It seems if one believes the UB is what it claims to be….the factual presentation of reality for the purpose of correcting and clarifying, reducing confusion and eliminating errors for a better understanding of reality to assist us in our spiritual identity and personal transformations with a clearer perspective based on such a factual presentation…..that, perhaps, the authors meant what they wrote and wrote what they meant to convey? If one does not believe the book to be a factual presentation….then why recreate it figuratively at all?
I’m curious, as to the definition presented above (bolded), which seems to imply what “the UB is what it claims to be…”, where “reality” is used twice, although “reality” is used over 800 times in the UB, which would indicate that this word have many meanings as used within the text, somewhat contradicts any specific meaning that “the authors meant what they wrote and wrote what they meant to convey?” Therefore, if the authors are so clear in their presentation, it should then be obvious on a group basis, that the individual’s definition as stated above, is based on creative/critical comprehension, so implied, making it only one persons opinion. Being a personal figurative explanation of the purpose of the UB, would then recreate its meaning, based on the implication of the reader.
An interesting point! Have you referenced the site yet that BB posted?
One of the important steps in creative/critical reading is the skill and ability to restate what’s read to demonstrate understanding of that which is read….and this step does not include rewriting or the subjective interpretation….but do you understand what is written well enough to restate what is written in ways that others can also understand what is written….not what you think about what is written – another step in the multiple steps presented at the site. There is no information there I’ve found to suggest any form of allegorization or methaphorical interpretations of that which is presented as factual information. I don’t know where that comes from….except in the attempt to satisfy our own subjectivity demands to make things fit into our personal prejudices and reality construct….where some minds will naturally, inherently, and endlessly twist, distort, misstate, misquote, and in any and every way possible to find….self justification.
There’s nothing analytical, critical, or creative about such an approach to reading in general….and especially not the Revelation.
And I thought my restatement to be pretty good!! 
What do you think the authors claim the Papers to be? Every student should be able to at least articulate that after a couple of reads, no?
Here’s mine again and certainly it could be better:
“….the factual presentation of reality for the purpose of correcting and clarifying, reducing confusion and eliminating errors for a better understanding of reality to assist us in our spiritual identity and personal transformations with a clearer perspective based on such a factual presentation…..”
From the page linked above:
Critical Reading, at its Core, Plain and Simple
“Non-critical (or pre-critical) reading is concerned with recognizing what a text says about the topic. The goal is to make sense of the presentation as a sequence of thoughts, to understand the information, ideas, and opinions stated within the text from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph. This is a linear activity.
Critical reading is an analytic activity. The reader rereads a text to identify patterns of elements — information, values, assumptions, and language usage– throughout the discussion. These elements are tied together in an interpretation, an assertion of an underlying meaning of the text as a whole.
Critical thinking involves bringing outside knowledge, biases, and values to bear to evaluate the presentation and decide what ultimately to accept as true.
…….
In the end, readers must take control of the text, not just repeat its assertions. At its core, critical reading involves becoming the author of one’s own understanding.”
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
