MidiChlorian wrote:
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.
Every word and punctuation change or edit by humans is well documented and itemized Midi – the UB has not been edited by any mortal in the multiple ways the Bible has been rewritten to actually change the content and meaning. Most of such edits to the UB are corrections to the transcription process but the whole list is readily available:
http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/text-standardization?term=revisions#search-jump-result-0
Bradly, with your addition above, of the link, to the following entry, kind of makes my point from which your notation was taken:
42:6.7
First printing: …an electron weighs a little less than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom,…
Changed to: …an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom…
Also:
First printing: The positive proton… weighs from two to three thousand times more…
Changed to: The positive proton… weighs almost two thousand times more… — [For historical reference, the first discussion of the relative masses of the structural elements of atoms in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is found in its 11th Edition (1910 / 1911) with revisions in the 12th (1922). The calculation of the relative masses of the electron and the hydrogen atom was undergoing a rapid evolution just prior to the writing of The Urantia Book, the ratio being 1:1700 in 1897; 1:2000 in 1904; and 1:1845 by 1922. This last ratio is also the one quoted in the 1934 Websters.] The revised wording is consistent with the statement in the paragraph following the subject paragraph (42:6.8), in the text where the author states that a proton is “eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron;” and is also in general agreement with current scientific opinion which places the ratio at about 1:1836. After the committee’s work, this item, plus the closely-related following item, are the only recommended changes that do not have a straightforward typographical explanation.
Where the UB quote sighted “42:6.7”:
(477.1) 42:6.7 Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter, while an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom, hydrogen. The positive proton, characteristic of the atomic nucleus, while it may be no larger than a negative electron, weighs almost two thousand times more.*
(477.2) 42:6.8 If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equaled one tenth of an ounce, then were size to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth. If the volume of a proton — eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron — should be magnified to the size of the head of a pin, then, in comparison, a pin’s head would attain a diameter equal to that of the earth’s orbit around the sun.
In that as indicated in the change log above, indicates the change made and why, but as you read the reason for the change and take into account that the change was made from the “first printing”, my question would be: was the first printing verbatim as transcribed and documented from the source and or the source material, which from documented history of the source material, the notes were destroyed, thereby, is the first printing correct, and then edited based on the reasoning given above, which if the first was correct, as transcribed, and the correction based on the current science, who is to say that the original, or the first, was not the correct intention of the author?
Now, depending on when the notes or transcriptions were destroyed, assumedly after or just prior to the first printing, how is it that “the committee’s work” was correct and actually indicated the meaning projected by the author? This would indicate that in the original editing process of the transcripts, may not have been exactly what the authors actually meant to project. Also, if the Urantia Book required editing at all, would indicate that the committee members may have projected alternate intention into the edited work. Therefore, one cannot, based on records kept and not kept, assume that the Urantia Book is accurate as per its author’s intention.
Now I will give you a certain amount of leeway when it comes to punctuation, because if the Urantia Book was transcribed from verbal speech, punctuation would not have been notable unless the Celestial’s indicated at least a [stop] notation like in a telegram. But, even in the best editing circles, punctuation can make or brake the meaning of a sentence or a paragraph, for that matter. Therefore, I would contend that punctuation may have played a very big role in the context of the Urantia Book.
Please keep in mind that I am not wishing to discredit the Urantia Book, but I am saying that based on various possible discrepancies presented, a literal interpretation cannot be considered as 100% fact or truth, not to mention that the various readers, will bring in their life’s experience into account, even if this experience is less extensive.
Regarding your additional narration from the post which the above notation was taken, where I previously indicated that the information noted in the UB about Lucifer, was not new revelation, whereby you indicate that I should provide proof of my statement, would seem to be avoiding my original statement in that I actual would require that you provide UB quotes which you think are Lucifer revelation, or going further, rebellion information, which is not conjecture.
If you cannot provide any, then it might imply that you are less familiar than I with this topic of the previous Lucifer narrations in history, where I would sight many more then Biblical reference. Therefore, as I have mentioned before in other topics, the implication of Lucifer is only priori information as has been portrayed in history and cannot be validated as anything but a story. It might be interesting to create a mock trial of Gabriel VS. Lucifer to see if any evidence can be brought forward which could convict Lucifer of anything other than being a character in history that would not work without an advisory.
P.S.: Have you read The Sherman Diaries?
My goal was to introduce readership to something I stumbled onto and perhaps we could make sense of it within TUB context. But it takes an open mind to approach this topic. Preconceive notions only serve to prejudge it. Regrettably this thread went all over the place, not a big deal though.