The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[Woody]

Hey McC & Bernee,

Nah that's not the way it is. Yes, certain parts of the UB are indeed complicated and sophisticated. Like the various recitals of how the local and higher levels of the universes are "operated" and administrated. But if you will think about it for a moment....wouldn't you rather think that a detailed recital of how the universes are administrated would be a complicated and sophisticated thing? I do. Because that makes sense.

What do you want, and explantation of how the universe works in under 500 words and such that your typical 10 year old could understand it? Now that brothers would be unreasonable.

And it's not that NOBODY can understand this material.

Now for the rest of this large book. 90% of it IS easy to read and understand....which you would find out if you would become interested enough to actually read it.

Ya'll must be beginning to get some kind of idea as to why such a growing handful of us here are trying so hard to share this material with you. There is nothing in it for us other than a later personal satisfaction of knowing that we might have been successful in sharing this remarkable information with some of our other neighbor-fellows (you all), who may not have already have heard about it elsewhere. This process is neccessary at this time as the primary publisher and former copywrite holder (the Urantia Foundation), has chosen or thinks it best not to advertise the fact of the existance of this material to the public at this time. And you should know that not everyone (UB readers) necessarily agrees with this policy of theirs. In fact there is no small number of readers who insist that the existence of this book should be proclaimed..and quite loudly, to the public NOW....as they hold that the world so needs this information to effect more rapid and beneficial change.

The Urantia Book is the modern day (our times right now) pearl of great price. And frankly....it is being handed to you on a silver platter so to speak. I will boldly claim that not a one of you would be sorry if you went to the effort to get a copy and read it all.

Those of us trying to share this info with you are doing our sincere best to do you a favor with this sublime gift and astonishing resource.

None of us are enemies trying to trick you with something. We are your neighbors, your fellows, your brothers trying to do you a good turn. No charge.



And that's the way it is. Believe us or don't.

[Rob]

Gold was the first metal to be sought by man; it was easy to work and, at first, was used only as an ornament. Copper was next employed but not extensively until it was admixed with tin to make the harder bronze. The discovery of mixing copper and tin to make bronze was made by one of the Adamsonites of Turkestan whose highland copper mine happened to be located alongside a tin deposit. (The Urantia Book, p. 904.1)

The Adamsonites as defined in the Urantia Book are a group of peoples that established some of the earliest civilizations in the Turkestan, also known as Anatolia, area and the Zargos mountains. They were the ancestors of the Hittites, who were decendents of these earlier Indo-Aryans and other groups of people, who built such civilization as Urartru, etc.

Clearly, in 1955, the Urantia Book is claiming that a major center of civilization was established by this group, and that there were sources of tin which they mined. At that time, in 1955, this was not an accepted belief in the archeological community, as far as I can tell from research to date. I am still researching though, so these conclusions are tenative.

The following quotation if from "The Hittites: and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor," by Macqueen, J. G., first published in 1975.

The problem of tin supplies

In attempting to justify this view we may now return to Hattusilis and his campaign against Arzawa. Its purpose is unknown. He may have been attacked from behind when his attention was directed to the south-east, but equally his expedition may be linked with one ascribed to 'Labarnas' in a later treaty, in the course of which both Arzawa and Wilusa were conquered. If we now ask what the importance of Wilusa was, a glance at the map will show us, for Wilusa lay astride the branch of the northern route, previously mentioned, which led from the Land of Hatti to north-western Anatolia and from there across the straits into Europe. Was it then trade which provoked Hittite interest in this route, as had economic factors in the south-east also? We can only guess, for no Hittite monarch ever gives any hint of economic motives in attacking, making a treaty with, or otherwise seeking to influence another country.

It has been suggested that this route too was a tin-route,[32] leading through the Balkans and eventually to the rich resources of Bohemia. And that leads us directly to the vexed question of the source, or sources, of the tin which was widely used in the manufacture of bronze in ancient Anatolia. In considering this question, already touched on in Chapter 1, one must take into account evidence from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages as well as the Hittite period. It is clear for instance that in the third millennium BC the percentage of copper-based artifacts containing more than five per cent tin is much higher in north-western and central Anatolia (and also north-western Iran) than it is in neighboring areas such as Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt and Crete. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that there was a tin-source somewhere in (central?) Anatolia which was available to local metal-workers. But herein lies the core of the problem, for despite the most intense investigation no such tin-source has yet been found. The problem becomes more acute when we move into the second millennium, for not only Anatolia, but neighboring areas as well, can be seen to have access to supplies of tin for bronze-making, and still there is no clear indication of any source within the area from which it could have come. We have, it seems, to accept the fact that the tin which was used in the Mediterranean basin, Anatolia, western Iran and Mesopotamia, came from somewhere outside those areas, and that trade in tin played a considerable part in economic life.

But where did the tin come from? One possible source is the eastern desert of Egypt, the only area within easy reach of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian worlds where there are known sources of cassiterite (stannic dioxide, Sn O2), the form in which tin was most easily available to ancient prospectors. But there is no evidence either for the third-millennium exploitation of this tin or for the second-millennium use of Egyptian tin as a trade-item, and we regretfully have to look elsewhere. If we turn first of all to the east we find, as we have seen, tin being imported to central Anatolia from Assyria. But the source of that tin has for long been obscure. Such evidence as there is to somewhere beyond the Zagros Mountains. Until recently, however, no possible source has been identified between the Iranian border and India. So it was suggested that tin came to Mesopotamia from as far afield as Thailand and Malaysia, being imported by sea up the Arabian Gulf. But there is certainly no evidence for trading-connections between Thailand and the Gulf, and it is very difficult to see the tin used in Anatolia (which is our main concern here) as having its ultimate origin as far away as south-east Asia. However in recent years a new possibility has emerged with the discovery of major tin deposits in Afghanistan.[33] It may then be that Afghan tin was brought overland to Assur, and it is also possible that it was carried south from Afghanistan to the coast and then brought by ship up the Arabian Gulf to Mesopotamia ports, where it was loaded on to donkeys for transport up-river to the north, and distribution via the Assyrian trade-network in Anatolia.

A solution such as this may help to explain the early second-millennium import of tin into central Anatolia from the south-east. But it offers no help in explaining why the percentage of tin-bronzes in third-millennium Anatolia--and especially in the north-west--is much higher than that in Mesopotamia. This evidence suggests that there must have been another tin-source, and the likelihood is that it it was somewhere west, rather than east, of Anatolia. So if we turn now to the west, we have to ask ourselves whether importation of British tin from the prolific mines of Cornwall is a possibility. There seems to be a complete lack of tin-bronze in Britain itself before about 2200 BC, and this makes it totally unlikely that Cornwall was the source of the tin used in Anatolian bronzes in the third millennium. After 2200, however, objects of tin-bronze in Britain increase greatly in numbers, and the export of objects made of British tin-bronze into northern and central Europe has been noted. This export-trade may have been associated with the export of tin for use by continental smiths, and thus British tin may by the second millennium have been reaching the Mediterranean coast, whence it could have been carried by sea to ports on the shores of Anatolia. This is at least a possibility which has to be kept in mind, but it must be admitted that there is at present little or no evidence for it.

What of other possible sources? One such that cannot be left out of consideration is central Europe. Here, in the region of Bohemia, there are ample supplies of tin-ore, but as usual there are problems connected with it. The main one is that Bohemian tin occurs in the form of vein-deposits in granite rock, and because of the hardness of this rock it has been claimed that such deposits were completely in accessible to ancient miners. This is largely true. But even the hardest rock yields in time to natural erosion, and because of this tin-ores may well have been available in quantities sufficient to make exploitation worth while. In fact the importation of tin from Britain, mentioned in the previous paragraph, may well have inspired central European prospectors to look more closely for local supplies. If these were available, an easy export-route led down the Danube valley to the Balkans, and so across the straits into north-western Turkey. Certainly central Europe had trade-connections as far afield as Syria not long after the beginning of the second millennium,[34] and towards the end of that millennium a trail of objects with spiral decoration has been taken to show that the Mycenaeans also used the route. But these decorations could equally well have originated in north-west Anatolia, and there is no trace of pottery or anything else that can be unequivocally ascribed to the Mycenaeans.[35] It is therefore possible to argue that supplies of central European tin (or even Cornish tin passing through central Europe) reached Anatolia by way of this north-western route. Admittedly the arguments in its favor are weak; but so too are the arguments for any alternative source. It is little wonder that increasingly those who study the problem are turning once more to a native Anatolian tin-source, undetected and, because totally exhausted, probably undetectable.[36] But faced with a choice between an invisible local source and a variety of equally improbable outside sources, the author feels once again that he has to make a decision. And since the geographical reconstruction proposed above, however insubstantial its basis, points clearly to a continuing Hittite involvement with the north-west, he feels it worth while to accept as a working hypothesis the theory of a central European tin-source, and to interpret Hittite history and Hittite policy accordingly.

Western Anatolia is of course no richer in tin-deposits than central Anatolia, and we may also be justified in seeing in Bohemia the ultimate source of the tin that was needed by the kings of Arzawa. It is then a reasonable guess that in conquering Arzawa and forging a link with Wilusa that was to last almost unbroken for hundreds of years, Hattusilis (we return at last to our starting-point) had the same motive as we have ascribed to him when he attacked Alalah and the south-eastern route. In each case the object of his campaign may well have been tin.

32 J. Mellaart, Anatolian Studies XVIII (1968), 187 ff.
33 J. D. Muhly, American Journal of Archeology 89 (1985), 281, with references.
34 Contact is shown by the presence of 'ingottorcs', riveted daggers and other features in both regions. See S. Piggot, Ancient Europe (1965), 102 and Fig. 56.
35 See note 32.
36 It may be possible to reach conclusions on local tin-sources from the tin-content of ancient slags. See for instance P. S. de Jesus, The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia (1980), 55-6.

-- Macqueen, J. G. The Hittites: and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Revised and Enlarged Edition ed. London: Thames & Hudson; 2001; c1975 pp. 41-43. (Ancient Peoples and Places.)

It is clear, from the quote above, that at the time there was no known souce of tin in the Turkestan/Anatolian area, and that it possed a problem.

This book was intially published prior to some major acheological discoveries that have rewritten our knowlege of the area. The following is stated in the 2001 revised and enlarged edition:

Addendum to the paperback edition

A great deal has happened in the fields of Late Bronze Age archeology and history since the appearance of the previous edition of this book in 1986. Only a brief description of some of the principle developments can be given here.

(....) Exploration and excavation in the Taurus Mountains [Yener, 2000] have now revealed the existence both of a native Anatolian source of tin (at the Kestel mine) and of a flourishing tin industry (at the nearby site of Goltöpe) from as early as the first half of the third millennium BC. Extensive investigation of these sites is yielding much information on Bronze Age metallurgy, but has not yet succeeded in solving the many problems of the second millennium tin-trade.

Here is a brief quote of the archeologist who discovered the Kestel/Goltöpe mining complexes in Turkestan, or what is now refered to as Anatolia:

Kestel Mine and Goltepe

The Problem of Tin Sources

If there is a single concept that has most unsettled the commonly held view of technological advances in metallurgy, it is that tin, a vital component of the then "high tech" industry of its age (bronze), has been found not in an exotic, elusive place, but in the middle of a region where tin bronzes appeared prominently in the late fourth millennium B.C. Prior to this, most theorists had concluded that Anatolian and all other Near Eastern tin bronzes were made with tin imported from elsewhere (even in the early bronze stages) and had proposed elaborate long-distance exchange systems with presumed sources of supply. These sources were assumed to be in Malaysia or Cornwall (Muhly 1973: 262-88; 409-12) or in the Hindu Kush mountains of northern Afghanistan (Cleuziou and Berthoud 1982, Franklin et al. 1978).... The Early Bronze Age Kestel mining complex was discovered on the slope 200 meters above the highest tin-yielding stream, Kurucay near Celaller village (Yener et al. 1989, Cagatay and Pehlivan 1988, Pehlivan and Alpan 1986). An Early Bronze Age mining village, Goltepe, was discovered on survey in 1988 at the summit of a hill facing the entrance of Kestel mine. The gallaries, quarries, and industrial processing/habitation sites were investigated by combined teams of geologists, minerologists, and archeologists in the ensuing years, providing important information about a first-tier industrial production complex in the highlands.

Much heated discussion and passion has been unleashed by this recent finding of a major source of tin in Turkey. After the initial surprise, some in the scholarly community ignored the findings in the hope that they would go away. Others fearing the resulting paradigmatic shift displayed varying stages of dismay and disbelief. A cursory summary of the bibliography reflects the sustained scholarly dialogue, especially our articles with titles generally beginning with words "Comments, "Reply to," or "Response to." Finally, as the technical discussions and instrumental analyses became increasingly more complex and no reconciliation of divergent views emerged, archeologists awaited a final interpretive overview before integrating the impact of the findings into their reconstructions. Our discovery in the central Taurus mountains set the stage for unraveling one of the major unknowns which had long bewildered scholars working with metals in the Near East. (...) A number of authors have noted the assays of other tin sources in Turkey (de Jesus 1980, Esin 1969, Kaptan 1983, 1995b), as well as possibilities of tin in the Caucasus (Selimkhanov 1978) and Yugoslovia (Taylor 1987).1 Despite earlier dismissal (Muhly 1978), the tin mineralization in the Eastern Desert of Egypt has been taken seriously at last (Muhly 1993, Rapp et al. 1996). Good tin sources include Erzgebirge (Taylor 1983) and high trace levels occur in the ores from the Black Sea area (Tylecote 1981), Cyprus (Rapp 1982), and the Troad (Cağatay et al. 1982). These are fairly compelling indications that tin was more abundant in the Near East than was previously thought.

-- Yener, Asliham K. The Domestication of Metals. The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. Leiden Boston: Brill; 2000; c2000 pp. 71-2.

The next two examples will deal with the geological history of the Mediterranean basin and how the Mediterranean Ocean was once a desert, a statement of fact in the Urantia Book that was first discovered in the 1970s by the scientific voyage of the Golmar Challenger.

The following link is to a paper called "The Science Content of the Uranita Book," which covers some interesting facts, but I note that I do not agree with some of the conclusions he reaches:

http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/bain/science-urantia.pdf

[Bro Dave]

Rob, nobody is going to plow through that mountain of words! If you expect to have some kind of exchange, the tidbit you offer needs to be "chewable". Trying to stuff the entire UB down our throats, just makes everyone uncomfortable, and probably dismissive of your point. Here, as on the TruthBook site, links are the prefered way to share large amounts of information.

These are intelligent, well informed folks. Lets show them more consideration.

Bro Dave

[Rob]

Rob, nobody is going to plow through that mountain of words! If you expect to have some kind of exchange, the tidbit you offer needs to be "chewable". Trying to stuff the entire UB down our throats, just makes everyone uncomfortable, and probably dismissive of your point.

These are intelligent, well considered folks. Lets show them more consideration.

Bro Dave

You grossly underestimate McCullock's (and many others) intelligence my friend. Just because the "facts" are not "chewable" enough to suit your palette, doesn't mean McCullock does not have a palette for the history of science and the details entailed in a true search for truth and honest critical examination.

And contrary to your claim, I cite the Urantia Book very little above, because most of the citations are from scientists, archeologists, and others to provide the very evidence that McCullock was asking for repeatedly and which you apparently from your comments above feel he does not have the intellectual acumen to chew, a view which I most definitely do not share given his very insightful comments and questions.

Why Bro Dave, if McCullock has so consistently been asking for this very kind of evidence, would you then imply it is to much for him to "chew"?

It seems only considerate to answer the very questions and request for evidence that our friend McCullock has so consistently been asking for, would you not agree?

And isn't it a bit presumtive to assume that those individuals on this site who have a fairly sophisticated grasp of such things as the theories of evolution, and complex series of facts entailed in the science of sedimentology, paleontology, etc., are not intelligent enough to be able to "chew" such scientific subjects as the above posts address?

I certainly would feel it is only considerate to assume they are intelligent enough to weigh the facts and reach intelligent conclusions and reasoned judgments on their own. Don't you?

Let me see if I can understand this. You come to this site, espouse your beliefs about the book, and claim that it is a first hand account of Jesus' recurrection, but when they asked for factual evidence stated therein that can be validated by science, which may in some small way lead them to think it is worth looking at, a perfectly reasonable request, you imply they are not intelligent enough to grasp the subject or assimilate the facts and material presented above?

I do believe these people are intelligent enough to tell the difference between such pseudoscientific literalist claims that the earth is 4000 or even 1 billion years old (both of which has been asserted in different threads), and legitimate science, or the difference between such "new age" beliefs that that trees and rocks are imbued with personality and can be channeled or our emotions cause earthquakes, and facts such as the discovery of the 750 Ma date for the breakup of Rodinia as found in the science of plate tectonics and the earth sciences.

Certainly Bro Dave, you too would give McCullock and others more intellectual credit than that, wouldn't you Dave?

And finally Bro Dave, I find it humorously ironic that you accuse me of "Trying to stuff the entire UB down our throats," when in truth it was you and Woody who come to this site and since you have been here have continued to post quote after quote from the Urantia Book in the debate forums irregardless of the topic of debate under discussion in the forum, as though this answers all the questions being debated in any one thread, yet when asked to provide a few examples like I have posted above repeatedly requested of you and Woody by McCullock, yet you and Woody have consistently avoided doing so, with Woody in his lates post even being condesending enough to say to McCullock,

Is there something wrong with the idea of you doing your own research?

It has ever been easy for someone to sit around pointing fingers and saying here is a problem and there is a problem. Geesh, a 4 year old can do that. Big wow. It is another thing to be industrious and act.

Geesh, that just takes the cake for civility to one's gracious host

Granted the hosts of this site are patient and tolerant, and flexible in this regard, but nevertheless, it is a fact that this is what the two of you have been doing.

[QED]

I would just like to extend a belated welcome to all the recently signed-up members who've come over here from the TruthBook forums

I don't know how TruthBook operates but the Debating Christianity & Religion forums bring believers and unbelievers together in a respectful environment so that we can all concentrate on the really important business of challenging each others thoughts and ideas.

[Woody]

Well thank you QED from the warm greeting again

There are a few of "us" around indeed. Even with essentially only word-of-mouth spread, the Urantia Book is known to untold millions of persons and a large quatity of copies has been sold, given away and distributed to libraries. It has been translated into nearly a dozen languages so far and more translations are always in preparation. A Google search of Urantia produces a huge number of hits.

Mr. McC,

you- Most revelations come complete with some kind of evidence that the revelation should be trusted.

The fact of the physical exsistence of this book, a book not authored by human beings, is remarkable proof in itself to me

The UB describes that on other and "normal" worlds, where visable superplanetary personalities are present...leading, teaching and quiding the civilizations of the Sons of God under their watchcare.....there are still mortals on those worlds who refuse to believe in God and choose His way. such a concept at first would seem rather foreign to us....a race of mortals who tend to believe by seeing....the stuff of our physical senses which we tend to accept as facts. The functioning of the gift of free will ever at play.

UB pg 1007

The Gift of Revelation

Check this subsection out when you get a chance

***********************************************************

Perhaps this "debate" about the UB would be better continued onto the existing "The Urantia Book" thread started earlier by another sometime Truthbook.com member, Colter, which is down the list and back on page 3 of the Random Ramblings forum, where the discussion rules are more relaxed. Perhaps would be more comfortable. Just an idea.

[McCulloch]

Most revelations come complete with some kind of evidence that the revelation should be trusted.

The fact of the physical exsistence of this book, a book not authored by human beings, is remarkable proof in itself to me.

Establish the truth of that fact and it would indeed be remarkable.

The UB describes that on other and "normal" worlds, where visable superplanetary personalities are present...leading, teaching and quiding the civilizations of the Sons of God under their watchcare.....there are still mortals on those worlds who refuse to believe in God and choose His way. such a concept at first would seem rather foreign to us....a race of mortals who tend to believe by seeing....the stuff of our physical senses which we tend to accept as facts. The functioning of the gift of free will ever at play.

Establish that these other worlds exist and that superplanetary personalities exist and you will have come a long way towards convincing me. Should we offer the superplanetary personalities a seat at the UN?

Perhaps this "debate" about the UB would be better continued onto the existing "The Urantia Book" thread started earlier by another sometime Truthbook.com member, Colter, which is down the list and back on page 3 of the Random Ramblings forum, where the discussion rules are more relaxed. Perhaps would be more comfortable. Just an idea.

I am quite comfortable having this debate as a debate using the rules of evidence, logic and reason. Aren't you?

[McCulloch]

The proof of revelation is only found in each individuals experience with it, and that is a personal experience, wihch while it can be supported by facts such as those that are about to be presented, can never be proven by such facts alone. There is always and ever room for intellectual doubt and honest questions. I still have them to this day.

This is where you and I part company. Revelation is just another form of human writing. Its only claim to being anything special is the claim that it comes from some supernatural source. Subjective personal experience cannot validate the truth claims of revelation any more than they can validate the truth claims of a peer reviewed scientific paper. So as long as you leave the Urantia Book in the realm of the unproven spiritual, I will not challenge it, except to deny the reality of spiritual entities. But as you or others bring up the Urantia book as evidence for historical events, then it cannot be validated simply by subjective personal experience.

[Woody]

Hi McC,

you- "Its only claim to being anything special is the claim that it comes from some supernatural source"

It does not claim a superNATURAL source. It claims a superhuman and superplanetary source.

The "special" content is the whole darn thing. But you will never know until read it.

Again friends, we UB readers have nothing to prove to you. We are not trying to coerce anymore than God would. He respects the free will He endowed us with, and it behooves us to do the same.

This site is a big and wonderful Q&A session. Folks ask questions, folks give answers. We all consider the conversations and practice personal intelligent discernment. It's all good.

[McCulloch]

Its only claim to being anything special is the claim that it comes from some supernatural source

It does not claim a superNATURAL source. It claims a superhuman and superplanetary source.

I'm sorry. My mistake. I keep getting them mixed up. Supernatural beings are imaginary beings with special powers that exist beyond the rules of nature. Superhuman and superplanetary beings are imaginary beings with special powers that exist beyond our current understanding of nature.

This site is a big and wonderful Q&A session. Folks ask questions, folks give answers. We all consider the conversations and practice personal intelligent discernment. It's all good.

Please, this is a debate site. We have, for you convenience and enjoyment, discussion forums, but this is a debate site. People state their positions and they and others using evidence, reason and logic to attack or defend those positions. If you have nothing to prove or disprove, then might I suggest that debate might not be what you are looking for.