chatGPT for interpreting scripture

[gib65]

Hello everyone,

Lately I've been using chatGPT to interpret certain passages in scripture. So far, it's been a useful guide. But it's hard to verify if the feedback it gives me matches what scholars and rabbis would respond with.

For example, I had this conversation with chatGPT on Exodus 19:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6929238f-6b3c-...16a1ad1642

(unfortunately, I used the same chat to ask some tech questions about some software I'm dealing with; once it starts to sound techy, you know it's a different conversation ).

What does everyone think? Is chatGPT a good source for interpreting scripture?

[searchinmyroots]

I would say yes and no.

Depends where it is pulling its information from.

Does it provide multiple answers? 

If not, then it can't be Jewish!

[RabbiO]

Here is a different response from a different AI. I am not evaluating either one or one against the other. I am simply illustrating that the same question asked can produce different answers even if phrased the same. I'd be very careful before simply accepting what any AI produces.

"In chapter 17 it says that the Israelites arrived at Rephidim, and in chapter 18 it says that Jethro visited Moses at the mountain of God (where they were still at Rephidim). And in chapter 19 it says they left Rephidim and arrived at the mountain of God in the desert of Sinai. So did they arrive at the mountain in chapter 17 or in chapter 19?"

Great question — you’ve spotted one of those classic “wait a second…” moments in the Exodus narrative. Let’s untangle it carefully:

? The Texts

• 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.”
  
  

? The Apparent Tension

• 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.
  

So — were they at the mountain already in chapter 17–18, or only in chapter 19?

? Scholarly Explanations

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.
     
     

✅ Conclusion

• 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.
  

So the “arrival” at the mountain in the strict sense is chapter 19, but chapter 18 uses the phrase in a looser or anticipatory way.

Would you like me to show you how Jewish and Christian commentators (like Rashi or Augustine) have interpreted this apparent contradiction? They each have fascinating ways of smoothing it out.

Yes

Direct Answer: Jewish commentators like Rashi explain that Jethro’s visit in Exodus 18 is not strictly chronological but anticipatory, while Christian commentators such as Augustine treat the “mountain of God” as symbolic, emphasizing spiritual meaning rather than geography. So, the Israelites literally arrive at Sinai in chapter 19, but chapter 18 uses the phrase more loosely or thematically.

? Jewish Commentary (Rashi and others)

• 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.
  

? Reconciling the Tension

• 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.
    

? So, the safest reading is: they literally arrive at the mountain in chapter 19, but chapter 18 uses the phrase in a thematic or symbolic way.
Would you like me to lay out a side-by-side timeline chart showing how Jewish vs. Christian traditions place Jethro’s visit (before, during, or after Sinai)? That could make the comparison crystal clear.

[BlueBird2]

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.

[benJosef_and_benDavid]

I would say no to chat GPT. The Torah is a living Book of Instruction. 

Since it is alive, Hashem is ever present as the Living Instructor.

It took me years to learn this. But I am ever grateful for the lesson.

Speak to it (The Torah). Ask questions. Be patient. Be willing to wait for the answers. 

You may be surprised. It can be very profound.

Ethics of the Fathers by Alexander Kohut

[gib65]

Hey everyone, thanks for the thoughtful replies. They weren't what I expected. I expected followers of the Jewish faith to be more or less excited about the prospect of a much faster, more detailed, more accessible way to learn about Jewish scripture, but I suppose the emphasis lays on the word "learn". Are we really "learning" when we consult ChatGPT (or any AI) or are we being mislead (or at least, not getting everything we could)? These responses suggest more skepticism about using AI to learn about Jewish scripture than optimism. And fair enough. These responses do make some good points.

searchinmyroots, you mention that AI should provide multiple answers (otherwise, it's not Jewish ). My source (classic ChatGPT) likes to funnel all its responses into one answer, which wouldn't cut it as far as your criteria goes. But then I might ask what you think of RobbiO's example of an AI response, which seems to resist coming to one single conclusion and instead offers multiple approaches.

RabbiO, that's certainly a different response to what I got from ChatGPT, and I suppose it shows that whatever response one gets from AI, it ought to be taken with a grain of salt. It's interesting that it provides multiple possible answers or approaches to answering my question. It shows not only that one can get different response from different AI's but that different AI's take different approaches to answering questions. Like I said to searchinmyroots, my source (ChatGPT) seems to drive at providing a single answer/response whereas the AI you used is ok with keeping the multiplicity of interpretations/approaches separate (which, in my opinion, is a better way to do research on a subject like interpreting scripture). What AI did you use to produce this response?

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.

benJosef_and_benDavid (can I just call you Ben ), your point seems to be similar to BlueBird's and you take it one step further. You seem to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong), that the spiritual connection one gets from reading scripture is not only to the author but to God Himself (which, by some accounts, is the author). That's certainly something AI cannot do. But it's still different from reading another human being's interpretation of scripture. While BlueBird might say that interpretation still provides the potential to connect with its author, would you say it removes the reader from a direct connection to God? Though perhaps still with an indirect connection (via the author if he/she was so inspired). In that context, both the author of the interpretation and AI's interpretation are both that--interpretations, one degree of separation inserted between the reader and the original scripture. In that case, would you agree with BlueBird's take that if it's at least coming from a human being, the possibility of spiritual connection is still there?

This is all fascinating thought, everyone. Thanks so much for the insight! Your responses not only touch on the question of how reliable AI is for researching interpretations of scripture, but what one might be missing, seen through a spiritual lens, even if it was reliable. And how could a spiritual lens not be brought in given the very nature of scripture? Perhaps it's an even more important lens to look through than that of reliability and accuracy.

In any case, I won't let this deter me from falling back on ChatGPT (or RabbiO's AI if he provides it) for ways to interpret difficult passages, but now at least I feel armed with better critical thinking tools (thanks to everyone here) that will help me resist taking whatever my AI sources say at face value. To be taken with a grain of salt, as mentioned above. I don't feel AI's interpretations will steer me wrong in my reading of scripture, at least not any more than a human being's interpretation, since I'm not really looking for the "one definitive answer" of what some passage means. I'm simply trying to expand my horizons, trying to find different ways of interpreting scripture, and AI does provide that. But it's good to know that AI won't necessarily provide me with the "right" answer (if there is one). I just feel that if one comes at scripture from multiple angles, AI can only give me additional angles. So long as I don't take it as "fact" or the "right" angle, I think I'm safe. And since I'm posting these interpretations on this forum, I make them available to the scrutiny of the many knowledgeable and experienced members of this forum, which can only add an additional layer of review and validation.

[RoBoR]

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.

A spiritual connection is a good thing, but how can this spirituality be communicated to people accurately? Let us agree that spirituality and reality are two different things. A leader is someone who embodies the same spiritually grounded quality better than others. Every person has spiritual qualities, but not everyone is able to realize them well. The task of a person is to correctly realize what is in their soul. What is in the soul comes from God, and what is on the tongue comes from the organism.

[RoBoR]

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.

[BlueBird2]

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.

Hello RoBoR, I respect your view and it is probably the most common view among people. In the near future, IA will surpass the intelligence of all people of the word combined, they say. It goes hand in hand with transhumanism and the collection and surveillance of biometric data. They promise comfort and security, and we get slavery. 

God works with real people, and real people work with God. I value fellowship with people of flesh and blood and with our heavenly Father.
Ideally, AI would be neutral, but it isn't. How could it be otherwise when even the creators of AI are afraid of what they've created?

[searchinmyroots]

I agree with Blue Bird.

I don't think when G-d said in the Hebrew bible to teach your children, he meant with artificial intelligence although there may be some good from it.

I believe G-d wants us to connect to each other as humans, those created in His image, who have a soul.