Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
473 replies to this topic

#1 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 04:43 PM

OK The big complication/contradiction to the book is as obvious as the wart on your nose, visavi, the work is purported a dictation of some manner from spiritual beings. Without proselitization, what specific elements, whether verse, chapter, tone, or tenet, present complications and/or contradictions, whether in or out of a religious context, that beg examination? :phones:

The Urantia Papers

#2 OutsideTheBox

OutsideTheBox

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 06:09 PM

OK The big complication/contradiction to the book is as obvious as the wart on your nose, visavi, the work is purported a dictation of some manner from spiritual beings. Without proselitization, what specific elements, whether verse, chapter, tone, or tenet, present complications and/or contradictions, whether in or out of a religious context, that beg examination? :phones:

The Urantia Papers



See this thread for a primer discussion on certain aspects of The Urantia Book (TUB).
http://hypography.co...-hoaxed-14.html

I would suggest for discussion, initially, to focus on the biggest probable conflict/contradiction; that is, the motive and likelihood that the book (and antecedent papers) was faked by William Sadler, or that fakery was possible without his knowledge and involvement.

The text is huge, thus focusing on the possible motive(s) and/or potential for fraud by the author makes sense.

For a meaningful discussion of the origins of the papers in the context of 'purported manner of dictation' one should have a look at the history of the Urantia Papers and, in particular, at the story surrounding the 'sleeping subject', the works (books, articles, etc.) published by William Sadler. It is an incredible story very easily discounted until you begin to look at the details.

The Wikipedia information is a good start, particularly the 'Authorship' section. I find it to be essentially accurate.
The Urantia Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the history provided by Urantia Foundation:
Urantia Education and Publications


A concise history on William Sadler, including much empirical and objective data is here ('The Birth of a Divine Revelation'):
tocp

This above history also has much information (though there is much more elsewhere too) on the 'Sleeping Subject':
ch1.htm

#3 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 07:44 PM

...
For a meaningful discussion of the origins of the papers in the context of 'purported manner of dictation' one should have a look at the history of the Urantia Papers and, in particular, at the story surrounding the 'sleeping subject', the works (books, articles, etc.) published by William Sadler. It is an incredible story very easily discounted until you begin to look at the details.

The Wikipedia information is a good start, particularly the 'Authorship' section. I find it to be essentially accurate.
The Urantia Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The complication I see here is the 'sleeping subject' theme, particularly inasmuch as the papers were subsequent to the 'sleeping prophet' Edgar Casey's means & methods. A good idea is worth borrowing...sleeping subject, yeah, that's the ticket. So too, borrow the 'hard-copy' idea from Smith & Moroni and add it for good measure.

A fair start I reckon. _____________:phones:

#4 OutsideTheBox

OutsideTheBox

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:21 PM

The complication I see here is the 'sleeping subject' theme, particularly inasmuch as the papers were subsequent to the 'sleeping prophet' Edgar Casey's means & methods. A good idea is worth borrowing...sleeping subject, yeah, that's the ticket. So too, borrow the 'hard-copy' idea from Smith & Moroni and add it for good measure.

A fair start I reckon. _____________:turtle:


It's true that it's easy to debunk the story on its surface, and reasonable to do so as well. It surely is a quite incredible assertion, this sleeping subject.

But (and without further delving into the alleged details of the sleeping subject interactions, which are extremely strange if you believe them), does that conflict then translate into Sadler having invented the sleeping subject? Or does it instead translate into someone having fooled Sadler by themselves hoaxing the sleeping subject?

I think the distinction is important. Sadler clearly had the opportunity to hoax the papers over the years (though explaing the content is another matter), so it's important to determine whether to ascribe motive to him (along with his undeniable opportunity) or to instead ascribe him ignorance as he was fooled by another.

Ignorance is tough to believe in light of all the debunking he did of a wide spectrum of psychic phenomena. In his books, articles, etc. he came off over the course of decades as one of the chieftains of all skeptics. This can be seen in his writings and numerous references to specific case details he investigated personally.

So, to expand on the suggested conflict (again, a reasonable one on its face); Is Sadler ascribed motive for the hoax therein, or is he ascribed ignorance?

#5 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:33 PM

It's true that it's easy to debunk the story on its surface, and reasonable to do so as well. It surely is a quite incredible assertion, this sleeping subject.

But (and without further delving into the alleged details of the sleeping subject interactions, which are extremely strange if you believe them), does that conflict then translate into Sadler having invented the sleeping subject? Or does it instead translate into someone having fooled Sadler by themselves hoaxing the sleeping subject?

I think the distinction is important. Sadler clearly had the opportunity to hoax the papers over the years (though explaing the content is another matter), so it's important to determine whether to ascribe motive to him (along with his undeniable opportunity) or to instead ascribe him ignorance as he was fooled by another.

Ignorance is tough to believe in light of all the debunking he did of a wide spectrum of psychic phenomena. In his books, articles, etc. he came off over the course of decades as one of the chieftains of all skeptics. This can be seen in his writings and numerous references to specific case details he investigated personally.

So, to expand on the suggested conflict (again, a reasonable one on its face); Is Sadler ascribed motive for the hoax therein, or is he ascribed ignorance?


I think there is the third option, which is they all deluded themselves. Ascribing to the ideas emerging in the new studies of mind termed bio-theology or neuro-theology (thread: >> http://hypography.co...ght=biotheology), I think it is very well possible Sadler et al actually believe this stuff came from 'out there.'

Reading more on Sadler at some of the links you gave, it is clear he was immersed in the terminology and zeitgeist of spirituality and science.

Just so, this is where the scientific elements in the book break down, as they only represent the best known at the time. No mention of plate tectonics or underwater volcanism or meteor strikes in any of the geology, and no wonder as these discoveries were not extant.

#6 OutsideTheBox

OutsideTheBox

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:59 PM

I think there is the third option, which is they all deluded themselves. Ascribing to the ideas emerging in the new studies of mind termed bio-theology or neuro-theology (thread: >> http://hypography.co...ght=biotheology), I think it is very well possible Sadler et al actually believe this stuff came from 'out there.'

Reading more on Sadler at some of the links you gave, it is clear he was immersed in the terminology and zeitgeist of spirituality and science.

Just so, this is where the scientific elements in the book break down, as they only represent the best known at the time. No mention of plate tectonics or underwater volcanism or meteor strikes in any of the geology, and no wonder as these discoveries were not extant.


Sadler was a skeptic of all psychic phenomena, pure and simple, for most all of his life. Certainly he was back in the early 1900s as his writings testify. He used the terms to debunk...

If they were all fooled, then by what and by who? The Urantia Book is not full of random musings by any stretch of the imagination. If it were hoaxed then there can be no doubt it was done so by an immensely educated, eloquent, and intelligent individual (or more likely a group of them).

It's untrue there is no mention of plate tectonics in the book. On the contrary I find very detailed explanation of such geologic function. Also is referenced underwater volcanism and meteor strikes, both.

Please note the following quotes from the TUB:

"750,000,000 years ago the first breaks in the continental land mass began as the great north-and-south cracking, which later admitted the ocean waters and prepared the way for the westward drift of the continents of North and South America, including Greenland. The long east-and-west cleavage separated Africa from Europe and severed the land masses of Australia, the Pacific Islands, and Antarctica from the Asiatic continent."

"The outer crust was about forty miles thick. This outer shell was supported by, and rested directly upon, a molten sea of basalt of varying thickness, a mobile layer of molten lava held under high pressure but always tending to flow hither and yon in equalization of shifting planetary pressures, thereby tending to stabilize the earth's crust."
"Even today the continents continue to float upon this noncrystallized cushiony sea of molten basalt. Were it not for this protective condition, the more severe earthquakes would literally shake the world to pieces. Earthquakes are caused by sliding and shifting of the solid outer crust and not by volcanoes."

"The land was periodically going up and down due to the shifting sea level occasioned by activities on the ocean bottoms. This crustal uneasiness--the settling and rising of the land--in connection with the prolific vegetation of the coastal swamps, contributed to the production of extensive coal deposits, which have caused this period to be known as the Carboniferous. And the climate was still mild the world over."

"At the opening of this faraway era, Urantia should be envisaged as a water-bound planet. Later on, deeper and hence denser lava flows came out upon the bottom of the present Pacific Ocean, and this part of the water-covered surface became considerably depressed. The first continental land mass emerged from the world ocean in compensatory adjustment of the equilibrium of the gradually thickening earth's crust."

"950,000,000 years ago Urantia presents the picture of one great continent of land and one large body of water, the Pacific Ocean. Volcanoes are still widespread and earthquakes are both frequent and severe. Meteors continue to bombard the earth, but they are diminishing in both frequency and size. The atmosphere is clearing up, but the amount of carbon dioxide continues large. The earth's crust is gradually stabilizing. "



Listen, I know you want to debunk TUB and that your position of disbelief is a reasonable one. But, if you insist on using the arguments of others (whether they made them maliciously or out of ignorance or otherwise), please at least take a bit of time to research first.

There's no point in debating if you're not truly interested in a meaningful debate.

#7 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:12 PM

Sadler was a skeptic of all psychic phenomena, pure and simple, for most all of his life. Certainly he was back in the early 1900s as his writings testify. He used the terms to debunk...

If they were all fooled, then by what and by who? The Urantia Book is not full of random musings by any stretch of the imagination. If it were hoaxed then there can be no doubt it was done so by an immensely educated, eloquent, and intelligent individual (or more likely a group of them).
...
Listen, I know you want to debunk TUB and that your position of disbelief is a reasonable one. But, if you insist on using the arguments of others (whether they made them maliciously or out of ignorance or otherwise), please at least take a bit of time to research first.

There's no point in debating if you're not truly interested in a meaningful debate.


The ideas I have expressed on the book are entirely my own and based on my reading it in its entirety and re-reading parts for my edification. I don't know where you got the idea I am doing otherwise.

You say he was a skeptic of pschic & spirtual phenomena, so I conclude he was therefore in the mix. All his debunking would have well prepared him to write things not easily debunked.

I find the geologic descriptions no better than those available at the time of the last edits by Sadler and his possee. One of references you gave claims they were 'studying' the papers as a group before publication; my translation, editing the papers before publication. The fooling is in their own minds, believing they themselves could not have such imaginative ideas and yet they did, and so it is only natural they ascribed them to outside sources. Natural I am claiming on the evidence of the bio-theology I mentioned.

Why can't we humans get enough of gods and monsters? :turtle:

PS I acknowledge the correction on mention of meteor strikes and underwater volcanoes in the text. There was no concordance available the last time I read it.

#8 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 10:00 PM

...I find the geologic descriptions no better than those available at the time of the last edits by Sadler and his possee. One of references you gave claims they were 'studying' the papers as a group before publication; my translation, editing the papers before publication. ...


I went looking for some historical support of this contention, that is, that the ideas of moving plates and underwater volcanism were extant at the time of the Urantia Book writing. I figured to start with Wegener, even though I was unsure of his place in time. Turned out better than I thought. :) :)

Alfred Wegener

...While at Marburg, in the autumn of 1911, Wegener was browsing in the university library when he came across a scientific paper that listed fossils of identical plants and animals found on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Intrigued by this information, Wegener began to look for, and find, more cases of similar organisms separated by great oceans. Orthodox science at the time explained such cases by postulating that land bridges, now sunken, had once connected far-flung continents. But Wegener noticed the close fit between the coastlines of Africa and South America. Might the similarities among organisms be due, not to land bridges, but to the continents having been joined together at one time? As he later wrote: "A conviction of the fundamental soundness of the idea took root in my mind."



#9 OutsideTheBox

OutsideTheBox

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 29 February 2008 - 09:28 AM

I went looking for some historical support of this contention, that is, that the ideas of moving plates and underwater volcanism were extant at the time of the Urantia Book writing. I figured to start with Wegener, even though I was unsure of his place in time. Turned out better than I thought. :phones: :rolleyes:

Alfred Wegener



In reference to both previous posts; Yes, Sadler was 'in the mix'. As in most cases, one could argue that being so situated could well position him to hoaxing the book or alternatively that he was unlikely to have participated in such a hoax but perhaps would have made for a good human liasion in helping to bring forth the revelation. Both positions are reasonable and require further evaluation of historical information to be expounded upon.

In terms of information currently available at the time (whether geologic or of other scientific basis), the following disclaimer as found in TUB is important. One can ascribe a sort of umbrella motive for making such a disclaimer (whether the book was hoaxed or not), but indeed such a disclaimer seems to make sense in both the context of a true revelation and in that of a hoax by clever men:

"But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning."

"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."



A bit of elaboration on other potential conflicts as I see them below. These rise to the higher level of worth for examination, in my view:

1.) The Skull & Crossbones theories do indeed seem to have a measure of merit and warrant further examination. The Kellogg family S&C link appears real, however it's not clear to what extent it had matured during the period of Sadler's involvement. Wilfred Kellogg, while apparently not very dynamic or driven, could indeed have been a plant of sorts. Yet, Sadler would still have either needed to have knowledge of (and thus be a party to) the hoax, or he would have needed to be fooled over the course of years from the perspective of a noted skeptic. There are some amazing theories (little less amazing than that of believing TUB is real) that national security/intelligence has infiltrated the Urantia movement and perhaps even started it. I find this particular thread instructive and thought-provoking:

rigorousintuition.ca :: View topic - Conspiracy in Findhorn, Urantia, A Course in Miracles...

1a) Was TUB hoaxed through the involvement and leadership of Sadler, whose entire life then would have constituted a lie? Such a move would have been extremely foresightful and, in my view, doesn't fit with Sadler's history. All the letters could have been a ploy, I suppose, but the correspondence Sadler engaged in over the years (can be found with extensive references in Moyer's publication 'Birth of a Divine Revelation') don't seem at all consistent with his having participated knowingly/willingly.

1b) Was Sadler fooled? Over the course of many many years and with his avowed and demonstrable skeptical positions this seems unlikely. Plus, the technology back then certainly wasn't nearly what it is today and it would have been very difficult to fool Sadler with the current state of available technology (in my view).

2) The history of involvement by factions/individuals previously known to have worked in the US government (and seemingly intelligence) does appear to have merit. Now the question is why...? Did they see the devout believers in TUB as a ripe group pre-distributed, albeit sporadically, around the globe for possible future use via advanced mind-control technology (as referenced in the thread linked above)? Maybe. Our government does some pretty messed up things and I'm the first to admit they are capable of as much. But, TUB readers/believers aren't nearly as widespread as believers in mainstream religions, and say what you may about TUB, there are not a huge number of people with the reading capacity and/or discipline to actual read the book and believe (excepting any discussion of will or religious-seeking desire).

2a) Is it possible that the intelligence circles became familiar over time with the book and subsequently decided to infiltrate the movement to learn more and/or sideline it?

2b) Why would the book not have been presented/organized in a more simplistic manner (more marketing-oriented) so as to better ensure its proliferation far and wide if a government/intelligence conspiracy was involved in its origination?

3) Motive: To what end would TUB content serve this conspiracy?

3a) World government. No, this is an entirely unsupportable hypothesis that I don't understand in the slightest. Those who claim this need to read Part III Paper 72 'Government on a Neighboring Planet'. No matter whether you believe TUB is a true revelation or a hoax there can be no debate about the importance of this paper. It is clearly the focus by which virtually all readers will focus the message of desirable human government, and was clearly also the intended focal message by the author(s) of the book.

This paper, while also quite amazing in the themes/structures of government referenced, I have interpreted as emphatically supportive of a self-supporting and self-sustaining sovereign government of national unity. It serves as the absolute antithesis of a one world government theory of motive. This paper is directly consistent with a fiercely nationalistic viewpoint (one which I share). I strongly argue the one world government perspective is one of extreme misconstruction in the context of what TUB represents...

3b) Race discrimination motive: This is plausible and I've always been somewhat bothered by the racial information. It is, in my view, the most explosive information in the text (alongside Jesus not being the only son of God, if you're a believer in the Bible). Though, again much textual information I've seen referenced is misconstrued, in my view, by others taking this position. In the end, I don't believe the TUB really suggests discrimination in a practical sense (and I would never support such discrimination). I, personally, plan a thorough exploration of this angle shortly.


Enough for now...

Edit: Forgot to address the claims of Sadler having modified the text (and perhaps other minor modifications by Emma Christenson after Sadler's death). I am very bothered by this and plan on directing my next efforts toward understanding all of circumstances surrounding any textual changes... The claims (referenced in sworn court testimony) surrounding secret journals authored by Sadler that mysteriously disappeared from a locked location in 1979 (I believe) add additional provocation...

#10 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 29 February 2008 - 12:53 PM

...
In terms of information currently available at the time (whether geologic or of other scientific basis), the following disclaimer as found in TUB is important. One can ascribe a sort of umbrella motive for making such a disclaimer (whether the book was hoaxed or not), but indeed such a disclaimer seems to make sense in both the context of a true revelation and in that of a hoax by clever men:

"But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning."


I think 'sort of an umbrella motive' is quite an understatement. I find this passage and many similar in the book, nothing more than writers' devices used to demean the 'poor stupid humans' and set up a false authority to enforce the belief the work is 'from on high', and the reader 'from on low'.

I didn't know about the government business, but after reading a few pages of the link & then seeing what a small portion those pages were of the whole, I laid off. :( For years after I contacted the Urantia Foundation with questions on the origins of the book, I received literally reams of reports about their own internal legal problems. How many trees died for that? :hyper:Just how does one copyright the writings of angels anyway. :doh:

Skull & Bones is a newbie to me too, at least as a connection to Urantia; it is a whole discussion in itself Captain Russel might have said. :QuestionM

While every effort is made by the Book itself, and commentors as well, to deemphasize the science and numbers, one has to wonder if they're so unimportant put them in there at all. My answer is, bamboozlement; smoke & mirrors. I might add I am of the opinion that Jesus was no less a con-man, bamboozler, and parlor magician par-excelence.

Here's a contradiction I think I recall from the Urantia; a statement that calcium is the most abundant element in the Universe. What's up with that? :turtle:

#11 OutsideTheBox

OutsideTheBox

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 29 February 2008 - 02:39 PM

I think 'sort of an umbrella motive' is quite an understatement. I find this passage and many similar in the book, nothing more than writers' devices used to demean the 'poor stupid humans' and set up a false authority to enforce the belief the work is 'from on high', and the reader 'from on low'.


I figured you'd say that. And it really isn't an unreasonable position. But, having read the book I didn't take the same 'poor stupid humans' message at all from the reading. Quite the contrary, actually... :doh:

I didn't know about the government business, but after reading a few pages of the link & then seeing what a small portion those pages were of the whole, I laid off. :( For years after I contacted the Urantia Foundation with questions on the origins of the book, I received literally reams of reports about their own internal legal problems. How many trees died for that? :hyper:Just how does one copyright the writings of angels anyway. :doh:

Skull & Bones is a newbie to me too, at least as a connection to Urantia; it is a whole discussion in itself Captain Russel might have said. :QuestionM


The government involvement and conspiracy theories therein are also new to me. I'd never seen that before, but it really is strange (and notable) to see the apparent historical employment of some of these people... Weird (yes, weird in a different way for me as a believer - and as one who distrusts the government on a number of fronts).

The lawsuits are also bothersome and long turned me off. People are still people, though, and they will disagree and litigate over almost anything. The history of the lawsuits, while disturbing, aren't difficult to understand in the context of protection of the copyright vs. the desires of others who didn't believe in the copyright. If these govt operatives were involved somehow (via the Foundation and/or Brotherhood) then maybe they wanted a court battle (or not)...

While every effort is made by the Book itself, and commentors as well, to deemphasize the science and numbers, one has to wonder if they're so unimportant put them in there at all. My answer is, bamboozlement; smoke & mirrors. I might add I am of the opinion that Jesus was no less a con-man, bamboozler, and parlor magician par-excelence.


Agreed, again, that the science isn't all that important. Though, I don't abree about the bamboozlement (I love the word though)... ;) I don't agree about Jesus, either (perhaps obviously). I never believed he was any more than a great guy of his time until TUB. After reading it, though (and ultimately becoming a believer), I can fully understand how the Bible got so messed up...


Here's a contradiction I think I recall from the Urantia; a statement that calcium is the most abundant element in the Universe. What's up with that? :turtle:


Interestingly, and thought-provokingly, a quick bit of research seems to turn up a vast abundance of calcium in space. And, just recently it appears a new means of measuring calcium in space is showing far more than the 'expert' models predicted... I suggest it may not be quite the contradiction you imagined...

http://imagine.gsfc....lcium_litho.pdf

Could Earth survive the Sun’s demise? - space - 09 September 2005 - New Scientist Space

What Makes the Shadows Hot - TIME

Universe Contains More Calcium Than Expected

SPACE.com -- Milky Way Fortified with Calcium

#12 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:46 PM

...Agreed, again, that the science isn't all that important. Though, I don't abree about the bamboozlement (I love the word though)... :turtle: I don't agree about Jesus, either (perhaps obviously). I never believed he was any more than a great guy of his time until TUB. After reading it, though (and ultimately becoming a believer), I can fully understand how the Bible got so messed up...

Interestingly, and thought-provokingly, a quick bit of research seems to turn up a vast abundance of calcium in space. And, just recently it appears a new means of measuring calcium in space is showing far more than the 'expert' models predicted... I suggest it may not be quite the contradiction you imagined...

http://imagine.gsfc....lcium_litho.pdf

Could Earth survive the Sun’s demise? - space - 09 September 2005 - New Scientist Space

What Makes the Shadows Hot - TIME

Universe Contains More Calcium Than Expected

SPACE.com -- Milky Way Fortified with Calcium


I'm a bit confused on the agreement about science you give, as I think the science is the key component of the work. As I say, if it is unimportant, then why include it?

Great science articles; worthy of our news page even. However, as I recall, the book says calcium is the most abundant element and the new discoveries notwithstanding, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe the last time I checked with the authorities I have the most confidence in. Given what you quoted earlier that claimed the book couldn't reveal as yet unknown information, then we come back to a contradiction. :( :QuestionM

#13 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 01 March 2008 - 04:14 AM

Just thinking out loud and wondering if anyone has done any stylometric comparisons between the published final work and Sadler's other writings or other contributors and possible original sources? Even comparing the over all style with some of these techniques might give some useful general conclusions about the author(s) and/or an historical context.

Stylometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's all I got. :soapbox:

#14 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 08:32 AM

Just thinking out loud and wondering if anyone has done any stylometric comparisons between the published final work and Sadler's other writings or other contributors and possible original sources? Even comparing the over all style with some of these techniques might give some useful general conclusions about the author(s) and/or an historical context.

Stylometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's all I got. :confused:



yes
results negative



.

#15 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 12:09 PM

yes
results negative.


Sweet! Any references we can get to online of a stylometric analysis of Urantia? :cup: As a schooled writer, I give the style a "Hard to read" rating, and so maintain this is another complication for the book. Such talented netherworldians and unable (unwilling?) to write plainly & simply. :)

#16 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 02:56 AM

Science, Anthropology and Archaeology in The Urantia Book: Part III

Urantology


About The Urantia Book


History Archive of The Urantia Book Fellowship


Untitled Document

#17 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 11:33 AM

Science, Anthropology and Archaeology in The Urantia Book: Part III...


Very nice; danke. :)

On just the first reference: I personally don't think Sadler did this alone, and completely agree that we have here in the Urantia multiple authors & editors, and so this particular analysis doesn't seem to offer any more than support of that opinion.

Also in this particular analysis, the questioning of the 'why' these folk would write this, does not allow that they indeed believe(d) it, just as J.C. Knight believes she channels Rhamtha. As I pointed out in the Urantia Hoaxed thread, the timing and location of the book's conception puts it solidly in the Chicago Worlds Fair and the meetings there of the Parliament of World Religions. The Urantia fulfills (attempts to fulfill in my opinion) the goal of this group. :doh: :) Parliament of the World's Religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
post #147 >> http://hypography.co...-hoaxed-15.html