What's the loan shift explanation for the biggest anachronism in the Book of Mormon? I refer of course to Jesus Christ, son of God, slain for the sins of the world.
The linked to information may answer your question.
Regards,
MG
*does that suffice, moderators? If not, what else would you have a person do?
This got lost in the "wall of text" kurfluffle.
Jesus may have been at least as well understood/known to the Nephites/Lamanites as He was to any other group with the possible exception of those disciples that were with him while He was in the world as a man.
But that only could have happened if Jesus revealed Himself to some of the folks we find in the Book of Mormon. And that this came through in the translation process as referring to the person that we refer to as Jesus Christ.
If the Book of Mormon was written for our day, that's what we might expect I would think.
The above link gives a bit more detail/flesh to this.
MG is now trying to subvert the new board rule by simply linking to walls of A.I. text which he has splattered on the thread about A.I. walls of text. I’m incredulous.
This post is also a breach of the board rule about posting a link with no explanation. Something MG has been reprimanded about VERY recently.
I’ve reported it. He’s not learning. I’d hope the moderating team will now escalate the reprimand to something more onerous on MG to see if that brings compliance.
I would encourage board moderation to be open to "more information is better" by allowing links to a thread in which A.I. information content is allowed. That is a reasonable solution to the perceived problem that some are so articulately describing as links to "walls of text". Walls of text are simply another resource to access in regards to information DIRECTLY linked to the topic at hand. It's not some random cobbled up and nonsensical "wall of text". Often, posters will link to a YouTube video or other link that deals directly...sometimes not...to the topic being discussed.
As for making comment, on my part, in regards to information posted I don't think that is always necessary. The text/information speaks for itself. Back in the old days if someone referred to an Encyclopedia article in the Britannica it wouldn't have been necessary to further extrapolate on the encyclopedia article. It spoke for itself.
The same is true with A.I.
I've/we've made it abundantly clear that A.I. is NOT the final word. Other resources can and should be accessed if one doesn't trust the content one is reading in A.I. As it is, I have said that I will not post any A.I. material that I do not agree with or think is factual in its content. If it's not, then folks are welcome to point out the inaccuracies.
I don't see what all the hullaballoo is about unless it has to do with information restriction. If so, that's not right. It's what one might see in a totalitarian government or society.
Not here. Right?
Regards,
MG
Your refusal to abide by board rules is noted. I hope the moderators deal with this repeat offending with a little more than a short paragraph written in red. You aren’t listening to gentle counsel, but perhaps Shades and the moderating team will turn a blind eye and allow you to ignore the board rule about linking and running, and the board rule about walls of A.I. text. But I hope not.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
While loan-shifting is a plausible and historically attested explanation for certain Book of Mormon anachronisms—especially with animal and object names—it does not directly explain the use of "Jesus Christ" in the text. The Book of Mormon itself claims the name was revealed by God to its prophets, rather than being a semantic extension of an existing term. The translation theory (that Joseph Smith rendered ancient titles as "Jesus Christ") is sometimes discussed, but this is distinct from loan-shifting as linguists define it.
Perplexity A.I.
I will not make additional comments on this thread in regards to A.I. posts and/or the information contained therein. This information is for educational and information purposes only and isn't necessarily the 'final word'.
Regards,
MG
So you’re intending on using this thread to continue to post walls of A.I. text about another, unrelated thread and then simply link back to your post on this thread, as a way of getting around the board rule about posting walls of A.I. text on threads?
I’m keen to hear Dr Shades thoughts about that.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
While loan-shifting is a plausible and historically attested explanation for certain Book of Mormon anachronisms—especially with animal and object names—it does not directly explain the use of "Jesus Christ" in the text. The Book of Mormon itself claims the name was revealed by God to its prophets, rather than being a semantic extension of an existing term. The translation theory (that Joseph Smith rendered ancient titles as "Jesus Christ") is sometimes discussed, but this is distinct from loan-shifting as linguists define it.
Perplexity A.I.
I will not make additional comments on this thread in regards to A.I. posts and/or the information contained therein. This information is for educational and information purposes only and isn't necessarily the 'final word'.
Regards,
MG
What was the actual prompt?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I would encourage board moderation to be open to "more information is better" by allowing links to a thread in which A.I. information content is allowed. That is a reasonable solution to the perceived problem that some are so articulately describing as links to "walls of text". Walls of text are simply another resource to access in regards to information DIRECTLY linked to the topic at hand. It's not some random cobbled up and nonsensical "wall of text". Often, posters will link to a YouTube video or other link that deals directly...sometimes not...to the topic being discussed.
As for making comment, on my part, in regards to information posted I don't think that is always necessary. The text/information speaks for itself. Back in the old days if someone referred to an Encyclopedia article in the Britannica it wouldn't have been necessary to further extrapolate on the encyclopedia article. It spoke for itself.
The same is true with A.I.
I've/we've made it abundantly clear that A.I. is NOT the final word. Other resources can and should be accessed if one doesn't trust the content one is reading in A.I. As it is, I have said that I will not post any A.I. material that I do not agree with or think is factual in its content. If it's not, then folks are welcome to point out the inaccuracies.
I don't see what all the hullaballoo is about unless it has to do with information restriction. If so, that's not right. It's what one might see in a totalitarian government or society.
Not here. Right?
Regards,
MG
Your refusal to abide by board rules is noted. I hope the moderators deal with this repeat offending with a little more than a short paragraph written in red. You aren’t listening to gentle counsel, but perhaps Shades and the moderating team will turn a blind eye and allow you to ignore the board rule about linking and running, and the board rule about walls of A.I. text. But I hope not.
I've had communication with a moderator. I think we're good.
Sure hope so anyway.
You are clogging up these threads with your bellyaching, IHQ.
Your refusal to abide by board rules is noted. I hope the moderators deal with this repeat offending with a little more than a short paragraph written in red. You aren’t listening to gentle counsel, but perhaps Shades and the moderating team will turn a blind eye and allow you to ignore the board rule about linking and running, and the board rule about walls of A.I. text. But I hope not.
I've had communication with a moderator. I think we're good.
Sure hope so anyway.
You are clogging up these threads with your bellyaching, IHQ.
Get on topic, will ya' ?
Regards,
MG
Then said moderator can come on here and explain why the board rule about linking and running now no longer applies.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I will not make additional comments on this thread in regards to A.I. posts and/or the information contained therein. This information is for educational and information purposes only and isn't necessarily the 'final word'.
Regards,
MG
What was the actual prompt?
You did click on the link! Believe it or not, that was a test. You are more than able to complete a simple task.
Click!!
Here was the prompt:
Is finding reference to "Jesus Christ" in the Book of Mormon anachronistic or is there a reasonable explanation for it?
After that response (not posted) I then did a follow up with the following prompt:
Is there a "loan shift" explanation?
There. Now, if you have comment or disagreement you are more than welcome to post a substantial reply rather than continuing your ongoing bellyaching.
Please post replies in the original thread rather than here so that ALL can benefit from you expertise and wisdom. Not everyone is going to do what you did and visit the A.I. response/information thread.
I will not make additional comments on this thread in regards to A.I. posts and/or the information contained therein. This information is for educational and information purposes only and isn't necessarily the 'final word'.
Regards,
MG
So you’re intending on using this thread to continue to post walls of A.I. text about another, unrelated thread and then simply link back to your post on this thread, as a way of getting around the board rule about posting walls of A.I. text on threads?
I’m keen to hear Dr Shades thoughts about that.
And I am also interested in what will transpire. As it is, I think the solution is simply keep the Mega Thread for A.I. open and let it be used for information provided by A.I. inquiries/prompts. A simple link to the Mega thread from associated threads provides the ways/means to avoid those pesky "walls of text" that so offend you.
It's the best of both worlds.
I'm sure you can see that.
I've communicated with the moderators and they are aware of my argument in favor of keeping things as they are and letting the A.I. Mega thread remain the repository for information that is applicable to topics being discussed on other threads.
What is there to fret about? Are you totally opposed to the idea that 'more information is better than less'?
IHQ, your posting on this thread bounced the A.I. informational response to PseudoPaul upthread. I hope it doesn't get lost in the weeds of unnecessary 'word walls' put up by you and others...if they decide to join into the fray.
Fifth post down from the top on this page was the A.I. information that was provided.
I've had communication with a moderator. I think we're good.
Sure hope so anyway.
You are clogging up these threads with your bellyaching, IHQ.
Get on topic, will ya' ?
Regards,
MG
Then said moderator can come on here and explain why the board rule about linking and running now no longer applies.
The thing is, I've already explained my thoughts on this. I don not think what I've said is unreasonable. And I think what I've already said 'moderates' the black and white view you are espousing.
Methinks that you are actually afraid of having any sort of availability to information that disagrees and/or adds to the limited information that might be 'par for the course' at times on this board.
I would think that you, of all people (?) would be open to having greater access to relevant information rather than less.
Why are you so opposed?
Gee whiz, that "wall of text' that seems to so bother you doesn't even have to be SEEN by you.
Don't click on the link!!
I would suggest, however, that you don't make it a point to espouse limiting access to information. That's a totalitarian tactic. It's not right.
