Jump to content
Science Forums

The Urantia Revelation


Recommended Posts

Sorry to bring up so many questions but re my theory that a well-educated Catholic wrote the UB, I took this quote from Hydrogen Bond on a different thread:


Quote:
Since the late 16th century the Jesuits have produced the large majority of priest-scientists, who contributed to worldwide cultural exchange by spreading their developments in knowledge to Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[center][size=4]Adventism and the UB[/size][/center]
[quote name='dduckwessel' timestamp='1301251603' post='305919']
Regarding [i]who[/i] wrote this book what do you think of my theory that it was written by a Catholic (Jesus was the archangel Michael)? [/quote]
It don’t think a Catholic – at lest not a somewhat “good”, observant Cacholic – would write anything contradicting Catholic church authority, so would be surprised if the UB was written by a single Catholic author.

Though I’ve seen no document crediting specific people with actually writing specific parts of the UB, I think there’s a consensus that it was written by a group of people known as “the Forum” and “the Contact Commission”, consisting of [wiki]William S. Sadler[/wiki], his wife Lena (ne Kellog), and a few of their friends. In addition to being Physicians and smart, well-educated people, The Sadlers were ordained [wiki]Seventh Day Adventist ministers[/wiki] (at least William was – I’m not sure Lena was technically an ordained minister). The Adventists aren’t very catholic, and is in many important ways vehemently anti-catholic.

There are some striking similarities between the documented beliefs of Adventists and some we’ve noted in the UB:[list]
[*]Jesus the Christ = the archangel Michael (see: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#Christ_and_the_Archangel_Michael]this wikipedia article section[/url])
[*]Space travelers. Adventists believe angelic beings live beyond Earth. In particular, they believe that the capitol of the coming kingdom of heaven on Earth is a physical city, currently located in space, which descend and land at the present location of Washington DC (from a Adventist pamphlet – I’ll try to find a link)
[/list]
When looking for the theological roots of the UB, I think you’re sniffing around the wrong tree with Roman Catholicism and its suborders and relatives. I think you’d do better to trace the roots of the SDA church, which branch from mid 19th century northeast American protestant theology (ie: [wiki]Millerism[/wiki]). These roots are fascinating study, and full or little-appreciated historic drama (eg: the [wiki]Great Disappointment[/wiki]).

[quote name='dduckwessel' timestamp='1301252792' post='305921']
Back to the Urantia Book, as I asked Craig D., I wonder why someone would bother to go through all this trouble - what did they hope to gain by it?
[/quote]
If we accept the assumption that the writers of the UB held Adventists beliefs, it’s likely that they went to such lengths because they believed they were really transcribing telepathic communication from angelic extraterrestrial beings. Adventists have a strong tradition of belief in prophesy of this nature, though they usually believe that such communication doesn’t involve word-for-word “channeling”, but a human author being inspired with ideas from beyond, which she or he then explores and communicates in her or his own words.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='CraigD' timestamp='1301270286' post='305928']
[center][size=4]Adventism and the UB[/size][/center]

When looking for the theological roots of the UB, I think you’re sniffing around the wrong tree with Roman Catholicism and its suborders and relatives. [i] I think you’d do better to trace the roots of the SDA church, which branch from mid 19th century northeast American protestant theology (ie: [wiki]Millerism[/wiki])[/i]. These roots are fascinating study, and full or little-appreciated historic drama (eg: the [wiki]Great Disappointment[/wiki]).[/quote]

I did read about Sadler and Kellog. I should have made the connection between the UB and SDA but I didn't. Off to Wikipedia I go...

[quote]Adventists have a strong tradition of belief in prophesy of this nature, though they usually believe that such communication doesn’t involve word-for-word “channeling”, but a human author being inspired with ideas from beyond, which she or he then explores and communicates in her or his own words.[/quote]

If channeled by supernatural beings then the scientific information would have been accurate, which brings the whole thing into question. Nevertheless, the sheer length and careful detailing (without contradicting itself regarding spiritual issues) is really impressive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dduckwessel' timestamp='1301289058' post='305951']
I did read about Sadler and Kellog. I should have made the connection between the UB and SDA but I didn't. Off to Wikipedia I go...



If channeled by supernatural beings then the scientific information would have been accurate, which brings the whole thing into question. Nevertheless, the sheer length and careful detailing (without contradicting itself regarding spiritual issues) is really impressive.
[/quote]


First of all I'd like to thank all the participants in this thread for the improved tone and obviously improved somewhat intelligent discussion. Many of the comments are quite understandable considering the lack of knowledge and scholarship of the very difficult material being discussed and the obvious "peer pressure" of the forum.

Duck,
There are no contradictions in the entire revelation. There are no mistakes in the science. There is disagreement with many erroneous "accepted" theories of main stream "pop science" which changes in one field or another almost daily. Nearly ever time I have seen a significant discovery in some field of science over the past 40 years, which changes accepted beliefs of the day it comes into line with the information in the revelation. There are 3 errors that I know of either in dyslexic human re-typing of the original revelation or the making of the plates by the original printing house R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Chicago 1955. The historical date of the beginning of the revelation begins in 1906. The contract for the plates were made and "fixed" in 1942. The completed revelation was in 1934/1935.
"Really Impressive", is quite an understatement, but somewhat acceptable as a superficial cursory evaluation for now, LOL. You really have no idea what you have encountered .

There is so much biased and outright misinformation being bandied about here in this forum and in other places that it borders on the ludicrous. Here are a few links any serious investigator would find of interest.




The Urantia Book Fellowship History Archive
http://urantiabook.org/index_history.htm

(an extensive exhaustive archive of related historical documents )



biography from several sources

http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/William_Sadler.html
The Religious Affiliation of 
Dr. William S. Sadler 
Influential Physician and Founding Urantian


http://www.freeurantia.org/sadlbio1.htm
WILLIAM S. SADLER: CHAUTAUQUA'S MEDIC ORATOR
G. Vonne Meussling
Excerpt from A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
December 1970

The Meredith J. Sprunger Archive
THE HISTORICITY OF THE URANTIA BOOK
1/21/86 Revised 1/21/98
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pjaworski/historicity.htm
an insider account of how the Urantia book came into being



Dr. William S. Sadler's Connection
with the Adventist Movement
by Dan Massey
5/13/93
http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/doc171.htm

"Were you Deceived?"
Transcript of an interview with Dr. William S. Sadler
by Meredith Sprunger and a group of Ministers
April 27, 1958
http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/sadler1.htm

Historic Timeline of Events in the Urantia Community 
Index to historic documents according to date

1875-2003
http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/h_timlin_index.htm
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Majeston' timestamp='1301293056' post='305952']
Many of the comments are quite understandable considering the lack of knowledge and scholarship of the very difficult material being discussed and the obvious "peer pressure" of the forum."[/quote]

Peer pressure! Yes - it can get pretty tense here sometimes but don't you know that your critics are your best friends?

As for the UB material it isn't [i]difficult[/i] - it's just [i]different[/i]. It's very length tends to be overwhelming.

My difficulty with the UB is that it contradicts some key points of the Bible beginning with the Adam and Eve story. According to the Bible 'man' came [i]first[/i] from the 'dust of the [i]ground[/i]', which I believe was the primordial soup. The woman only came [i]later[/i] [i]from[/i] Adam's body - which differs greatly from what the UB states that they appeared suddenly and at the same time.

The UB makes no mention of the two tablets of the law and their importance nor the reason why there was [i]two[/i].

There is virtually no mention in the UB of 'wisdom' - the [i]principle[/i] thing (Proverbs) and the telltale method by which we can tell if something is authored by God or not.

[quote]There are no contradictions in the entire revelation.[/quote]

I didn't see any parts of the writings contradicting any others parts. The science however, has already been shown to be inaccurate.


[quote]There is disagreement with many erroneous "accepted" theories of main stream "pop science" which changes in one field or another almost daily. Nearly ever time I have seen a significant discovery in some field of science over the past 40 years, which changes accepted beliefs of the day it comes into line with the information in the revelation.[/quote]

One example of error is that the UB says the oldest rocks are around the Hudson Bay area (eastern Canada) but it was shown on this forum that the oldest rock formations are in the N.W.T. (North-western Canada).

[quote]"Really Impressive", is quite an understatement, but somewhat acceptable as a superficial cursory evaluation for now, LOL. You really have no idea what you have encountered.[/quote]

I don't think you realize just how arrogant that sounds!

In reading William Sadler's biography I was struck with how busy he was - [i]driven[/i] one could say. Sadler accomplished more than most people could do in [i]two[/i] lifetimes. It doesn't surprise me then that he found the time and energy for something as big as the UB. It seems to me that he had the type of personality that thrived on a challenge.

I'm curious as to why the original 'contact' person never materialized - as the Bible encourages: "and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." (1 Peter 3:15)


[quote]There is so much biased and outright misinformation being bandied about here in this forum and in other places that it borders on the ludicrous. Here are a few links any serious investigator would find of interest.[/quote]

The UB is pretty straightforward in the sense that it explains [i]everything[/i] in great detail, making misrepresentation impossible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dduckwessel' timestamp='1301297882' post='305954']
Peer pressure! Yes - it can get pretty tense here sometimes but don't you know that your critics are your best friends?



As for the UB material it isn't [i]difficult[/i] - it's just [i]different[/i]. It's very length tends to be overwhelming.

My difficulty with the UB is that it contradicts some key points of the Bible beginning with the Adam and Eve story. According to the Bible 'man' came [i]first[/i] from the 'dust of the [i]ground[/i]', which I believe was the primordial soup. The woman only came [i]later[/i] [i]from[/i] Adam's body - which differs greatly from what the UB states that they appeared suddenly and at the same time.

[color=blue] The UB corrects many mistakes in the bible [/color]

The UB makes no mention of the two tablets of the law and their importance nor the reason why there was [i]two[/i].

[color=blue] please clarify what you are talking about "two tablets".[/color]

There is virtually no mention in the UB of 'wisdom' - the [i]principle[/i] thing (Proverbs) and the telltale method by which we can tell if something is authored by God or not.

[color=blue]Wisdom is a key principal in the UB-and for humanity. The two mind adjutants above the animal level which distinguishes man from animal are worship and wisdom. a quick search at the Fellowship site shows 132 documents containing the words wisdom
http://urantiabook.org:5631/query.html?qt=wisdom&col=english&submit=GO%21
additionally, a search at the Truthbook site shows for "wisdom-
http://www.truthbook.com/search/UBParagraphs_VSearchResult.cfm
very useful tools at these two sites are the search functions and especially at the Fellowship site is the "Topical Index" under the menu tab UB Online
The search function and results are clearer at the Truthbook site under the 3rd menu tab on the left
http://www.truthbook.com/
[/color]

I didn't see any parts of the writings contradicting any others parts. The science however, has already been shown to be inaccurate.

[color=blue] If you can't trust the science part then you cannot trust anything in the revelation. Eventually you will realize that there are no errors and you should question a bit deeper why there are discrepancies between the two. I have a tremendous amount of awe and respect for science and for many of the scientists in this forum, I am also very aware of it's limitations in understanding what it thinks it knows and some of it's changing theories and erroneous conclusions when illuminated by revelation. One very glaring example is the theory of the big bang and the age of the "universe. Science knows nothing of "space respiration" as depicted in the UB and therefore the subsequent erroneous age of the universe by at least a factor of 100 if not much greater.[/color]




One example of error is that the UB says the oldest rocks are around the Hudson Bay area (eastern Canada) but it was shown on this forum that the oldest rock formations are in the N.W.T. (North-western Canada).

[color=blue] I wouldn't bet my life on it , I'm sure that's what they believe at this time in history. [/color]



I don't think you realize just how arrogant that sounds!

[color=blue] I'm sorry, I'll have to be more careful with my language.
I would guess that you would also think this person was arrogant.....
1:7.9 [Presented by a Divine Counselor, a member of a group of celestial personalities assigned by the Ancients of Days on Uversa, the headquarters of the seventh superuniverse, to supervise those portions of this forthcoming revelation which have to do with affairs beyond the borders of the local universe of Nebadon. I am commissioned to sponsor those papers portraying the nature and attributes of God because I represent the highest source of information available for such a purpose on any inhabited world. I have served as a Divine Counselor in all seven of the superuniverses and have long resided at the Paradise center of all things. Many times have I enjoyed the supreme pleasure of a sojourn in the immediate personal presence of the Universal Father. I portray the reality and truth of the Father's nature and attributes with unchallengeable authority; I know whereof I speak.]
[/color]


In reading William Sadler's biography I was struck with how busy he was - [i]driven[/i] one could say. Sadler accomplished more than most people could do in [i]two[/i] lifetimes. It doesn't surprise me then that he found the time and energy for something as big as the UB. It seems to me that he had the type of personality that thrived on a challenge.

I'm curious as to why the original 'contact' person never materialized - as the Bible encourages: "and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." (1 Peter 3:15)

[color=blue] Meridith Sprunger has that answer in the link I gave above in the Historicity of the Urantia book[/color]



The UB is pretty straightforward in the sense that it explains [i]everything[/i] in great detail, making misrepresentation impossible.
[/quote]

[color=blue] That's not exactly accurate even though everything is explained in great detail. You will eventually see what I mean. You don't walk into Gold's gym and start working out with 500lb. weights on the first visit. [/color]


[quote]Posted Yesterday, 01:33 PM
On a little different note, the Urantia Book says that Jesus was really a Creator Son, Michael (an archangel).

This was news to me but the Bible agrees:

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia (Satan) withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me ..." (Daniel 10:13 - brackets mine)

"But I will show you that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holds with me in these things, but Michael yourprince." (Dan. 10:21)

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince..." (Dan. 12:1, see also Jude 1:9, Rev. 12:7)

The reason I list these is because many Christians believe that Jesus was 'God in the flesh'. Whereas, a prince is an angel - thereby making Jesus an Archangel.

Again the Bible does not disagree as Jesus calls himself a morning star, which is another name for an angel:

"I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev. 22:16, Job 38:7)
[/quote]

[color=blue] The Urantia book does NOT say that Jesus was an archangel. Archangels are a completely different and lower order of beings than Creator Sons (Jesus)
Jesus was NOT from the genetic line of David through his father but was through his mother, but, that is really of no consequence because David was really a very horrible person by any moral standard. The whole thing is Hebrew fantasy prophecy which was invented because they were looking for a warrior deliverer to free them from Roman oppression and bondage.
Jesus was also not the "Morning Star" and never said he was. Gabriel is the Bright and Morning Star, the first born offspring of our Creator Son and Creative daughter spirit.
A little bit about John's book of Revelation that you are quoting from.....


P1555:7, 139:4.14 When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John's writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form.

[/color]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Majeston' timestamp='1301305397' post='305957']
[color=blue] That's not exactly accurate even though everything is explained in great detail. You will eventually see what I mean. You don't walk into Gold's gym and start working out with 500lb. weights on the first visit. [/color]
[/quote]

Then how is it not accurate?
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Majeston' timestamp='1301305397' post='305957']

The Urantia book does NOT say that Jesus was an archangel.[/quote]

Oops sorry...Creator Son. I'm getting overwhelmed in a barrage of words. Too much information...

[quote]Jesus was NOT from the genetic line of David through his father but was through his mother, but, that is really of no consequence because David was really a very horrible person by any moral standard.[/quote]

It was through Joseph's line even though Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. David did do some nasty things and not that those things were good but it's good to see that he was so human and God liked him anyway. It's the idea of perfection that scares me!

[quote] The whole thing is Hebrew fantasy prophecy which was invented because they were looking for a warrior deliverer to free them from Roman oppression and bondage.
Jesus was also not the "Morning Star" and never said he was. Gabriel is the Bright and Morning Star, the first born offspring of our Creator Son and Creative daughter spirit.
A little bit about John's book of Revelation that you are quoting from.....[/quote]

No it is Jesus talking, calling himself the bright an morning star in Revelation.

[quote]P1555:7, 139:4.14 When in temporary exile on Patmos, John wrote the Book of Revelation, which you now have in greatly abridged and distorted form. This Book of Revelation contains the surviving fragments of a great revelation, large portions of which were lost, other portions of which were removed, subsequent to John's writing. It is preserved in only fragmentary and adulterated form. [/quote]

We have only what we need to put God's written puzzle together. At least God thought enough of our intelligence and ingenuity that he didn't give all the answers outright like in the UB but let us figure out things for ourselves!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I read your links Majeston but they're completely UB related. It seems very likely that SDA theology, including Helen White's strange ideas, influenced the UB.

Still I'm impressed with the creativity of the writings, at how indepth and well thought out they are; obviously not written by a dummy.

As for your question, [color="#0000FF"]"please clarify what you are talking about "two tablets".[/color]


I'm speaking about the two tablets of stone written by the finger of God that Moses got when he was on Mt. Sinai. Did I miss that information or perhaps I never got to it, which wouldn't be strange considering there's so much to read. I've tried to read most of it over this last little while but I now feel like I'm on information overload - gotta give my brain a rest from it... :blink:
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dduckwessel' timestamp='1301252792' post='305921']
It's interesting how the author (I presume a religious person) seemed so forward-thinking than religious people of today. If you were to sit in on some of the religious discussions of today, especially those amongst Evangelicals (educated Catholics are quite a bit more open), I think you would be shocked. The biggest discussion amongst Evangelicals is, should they allow young people to drink! The less educated, the more outlandish and restrictive the beliefs are, which I guess is really no surprise.

Back to the Urantia Book, as I asked Craig D., I wonder why someone would bother to go through all this trouble - what did they hope to gain by it?
[/quote]

That's a wonderful question. It does seem to assume however that the book was the product of humans. Certainly humans were involved but they apparently did not do it (their involvement) for reasons of fame or wealth. Here's some things that the original humans involved said:

Dr. Sadler wrote, "The Papers were published just as we received them." "The contact commissioners had no editorial authority." "Our job was limited to spelling, capitalization, and punctuation." Emma Christensen, contact commissioner wrote, "The authors are all listed in the book itself..." "I can categorically assure you that no humans decided the content of the Urantia Book. The Book is as the revelators gave it to us." "The Urantia Book was not written by the Urantia Foundation. It is a revelation given to this world by superhuman personalities." "The Urantia Book was published precisely as it was given to the people of this planet. Not a word has been added or deleted." "No human scholars edited the book." Thomas Kendall, Foundation trustee wrote, "The Urantia Book is arranged and assembled exactly as revealed." "No human ever edited this material."
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='modest' timestamp='1299347544' post='305222']
That is quite untrue.

After reading [url="http://www.urantia.org/en/urantia-book-standardized/paper-57-origin-urantia"]The Urantia Book -- Paper 57[/url] I can say with confidence that most everything in there is proven wrong by modern science.

The milky way didn't exist hundreds of billions of years ago. The sun didn't eject material for planet formation from a near-collision. Earth wasn't 1/10th its present size 2.5 billion years ago and it didn't slowly grow to its present size over the next 1.5 billion years. The earth and moon didn't form as co-accretion binaries. The oceans are not as young as 1 billion years. The formation of a supercontinent wasn't a one-time event.
[/quote]
LOL! You're quite the "modern science" religionist, aren't you? It IS your religion, that's clear. You make categorical statements about what happened or didn't happen "hundreds of billions of years ago" just like you were there to witness what happened hundreds of billions of years ago. Good grief, man, think about how ridiculous it is for you to suggest that you know whether or not the Milky Was was or was not here hundreds of billions of years ago! What arrogance! What science HUBRIS! And the sun didn't eject planet material from a near collision, and you know this HOW? Oh, "modern science" tell you. That's your religion, and if it turns out to be wrong, you have a lot to lose, just like if the bible turned out NOT to be "God's Word" like the Christians say, they'd have a lot to lose. Like you, they have a lot invested in their beliefs. Just couple months ago "modern science" announced that there were 3 times more stars in the Universe than they had said before. Did you know that? In the 1960, "modern science" said there were 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. Now "modern science" says there are 400 billion stars, maybe more. Did you know that? How come "modern science" can't pick a number and stick with it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='modest' timestamp='1299347544' post='305222']
That is quite untrue.

After reading [url="http://www.urantia.org/en/urantia-book-standardized/paper-57-origin-urantia"]The Urantia Book -- Paper 57[/url] I can say with confidence that most everything in there is proven wrong by modern science.

The milky way didn't exist hundreds of billions of years ago. The sun didn't eject material for planet formation from a near-collision. Earth wasn't 1/10th its present size 2.5 billion years ago and it didn't slowly grow to its present size over the next 1.5 billion years. The earth and moon didn't form as co-accretion binaries. The oceans are not as young as 1 billion years. The formation of a supercontinent wasn't a one-time event.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, all of the geochronology is wrong as are the physical descriptions.[/quote]

I just had one more comment. YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF ANYTHING YOU SAY. All you have is theories, models, hypotheses, speculation, and so on. Those things are not PROOF. They may be the latest theories, BUT THEY ARE NOT PROOF. Science does NOT know how long the Milky Way has been around. The Big Bang Theory is a Theory, NOT PROOF of anything. It really is theoretical. Science doesn't even know what 96% of the Universe IS. They call it "dark energy" and "dark matter." It's so "DARK" they don't even know what it is. It's hypothetical. But in spite of the fact that they don't know what 96% of everything is, and two months ago they announced that there are 3 times more stars in the Universe than they thought previously, they can tell you that the Universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, give or take 5 minutes. That's ridiculous!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is claiming that they witnessed events that took place hundereds/thousands/millions/etc years ago. Using knowlege we have now, it is possible to intrapolate events that happened before.

After something is proven, it is still called a theory. Ergo, not everything that is called a theory is in doubt.

Radioactive materials decay at a specific rate. This has been observed and shown beyond doubt. Using this, scientists can calculate the age of (for example) a rock.

[quote]
Some of the oldest surface rock can be found in the Canadian Shield, Australia, Africa and in other more specific places around the world. The ages of these felsic rocks are generally between 2.5 and 3.8 billion years. The approximate ages have a margin of error of millions of years. In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.[2] Since 2008, the oldest rock on earth has been discovered by McGill University in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt on the coast of Hudson Bay, in northern Quebec, and is dated from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.[3]
[/quote]

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='The Polymath' timestamp='1301413803' post='305991']
Nobody is claiming that they witnessed events that took place hundereds/thousands/millions/etc years ago. Using knowlege we have now, it is possible to intrapolate events that happened before.

After something is proven, it is still called a theory. Ergo, not everything that is called a theory is in doubt.

Radioactive materials decay at a specific rate. This has been observed and shown beyond doubt. Using this, scientists can calculate the age of (for example) a rock.



LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
[/quote]


[quote]In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.[2] Since 2008, the oldest rock on earth has been discovered by McGill University in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt on the coast of Hudson Bay, in northern Quebec, and is dated from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.[3][/quote]



Polymath,
Thanks for your input. This thing about this 2008 oldest rock discovery around Hudson Bay in Canada- don't you think that possibly matches with what the Urantia revelation said in 1934, fully 74 years before this "discovery" of 2008 and I might even imagine that this McGill university had a copy of the Urantia revelation which pinpointed the exact location to search for these oldest rocks on the surface of the planet?

[color=blue]

57:8.11-13 This entire age was characterized by frequent and violent storms. The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been mixed up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.

Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. This extensive granite elevation is composed of stone belonging to the preoceanic ages. These rock layers have been heated, bent, twisted, upcrumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting metamorphic experiences.

Throughout the oceanic ages, enormous layers of fossil-free stratified stone were deposited on this ancient ocean bottom. (Limestone can form as a result of chemical precipitation; not all of the older limestone was produced by marine-life deposition.) In none of these ancient rock formations will there be found evidences of life; they contain no fossils unless, by some chance, later deposits of the water ages have become mixed with these older prelife layers.[/color]

I might even presume that there are many Nobel Prizes waiting for out-of-the-box thinking scientists with a clue as this revelation is still in it's infancy and might I say less than universally accepted by mainstream science. Let's take a look at what one Nobel prize winner (Dr. Kary Banks Mullis)has noticed recently.
http://karymullis.com/urantia.html

Further in-depth information on this "striking concidence" as well as others can be found here
http://www.ubthenews.com/Reports_List.htm
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentlemen,

Just out of curiosity how would "science" go about proving or disproving "space respiration" in the Urantia revelation (affecting the present theory of the age of the universe) or the decrease of radioactivity by the Master Physical Controllers as theorized in the Chris Halvorson paper (affecting the radiometric dating).
http://perfectinghorizons.org/ByChrisHalvorson/histlife.pdf
http://perfectinghorizons.org/



[quote]
11:6.4 The cycles of space respiration extend in each phase for a little more than one billion Urantia years. During one phase the universes expand; during the next they contract. Pervaded space is now approaching the mid-point of the expanding phase, while unpervaded space nears the mid-point of the contracting phase, and we are informed that the outermost limits of both space extensions are, theoretically, now approximately equidistant from Paradise. The unpervaded-space reservoirs now extend vertically above upper Paradise and below nether Paradise just as far as the pervaded space of the universe extends horizontally outward from peripheral Paradise to and even beyond the fourth outer space level.

11:6.5 For a billion years of Urantia time the space reservoirs contract while the master universe and the force activities of all horizontal space expand. It thus requires a little over two billion Urantia years to complete the entire expansion-contraction cycle.[/quote]

and

[quote]
12:4.12 The present relationship of your sun and its associated planets, while disclosing many relative and absolute motions in space, tends to convey the impression to astronomic observers that you are comparatively stationary in space, and that the surrounding starry clusters and streams are engaged in outward flight at ever-increasing velocities as your calculations proceed outward in space. But such is not the case. You fail to recognize the present outward and uniform expansion of the physical creations of all pervaded space. Your own local creation (Nebadon) participates in this movement of universal outward expansion. The entire seven superuniverses participate in the two-billion-year cycles of space respiration along with the outer regions of the master universe.

12:4.13 When the universes expand and contract, the material masses in pervaded space alternately move against and with the pull of Paradise gravity. The work that is done in moving the material energy mass of creation is space work but not power-energy work.

12:4.14 Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions.

12:4.15 But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses, seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise. And the astronomic observers of Uversa think they detect evidence of revolutionary movements in a third outer belt of far-distant space which are beginning to exhibit directional tendencies of a clockwise nature.

12:4.16 It is probable that these alternate directions of successive space processions of the universes have something to do with the intramaster universe gravity technique of the Universal Absolute, which consists of a co-ordination of forces and an equalization of space tensions. Motion as well as space is a complement or equilibrant of gravity.[/quote]


The area proposed by some astronomers in the Urantia community for these 7 superuniverses being talked about is around the area of the "Great attractor" slide 50

[img]http://ubastronomy.com/topics/Topic01/Slide50.JPG[/img]

and the large scale "motions" are depicted here slide 38

[img]http://ubastronomy.com/topics/Topic01/Slide38.JPG[/img]

http://ubastronomy.com/topic.php?topic=Topic01
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='The Polymath' timestamp='1301420817' post='305995']
But they aren't near the Hudson Bay.

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_craton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territories
[/quote]



Polymath,

maybe I'm not reading this correctly....

[quote]Since 2008, the oldest rock on earth has been discovered by McGill University in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt [color=red]on the coast of Hudson Bay[/color], in northern Quebec, and is dated from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.[/quote]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...