Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions


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

#35 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 07:57 PM

one more thing while we're here Turtle,
... If you are still hung up on the "science", (present day Earth science vs. Urantia science discrepancies) in order to nullify or ridicule an epochal spiritual revelation, it is a sure sign that you are headed in the wrong direction and you have not understood what you have read nor its significance.


Consider that this is a science web site, and that you have no less ridicule hanging than I. If you can't reply without insults, and/or stay on the science aspect, perhaps you haven't advanced as spiritually as you would have us believe. :cap:
  • Chacmool likes this

#36 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 08:48 PM

Science Forums > Humanities Forums > Theology forum


I think we happen to be in the theology forum discussing both science and theology.

And, I suppose that you don't think ......."perhaps you haven't advanced as spiritually as you would have us believe"........ is not your insult or ridicule as well as many of your other posts of ridicule and insult??????????

Look Turtle, I am not here to ridicule or insult anyone, that is IIRC what I responded to rather than initiated. I would love to discuss the concepts beyond the superficial level that is addressed here with you and I think you have actually stated that you have been reading this for over 15 years.

If you want to discuss science then great, I brought up 3 points that we can start with. If you have others then greattttttt bring it on, but at least bring it on in a professional manner instead of running away when it gets hot in the kitchen; especially when you have been doing the cooking.

#37 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 08:58 PM

I think we happen to be in the theology forum discussing both science and theology.

And, I suppose that you don't think ......."perhaps you haven't advanced as spiritually as you would have us believe"........ is not your insult or ridicule as well as many of your other posts of ridicule and insult??????????

Look Turtle, I am not here to ridicule or insult anyone, that is IIRC what I responded to rather than initiated. I would love to discuss the concepts beyond the superficial level that is addressed here with you and I think you have actually stated that you have been reading this for over 15 years.

If you want to discuss science then great, I brought up 3 points that we can start with. If you have others then greattttttt bring it on, but at least bring it on in a professional manner instead of running away when it gets hot in the kitchen; especially when you have been doing the cooking.


Touche! :cap: But on the face of it, you claim a superior spiritual knowledge and yet can't rise above the vulgar any more than lazy ol' me. I never claimed I was spiritually advanced afterall. :hihi: Speaking of dodging, what about the Calcium? Either it is the most abundant element in the Universe and hydrogen isn't, or otherwise. Either there is a 6,000 mile layer of calcium on the Sun, or there isn't. Scientists? What say ye? :cap:

IIRC? :cap:

#38 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 09:58 PM

Turtle,

greatttttttt; we're making progress.

[quote]
Either there is a 6,000 mile layer of calcium on the Sun, or there isn't. Scientists? What say ye? [/quote]

Look, first of all it doesn't matter what the scientists say about this, because they don't know. All they have is a theory and a model and apparently not an accurate one. Every single day in science or astronomy or biology or whatever you see a new discovery and you see it said that the scientists are "surprised" because they never expected it, and they have to rework their models or theories. That is also the case with calcium.

Earlier OUTSIDETHEBOX gave you a few links about new discoveries regarding calcium which completely destroyed their current "theories", and even their new models and theories are still wrong. WE CANNOT MEASURE CALCIUM IN THE UNIVERSE WITH ACCURACY. The Urantia papers writers can and did because they know. They MADE the universe !!!!!!!!!


from Space.com

[quote]

Like milk, our Milky Way Galaxy and the rest of the universe is fortified with calcium, the stuff of strong bones. In fact, the cosmos contains 50 percent more calcium than previously thought, a new study suggests.

.........

The researchers compared the amounts of the products expected from theoretical models of supernovae with measurements from XMM-Newton X-ray observatory within 22 galaxy clusters. The observed amounts for seven elements--oxygen, neon, silicon, sulfur, argon, iron and nickel--jibed with theoretical predictions, but the calcium did not match up.


"Since we checked that there was nothing wrong with our measurements, we concluded that the supernova model (theoretical) must be under predicting the calcium abundance," De Plaa said.


"If certain types of supernovae indeed produce more calcium, then this means that there must be more calcium in the universe compared to the predictions from the supernova models," De Plaa said. "Then this is not only true for clusters, but also for our solar system and everything that lives in it, because we are mostly made of the same supernova products."


Turtle,

I'm really not trying to insult you or ridicule you, in a way I look at you like a lost brother. You tell me that you have been reading the Urantia papers for 15 years now and are still having trouble believing them. I can see you're at and maybe you need to spend some time in a study group where you can talk to people about your doubts and complications and get some meaningful feedback. There is one in at least every major city and some are better than others. If you're anywhere near Seattle there is a wonderful group there.

I never said I was so spiritually advanced and a few digs certainly doesn't make anyone less so; just a little human. It would seem that you have an idea that spiritually advanced means that everyone has to walk around like mother teresa or something. My spiritual advancement petains to helping you sort out these doubts of yours. It will not infect you nor afflict you. You can still maintain your interest in science because it will certainly be with us for a very long time. There are celestial physicists you know, so there will be a job waiting if that's what you're interested in.

There's an interesting paper by Dr. Chris Halvorson who happens to be a Urantian and also a physicist which you may be interested in at....

http://urantiabook.o...on_histlife.pdf


Chris also has a few other papers as well as others of interest here.....
What's New on the Urantia Book Website?


If you find anything of interest and wish to talk more about it, let me know.

good luck.

#39 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 10:26 PM

Turtle,

greatttttttt; we're making progress.

Look, first of all it doesn't matter what the scientists say about this, because they don't know. All they have is a theory and a model and apparently not an accurate one. Every single day in science or astronomy or biology or whatever you see a new discovery and you see it said that the scientists are "surprised" because they never expected it, and they have to rework their models or theories. That is also the case with calcium.


This is no more than an opinion, and one I don't share. Moreover, you have , in my opinion, seriously mis-characterized science. If the science doesn't matter, why do you or the Urantia authors bother with it? Why try to make it correct? Why discuss it at all?

Earlier OUTSIDETHEBOX gave you a few links about new discoveries regarding calcium which completely destroyed their current "theories", and even their new models and theories are still wrong. WE CANNOT MEASURE CALCIUM IN THE UNIVERSE WITH ACCURACY. The Urantia papers writers can and did because they know. They MADE the universe !!!!!!!!!


Continuing to insist you're right, simply because you say so, is futile. You mentioned a 50% increase in the expected amount, but failed to mention the actual percentage overall. From Outsidetheboxs' link:

• When the star explodes, the hydrogen, calcium,
and other elements fly off into space, and the explosion creates even more. The total amount of calcium is equal to 0.0165% the mass of the original star. ...

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



There's an interesting paper by Dr. Chris Halvorson who happens to be a Urantian and also a physicist which you may be interested in at....

http://urantiabook.o...on_histlife.pdf

Chris also has a few other papers as well as others of interest here.....
What's New on the Urantia Book Website?

If you find anything of interest and wish to talk more about it, let me know.

good luck.


So we're Urantian's now huh? I thought the book said we weren't supposed to make a religion out of this!? :cap:
:cap: I'll have a look at my usual pace. :hihi: :cap:

#40 Chacmool

Chacmool

    Making mud

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 950 posts

Posted 13 May 2008 - 11:21 AM

Earth science has a nasty habit of changing their theories every time they make a new discovery that invalidates their previous theory; usually on a monthly basis in one area or another.

Actually, it's no "nasty habit" at all. Self-scrutiny is the very essence of science. Unlike religion, science isn't afraid of critical examination and constant improvement.

#41 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 06:08 AM

Oh Really??????????????

What's your point ???????


Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated


Stamping out dissent
Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views are simply suppressed

Published in Newsweek, 26 April 1993, pp. 49-50.

Reprinted in New Concepts of Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 38, March 2006, pp. 19-21.


Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous -- especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.

Stamping out dissent, by Brian Martin



"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so."
- J.B.S. Haldane, 1963




When human beings encounter ideas which threaten their fundamental worldviews, the typical response is to thoughtlessly and instantly crush the new ideas; to eliminate them. The searing discomfort engendered by new ideas is called "Cognitive Dissonance." The feeling is almost painful, and it's even more painful for scientists whose salaries or sometimes their very careers depend on correct mental models. When we feel this type of pain, most of us will take immediate steps to stop it. Researchers are not immune to this, although the historical evidence is so shameful that it is not widely acknowledged outside the fields of Science History/Sociology. Professional scientists who pursue unpopular research tend to encounter not only the expected passive disbelief and dismissal. They also suffer active suppression: ridicule, loss of funding (even loss of funding for their conventional work,) attempts to revoke honors, and myriad subtle attacks by colleagues, with the attacks often performed behind the scenes. In fact, one common attack is exactly the one above. It goes like this:

"Scientists never attack each other, so if you think colleagues are trying to hurt your career, you must have mental problems and therefore need professional help."

And so, when someone complains about scientific suppression, we must never automatically dismiss them as conspiracy-theorists. Instead we should take an unbiased view of the evidence. Yes, in many cases we will find that the hated "suppressors" are simply the thoughtful skeptics who are debunking some pseudoscience beliefs. But in a few rare cases we'll find that the "supressors" are scientists whose entire world would be turned upside-down by any evidence which supports the new ideas. These scientists are individually taking action to silence those who bring forth that evidence.

When someone says "They laughed at Galileo", we must take care not to automatically assume paranoia on their part. We should instead hear it as a plea to examine their evidence, just as Galileo pleaded with his contemporaries. Remember, it was not the religious authorities who ignored Galileo's evidence. Instead it was his fellow scientists who refused to actually come and look through that darned telescope!


Closeminded Science: They laughed at the Wright Brothers




The Urantia Book

The Urantia Book was purportedly written by extraterrestrials and published in 1955. It has been freely available on the internet since 2001. Several scientific developments, unexpected in 1955, reported in 2005 in Science and Nature, and referenced below, were somehow, described rather precisely already in the Urantia Book. I have documented three cases here, but there are many contemporary scientific discoveries which were first posited as far as I can tell, in this rather large tome. There is much in here, the truth of which cannot be judged from the apparent truth of these several instances. The book claims a large number of authors. Much of it would be considered "politically incorrect" and might infuriate some people. I suggest that you not be shooting at the messenger; I am just reporting what I have observed.

Striking Coincidences Between The Urantia Book (Copyright 1955) three articles in Science: 309 (2005), and one in Nature, (2005)

Nobel-Laureate Kary Mullis
Kary Mullis website


The Urantia Book's story of Adam and Even compared with the University of Chicago Study titled: Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage.

According to The Urantia Book, Adam and Eve, along with their progeny, are responsible for a genetic upgrade that has had a lasting effect on the human population. Specific details are provided about when and how this occurred. The Urantia Book also describes the degree to which this genetic upgrade has spread throughout the world. Additionally, it reveals information about the nature of this genetic upgrade. In regard to all of these aspects of our genetic history, research done out of the University of Chicago (the "Study") is in harmony with the information provided in The Urantia Book about Adam, Eve, and their progeny.1 This Study was first published online on November 7, 2006 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book



Assuming for the moment that space voyagers are not responsible for life’s origin and history on this planet,
one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the
link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans,
30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any
inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently
possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of
Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi
Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship
between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful
way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal
constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176

McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

#42 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 12:17 PM

...
Assuming for the moment that space voyagers are not responsible for life’s origin and history on this planet, one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176

McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.


This clearly allows for talented regular human beings to have written the section. As I pointed out before, since the book wasn't published until '55, then any new info may have been edited in right up to deadline. That's a complication for your claim.
Consider that the thoughts, writings, and work of Nikola Tesla were unfettered by normal constraints. People do the darndest things. :turtle:

#43 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 12:28 PM

Touche! :hyper: But on the face of it, you claim a superior spiritual knowledge and yet can't rise above the vulgar any more than lazy ol' me. I never claimed I was spiritually advanced afterall. :lol: Speaking of dodging, what about the Calcium? Either it is the most abundant element in the Universe and hydrogen isn't, or otherwise. Either there is a 6,000 mile layer of calcium on the Sun, or there isn't. Scientists? What say ye? :turtle:

IIRC? :turtle:


NOT:eek_big: if calcium is so common why is the Earth not mostly calcium?

#44 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 12:55 PM

Oh Really??????????????

What's your point ???????


Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated


Stamping out dissent
Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views are simply suppressed

Published in Newsweek, 26 April 1993, pp. 49-50.

Reprinted in New Concepts of Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 38, March 2006, pp. 19-21.


Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous -- especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.

Stamping out dissent, by Brian Martin



"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so."
- J.B.S. Haldane, 1963




When human beings encounter ideas which threaten their fundamental worldviews, the typical response is to thoughtlessly and instantly crush the new ideas; to eliminate them. The searing discomfort engendered by new ideas is called "Cognitive Dissonance." The feeling is almost painful, and it's even more painful for scientists whose salaries or sometimes their very careers depend on correct mental models. When we feel this type of pain, most of us will take immediate steps to stop it. Researchers are not immune to this, although the historical evidence is so shameful that it is not widely acknowledged outside the fields of Science History/Sociology. Professional scientists who pursue unpopular research tend to encounter not only the expected passive disbelief and dismissal. They also suffer active suppression: ridicule, loss of funding (even loss of funding for their conventional work,) attempts to revoke honors, and myriad subtle attacks by colleagues, with the attacks often performed behind the scenes. In fact, one common attack is exactly the one above. It goes like this:

"Scientists never attack each other, so if you think colleagues are trying to hurt your career, you must have mental problems and therefore need professional help."

And so, when someone complains about scientific suppression, we must never automatically dismiss them as conspiracy-theorists. Instead we should take an unbiased view of the evidence. Yes, in many cases we will find that the hated "suppressors" are simply the thoughtful skeptics who are debunking some pseudoscience beliefs. But in a few rare cases we'll find that the "supressors" are scientists whose entire world would be turned upside-down by any evidence which supports the new ideas. These scientists are individually taking action to silence those who bring forth that evidence.

When someone says "They laughed at Galileo", we must take care not to automatically assume paranoia on their part. We should instead hear it as a plea to examine their evidence, just as Galileo pleaded with his contemporaries. Remember, it was not the religious authorities who ignored Galileo's evidence. Instead it was his fellow scientists who refused to actually come and look through that darned telescope!


Closeminded Science: They laughed at the Wright Brothers




The Urantia Book

The Urantia Book was purportedly written by extraterrestrials and published in 1955. It has been freely available on the internet since 2001. Several scientific developments, unexpected in 1955, reported in 2005 in Science and Nature, and referenced below, were somehow, described rather precisely already in the Urantia Book. I have documented three cases here, but there are many contemporary scientific discoveries which were first posited as far as I can tell, in this rather large tome. There is much in here, the truth of which cannot be judged from the apparent truth of these several instances. The book claims a large number of authors. Much of it would be considered "politically incorrect" and might infuriate some people. I suggest that you not be shooting at the messenger; I am just reporting what I have observed.

Striking Coincidences Between The Urantia Book (Copyright 1955) three articles in Science: 309 (2005), and one in Nature, (2005)

Nobel-Laureate Kary Mullis
Kary Mullis website


The Urantia Book's story of Adam and Even compared with the University of Chicago Study titled: Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage.

According to The Urantia Book, Adam and Eve, along with their progeny, are responsible for a genetic upgrade that has had a lasting effect on the human population. Specific details are provided about when and how this occurred. The Urantia Book also describes the degree to which this genetic upgrade has spread throughout the world. Additionally, it reveals information about the nature of this genetic upgrade. In regard to all of these aspects of our genetic history, research done out of the University of Chicago (the "Study") is in harmony with the information provided in The Urantia Book about Adam, Eve, and their progeny.1 This Study was first published online on November 7, 2006 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book



Assuming for the moment that space voyagers are not responsible for life’s origin and history on this planet,
one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the
link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans,
30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any
inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently
possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of
Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi
Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship
between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful
way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal
constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176

McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.


If any of these scientists knew you were using them to lend a veil of credibility to the Urantia papers the ones that are dead would be spinning in their graves thousands of RPM, any of them that are alive probably don't take urantia seriously enough to even know or care. Yes science has mavericks and yes sometimes they are correct and keeping an open mind can be useful when hearing new ideas but lending the Urantian papers any credence at all would require your mind to be so open your brain would fallout. And I thought Scientology was less than credible:doh:

#45 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1687 posts

Posted 14 May 2008 - 01:13 PM

Maj, you're soaking in it. (And I ain't talkin' about Palmolive)

Is it the Urantia Papers that require your vehement defense, or is it your sanity?

#46 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 19 May 2008 - 03:01 AM

all I can do is show you the well; it's up to you to quench your thirst.

#47 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:29 AM

all I can do is show you the well; it's up to you to quench your thirst.


Your well is a mirage, only my thirst is real.

#48 Thunderbird

Thunderbird

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1814 posts

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:57 AM

all I can do is show you the well; it's up to you to quench your thirst.

I have been trying to find something in all this to justify it as written by a grater intelligence, but I'm afraid nothing so far has shown to be written by any other than modern men of the time.
If it were written by advanced minds it would be evident by insights, or at the very least cohesive clear or very specific information. Seems to be written porously vague and ambiguous. This is coming from a person that likes ambiguous as long as its complex multi-layered and insightful. This reminds me of Mormonism mixed with pseudoscientific plagiarism's. Its not even original or interesting.

#49 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:50 PM

you just simply missed the "warp signature".

Don't know how, it's pretty obvious.

#50 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 05:53 PM

I have been trying to find something in all this to justify it as written by a grater intelligence, but I'm afraid nothing so far has shown to be written by any other than modern men of the time.
If it were written by advanced minds it would be evident by insights, or at the very least cohesive clear or very specific information. Seems to be written porously vague and ambiguous. This is coming from a person that likes ambiguous as long as its complex multi-layered and insightful. This reminds me of Mormonism mixed with pseudoscientific plagiarism's. Its not even original or interesting.


Mystery is in all this to justify it, in my humble opinion. Whether you take it as science/fantasy fiction or divine dictation, there is nothing like it for it's sheer challenge. :( Bet ya can't read it all! :hihi: :read:

Just so, here's a challenging complication. From Urantia:

88:1.2 The first fetishes were peculiarly marked pebbles, and " sacred stones " have ever since been sought by man; a string of beads was once a collection of sacred stones, a battery of charms. Many tribes had fetish stones, but few have survived as have the Kaaba and the Stone of Scone. Fire and water were also among the early fetishes, and fire worship, together with belief in holy water, still survives.

Fetishes, Charms, and Magic; The Urantia Book: Paper 88

Cagey language and all, the implication for these 2 specific artifacts is that their origin was known, and rooted in the Stone Age.

The Stone of Scone (pronounced /ˈskuːn/, 'skoon'), also commonly known as the Stone of Destiny or the Coronation Stone (though "Stone of Destiny" sometimes refers to Lia Fáil) is an oblong block of red sandstone, about 26 inches (660 mm) by 16 inches (410 mm) by 10.5 inches (270 mm) in size and weighing approximately 336 pounds (152 kg). The top bears chisel-marks. At each end of the stone is an iron ring, apparently intended to make transport easier. ...

Stone of Scone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Still, the iron may have been later added. ;) On to the Biblical reference then of the stone being Jacob's pillow. Is there red sandstone at this location? And come to think, has a geological/chemical analysis ever, if not recently, been conducted on the Stone of Scone to establish its geographic origin?

Jacob left Beer-sheba and headed toward Charan...

Jacob's Pillow-Pillar Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now to the reference to the Kaaba as a fetish stone. This is an outright error, as the Kaaba is the building housing the Black Stone, not the stone itself. Mmmm....that's a complication if I ever been bit by one. Black Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That oughta hold us a while. Just the facts Mam. :confused: :) :)

#51 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1687 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 06:10 PM

Is there any way to determine if the Urantia Papers have remained in their original text over the years?

How do we know they haven't been revised or had information added at some point?