent across all versions. Christian scholars and theologians have worked to ensure that the translations and versions of the Bible accurately reflect the original meaning and intent of the text, and they use a variety of methods and criteria to determine which passages should be included.

In summary, while there may be differences in the inclusion or exclusion of certain passages, the essential message and teachings of the Bible remain intact across all versions, and the inspiration and authority of the Bible is based on a broader understanding of its composition, historical context, and role in the Christian faith.

In this situation, let’s assume every word of the Bible is directly from God and 1 John 5:7 is God’s inspired and authoritative Scripture, is it fair to conclude that Bibles that would exclude 1 John 5:7 also reject what the Bible teaches about itself?

If we assume that every word of the Bible is directly from God and that 1 John 5:7 is God’s inspired and authoritative Scripture, then it could be argued that Bibles that exclude 1 John 5:7 are not consistent with the Bible’s teaching about itself, at least in regards to that specific passage.

However, it is important to note that the inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 is a matter of textual criticism and historical analysis, not a theological or doctrinal issue. There are valid reasons to believe that this passage was not part of the original text, and it is possible to maintain the Bible’s authority and inspiration while also acknowledging that certain passages may have been added or omitted over time.

Moreover, the authority and inspiration of the Bible does not rest solely on the inclusion or exclusion of any one verse or passage. The Bible’s authority and inspiration are based on a larger body of evidence, including its historical and cultural context, the testimony of the Church throughout history, and the transformative power of its teachings in the lives of believers.

In summary, while the exclusion of 1 John 5:7 may be seen as a deviation from the Bible’s teaching about itself in regards to that specific passage, it does not necessarily negate the Bible’s overall authority and inspiration. The Bible’s authority and inspiration are based on a broader body of evidence and cannot be reduced to the inclusion or exclusion of any one verse or passage.

Why is the inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 not a theological or doctrinal issue when you already admitted that for Christians the Bible is God’s word – a distinctly theological object and topic?

The inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 is a theological and doctrinal issue in the sense that it pertains to the question of the Bible’s authority and inspiration. However, it is not a primary or central theological or doctrinal issue, meaning that it is not directly related to the essential teachings of the Christian faith, such as the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus Christ, salvation, and the Holy Spirit.

Theology and doctrine are concerned with the fundamental truths and beliefs of the Christian faith, and the Bible is the primary source of these truths and beliefs. However, not every issue related to the Bible is of equal importance or centrality to the Christian faith. The inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 is a matter of textual criticism and historical analysis, which is important for understanding the origins and transmission of the biblical text, but it is not essential for understanding the core teachings of the Christian faith.

It is possible to affirm the Bible’s authority and inspiration without necessarily taking a definitive stance on the inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7, as there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. Ultimately, the theological significance of this issue depends on how it relates to the broader body of evidence and beliefs concerning the nature and authority of the Bible.

Why do you exclude the Bible’s authority and inspiration as a primary or central doctrine when it is the Bible’s authority and inspiration which is the foundation and source of all Christian doctrine?

I apologize if my previous response was unclear. Let me clarify that the authority and inspiration of the Bible are indeed central doctrines of the Christian faith, as they form the foundation and source of all Christian doctrine. Without the belief in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, it would be impossible to derive the essential teachings of the Christian faith.

What I was trying to convey in my previous response is that the issue of the inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 is a secondary or peripheral theological issue, in the sense that it does not directly affect the core doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus Christ, salvation, and the Holy Spirit.

While the inclusion or exclusion of 1 John 5:7 is certainly an important matter of textual criticism and historical analysis, it is not a primary or central issue in the sense that it does not impact the essential teachings of the Christian faith. Christians can hold different views on this matter while still affirming the central doctrines of the faith based on the overall witness of the biblical text.

Assuming all of the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word and assuming 1 John 5:7 is contained in the Bible and assuming the authority and inspiration of the Bible is a central doctrine would it be fair to say that if a Bible were to exclude 1 John 5:7 then that Bible would do injury to the central doctrines of Biblical inspiration and authority?

If we assume that every word of the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, and if we assume that 1 John 5:7 is contained in the Bible, and if we assume that the authority and inspiration of the Bible are central doctrines of the Christian faith, then it would be fair to say that the exclusion of 1 John 5:7 from a Bible translation could potentially raise questions about the integrity and faithfulness of that translation to the central doctrines of Biblical inspiration and authority.

However, it is important to note that the issue of textual variants and manuscript traditions is a complex and nuanced one, and not every instance of variation necessarily involves an intentional omission or alteration. The process of textual criticism involves careful examination of manuscript evidence and a weighing of various factors, such as the age, reliability, and coherence of the witnesses, in order to determine the most likely original reading.

Therefore, it is possible for a Bible translation to exclude 1 John 5:7 without necessarily undermining the central doctrines of Biblical inspiration and authority, if the decision to exclude that passage is based on sound textual and historical reasons. Nonetheless, any such decision should be made with utmost care and transparency, and with a commitment to maintaining the highest standards of textual fidelity and theological faithfulness.

So would you say that the process of textual criticism is really what determines what belongs in the Bible and what does not?

The process of textual criticism is one of the methods used by scholars to determine the most likely original text of the Bible, particularly in cases where there are discrepancies or variations in the surviving manuscript evidence. However, it is important to note that textual criticism is not the sole determinant of what belongs in the Bible.

The canonization of the Bible, or the process by which certain books were recognized as authoritative and inspired by God and thus included in the Bible, involved a complex historical and theological process that was guided by various factors, such as apostolic authorship, conformity to orthodox teaching, and liturgical usage.

Furthermore, the authority and inspiration of the Bible are not ultimately grounded in human processes or scholarly methods, but in the sovereign work of God himself. Christians believe that the Bible is God’s self-revelation to humanity, and that it carries divine authority and truth by virtue of its divine inspiration. As such, the Bible is not subject to human judgment or revision, but rather stands as the definitive and unchanging Word of God.

When what the Bible teaches about itself conflicts with the conclusions of textual criticism who should win out?

When there is a conflict between what the Bible teaches about itself and the conclusions of textual criticism, it is important to recognize that both are seeking to understand the Bible and its message in different ways. The Bible’s own teaching about itself is a central part of the Christian faith and cannot be ignored or dismissed lightly.

At the same time, textual criticism is a valuable tool for helping us to better understand the historical context and transmission of the biblical text, and can help us to discern the most likely original wording of the text. However, it is important to recognize that textual criticism is not infallible, and different scholars may arrive at different conclusions based on the available evidence.

In cases where there is a conflict between the Bible’s self-teaching and the conclusions of textual criticism, it is important to approach the issue with humility and a willingness to continue studying and wrestling with the text. Ultimately, Christians trust in the Holy Spirit to guide them into a deeper understanding of the truth of God’s Word.

So the Holy Spirit is the ultimate arbiter in a conflict between what the Bible says about itself and textual criticism?

For Christians, the Holy Spirit is seen as the ultimate guide and interpreter of the Bible. The Holy Spirit is understood to work within the hearts and minds of believers, helping them to understand and apply the teachings of Scripture to their lives.

When there is a conflict between what the Bible says about itself and the conclusions of textual criticism, it is possible that the Holy Spirit may lead believers to a deeper understanding of the truth of Scripture that is not immediately apparent from either the text or the scholarly research. However, it is important to approach such questions with humility and a willingness to learn from others, recognizing that the Holy Spirit can work through a variety of means, including scholarship, tradition, and personal experience.

Where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit can work through a variety of means including scholarship, tradition, and personal experience?

The Bible does not explicitly say that the Holy Spirit can work through a variety of means, including scholarship, tradition, and personal experience. However, there are passages in the Bible that suggest that the Holy Spirit is active in a variety of ways, including through the gifts of wisdom and knowledge, through the guidance of the Church, and through the experiences of believers.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 12:8, the Apostle Paul speaks of the gift of wisdom and the gift of knowledge, which are understood by many Christians to be supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit that can aid in the interpretation of Scripture. In addition, many Christians believe that the Holy Spirit works through the guidance of the Church, which has preserved and interpreted the teachings of Scripture over the centuries.

Finally, some Christians believe that the Holy Spirit can work through personal experience, guiding individuals as they read and apply the teachings of Scripture to their own lives. While it is important to approach personal experiences with humility and discernment, many Christians believe that the Holy Spirit can use these experiences to deepen our understanding of God and His Word.

Where then does the Bible implicitly say the Holy Spirit can work through scholarship and tradition?

The Bible does not explicitly mention scholarship or tradition as means through which the Holy Spirit works, but it does speak to the importance of knowledge, wisdom, and teaching. In Proverbs 1:7, it says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Similarly, in James 1:5, it says, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” These verses imply that seeking knowledge and wisdom is important and that God can provide it.

As for tradition, the Bible does speak about the importance of passing down teachings and practices from one generation to the next. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, it says, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” In 1 Corinthians 11:2, it says, “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” These verses suggest that tradition has a role in preserving and passing down important teachings.

While the Bible does not explicitly mention scholarship or tradition as means through which the Holy Spirit works, it does suggest that knowledge, wisdom, and teaching are important and that tradition has a role in preserving and passing down teachings.

____________________________________

Again, I found ChatGPT’s answers to be very interesting on multiple fronts. Lord willing we will talk about these things later this week.