The core of the argument is that if accuracy and reliability matter and if verification is hard, then LLMs are inappropriate.

If accuracy and reliability don't matter, go for it.

If they do, but you can easily verify the output, then go for it.

So, yes. The core argument would apply to making inquiries about any ancient religious texts especially if you aren't already able to read the generated text (it's in a language you aren't fluent in) or are unable to access its claimed references to verify what it says they say.

Similar arguments for all texts, both technical and nontechnical?

Yes, it would, and other religions too.

Apologetics is about a lot more than texts. It includes philosophical arguments (e.g. for the existence of God), non-scriptural texts, and personal experience.

I do not think that LLMs are any better equipped to deal any of those other aspects of it either - especially not personal experiences.