Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
Federico Folchi

How were the Documents written?

Recommended Posts

To see something interesting go to Paper 119.7.6 in the original and then open

up one of the newer printings since 1967. Compare what it says about the wise

men visiting the baby Jesus. From the second printing onward, there are three

words missing: "in the manger"

Hi menno,

"... who had a room at the inn, ... where they lived for almost three weeks

... These men of God visited the newborn child in the manger.

... The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit."

As this visit happened three weeks after the birth, I've always assumed

the family was in the process of departing to those "lodgings in the home

of a distant relative of Joseph" when the three "men of God" rocked up.

 

Imagine the Hollywood version... "And Mary said to Joseph: just a moment,

I forgot to say farewell and thanks to that nice man!" While Joseph pondered

all that had happened, three Kings rounded the corner of the lane leading

up to the inn. The family, together with these "men of God", step back into

the place of His birth -- "in the manger" -- for their private adoration.

 

As an astrophysicist, I learn not to second guess that Orvonton commission.

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the errors; don't be concerned with them. Ernest Moyer, who wrote the book I mentioned before; is a firm believer in the Urantia Book, even though he discovered a lot of facts concerning the people involved with the process.

 

I had a lot of online discussion with Ernest Moyer some years back, and met him once and had an opportunity to chat. His book is available in PDF for free at his web site: World Destiny. His apocalyptic views are very unpopular in the UB reader community. He is, however, a very careful researcher. He takes the position that the papers, as delivered by the actual revelators, were finished when "completed and certified" in 1934 and 1935, with Part IV coming a year later. He takes "completed and certified" to mean that they were in final form.

 

All sources agree that there were changes made to the text after that point. The question is, were they authorized by the revelators or not? Moyer believes they were not. Although his book is worth reading, for anyone interested in origins issues, a summary of Moyer's main argument is also found on his web site, in the form of a letter to David Kantor, here. Note that he also discusses some apparent errors in the UB there (not the scientific kind).

 

Regardless of what one thinks of Moyer's theories, he raises many questions. Some of them could have been answered if it were not for the dubious policy of destroying all the original papers and notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very concise, detailed document on that website. Explains the errors with commas, spellings, capitalizing, underlinings, etc. But yet leaves some unanswered questions.

 

79.5.6 "west" changed to "east"

Question: What did the author say originally?

 

89.4.9 "coin" changed to "corn"

Question: What did the author say originally?

 

119.7.6 "in the manger" removed. Then explained within the website referred to above.

Question: What did the author say originally ?

 

176.3.4 "he" changed to "him"

Question: What did the author say originally ?

 

179.5.9 "twelve" changed to "apostles" and then changed to "eleven"

Question: What did the author say originally ?

 

As Todd has already mentioned; the original hand written papers were destroyed after the information was transcribed onto typed pages, we will never know what the answers to the above questions are.

 

Which leaves us with the fact that word changes were made to what was supposed to be an original document, including the removal of three words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rich

Changes Made to the Text in This Set of Urantia Book Files

 

they've made changes to the text? i hope they're just cosmetic, but fortunately i have my inner pilot, the thought adjuster to help me with truth. 113:6.2 The instant the pilot light in the human mind disappears, the spirit luminosity which seraphim associate with the presence of the Adjuster, the attending angel reports in person to the commanding angels, successively, of the group, company, battalion, unit, legion, and host

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi menno,

"... who had a room at the inn, ... where they lived for almost three weeks

... These men of God visited the newborn child in the manger.

... The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit."

As this visit happened three weeks after the birth, I've always assumed

the family was in the process of departing to those "lodgings in the home

of a distant relative of Joseph" when the three "men of God" rocked up.

 

Imagine the Hollywood version... "And Mary said to Joseph: just a moment,

I forgot to say farewell and thanks to that nice man!" While Joseph pondered

all that had happened, three Kings rounded the corner of the lane leading

up to the inn. The family, together with these "men of God", step back into

the place of His birth -- "in the manger" -- for their private adoration.

 

As an astrophysicist, I learn not to second guess that Orvonton commission.

Nigel

 

Hi Nigel

 

I like your sense of humor. You could be a screen writer if you ever lose your day job (or should I say night job)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, some of you will be thinking 'drop it already....move on and let it go !'

but I have one more thing to add to these topic.

 

I am intrigued with mysteries. And there is something still left hanging out there....and that is about these changes, particularly the one concerning the three words " in the manger"

 

point of fact: these three words were removed from the UB after the first printing, from Paper 119.7.5, after Dr. Sadler was convinced that it somehow didn't make sense being in there.

 

Mystery # 1 Why did Dr. Sadler remove those three words from that section of the UB; and not remove these same three words from Paper 122.8.7

where it reads ".....and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe......."

 

One would think that whoever found these three words in 119.7.5 would also have looked a little further and found the other place

that mentioned the three wise men. And that Dr. Sadler would have checked out that place also.

 

Mystery # 2 Why did Dr. Sadler make those word changes at all considering what he told the Rev.Benjamin Adams in a letter dated Mar 17, 1959

wherein he addressed a list of perceived errors, brought forward by the Rev. Adams. One important statement made in that letter was

the following: " About the spelling of "chazan". Our mandate forbade us to alter in any way the text of the manuscript, but gave us jurisdiction over capitalization, spelling and punctuation. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's my take on this.

 

First, the reference to the manger in 119:7.5 was in conflict with the fact that Joseph and Mary moved to an inn the day after Jesus was born, living there for three weeks until they found lodgings in a home of one of Joseph's relatives. It's doubtful that Jesus would be in a manger at the inn or the home. Mangers are feeding troughs for animals and were not actually inside homes or inns.

 

122:8.3 The next day after the birth of Jesus, Joseph made his enrollment. Meeting a man they had talked with two nights previously at Jericho, Joseph was taken by him to a well-to-do friend who had a room at the inn, and who said he would gladly exchange quarters with the Nazareth couple.
That afternoon they moved up to the inn, where they lived for almost three weeks until they found lodgings in the home of a distant relative of Joseph.

 

The magi visited Jesus three weeks after his birth, probably when he was at the inn, or possibly the relative's home.

 

122:8.6 After many weeks of futile search in Jerusalem, they were about to return to Ur when Zacharias met them and disclosed his belief that Jesus was the object of their quest and sent them on to Bethlehem, where they found the babe and left their gifts with Mary, his earth mother.
The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit.

 

Finally, the last reference that you wondered why they left the phrase "to the manger" in is because it is referring to the rewriting of the event by zealots. If you read the quote in context, you will see that they are referring to the legend that the zealots wrote, not what actually happened. They go on to explain that it is a fairy story, a myth and a tradition that became accepted as fact.

 

122:8.7 Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation
constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger
, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts.

 

Therefore, the phrase "to the manger" has to stay in this quote in order to make sense, whereas the reference to the manger in the factual account in 119.7.5, had to go or be further explained. If I were proof-reading the original, I would have put parenthesis around the words––the newborn "child in the manger"–– to indicate that they were referring to the legend, not the facts. The way it was altered leaves a very truncated sentence which is not consistent with the rest of the book.

 

Old: These men of God visited the newborn child in the manger.

New: These men of God visited the newborn child.

Better: These men of God visited the newborn "child in the manger".

 

Anyway, that's my 2¢.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bonita

 

I can accept that answer for mystery # 1

 

Do you have any ideas as to mystery # 2 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah . . . . he's human. He should have stuck to punctuation like the mandate said. Maybe he was getting senile by then and couldn't come up with a solution that involved only capitalization, spelling and punctuation. I really don't know. But all I have to say is that his executive decision to omit those words did nothing to alter the intent of the text . . . far as I can tell. So, I forgive him. It's not worth making a stink over. He probably got his comeuppance.

 

But what's the deal with the word "chazan"? It's spelled a few different ways legitimately, as far as I know, which is not all that much when it comes to languages. What was the Reverend's beef about that word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another interesting comment made to the Rev. Adams, in that letter Mar 17, 1959 from Sadler; It was referring to the difference between 40 days and 50 days with Pentecost.

 

Excerpt from Sadlers letter:

 

"3. Now as to the bestowal of the Spirit of Truth -- the possible discrepancy between the end of one Paper and the beginning of another we all noted it one time and discussed it further when the Book was going to press. You should remember that the midwayers prepared a narrative that was many times larger than was finally given us as Part IV of the Urantia Book. It may be that in deletion some difficulties were encountered. Our understanding is that the prayer meeting which Peter conducts at the close of one Paper is not the same as that at the opening of the next Paper. The one ended at the day of ascension, the other opened up the Day of Pentecost. "

 

Now I did not bring this up to "open up that can of worms" about Pentecost again.....no not that. I was just making a comment about just how big Part Iv could have turned out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt it could have been bigger. The entire revelation could have been bigger, obviously there was alot of other conversation going on between cellestials/midwayer's and these human being's besides what is in the revelation that is just a given.

 

About the spelling of "chazan". Our mandate forbade us to alter in any way the text of the manuscript, but gave us jurisdiction over capitalization, spelling and punctuation. "

 

Maybe they just mispelled the word as it was originally told. These are all erroneous argument's as to the authneticity of the U.B, whatever happened after 1955 has nothing to do with the book itself. Sadler's comment's mean little in relation to the urantia book. It doesn't really matter how smart or geniune any of the people involved with the revelation where the midwayer's were in control untill the printing of the book.

 

For all intent's and purpose's the book could have just fallen from the sky, it will be put threw the same scientific testing as anything else and will stand on it's own merit.

 

F.Y.I you left that quote unfinished as to make Sadler look errored. The entire sentence reads like this. There is bound to be spelling error's, when this was all wrote down from Im guessing a hand written manuscript. Spelling error's are erroneous to the u.b's authneticity. I am sure those who wrote down what the revelator's said did as best as possible to get the spelling right, but no one is perfect.

 

6. About the spelling of "chazan". Our mandate forbade us in any

way to alter the text of the manuscript, but gave us jurisdiction over

capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. We were told to select our

authority and stick to it. Evidently, the authority we chose spelled

"chazan" with one z.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, chazan is really ḥazzān in Hebrew.

 

As for the discrepancy between 40 and 50 days of Pentecost, we already discussed that at length in a thread somewhere on this forum. Don't know exactly where it is though. One thing to remember is that it's called the Festival of Weeks or Shavu'ot. The problem lies in the fact that the first Century Jews followed different calendars. I don't mean just different from ours, I mean different sects of Judaism followed different calendars and days weren't always 24 hours either. Everything was based on the cycles of the moon, the time between sunup and sundown, which changed constantly, and the agricultural season. To make things worse, counting started at "one" on the actual day and the day started at sundown the day before. We don't count "one" until the next day, or after 24 hours. It's very complex, at least I've never made sense of it. You can google, "The Counting of the Omar" if you want a taste of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was another interesting comment made to the Rev. Adams, in that letter Mar 17, 1959 from Sadler; It was referring to the difference between 40 days and 50 days with Pentecost.

 

Excerpt from Sadlers letter:

 

"3. Now as to the bestowal of the Spirit of Truth -- the possible discrepancy between the end of one Paper and the beginning of another we all noted it one time and discussed it further when the Book was going to press. You should remember that the midwayers prepared a narrative that was many times larger than was finally given us as Part IV of the Urantia Book. It may be that in deletion some difficulties were encountered. Our understanding is that the prayer meeting which Peter conducts at the close of one Paper is not the same as that at the opening of the next Paper. The one ended at the day of ascension, the other opened up the Day of Pentecost. "

 

Now I did not bring this up to "open up that can of worms" about Pentecost again.....no not that. I was just making a comment about just how big Part Iv could have turned out to be.

 

 

I know that I said that I wasn't going to open up that can of worms again.......we flogged that one back in 2009.....but, something I just noticed in that point that Sadler made in his letter to Rev Adams; that comment about there being a gap of time between the end of Paper 193 and Paper 194....that it may not have been the same day. Well I remember back in 2009 I counted all the days,before Paper 194; as detailed by the author of those papers and it all added up as being 40 days alright. And if you see in Paper 194.1.1 where it says "The apostles had been in hiding for forty days. This happened to be the Jewish festival of Pentecost...."

 

This proves that according to the midwayers, there was no gap of time. That the beginning of Paper 194 picks up right where Paper 193 left off....so the author of those papers was definite with their statement that it was 40 days and that it was the day of Pentecost.

 

So why was Dr. Sadler trying to explain it away with talking about a gap of time...when the midwayers statement fits with the time sequence that they had laid out just before this day.

To my mind, there would only be a missing gap of time if the days up to the end of Paper 193 added up to 40 days and then the beginning of Paper 194 said that the apostles had been hiding for 50 days and it was the day of Pentecost.

 

So, taken that way, Dr. Sadler's response back to Rev Adams would have centered around the matter of 40 days to Pentecost or 50 days to Pentecost.

 

But then he and Adams might have been debating the usage of the word "Pentecost" which really refers to 50

 

Sorry if I opened up another can of worms. Hope this doesn't get too messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

194:1.1The apostles had been in hiding for forty days. This day happened to be the Jewish festival of Pentecost, and thousands of visitors from all parts of the world were in Jerusalem. Many arrived for this feast, but a majority had tarried in the city since the Passover.

 

This quote would be much easier to comprehend if it said, "This day happened to be (in or during) the Jewish festival of Pentecost." The festival lasted the entire seven weeks (49 days) with different sections of the festival having different meanings and different types of ceremonies, so there were various holy days that occurred throughout the festival. The very last day of the Pentecost festival is called Shavu'ot. It was the Christians who later changed the word Pentecost to mean the day they believe that the Spirit of Truth came, but it does not necessarily align with the day of Shavu'ot which is at the end of the 49 days of the Omer, the last day of the Pentecost festival.

 

It's easy for me to rationalize that some well meaning transcriber just dropped the word "in" or "during" thinking it was an error based upon their Christian bias. Or, it could mean that the Midwayers thought it would be understood to mean that it happened during the festival, not necessarily on the last day of the festival. Otherwise they would have said just "Pentecost" and would have left the word "festival" out altogether, knowing that the festival lasts the entire seven weeks.

 

TUB also says that this was a time of fellowshipping proselytes. The fellowshipping occurred throughout the festival. But baptizing would not have happened on Shavu'ot. Shavu'ot, the last day, was a solemn day for the Jews in the temple, where the proselytes were not allowed. Besides being the day that the barley grain matured (also called the day of first fruits, 50 days after the first sheaf was offered during Passover) and brought as an offering at the temple, it symbolically marked the day that Torah was given to the Jews by Moses. Uncircumcised men would not have been involved in any of those celebrations, converted or not converted, trust me. So it makes sense to me that Peter's day of baptizing could easily have taken place on day 40 of the Omer, rather than the actual last holy day of the Pentecost festival, Shavu'ot. And if it did happen on Shavu'ot, I'm sure the Midwayers would have said the "last" day of the festival of Pentecost.

 

194:1.5 Pentecost was the great festival of baptism, the time for fellowshipping the proselytes of the gate, those gentiles who desired to serve Yahweh. It was, therefore, the more easy for large numbers of both the Jews and believing gentiles to submit to baptism on this day.

 

The reason the Jews fellowshipped the proselytes during this time was because the following scripture had to be read in the temple during the Shavu'ot ceremony on the last day: "And you shall rejoice in all the good that God has given you and to your house, you and the Levite and the stranger that is in the midst of you" [Deuteronomy 26:5-11]. Without going into it in great detail, we know that the gerim were a huge issue for the Jews.

 

The rabbis made a distinction between two types of gerim. A ger toshav, or settler convert, also called a ger ha-sha'ar (or proselyte of the gate, as in Exodus 20:10), was a resident alien given permission to live in land controlled by Jews if he or she did not worship other gods or engage in idolatry of any kind or blaspheme God. The ger toshav agreed in the presence of three scholars to follow these Jewish principles. In addition, a ger toshav had to observe the Noahide laws [seven laws considered binding on all humam beings, including prohibition of idolatry and murder]. The ger toshav did not have to perform work on the Sabbath, but was not required to join in worship or perform specifically Jewish religious commandments. Maimonides called them righteous gentiles. They were clearly not full converts to Judaism. (www.myjewishlearning.com)

 

It's no harder for me to accept the fact that the Christian Pentecost did not happen on the same day as the Jewish Pentecost (Shavu'ot) as it is for me to accept the fact that the Christian Last Supper did not happen on the same day as the Jewish Passover (Pesach) Seder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it still seems odd that Sadler would think that it seemed like a gap of missing time between the two Papers, when in fact they line up just fine with the time sequence laid out in Paper 193.

 

Did Rev. Adams questions throw Dr. Sadler off of reviewing those papers a bit more closely, after all he was 82 years old at the time...going on 83 the next month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, Sadler was human and maybe not as mentally sharp at the age of 82 as we'd like to hope he was. I just don't know for sure, but I do trust the Midwayers and I've been able to make sense of it enough to satisfy myself. I don't expect that my explanation will satisfy everybody though. To each his own adventure.

 

I have found that TUB only lightly touches on history. If you study any of this in depth, it becomes more three dimensional. I'm sure the Midwayers had a lot of difficulty putting it all down in a two-dimensional format while trying to keep it to a readable length. Just like my posts, the longer they are, the fewer the people are that actually read them and try to digest what they mean. I think they reached their limit in being able to explain things on paper.

 

Sadler was probably just looking for a quick answer and didn't really think it through as thoroughly as we are. Just a guess though. Maybe it was a booboo. Who knows. But aren't we supposed to forgive seventy times seven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. In my humble opinion, Sadler was probably the best human candidate for the job that was placed on his shoulders....the job of helping to bring this revelation through to our dimension and into the Book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever wondered, "Why Sadler?" He was a physician and he was studying "mind" phenomena and religion. I'm a physician and I'm studying mind phenomena and religion. I'm not trying to equate myself with Sadler, but I do sometimes try to put myself in his shoes. I know that if this event were happening today instead of the early 20th Century, I would have the time of my life with it. I can only dream about having an opportunity like he had. I think he did a splendid job. He didn't let his emotions take over and he was able to socialize the process quite admirably. All those people who were willing to swear to secrecy probably couldn't be found today. They'd be tweeting left and right, just my guess, and if it were me in charge, I'd be having heart attacks over it. So, whatever went down then went down as best it could. I trust that they found the right people at the right time to do the best job possible. I'm satisfied with it even if it's not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you would make a good person in charge of the New Revelation; if that were to happen in your time. I say "your time" as I am probably too old to be part of the Contact Commission or Forum for that. Even taking into consideration that I don't use a "tweeting device" , etc.

 

Seeing as you are so good at coming up with good answers to puzzles and mysteries, here are a few more:

Number one:

At the end of Part III in the UB it says 1935

even though Dr. Sadler said that the first three parts were completed in 1934

and the UB itself refers to the year 1934 in four different places within part III

Paper 62.5.1 Paper 62.6.6 Paper 63.6.8 and in the opening paragraph of paper 74

 

Number two

How come Part IV has no completion date. Seems a bit odd seeing as the first three parts have a date of completion ?

 

Could this have something to do with what the midwayers supposedly told Lena Sadler when they mentioned that they had been working on Part IV since the middle ages. At that time she apparently said to them, that it seemed like a long time. And they answered that it wasn't so long for them.

(makes sense. as they had been here for over 30,000 years already)

 

So if that was true; maybe Part IV had been completed way before the first three parts, and so it would have looked strange to have a date at the end of Part IV which preceded the first three parts by a fair amount of time. As I type this, I am reminded that at the very end of Part IV there are references made in regards to the 20th century see Paper 195.8

 

Well then we're still left with how come there is no date here ?

Edited by menno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Number one:

At the end of Part III in the UB it says 1935

even though Dr. Sadler said that the first three parts were completed in 1934

and the UB itself refers to the year 1934 in four different places within part III

Paper 62.5.1 Paper 62.6.6 Paper 63.6.8 and in the opening paragraph of paper 74

 

I can't really comment on this unless I read what Dr. Sadler wrote about the dates in context. Sometimes there are nuances in the text that give you clues. So, can you either reproduce the source or give me the link so I can read it for myself? I'll be honest. I've been reading and studying TUB for over 40 years and have never given one iota of thought to any of this (because I don't care), so I'm starting from scratch.

 

I'll reproduce what's written at the end of sections I, II, and III, just for clarity and completeness for the readers (if there are any):

 

Part I

 

These thirty-one papers depicting the nature of Deity, the reality of Paradise, the organization and working of the central and superuniverses, the personalities of the grand universe, and the high destiny of evolutionary mortals, were sponsored, formulated, and put into English by a high commission consisting of twenty-four Orvonton administrators acting in accordance with a mandate issued by the Ancients of Days of Uversa directing that we should do this on Urantia, 606 of Satania, in Norlatiadek of Nebadon,
in the year A.D. 1934.

 

Part II

 

This paper on Universal Unity is the twenty-fifth of a series of presentations by various authors, having been sponsored as a group by a commission of Nebadon personalities numbering twelve and acting under the direction of Mantutia Melchizedek. We indited these narratives and put them in the English language, by a technique authorized by our superiors,
in the year 1934 of Urantia time
.

 

Part III

 

This paper, depicting the seven bestowals of Christ Michael, is the sixty-third of a series of presentations, sponsored by numerous personalities, narrating the history of Urantia down to the time of Michael's appearance on earth in the likeness of mortal flesh. These papers were authorized by a Nebadon commission of twelve acting under the direction of Mantutia Melchizedek. We indited these narratives and put them in the English language, by a technique authorized by our superiors,
in the year A.D. 1935 of Urantia time
.

 

Other references to the year 1934, all taken from Part III

 

62:5.1 From
the year A.D. 1934
back to the birth of the first two human beings is just 993,419 years.

 

62:7.7 It is just 993,408 years ago (
from the year A.D. 1934
) that Urantia was formally recognized as a planet of human habitation in the universe of Nebadon. Biologic evolution had once again achieved the human levels of will dignity; man had arrived on planet 606 of Satania.

 

63:6.8 Onagar was born 983,323 years ago (
from A.D. 1934
), and he lived to be sixty-nine years of age. The record of the achievements of this master mind and spiritual leader of the pre-Planetary Prince days is a thrilling recital of the organization of these primitive peoples into a real society. He instituted an efficient tribal government, the like of which was not attained by succeeding generations in many millenniums. Never again, until the arrival of the Planetary Prince, was there such a high spiritual civilization on earth. These simple people had a real though primitive religion, but it was subsequently lost to their deteriorating descendants.

 

74:0.1 ADAM AND EVE arrived on Urantia,
from the year A.D. 1934
, 37,848 years ago. It was in midseason when the Garden was in the height of bloom that they arrived. At high noon and unannounced, the two seraphic transports, accompanied by the Jerusem personnel intrusted with the transportation of the biologic uplifters to Urantia, settled slowly to the surface of the revolving planet in the vicinity of the temple of the Universal Father. All the work of rematerializing the bodies of Adam and Eve was carried on within the precincts of this newly created shrine. And from the time of their arrival ten days passed before they were re-created in dual human form for presentation as the world’s new rulers. They regained consciousness simultaneously. The Material Sons and Daughters always serve together. It is the essence of their service at all times and in all places never to be separated. They are designed to work in pairs; seldom do they function alone.

 

I guess you're wondering about the 1935 entry when everything else points to 1934. Can't say that I've studied any of this, and frankly, I don't give a rat's butt about it. But, I'll try to look some things up and give it the good old college try. My best guess is that it was very early in 1935, like maybe January, maybe even very early January, but I just don't know. I'm sure there was time between the asking of questions, the formulations of answers and the actual appearance of the written answers. But I don't know because I've never studied it, due to lack of interest. My focus is on the spiritual significance of the revelation, not the scientific, material or human stuff that, in my opinion, only serves to distract from the very powerful, although sometimes seemingly covert, message of the revelation. But, I realize that these are huge stumbling blocks for scientific, material and human minded individuals. Sounds elitist, but honestly I can't understand what it has to do with the truth. But that's just me. I'm quirky about these things. I spend what time I have on issues of ultimate value; they're far more rewarding to me and I guess that's selfish, in part . . . just don't know for sure, could be just a personality preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you're wondering about the 1935 entry when everything else points to 1934. Can't say that I've studied any of this, and frankly, I don't give a rat's butt about it. But, I'll try to look some things up and give it the good old college try. My best guess is that it was very early in 1935, like maybe January, maybe even very early January, but I just don't know. I'm sure there was time between the asking of questions, the formulations of answers and the actual appearance of the written answers. But I don't know because I've never studied it, due to lack of interest. My focus is on the spiritual significance of the revelation, not the scientific, material or human stuff that, in my opinion, only serves to distract from the very powerful, although sometimes seemingly covert, message of the revelation. But, I realize that these are huge stumbling blocks for scientific, material and human minded individuals. Sounds elitist, but honestly I can't understand what it has to do with the truth. But that's just me. I'm quirky about these things. I spend what time I have on issues of ultimate value; they're far more rewarding to me and I guess that's selfish, in part . . . just don't know for sure, could be just a personality preference.

 

Some things, such as the scientific and historical material, are relevant to the credibility of the UB, especially for those, such as myself, who are ambivalent about its authenticity. It's authenticity isn't and cannot be a distraction from its truth. That material is in there for a reason, and credibility may be a large part of it. It's not elitist but merely misguided to suppose that there is one true way for people to be interested in the UB. Even those who are fully convinced of the UB's authenticity have a legitimate interest in its origins, its scientific content, and its possible material errors.

 

Concerning the 1934 and 1935 dates, Matthew Block has documented that human sources were used in Part IV, as well as earlier parts, that were not published until 1942. So it's not clear what meaning those dates have. The UB wasn't "finished" until 1942 at the earliest. The regrettable policy of destroying all the original source artifacts has created permanent doubts and unanswerable questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the midwayer used the same type of handwriting as the sleeping subject because the midwayer was so intuned to the mind of the sleeping subject that he "crossed streams" haha. They do say from the year 1934 alot but that does not mean that they wrote that statement in the year 1934. It could be that they foresaw the completion of the text in 1934 and decided to use the completion date as a roadmarker. Than again maybe not.

 

 

Indeed there are doubt's, but with new scientific technology I believe the archeological discovery's made in the next 20 year's will really kick-start proof for the u.b. Hopefully Eden's discovery will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Urantia Foundation has a website " A History of the Urantia Movement" By Dr. William S. Sadler where Sadler outlines everything that happened.

 

And under the section entitled "Receiving the Completed Papers"

he said "The first three parts were completed and certified to us in A.D. 1934. The Jesus Papers were not so delivered to us until 1935"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this:

 

Reception of first three parts of The Urantia Book--118 Papers--complete. However, the Forum kept going over these papers and asking questions so the Revelators could clarify their expressions to be more understandable to the mortal mind. The Forum went through all the papers at least three times. To estimate the time involved consider 118 papers completely gone through three times, one paper a week, 42 weeks a year (allowing for no meetings during the peak summer heat). Paper 119 came through in 1935 just before the entire Part IV was delivered complete--typewritten, justified, punctuated and capitalized. (urantiabook.org/archive/history/h_timlin_3.htm)

 

Looks like Paper 119, The Bestowals of Christ Michael, held things up until 1935.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...