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]

Yeah again McC,

you- Superhuman and superplanetary beings are imaginary beings with special powers that exist beyond our current understanding of nature.

Nah that's not it either. Their "powers" are not special to them. They would be natural to them.

And beyond "our" current understanding?

To whom are you referring when you say "our". For whom else do you speak?

Perhaps it these things are only beyond your current level of understanding?

And perhaps that is why some of us are here attempting to share some new information with you and others.

Let those with eyes to see and ears to hear, see and hear.

[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 are purported to be 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 example 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.

[McCulloch]

Superhuman and superplanetary beings are imaginary beings with special powers that exist beyond our current understanding of nature.

Nah that's not it either. Their "powers" are not special to them. They would be natural to them.
And beyond "our" current understanding?
To whom are you referring when you say "our". For whom else do you speak?

Human science. Presumably, your superplanetary beings have solved the problem of faster than light travel or else they would not be here.

Perhaps it these things are only beyond your current level of understanding?

You got that right. I might suggest that their alleged knowledge is also beyond your current level of understanding. Unless you have figured out interplanetary travel.

And perhaps that is why some of us are here attempting to share some new inforamtion with you.

Please, by all means do start to share information. So far all I have seen is fiction and unsubstantiated assertions.

Urantia is of origin in your sun, and your sun is one of the multifarious offspring of the Andronover nebula, which was onetime organized as a component part of the physical power and material matter of the local universe of Nebadon. And this great nebula itself took origin in the universal force-charge of space in the superuniverse of Orvonton, long, long ago.
At the time of the beginning of this recital, the Primary Master Force Organizers of Paradise had long been in full control of the space-energies which were later organized as the Andronover nebula.
987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.
900,000,000,000 years ago the Uversa archives testify, there was recorded a permit issued by the Uversa Council of Equilibrium to the superuniverse government authorizing the dispatch of a force organizer and staff to the region.

Presumably this method of travel is beyond your understanding.

The atmosphere of Jerusem is a three-gas mixture. This air is very similar to that of Urantia with the addition of a gas adapted to the respiration of the morontia order of life. This third gas in no way unfits the air for the respiration of animals or plants of the material orders.
The transportation system is allied with the circulatory streams of energy movement, these main energy currents being located at ten-mile intervals. By adjustment of physical mechanisms the material beings of the planet can proceed at a pace varying from two to five hundred miles per hour. The transport birds fly at about one hundred miles an hour. The air mechanisms of the Material Sons travel around five hundred miles per hour. Material and early morontia beings must utilize these mechanical means of transport, but spirit personalities proceed by liaison with the superior forces and spirit sources of energy.

Somewhat imaginative science fiction, no? Presumably 500 mph travel by way of some kind of bird is beyond your personal knowledge.

Calcium is, in fact, the chief element of the matter-permeation of space throughout Orvonton. Our whole superuniverse is sprinkled with minutely pulverized stone. Stone is literally the basic building matter for the planets and spheres of space. The cosmic cloud, the great space blanket, consists for the most part of the modified atoms of calcium. The stone atom is one of the most prevalent and persistent of the elements. It not only endures solar ionization--splitting--but persists in an associative identity even after it has been battered by the destructive X rays and shattered by the high solar temperatures. Calcium possesses an individuality and a longevity excelling all of the more common forms of matter.
As your physicists have suspected, these mutilated remnants of solar calcium literally ride the light beams for varied distances, and thus their widespread dissemination throughout space is tremendously facilitated. The sodium atom, under certain modifications, is also capable of light and energy locomotion. The calcium feat is all the more remarkable since this element has almost twice the mass of sodium. Local space-permeation by calcium is due to the fact that it escapes from the solar photosphere, in modified form, by literally riding the outgoing sunbeams. Of all the solar elements, calcium, notwithstanding its comparative bulk--containing as it does twenty revolving electrons--is the most successful in escaping from the solar interior to the realms of space. This explains why there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick; and this despite the fact that nineteen lighter elements, and numerous heavier ones, are underneath.

This is quite funny!

The privilege of intrauniverse travel and observation is a part of the career of all ascending beings. The human desire to travel and observe new peoples and worlds will be fully gratified during the long and eventful climb to Paradise through the local, super-, and central universes.

I can't wait!

[Arie]

I thought these quotes may shed some light on the situation these personalities were in when they gave us this Revelation.


Paper 101.... Section 4 The Limitations of Revelation. "Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented."

101:4.2 "Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve."

P1008:2, 92:4.9 5. "The Urantia Papers. The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia."

[Woody]

McC,

Your question-asking has become disengenious and insincere. It doesn't matter even if your questions are answered to human-science indisputable satisfaction and perfection, you still won't believe. So you waste our time. Many thanks. But alas we've been here before. We do this for the benefit of others who are watching.

No good effort is ever wholly lost. Even a cup of water given to a thirsty soul is recorded by the angels.

[McCulloch]

I thought these quotes may shed some light on the situation these personalities were in when they gave us this Revelation.
... The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. ... Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. ... We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records.

How convenient! In essence, you are saying, "Here are some revelations from superplanetary beings that may or may not be correct in matters of scientific fact. " So if the fiction writers of the 1930's to the 1950's made any guesses that subsequently turned out to be scientifically unsupportable, you simply invoke your escape hatch. The revelators were not allowed to tell us the truth. Maybe they lied. Who knows? No matter. They are right on historical and spiritual matters are still reliable. But if any of the scientific guesses turned out to be correct, then they are held up as evidence of the Urantia Book's authenticity. It's like having your cake and eating it too.

Given the state of the physical sciences in the first half of the 20th century, it was a pretty easy guess that there would be some significant advances soon. I'm completely in awe with regard to the evidence so far presented to support the Urantia Book's evidentiary reliability.

[Billurantia]

Friends,

Let us return to the question. Perhaps if Bro Dave had said that the Urantia Papers present another story of the life of Jesus, which seems to make sense to those who take the time to read it, we might all gain from the pointer.

Revelation, in truth, is beyond proof. It either resonates in the mind of the observer or it does not. The Papers teach that faith is the most important element of religiosity. If this is true, and I personally believe it is, proof positive would negate the faith element and make God a thing. The Papers teach that God is a personality, not a thing. To understand him as a provable thing negates the understanding of God as our Loving Father, as things may be loved, but do not reciprocate in kind.

The same holds true for revelation. In the case of the Urantia papers, a series of essays, is the revelation vehicle. The human mind is the filter. Faith derived from a skeptical examination must be credited some validity, as to not do so would deny all human value. Now it is true that you may only know what each of us reveals of ourselves here. However I am sure you are wise enough to recognize the intellectual and the emotional and their placement on the scale of discriminating thought.

Rob has the ability to find factual information supporting statements made in the Papers. One thing I do not recall seeing here, is the Papers were actually written no later than 1934. The publication came in 1955. This makes some of the statements 20 years further ahead in time.

I have no interest in proselytizing here. The Papers seem to find the right people at the right time.

I do not think the Urantia Papers can be proven by the criteria required in this question: "Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?" Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who only uses the scientific method. However as a holder of an advanced degree in history, I find they do not contradict any history I know. As an amateur theologian, I accept them for what they claim to be. Also as the possessor of a minor in geology, my limited science background finds no conflict. But, alas, I return to faith.

[McCulloch]

Let us return to the question. Perhaps if Bro Dave had said that the Urantia Papers present another story of the life of Jesus, which seems to make sense to those who take the time to read it, we might all gain from the pointer.

Revelation, in truth, is beyond proof. It either resonates in the mind of the observer or it does not. The Papers teach that faith is the most important element of religiosity. If this is true, and I personally believe it is, proof positive would negate the faith element and make God a thing. The Papers teach that God is a personality, not a thing. To understand him as a provable thing negates the understanding of God as our Loving Father, as things may be loved, but do not reciprocate in kind.
The same holds true for revelation. In the case of the Urantia papers, a series of essays, is the revelation vehicle. The human mind is the filter. Faith derived from a skeptical examination must be credited some validity, as to not do so would deny all human value. Now it is true that you may only know what each of us reveals of ourselves here. However I am sure you are wise enough to recognize the intellectual and the emotional and their placement on the scale of discriminating thought.

I am glad to see that one Urantia Book reader agrees with me about the subjective nature of the alleged facts revealed in the Book.

Rob has the ability to find factual information supporting statements made in the Papers. One thing I do not recall seeing here, is the Papers were actually written no later than 1934. The publication came in 1955. This makes some of the statements 20 years further ahead in time.

We only have the publisher's word on that don't we? Are there any reliably dated copies of the Urantia Book prior to 1955? Is there any proof that the 1955 version was not edited and changed in the twenty-one years between the alleged time of the revelations and the publication date?

I have no interest in proselytizing here. The Papers seem to find the right people at the right time.

This is eerily similar to supernatural claims made about the Bible and other revealed texts. It is a book. It does not find anyone. People find it. On the web, in a bookstore or in a library. Any claim to the contrary, cannot be supported without reference to some kind of mystic supernatural force, can it?

I do not think the Urantia Papers can be proven by the criteria required in this question: "Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?" Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who only uses the scientific method. However as a holder of an advanced degree in history, I find they do not contradict any history I know. As an amateur theologian, I accept them for what they claim to be. Also as the possessor of a minor in geology, my limited science background finds no conflict. But, alas, I return to faith.

A 6,000 mile thick crust of Calcium on the Sun? No conflict with modern science. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[McCulloch]

Your question-asking has become disengenious and insincere. It doesn't matter even if your questions are answered to human-science indisputable satisfaction and perfection, you still won't believe.

How is it that you make that claim about my character? Yes, I am a tough sell. Yes, I am a skeptic. Provide me with evidence and I will listen. Be warned, however, that I am not easily fooled. You said, "Read the Book." So I read parts of it. What I found was quite absurd.

So you waste our time.

It might appear as if you and the other supporters of the Urantia Book are wasting the time of those who are interested in rational debate based on evidence, reason and logic.

[Rob]

Revelation, in truth, is beyond proof. It either resonates in the mind of the observer or it does not. The Papers teach that faith is the most important element of religiosity. If this is true, and I personally believe it is, proof positive would negate the faith element and make God a thing. The Papers teach that God is a personality, not a thing. To understand him as a provable thing negates the understanding of God as our Loving Father, as things may be loved, but do not reciprocate in kind.

The same holds true for revelation. In the case of the Urantia papers, a series of essays, is the revelation vehicle. The human mind is the filter. Faith derived from a skeptical examination must be credited some validity, as to not do so would deny all human value. Now it is true that you may only know what each of us reveals of ourselves here. However I am sure you are wise enough to recognize the intellectual and the emotional and their placement on the scale of discriminating thought.

I am glad to see that one Urantia Book reader agrees with me about the subjective nature of the alleged facts revealed in the Book.

Rob has the ability to find factual information supporting statements made in the Papers. One thing I do not recall seeing here, is the Papers were actually written no later than 1934. The publication came in 1955. This makes some of the statements 20 years further ahead in time.

We only have the publisher's word on that don't we? Are there any reliably dated copies of the Urantia Book prior to 1955? Is there any proof that the 1955 version was not edited and changed in the twenty-one years between the alleged time of the revelations and the publication date?

Irregardless of what I personally believe about the book, I don't think it is either realistic or reasonable to expect others to take my word (you don't know me from Jack), or even the Urantia Book as valid, without sound, reasonable, and honest critical examination. In fact so far, I think all of McCullock's questions and requests have been fair and valid. ..

I do not believe that any one of these examples which I am going to present of a statemenet(s) of fact made in the Urantia Book, which were at the time they were made would have been considered incorrect by the scientific establishment, and were later verified by science, proves the Urantia Book is what it claims. I can find an equal number of statements that at this time do not agree with science; does this mean the Urantia Book is wrong, or does this mean that science is incorrect? I don't know, I will take each question, fact, on a case by case basis.

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.

My friend,

Either perhaps you are not reading my posts, or else you should have said "I am glad to see that [two] Urantia Book reader agrees with me about the subjective nature of the alleged facts revealed in the Book."

Regarding the date by which to evaluate statements made in the UB, I have stated:

Scientists have long since determined the age of the earth based on studying our solar system, for the age of our solar system and the earth are the same. So, per the internal dating of the papers (1934/35) of the Urantia Book the earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old. Of course, the Urantia Book was published in 1955, so this would be the conservative date to use for when it made this claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

I personally believe it is only fair to use the more conservative date of 1955 to evaluate the statements of the Urantia Book. I hope I have been clear on these two points.