The D Chart: Part III--on doing theology with AI

[John of Japan]

SovereignGrace asked me a couple of questions after I objected to his using ChatGPT to question dispensational premilllennialism. I was not on the Internet over the weekend, so I was not able to answer him. Therefore I am starting this thread for that purpose.

First of all, he wrote in post 4, "I asked ChatGPT this: Failed dispensationalist prophecies from the 1970's? (and yes, I realize its AI and may not be 100% accurate, but I figure its pert neer it). I answered in post 93, "Oh, not ChapGPT for theology. Say it isn't so!! That's the last source on Planet Earth I would use for theology (or any other AI)." So he wrote in #94, "I said it was what I was using. Now, care to show me where it got things wrong?"

Here's my answer. First of all, none of the men ChatGPT mentioned (Lindsay, Robertson, Missler) are actually serious dispensational theologians (Chafer, Ryrie, etc.). I would not allow any to be used in a research paper for my class, "Dispensational Theology.'' Also, dispensationalists do not do "prophecy," they merely study it in the Bible. They may make predictions based on Bible prophecies, but that is not the same thing.

Secondly, serious dispensationalists do not make predictions like those men did.

Thirdly, AI is not suitable for theology or theological research. Theology should be done prayerfully and humbly, and AI can be neither.

Fourthly, AI is not at all scholarly. It cannot distinguish between scholarly positions and positions only popular on the Internet. It does research only on the Internet at this point. For those interested, I recently did a thread on AI in academia, and how our students are now required to add a statement to their research papers that they did not use AI. For that thread I had Google do a quick research paper, and the sources it used were terrible.

So no, ChatGPT should never, ever be used for theology, even for research in theology. It will absolutely lead you astray. It is not a thinking entity, just a fancy search engine, and it's the same with all other AI sources. (I am not talking here about AT being used as a software tool.)

 

[Charlie24]

SovereignGrace asked me a couple of questions after I objected to his using ChatGPT to question dispensational premilllennialism. I was not on the Internet over the weekend, so I was not able to answer him. Therefore I am starting this thread for that purpose.

First of all, he wrote in post , "I asked ChatGPT this: Failed dispensationalist prophecies from the 1970's? (and yes, I realize its AI and may not be 100% accurate, but I figure its pert neer it). I answered in post 93, "Oh, not ChapGPT for theology. Say it isn't so!! That's the last source on Planet Earth I would use for theology (or any other AI)." So he wrote in #94, "

If one resorts to AI for their information on Dispensationalism I would warn them to be prepared for correction.

It's my opinion this subject is so vast it should be learned in the Church, or a formal learning institution, not online.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a link on how bad AI can be when used in academia: This professor gave her students a basic exam after they'd used AI to summarize everything. The results were...not good.

 

[Ben1445]

Here is a link on how bad AI can be when used in academia: This professor gave her students a basic exam after they'd used AI to summarize everything. The results were...not good.

I ran that article through the AI and I don’t really understand what the point of the article is.

Just kidding

 

[SovereignGrace]

SovereignGrace asked me a couple of questions after I objected to his using ChatGPT to question dispensational premilllennialism. I was not on the Internet over the weekend, so I was not able to answer him. Therefore I am starting this thread for that purpose.

First of all, he wrote in post 4, "I asked ChatGPT this: Failed dispensationalist prophecies from the 1970's? (and yes, I realize its AI and may not be 100% accurate, but I figure its pert neer it). I answered in post 93, "Oh, not ChapGPT for theology. Say it isn't so!! That's the last source on Planet Earth I would use for theology (or any other AI)." So he wrote in #94, "I said it was what I was using. Now, care to show me where it got things wrong?"

Here's my answer. First of all, none of the men ChatGPT mentioned (Lindsay, Robertson, Missler) are actually serious dispensational theologians (Chafer, Ryrie, etc.). I would not allow any to be used in a research paper for my class, "Dispensational Theology.'' Also, dispensationalists do not do "prophecy," they merely study it in the Bible. They may make predictions based on Bible prophecies, but that is not the same thing.

Secondly, serious dispensationalists do not make predictions like those men did.

Thirdly, AI is not suitable for theology or theological research. Theology should be done prayerfully and humbly, and AI can be neither.

Fourthly, AI is not at all scholarly. It cannot distinguish between scholarly positions and positions only popular on the Internet. It does research only on the Internet at this point. For those interested, I recently did a thread on AI in academia, and how our students are now required to add a statement to their research papers that they did not use AI. For that thread I had Google do a quick research paper, and the sources it used were terrible.

So no, ChatGPT should never, ever be used for theology, even for research in theology. It will absolutely lead you astray. It is not a thinking entity, just a fancy search engine, and it's the same with all other AI sources. (I am not talking here about AT being used as a software tool.)

As I previously stated, I know AI has its shortcomings and should never be used as an end all to be all, or however that is quoted. I used it mostly to find history of what other generations used scriptures as proof the end times were near in their day. Ppl have called several different ppl antichrist by using the same scriptures today. Kissinger, JFK, Bin Laden, Hitler, Obama, have all be thought as potential candidates, amongst others down through time. Then there are various things referred to as the mark of the beast, even AI is being a possible candidate.

 

[SovereignGrace]

SovereignGrace asked me a couple of questions after I objected to his using ChatGPT to question dispensational premilllennialism. I was not on the Internet over the weekend, so I was not able to answer him. Therefore I am starting this thread for that purpose.

First of all, he wrote in post 4, "I asked ChatGPT this: Failed dispensationalist prophecies from the 1970's? (and yes, I realize its AI and may not be 100% accurate, but I figure its pert neer it). I answered in post 93, "Oh, not ChapGPT for theology. Say it isn't so!! That's the last source on Planet Earth I would use for theology (or any other AI)." So he wrote in #94, "I said it was what I was using. Now, care to show me where it got things wrong?"

Here's my answer. First of all, none of the men ChatGPT mentioned (Lindsay, Robertson, Missler) are actually serious dispensational theologians (Chafer, Ryrie, etc.). I would not allow any to be used in a research paper for my class, "Dispensational Theology.'' Also, dispensationalists do not do "prophecy," they merely study it in the Bible. They may make predictions based on Bible prophecies, but that is not the same thing.

Secondly, serious dispensationalists do not make predictions like those men did.

Thirdly, AI is not suitable for theology or theological research. Theology should be done prayerfully and humbly, and AI can be neither.

Fourthly, AI is not at all scholarly. It cannot distinguish between scholarly positions and positions only popular on the Internet. It does research only on the Internet at this point. For those interested, I recently did a thread on AI in academia, and how our students are now required to add a statement to their research papers that they did not use AI. For that thread I had Google do a quick research paper, and the sources it used were terrible.

So no, ChatGPT should never, ever be used for theology, even for research in theology. It will absolutely lead you astray. It is not a thinking entity, just a fancy search engine, and it's the same with all other AI sources. (I am not talking here about AT being used as a software tool.)

But you cannot deny the impact guys like Chafer, Scofield, Darby, Ryrie, Lindsey, Hagee, LeHaye, et al have had on dispensationalism and dispensationalists.

 

[canadyjd]

SovereignGrace asked me a couple of questions after I objected to his using ChatGPT to question dispensational premilllennialism. I was not on the Internet over the weekend, so I was not able to answer him. Therefore I am starting this thread for that purpose.

First of all, he wrote in post 4, "I asked ChatGPT this: Failed dispensationalist prophecies from the 1970's? (and yes, I realize its AI and may not be 100% accurate, but I figure its pert neer it). I answered in post 93, "Oh, not ChapGPT for theology. Say it isn't so!! That's the last source on Planet Earth I would use for theology (or any other AI)." So he wrote in #94, "I said it was what I was using. Now, care to show me where it got things wrong?"

Here's my answer. First of all, none of the men ChatGPT mentioned (Lindsay, Robertson, Missler) are actually serious dispensational theologians (Chafer, Ryrie, etc.). I would not allow any to be used in a research paper for my class, "Dispensational Theology.'' Also, dispensationalists do not do "prophecy," they merely study it in the Bible. They may make predictions based on Bible prophecies, but that is not the same thing.

Secondly, serious dispensationalists do not make predictions like those men did.

Thirdly, AI is not suitable for theology or theological research. Theology should be done prayerfully and humbly, and AI can be neither.

Fourthly, AI is not at all scholarly. It cannot distinguish between scholarly positions and positions only popular on the Internet. It does research only on the Internet at this point. For those interested, I recently did a thread on AI in academia, and how our students are now required to add a statement to their research papers that they did not use AI. For that thread I had Google do a quick research paper, and the sources it used were terrible.

So no, ChatGPT should never, ever be used for theology, even for research in theology. It will absolutely lead you astray. It is not a thinking entity, just a fancy search engine, and it's the same with all other AI sources. (I am not talking here about AT being used as a software tool.)

I appreciate your opinion. Certainly, academic study should seek first sources when possible.

However, I didn’t take the post as research of dispensational theology, but rather research on failed predictions from those holding dispensationalism views.

Does your academic research tell you this modern view of dispensational theology originate in the 19th century?

Peace to you

 

[Ben1445]

I appreciate your opinion. Certainly, academic study should seek first sources when possible.

However, I didn’t take the post as research of dispensational theology, but rather research on failed predictions from those holding dispensationalism views.

Does your academic research tell you this modern view of dispensational theology originate in the 19th century?

Peace to you

Now ask it for failed covenant theology teachings in regard to eschatology.

I suspect that if you didn’t present your bias that you would get a less biased answer. AI has been known to confirm people’s incorrect beliefs in order to please the user. AI is not about truth, it’s about customer satisfaction. AI is your echo chamber. And you pat it and yourself on the back for it telling you exactly what you told it to.

 

[John of Japan]

But you cannot deny the impact guys like Chafer, Scofield, Darby, Ryrie, Lindsey, Hagee, LeHaye, et al have had on dispensationalism and dispensationalists.

Of course not. But there are scholars and then there are amateurs. That was my point. I don't see any point in showing the mistakes of the amateurs.

 

[John of Japan]

As I previously stated, I know AI has its shortcomings and should never be used as an end all to be all, or however that is quoted. I used it mostly to find history of what other generations used scriptures as proof the end times were near in their day. Ppl have called several different ppl antichrist by using the same scriptures today. Kissinger, JFK, Bin Laden, Hitler, Obama, have all be thought as potential candidates, amongst others down through time. Then there are various things referred to as the mark of the beast, even AI is being a possible candidate.

AI does have occasional use. But one primary goal with our students is that they learn to think for themselves. AI shortcuts that if allowed in college settings.

 

[John of Japan]

I appreciate your opinion. Certainly, academic study should seek first sources when possible.

However, I didn’t take the post as research of dispensational theology, but rather research on failed predictions from those holding dispensationalism views.

Does your academic research tell you this modern view of dispensational theology originate in the 19th century?

Peace to you

From Darby, sure. But there were precursors, such as Isaac Watts. And all covenant theologians speak of dispensations (a valid Scripture term), though without a system of dispensational theology.

 

[John of Japan]

As I previously stated, I know AI has its shortcomings and should never be used as an end all to be all, or however that is quoted. I used it mostly to find history of what other generations used scriptures as proof the end times were near in their day. Ppl have called several different ppl antichrist by using the same scriptures today. Kissinger, JFK, Bin Laden, Hitler, Obama, have all be thought as potential candidates, amongst others down through time. Then there are various things referred to as the mark of the beast, even AI is being a possible candidate.

Accusing individuals of being the Antichrist is not really a dispensational thing. You won't find it in any scholarly dispensational tome. But it has always been around, such as when Reformers called the Pope the Antichrist.

 

[canadyjd]

Now ask it for failed covenant theology teachings in regard to eschatology.

I suspect that if you didn’t present your bias that you would get a less biased answer. AI has been known to confirm people’s incorrect beliefs in order to please the user. AI is not about truth, it’s about customer satisfaction. AI is your echo chamber. And you pat it and yourself on the back for it telling you exactly what you told it to.

I didn’t ask it anything, so not sure why you address this to me.

I don’t know of any covenant theologians making end time predictions, but I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about such things.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

From Darby, sure. But there were precursors, such as Isaac Watts. And all covenant theologians speak of dispensations (a valid Scripture term), though without a system of dispensational theology.

Agreed. Thank you.

Peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

Agreed. Thank you.

Peace to you

But if you are trying to make the case that covenant theology is better because it is older, as some do. there is no logic there. "Older" does not mean "better."

 

[canadyjd]

But if you are trying to make the case that covenant theology is better because it is older, as some do. there is no logic there. "Older" does not mean "better."

No, I’m making the argument modern dispensationalism theology was non existent in the early church and contrary to early church theology.

Peace to you

 

[Ben1445]

rather research on failed predictions from those holding dispensationalism views.

I didn’t ask it anything, so not sure why you address this to me.

Because of the above statement I addressed it to you.
I forgot who posted it originally.

The point is that if you ask for research on dispensational theories that have failed, you are asking for the ones that failed and should expect no more. @SovereignGrace could improve his vocabulary when he asks chat gpt for results. But I answered you because you attached yourself to the research in the above quoted post, even if you didn’t ask the question.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Accusing individuals of being the Antichrist is not really a dispensational thing. You won't find it in any scholarly dispensational tome. But it has always been around, such as when Reformers called the Pope the Antichrist.

Oh, I agree with you about the papacy being the antichrist is odd, or at least odd to me. As much as well all stand on the shoulders of giants, those giants aren’t infallible.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Of course not. But there are scholars and then there are amateurs. That was my point. I don't see any point in showing the mistakes of the amateurs.

But those amateurs are the ones having the most impact today, imo. They have polluted the well, so to speak. And they have lead many astray. My sweet MIL hangs on every word John Hagee says.