|
Science and The Urantia Papers.
Since the mandate for the revelators prevented them from giving us unearned knowledge, (1109) it follows that the level of scientific information in the Papers should not include information still undiscovered by the mid-1930's. The exception is that "missing gaps" could be filled, or essential "lost knowledge" restored.
By taking a broad view for these exceptions, our superhuman revelators could easily have demonstrated that their level of scientific knowledge far exceeded human levels at the mid-1930's. By doing so, they could then have demonstrated a revelatory status for the Papers.
In some instances, it seemed to me that the revelators had done precisely that. But long hours of reflection have provided a moderating view.
I was a dedicated follower of Jesus long before I first saw the Urantia Papers. When I read their "Life of Jesus," I met a Jesus I already knew. Hence, I wanted this revelation to be true.
Others, such as those with a "Martin Gardner" type of mentality, may come to the Papers with a mind set that demands that they find reason to label them false (in a magazine article, Gardner denigrated the Papers but later admitted to not actually reading them).
The authors of the Papers well understand human nature. They would be aware that both types of reader could be conscientious seekers of their own particular kind of "truth."
I believe we have been provided with key information for the purpose of aiding those who are seeking the revelators' kind of truth. But they provide this information in ways that also permit its rejection by those who seek the means for rejection.
The reason for this bivalent approach may be related to the declaration in the Papers that our free will is virtually inviolate. God gifted us with relative free will on the finite level, and not even God himself will take it away. (1299) Also it is only by faith that we can enter God's kingdom. (1569) And we cannot have faith unless there is uncertainty, for if there is certainty there could be no reason for faith.
This paper is an update of two earlier and more detailed publications on the science, anthropology, and archaeology of the Papers.1, 2 In this, I propose to describe only those items of knowledge that, for me, verify that the Papers are all that they claim to be. I also intend to point out some of the possible escape paths for rejecting them.
New information about the Papers has come to hand since our previous articles were printed. Although the Urantia Papers included in Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the book were delivered in the 1934/35 period, after they were received, a selected group was allocated the task of thoroughly reading one Paper every week during a forty four week period in each subsequent year. At the end of the weekly session, those in attendance were asked to hand in their written questions. Answers were provided during the following session.
These meetings closed down completely for eight weeks during summer of each year. The whole process was repeated three times. Part 4 and the Foreword had a separate history.
Such a process should have taken about eight years to complete. This information fits well with the investigations of Matthew Block who has identified much of the human source material utilized in the writing of the papers. Most of those sources were written during the first third of this century. But a few were published later than 1935, some as late as the 1942/43 period. Apparently this material was added during the process described above.
Of the materials covered in this article, only the article on the energy of stars has post-1935 human source publications.
References
1. Bain, R., K. Glasziou, M. Neibaur, and F. Wright. "The Science Content of The Urantia Book." (The Brotherhood of Man Library, 1991)
2. Glasziou, K. "Science, Anthropology, and Archaeology in The Urantia Book." (The Brotherhood of Man Library, 1996)
|
|
