I believe the words chosen by the authors were so chosen for their “basic meaning” as generally defined and accepted to be taken at “face” value, not on any figurative illustrative other meaning. But that’s just me. I reject the complications and the interpretative needs you present as being incorrect in any text book of facts that claims to be epochal revelation by celestial authors.
Bradly, I can understand your meaning as written, but as you say “But that’s just me”, that is just you, but based on your repeated narrative regarding the Urantia Book, and opposition to other person’s interest to disseminate the text differently than your understanding of the authors “basic meaning” of the context of the Book is historic in nature to your posts, and as you repeatedly state that the text should be open to dissemination is only augmented by your rejection of projected “complications and the interpretative needs” from others who just wish to study the text as is, or was the Bible and other text over history, where which even the Urantia Book is inclusive of Biblical reference, which would imply by its presentation thereof with corrective or alternate “basic meaning” whereas to make corrections would imply errors of any text prior to the text presented in the Urantia Book. However, being that the Urantia Book was edited by other than Celestial beings, where it also can be assumed that errors are forthcoming from this process, thereby making any literal acceptance at “‘face’ value” subject to figurative interpretation. If the narration of the Urantia Book actually could be verified with the original notes or transcriptions presented for its editing and publication, then this would remove any shadow of doubt as to its presentation as “epochal revelation by celestial authors.”
It’s not a mystery book or story book – its a text of cosmological facts, written as plainly and clearly as possible by the authors which will, of course, be approached and discerned and accepted or declined by the individual mind that encounters it.
I’m not sure how the “Jesus Papers” could be “text of cosmological facts, written as plainly and clearly as possible”, but as the following quote indicates that which was “cosmological facts” was somewhat abridged by admission by the “celestial authors.”
(1109.2) 101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
(1109.3) 101:4.2 Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the coordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
If the text is limited as to fact, in order to protect the future, then the information presented, although it may be truthful as presented, but would be incomplete whereby anything which is incomplete would be subject to additional figurative speculation as to how it can be incorporated into current or present understanding of “cosmology” and science, so even if fact, how does one assimilate this fact from future obtained fact or truth.
Also, there are many narrations presented in the Jesus Papers which coincide with known text, and there are also many changes presented as well, but who is to say that what has been presented is the truth, if there is nothing or no one to confirm its information other than by the readers faith as to the specific information to be true. Why would it be necessary to present specific dates, days of the week, and time of day for many narrations. Would there be a reason for this precise time line given? For the most part it has little value for most but might have specific notation for some readers, but still why is the text presented so specifically? Is it possible it was presented this way for a reason or for someone in particular?
