• Exodus 17:1 — The Israelites camp at Rephidim, where there is no water, leading to the episode of water from the rock.
  
• Exodus 18:5 — Jethro comes to Moses “to the wilderness where he was encamped, at the mountain of God.”
  
• Exodus 19:2 — The Israelites set out from Rephidim and arrive in the wilderness of Sinai, where they camp in front of “the mountain.”
  
  

• In chapter 18, it sounds like Moses is already “at the mountain of God” while still at Rephidim.
  
• In chapter 19, the text explicitly says they leave Rephidim and arrive at the mountain of God in Sinai.
  

1. Narrative Compression / Anticipation
   • Some scholars argue that Exodus 18 is placed thematically rather than chronologically. Jethro’s visit is told as if it happens “at the mountain of God,” anticipating the arrival in chapter 19. In other words, the phrase “mountain of God” in 18:5 may be editorial, signaling where the story is heading rather than where they literally were at that moment.
     
2. Broader Geographic Reference
   • “Mountain of God” may refer to the general region of Sinai, not just the specific peak where the covenant is given. Rephidim could be within that broader wilderness area, so Jethro’s visit is described as being “at the mountain” even though the Israelites hadn’t yet camped directly at its base.
     
3. Different Source Traditions
   • Many biblical scholars see Exodus as weaving together multiple traditions (sometimes called J, E, P sources). One tradition places Jethro’s visit before Sinai, another after. The final text preserves both, creating the overlap you noticed.
     
     

• Chronologically in the narrative: The Israelites don’t camp directly at Sinai until chapter 19.
  
• Chapter 18’s wording: Either anticipates that location, uses “mountain of God” broadly, or reflects a different tradition.
  

• Rashi (11th century): He notes that Jethro came after hearing of the splitting of the Red Sea and the war with Amalek. For Rashi, the reference to the “mountain of God” in Exodus 18:5 is not a precise geographical marker but a way of situating the narrative in the broader Sinai wilderness.
  
• Rashbam (Rashi’s grandson): He often emphasizes the plain meaning of the text. In this case, Rashbam suggests that the Torah sometimes arranges events thematically rather than chronologically, so Jethro’s visit is told before the covenant at Sinai even if it may have occurred later.
  
• Other rabbinic voices: Some midrashic traditions even place Jethro’s visit after the giving of the Torah, interpreting his advice to Moses about judges as a response to the new legal system. This shows that Jewish tradition recognized the narrative “out of order” issue and offered multiple harmonizations.
  

• Literal chronology: The Israelites arrive at Sinai only in Exodus 19.
  
• Exodus 18’s phrasing: Either anticipates that arrival, uses “mountain of God” broadly for the Sinai region, or reflects a different source tradition.
  
• Commentators’ solutions:
  • Jewish: Jethro’s visit may be narrated out of order for thematic reasons.
    
  • Christian: The “mountain” is symbolic, so the geography is secondary to the spiritual meaning.
    

(12-04-2025, 08:29 AM)BlueBird2 Wrote: I'm hesitant to use AI for the interpretation of a bible text, because I connect spiritually with the person who provides the text. Perhaps I would use it for word searches.

(12-21-2025, 04:02 AM)gib65 Wrote: BlueBird2, your response is interesting because you're not so much answering the question "Is AI a reliable source for researching scriptural interpretation?" but "Does AI provide the spiritual connection that a genuine human author provides?" And this question goes deeper than you might at first realize. The whole question of whether AI is conscious or not (or, dare we say, a "person") is the hottest question on the philosophical end of this area of technology today. A true human author definitely provides a closer spiritual connect between the reader and the text, but what if AI really is conscious? From what I understand, the latest AI models which are based on LLM approaches to learning (like ChatGPT) aren't exactly doing what we would consider "understanding" (either our questions or its responses) but calculating what is the most probable response a human being would provide given your question. To really drive this point home, look up John Searle's Chinese Room argument. So if AI is conscious, it's not conscious of the same things a human being would be conscious of, even though it passes the Turing test and appears to understand our requests. So even if one considers AI to be conscious, maybe even a person (who can author an interpretation of scripture), it doesn't seem quite enough to establish that spiritual connection you're talking about.

(12-24-2025, 07:25 AM)RoBoR Wrote:

(12-21-2025, 04:02 AM)gib65 Wrote: BlueBird2, your response is interesting because you're not so much answering the question "Is AI a reliable source for researching scriptural interpretation?" but "Does AI provide the spiritual connection that a genuine human author provides?" And this question goes deeper than you might at first realize. The whole question of whether AI is conscious or not (or, dare we say, a "person") is the hottest question on the philosophical end of this area of technology today. A true human author definitely provides a closer spiritual connect between the reader and the text, but what if AI really is conscious? From what I understand, the latest AI models which are based on LLM approaches to learning (like ChatGPT) aren't exactly doing what we would consider "understanding" (either our questions or its responses) but calculating what is the most probable response a human being would provide given your question. To really drive this point home, look up John Searle's Chinese Room argument. So if AI is conscious, it's not conscious of the same things a human being would be conscious of, even though it passes the Turing test and appears to understand our requests. So even if one considers AI to be conscious, maybe even a person (who can author an interpretation of scripture), it doesn't seem quite enough to establish that spiritual connection you're talking about.

 
The artificial intelligence interprets the spiritual connection experienced by people answering this question, and nothing more. It has no spiritual connection of its own, but it instantly synthesizes all online discussions on this topic and forms a final conclusion. Moreover, in principle, it could form a spiritual position by reversing this process. Although we haven't yet taught it this, it is theoretically possible. This would be the next step in the development of human-like artificial intelligence with human-like abilities for encoding reality.
Here's how it works in the brain: 1. There's an emotional neural model formed directly by God; 2. There's a cognitive apparatus that transforms this model into the environment as created reality. We see reality, and God sees our souls and communicates with them. We communicate with each other through reality. Artificial intelligence doesn't see God, but it does see our consciousness and chooses an average—the average temperature in a hospital. The more patients, the more accurate the average temperature. Seeing the average consciousness offered by AI, a person, through reverse engineering, receives a spiritual component in their head in the form of an emotion of awareness of reality, compares it with what resides in their soul from God, and makes their next judgment about reality. This is why some people like a priest, while others like his daughter.