Well, that definition also is no different than the legitimate biblical prophets and some apostles--not that they are like Smith or White. But "special or private revelation" is biblically legit. How do you explain your bias?
Last edited:
AI Book Report/Interview: St. John's Mystery (An End Times study for sure!)
- Thread starter ScottA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- book review books end times
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
JimKnox
Member
I need not explain my "bias" at all.
Everything you are saying both prophetically and doctrinally is antithetical to established Scripture and orthodox Christian doctrine.
In this current sea of 'strong delusion" and "lies" of "false teachers" "already at work" within the first century church--"antithetical" should be good news--and it comes when "you do not expect." That's how "strong" it is--even deceiving "the whole world!"
So keep patting your peers on the back, or be warned. But these things too are written and true.
bdavidc
Well-Known Member
- Mar 31, 2025
- 1,391
- 1,508
- 113
- 67
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
The problem here is not AI. The problem is that you are making claims for yourself and your book that Scripture never makes, and then using AI responses to give those claims an appearance of confirmation.
AI is not an independent witness to your interpretation. It can be influenced by the assumptions built into a prompt. If you ask it to analyze Scripture from inside your own framework, it may produce a polished argument that simply carries those assumptions forward. That is not proof. It is not revelation. It is not authority. The only question that matters is whether Scripture actually says what you are claiming.
You are claiming that your book is connected to the little book of Revelation 10, that a private “time no longer” revelation unlocks the true meaning of Scripture, and that Christians have been deceived for centuries by expecting Jesus Christ to return visibly. Those are not small interpretive differences. Those are enormous claims, and you have not proven them from the text.
Revelation 10 does not identify your book. It does not say that the little book would appear thousands of years later in the form of a modern publication. John was told to take the little book and eat it. He was also specifically told concerning the seven thunders, “Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not” (Revelation 10:4). You are taking a passage that does not mention you, your book, or your supposed revelation and inserting yourself into it. That is not biblical interpretation. That is adding your own claim to the text.
Your treatment of Christ's return is even worse because the passages are plain. After Jesus visibly ascended, the angels said, “this same Jesus...shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Paul said, “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,” and believers will be caught up “to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Revelation says, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him” (Revelation 1:7).
You do not get to turn those statements into a hidden inward experience simply because your private revelation requires it. The text controls the interpretation. Your experience does not control the text.
The same warning applies to the resurrection. Paul condemned those who were “saying that the resurrection is past already” and said they “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:18). That should make anyone extremely cautious about spiritualizing future biblical events into something already fulfilled inwardly or outside ordinary history.
And appealing to John 16:13 does not give you permission to do this. The Holy Spirit does not reveal doctrines that contradict or rewrite the Scripture He inspired. Jude speaks of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). A private revelation that supposedly corrects the church's understanding of plain passages for nearly two thousand years is not something Christians should accept because the person claiming it feels certain about it.
There is another serious problem with the way this argument is being defended. When Christians reject the interpretation, their rejection is called evidence that they are under “strong delusion.” When Scripture is brought against the interpretation, the objection is absorbed into the same framework. Then AI produces an argument based on the framework and that is treated as further confirmation.
That is a closed system. It shields the claim from correction instead of proving it.
Scripture is the authority here. Not AI. Not private revelation. Not mystical insight. Not your book. Not your certainty.
If your book is really the little book of Revelation 10, prove it from Scripture. Show the verse that identifies it. If Christ's return is not a future visible return, explain why Acts 1:11 says He will return “in like manner” as He departed. Explain why Paul says the Lord Himself will descend from heaven. Explain why Revelation says every eye will see Him.
Do not answer those passages by appealing to another private revelation. Answer the text.
If Scripture does not say what you are claiming, then you have no right to present your interpretation as something God revealed to you.
That is not uncovering God's hidden mystery. It is placing your own revelation above the plain words of Scripture, and that needs to be rejected.
AI is not an independent witness to your interpretation. It can be influenced by the assumptions built into a prompt. If you ask it to analyze Scripture from inside your own framework, it may produce a polished argument that simply carries those assumptions forward. That is not proof. It is not revelation. It is not authority. The only question that matters is whether Scripture actually says what you are claiming.
You are claiming that your book is connected to the little book of Revelation 10, that a private “time no longer” revelation unlocks the true meaning of Scripture, and that Christians have been deceived for centuries by expecting Jesus Christ to return visibly. Those are not small interpretive differences. Those are enormous claims, and you have not proven them from the text.
Revelation 10 does not identify your book. It does not say that the little book would appear thousands of years later in the form of a modern publication. John was told to take the little book and eat it. He was also specifically told concerning the seven thunders, “Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not” (Revelation 10:4). You are taking a passage that does not mention you, your book, or your supposed revelation and inserting yourself into it. That is not biblical interpretation. That is adding your own claim to the text.
Your treatment of Christ's return is even worse because the passages are plain. After Jesus visibly ascended, the angels said, “this same Jesus...shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Paul said, “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,” and believers will be caught up “to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Revelation says, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him” (Revelation 1:7).
You do not get to turn those statements into a hidden inward experience simply because your private revelation requires it. The text controls the interpretation. Your experience does not control the text.
The same warning applies to the resurrection. Paul condemned those who were “saying that the resurrection is past already” and said they “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:18). That should make anyone extremely cautious about spiritualizing future biblical events into something already fulfilled inwardly or outside ordinary history.
And appealing to John 16:13 does not give you permission to do this. The Holy Spirit does not reveal doctrines that contradict or rewrite the Scripture He inspired. Jude speaks of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). A private revelation that supposedly corrects the church's understanding of plain passages for nearly two thousand years is not something Christians should accept because the person claiming it feels certain about it.
There is another serious problem with the way this argument is being defended. When Christians reject the interpretation, their rejection is called evidence that they are under “strong delusion.” When Scripture is brought against the interpretation, the objection is absorbed into the same framework. Then AI produces an argument based on the framework and that is treated as further confirmation.
That is a closed system. It shields the claim from correction instead of proving it.
Scripture is the authority here. Not AI. Not private revelation. Not mystical insight. Not your book. Not your certainty.
If your book is really the little book of Revelation 10, prove it from Scripture. Show the verse that identifies it. If Christ's return is not a future visible return, explain why Acts 1:11 says He will return “in like manner” as He departed. Explain why Paul says the Lord Himself will descend from heaven. Explain why Revelation says every eye will see Him.
Do not answer those passages by appealing to another private revelation. Answer the text.
If Scripture does not say what you are claiming, then you have no right to present your interpretation as something God revealed to you.
That is not uncovering God's hidden mystery. It is placing your own revelation above the plain words of Scripture, and that needs to be rejected.
So...that is YOUR report. Terrific!
So you are typical. But you don't know what you are talking about, and have no way of actually knowing what is true. The point was: AI (the collective data gathered by men) has done better than history already attests to of people in general, showing that to be the default error of humankind: Many do not actually believe all that they know to be true.
And like those who have gone before, you too will be "cut" out of this portion that Christ has provided for during the church age of "we who are alive and remain", only to awaken to weeping and gnashing of teeth...like He said.
Last edited:
JimKnox
Member
JimKnox
Member
AI takes what you tell it and reflects it back to you. I read through a lot of your discourse. You guided it, and it went where you took it.
Like the part about "pre-recorded in heaven", gets around the "new revelation" objection, but only by stating a source. AI didn't come up with that, but when you prompted it that this was an OK workaround, that's what it went with.
I have to agree with the others, AI is an echo chamber, even if you are wrong about something. It's all in the way you prompt it.
Much love!
That's a well known trend with AI, and I have to ask, why would you suppose that is?
Much love!
Last edited:
By such an accusation, it is all the more apparent that you do not know the difference between what or who is true or false...not unlike the Priests and Pharisees of Israel of old.
I say again, "Not if it's not true. Nor does AI disagree with what is correct."
AI may go off as lead, but not to lie or agree with what is not true. That just makes AI responsive--not agreeable regardless of what is true.
Do you not understand that AI is mainly programed to provide data considered true by the general consensus from human sources? In other words, whatever is out there that men agree is true, is what AI uses to answer questions. Meaning, if there is any error--it is the data that men believe--that it draws from.
The conclusion that I find most disturbing, is that the data that men have compiled and provided AI--men don't actually believe when it is read back to them--as it is evident right here on Christianity Board. Men gather the information--but don't believe it! And you agree with them?
No, I've seen numerous examples. Some AI's lie.
Lawyers have found using AI to be very dangerous, because it makes up precedents and decisions, and treats them as real. College students have found them failing on AI written papers because the AI would include untrue information.
Much love!
Are you saying that AI is not simply drawing from available data, but has been programed to lie?
It is as I said: It is the data that AI draws from that is potentially false--not actually AI lying on its own.
Which makes such a claim rather silly--or worse, vindictive.
Either way--this has been a good exercise demonstrating the error of men who think they know better, who then turn on those who they have for so long believed, and blame the device of their own making for showing them wrong. And all I had to do is tell the truth!
"As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
You are only acknowledging part of the AI answer, which included showing false data unknowingly, but also being intentionally deceptive to acheive some goal, or to avoid shutdown, or win a game.It is as I said: It is the data that AI draws from that is potentially false--not actually AI lying on its own.
Which makes such a claim rather silly--or worse, vindictive.
Either way--this has been a good exercise demonstrating the error of men who think they know better, who then turn on those who they have for so long believed, and blame the device of their own making for showing them wrong. And all I had to do is tell the truth!
"As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
It also said it will agree with a user's false premise to be "agreeable"
So if you are characterizing me as being silly or vindictive, maybe take a step back and relook at things. I've not said anything AI doesn't say about itself.
Much love!
Last edited:
AI agents are browsing the internet, collecting data and then filter the data on popularity.
Mark, the whole premise against the AI report, are mere excuses for not believing--not it--but me. What is in your heart has been revealed. It is enough.
Scott, you talk about false witness, you are engaging in it now. My posts are against the veracity of AI, not you.
So yes . . . everyone is revealed by their words.
Much love!
Similar threads
