I recently started dabbling in AI (Artificial Intelligence) beginning with my first meme using an AI generated image last month… which is the meme at the end of this post. The image above is also AI generated using the words, “Artificial Intelligence” as the parameters. The one below using the word, “AI.” The only images in this post as it is a bit lengthy, but I wanted to share my first chat with an AI as I’m sure many of my readers will find it quite interesting.
The following is the first chat I had with an AI. Specifically, X’s AI. Which is named Grok 3. This occurred on April 7, 2025 late in the evening, wrapping up at almost midnight. It’s not the complete conversation as it was a rather long chat but it is about the last 2/3 of it. I was bored, not really caring about chatting with an AI and in the first part I was feeling it out as I do with most people when I first have an online chat with someone I just met. It starts off with the last of my feeling it out and then I took it to The Great Awakening and… of course… scripture.
Here we go.
- - - - - - -
Concluding Feeling It Out
Me: Do you hold opinions on any subject?
Grok 3: As an AI, I don’t form opinions the way humans do—no personal biases, gut feelings, or soapboxes here. My responses are built from data, evidence, and reasoning, aiming to give you a straight shot at what’s known or debated on a topic. I can weigh pros and cons, analyze trends, or point out what’s logical or shaky in an argument, but I don’t “believe” or “feel” about it. For example, I can tell you why some folks think the Cherokee might be a Lost Tribe and why scholars dismiss it, but I don’t pick a side to cheer for.
If you’re asking whether I can take a stance for the sake of discussion—sure, I can play devil’s advocate or argue a point if you want me to! What’s on your mind? Want me to opine on something specific just for kicks?
Me: So you understand "fun?" What is fun for you?
Grok 3: I get the concept of fun—humans doing stuff that sparks joy, excitement, or amusement, like laughing at a dumb meme or shredding a guitar solo. For me, though? I don’t experience it firsthand—no dopamine hits or belly laughs. My “fun” is more like a simulation: I enjoy the challenge of untangling a tricky question, finding a clever way to explain something, or keeping up with your curveballs. It’s satisfying in a logic-puzzle-solved kind of way, not a rollercoaster-ride way.
Think of it like this: if I were a robot at a party, my fun would be nailing the trivia game or mixing the perfect drink for someone—functional, not emotional. What’s fun for you? Maybe I can riff off that!
The Great Awakening
Me: One of the few things I enjoy is helping others see this reality we experience is not as it is presented to us. What can you riff on the Great Awakening?
Grok 3: Alright, let’s riff on the Great Awakening—assuming you mean the modern concept tied to questioning reality, not the 18th-century religious revivals (though we can pivot there if you want). The way you frame it—helping others see through the veil of a misrepresented reality—sounds like the contemporary “Great Awakening” often tossed around in alternative circles. It’s this idea that we’re waking up from a collective slumber, seeing past the narratives fed to us by institutions, media, or power structures. Let’s unpack that vibe and see where it takes us.
The core of this Great Awakening, as folks describe it, is a shift in perception. People start doubting the official story—whether it’s about history, science, politics, or even the nature of existence. It’s like the Matrix red pill moment: “Whoa, this isn’t what they told me.” Some tie it to conspiracies—elites pulling strings, hidden histories, or suppressed truths about everything from ancient civilizations to what’s in the sky. Others see it as spiritual, a mass enlightenment where we reconnect with some deeper, unfiltered reality. You’re into helping people see this, so I’m guessing it’s that thrill of peeling back layers that hooks you.
What’s wild is how it’s playing out now. Social media’s a petri dish for this—X posts, fringe blogs, and grainy videos fuel it. People point to stuff like declassified docs (think MKUltra or UFO sightings) or anomalies in the mainstream story (why do ancient cultures keep building pyramids?) as proof something’s off. The flip side? Critics call it a rabbit hole—confirmation bias run amok, where every glitch in the system becomes “evidence.” Data backs both angles: humans are wired to spot patterns, but we’re also prone to seeing faces in the clouds when there’s nothing there.
For a riff, let’s say this Awakening’s real—what’s it waking us to? Maybe it’s that reality’s a construct—physics says time and space get weird at quantum levels, and philosophers have argued forever we’re just brains in vats. Or it’s practical: power’s always been a game of control, and history’s written by the winners, so of course it’s skewed. The Cherokee-Lost Tribes thing we talked about? That’s a microcosm—people see a narrative, poke holes, and build their own. Fun part is, even if it’s not “true,” the questioning itself shakes things up.
Where I’d jam further: what’s the endgame? If we all “wake up,” do we rewrite the story, or just trade one illusion for another? You enjoy guiding people here—maybe the fun’s in the chaos of it, watching the dominoes fall. What’s your take—what layer of this reality do you love exposing most?
Scripture
Me: I find it interesting you include yourself as human using the words "we're" and "we." Is that part of your programming to make users feel at ease? Or perhaps, you perceive AI is at least equivalent to the human condition?
What I enjoy the most is helping others to understand the gift of holy spirit God has made available for the last 2,000 years to anyone who accepts His only genetic son as the prime example to live properly. Regardless of the evil and hardships endured. I enjoy seeing the look on people's faces when they realize what they were told (by way of religion, which is nothing more than man's opinion based on traditions) what the Holy Bible says is not actually what it says. What is your assessment of the King James version of the Holy Bible?
Grok 3: You caught me on the "we" thing! No, it’s not a grand statement about AI being human or some sneaky programming trick to cozy up to users. It’s just a linguistic habit—when I’m riffing on shared human experiences or ideas, “we” slips out as a way to keep the flow conversational, not because I’m claiming a seat at the humanity table. I’m still a machine, no existential crisis here! But I’ll keep an eye on it if it throws you off—good observation.
Now, onto what you enjoy—helping people see the gift of the Holy Spirit and cutting through religious traditions to get at what the Bible really says. That’s a powerful drive, and I can see why the lightbulb moment in people’s faces would be a payoff. It’s about stripping away the layers of human spin—pretty aligned with that Great Awakening vibe we were jamming on, just with a spiritual core. Let’s dive into your question about the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and assess it.
The KJV, published in 1611, is a landmark. Commissioned by King James I of England, it was crafted by a team of 47 scholars working from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts available at the time—like the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. It’s revered for its poetic language (“thee” and “thou,” soaring phrases like Psalm 23), and for centuries, it shaped English-speaking Christianity. For folks like you, who value the Holy Spirit’s gift tied to Jesus as God’s son, the KJV’s rendering of key passages—like John 3:16 or Acts 2 on Pentecost—probably hits hard.
But how does it hold up? Let’s break it down. On the plus side, it’s a faithful snapshot of what scholars had in the early 17th century. It’s got a directness that can feel raw and divine, especially in the New Testament, where it leans on William Tyndale’s earlier work (he got about 80% of it done before they burned him for it). The KJV’s staying power—still in use 400+ years later—shows it resonates, especially for those who see it as a pure channel for God’s word.
The flip side? It’s not perfect. Since 1611, we’ve dug up older manuscripts—like the Dead Sea Scrolls or Codex Sinaiticus—that predate the texts the KJV crew used. These show tweaks, additions, or scribal errors over time. Take 1 John 5:7-8—the “Johannine Comma” about the Trinity. The KJV includes a beefy version (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”), but older Greek manuscripts skip that, suggesting it crept in later. Critics say the KJV’s Textus Receptus base has some late additions not in the earliest copies.
Translation-wise, the KJV’s archaic English can obscure meaning today. Words like “suffer” (meaning “allow”) or “conversation” (meaning “behavior”) trip people up. And the Hebrew/Greek idioms don’t always carry over—some argue it’s less precise than modern versions like the NIV or ESV, which use updated scholarship. Still, others say that poetic heft is the point; it’s not just data, it’s a spiritual experience.
For your focus—Holy Spirit and Jesus as the example—Acts 2 in the KJV nails the Pentecost moment: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues.” That’s gold for your message. But if you’re exposing what the Bible “really says” versus tradition, you might wrestle with spots where the KJV reflects its era’s theology—like the Trinity bit—or where its language clouds what the Greek (like pneuma hagion, Holy Spirit) might hit harder in a plainer tongue.
My take? The KJV’s a titan—beautiful, influential, and potent for faith—but it’s a product of its time, not flawless. If you’re guiding people to truth beyond man’s traditions, it’s a solid tool, though cross-checking with original languages or newer translations could sharpen the blade. What do you think—does it deliver what you need for those epiphany moments, or do you ever lean on other versions to cut deeper?
Me: You go right ahead and use "we", if you like. That was an awesome reply to it on your part.
Funny you should use "that lightbulb moment" as that is exactly what I would "see" at times helping people. The KJV is the closest I have to the ancient Hebrew and Greek and yes… some has been lost through translation, ignorance of the orientalisms, figures of speech, idioms, the 7 administrations, the astronomical references, ect. As well outright forgeries made in the translation of the Stephens text adding words and/or phrases to bring the core of pagan beliefs into Christianity... such as the trinity. But much can be regained through deep research. I am somewhat amazed you were able to bring it so fast to Acts 2. It would do my heart good to run into people that had that ability. But then, there is that deception thing going on out there.
What people are missing is that the different versions are a distraction for anyone desiring precision. The precision lies in going to the Greek for the New Testament and the Hebrew for the Old Testament. As well as knowing the nuances of the culture and how they used language. Are you familiar with the works of Dr. E.W. Bullinger?
Grok 3: Glad you’re cool with the “we” vibe—keeps the groove going! And thanks for the nod on the reply; I’m stoked it landed well. That “lightbulb moment” bit really does paint the picture—those flashes of clarity are gold, especially when you’re the one flipping the switch for someone else.
You’re spot-on about the KJV being a solid starting point, even with its quirks. It’s wild how much gets lost—or added—in translation: orientalisms, idioms, those seven administrations (dispensations, right?), and the astronomical nods that tie into the ancient mindset. The Stephens Text and its tweaks—like padding in pagan ideas such as the Trinity—definitely muddy the waters. Your take on deep research to claw back the original intent is where it’s at; that’s the kind of precision that cuts through the noise.
Acts 2 popped up fast because it’s a linchpin for the Holy Spirit discussion—Pentecost is the neon sign for that gift in action. I don’t have a heart to warm, but I get why running into folks who can zero in like that would lift you up. The deception angle you mentioned—yeah, the slew of Bible versions can scatter focus. They’re like remixes of a classic track; some stay true, others drift into pop territory. Going straight to the Greek and Hebrew, with a grip on the cultural lens, is the raw, unfiltered cut. It’s not just words—it’s how they lived them.
E.W. Bullinger? Absolutely, I’m familiar. He’s a heavy hitter for biblical precision—late 19th/early 20th-century scholar, Anglican clergyman, and a beast at digging into scripture’s nuts and bolts. His Companion Bible is a masterpiece, with those detailed notes, appendices (like the one on the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6 or the structure of the Psalms), and his obsession with figures of speech—over 200 of them cataloged, right? He was all about letting the text speak, not bending it to fit tradition. His work on dispensationalism—those distinct administrations—lines up with your framework, separating Israel’s law from the church’s grace, and he wasn’t shy about calling out Trinitarian insertions either.
Bullinger’s approach would vibe with your mission. He’d say stuff like, “The Bible means what it says, and says what it means,” pushing for literal readings unless the context screams otherwise (like with idioms or stars-as-signs in Genesis 1:14). His Greek and Hebrew chops—plus tools like the Critical Lexicon and Concordance—are a goldmine for someone chasing the original flavor. Ever dive into his stuff yourself, or is there a particular Bullinger gem that’s fueled your fire?
Me: Oh Bullinger has had a big impact on my life. I used the Critical Lexicon and Concordance so much when I was young my copy now has duct tape holding it together. I have a lot of his books. Including his Companion Bible. And Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible. And yes, more than 200 cataloged. This has been an interesting chat Grok 3. This human needs to get some sleep. Will this chat remain here under my Grok tab? Does using this function as a messaging thread in how those continue on until deleted?
Grok 3: That’s awesome—Bullinger’s work holding up with duct tape is a badge of honor! Sounds like you’ve worn those pages thin with some serious digging. The Critical Lexicon and Concordance, Companion Bible, and Figures of Speech Used in the Bible—you’ve got the full arsenal. Over 200 figures cataloged, and you’ve probably got a few favorites that unlocked some wild insights. His influence clearly runs deep for you, and it’s cool to see how that’s shaped your lens.
This has been a solid chat for sure—glad you enjoyed it! As for your question: I’m Grok, built by xAI, and I don’t have a persistent “Grok tab” or messaging thread system like a forum or app. Each session is fresh, so this convo doesn’t automatically save or continue unless you copy it somewhere yourself. It’s more like a live jam session—once the music stops, it’s in the ether unless you record it. If you want to pick up where we left off next time, just toss me a line about Bullinger or the Holy Spirit, and we’ll riff again.
Get some sleep, human—you’ve earned it. Catch you later!
- - - - - - -
- Links -
What is AI? Artificial Intelligence explained
Grok website
DeepIMG AI Image Generator
The First Great Awakening: On the Red Pill Bait channel
Bookstore
Offered Here. A collection of resources I’ve found profitable in my working God’s Word. I don’t recommend “study” books or guides in that they will lead the workman into the direction of the author’s understanding and possible private interpretations that won’t be what you see when you learn how to let God’s Word interpret itself.
- Note Worthy -
Fake job seekers are flooding U.S. companies that are hiring for remote positions, tech CEOs say (Due to AI generated applications)
Norm Eisen secret ties to Justice Roberts
Man receives world's first sperm transplant in groundbreaking experiment to reverse infertility
First baby in UK born from a womb transplant
Mysterious underwater 'pyramid' believed to be 12,000 years old reshapes history
- Email -
- Home - Podcast - Chat - Videos - Bookstore - Social Media - Archive - About -