rmmcclay

I didn't make the claim. It was quoted material. Frankly I think you would be better off not reading the Urantia Book. I think you should move along to more interesting endeavors. That's all I've got to say for the moment on this thread. The last word's yours. Cheers, Russ

I've never claimed that the UB aligns itself with many predictions. Where in the world did you read that? Besides I was responding to Pyrotex's question: "And why, pray tell, would I want to read it? Let alone, "study" it?" And again, I'll reply: That's for me to know and you to find out. -rmm

That's for me to know and you to find out. =)

My my, aren't we the little snarky one! lol Well Moontanman, it depends on what your definition of a "true believer" is. I don't know what the book of Urination is, but I assume it's your weak attempt at derisive humor. The sections about the history of the world's religions is certainly spot on and provide an excellent overview; as is the Paper 81, Development of Modern Civilization, or Paper 96, Evolution of the God Concept Among the Hebrews. The Urantia Book does not claim to be a book of predictions. But you'd know that if you had actually spent any time objectively reading it. It is certainly not complete drivel; but it is highly controversial. There are, though, a number of scientific "facts" presented in the book which are not consistent with current scientific findings. That's something which serious and open-minded readers of the book acknowledge. These same readers also acknowledge anyone who thinks that science currently knows everything it will ever know are deluding themselves. Be of good cheer, young soldier, rmm

You're correct, freeztar. That is the site to which I was referring. I find it interesting and certainly worthy of note. A PDF presents a fairly thorough review of where this theory derives its surmises: The Surface (Ferrite Layer) Of The Sun A 21st century 'solid surface' electrical model of the sun based on state of the art satellite imagery from the YOHKOH, SOHO and TRACE solar observation programs and from spectral analysis compiled by the SERTS program. etwebsite.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf Cheers, Russ

I've read through 38 pages of discussion on this thread. It's clear there are a couple of participants who have read the Urantia Book, but it's also obvious that most have not; at least they have not "studied" it. After all the book contains over a million words spread across 2100 pages. Not a trivial feat to read such a book fact or fiction. As for getting things right, the Urantia Book has gotten many things right. There have been a number of serious efforts to bring light to some of the science that is presented in the book. For starters, Scientific Predictions of The Urantia Book by Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D., and Geoffrey L. Taylor The Urantia Book contains much scientific information that was revealed between 1925 and 1935 to an individual who cared little about the material. Some of this information disagreed with science's version. Half a century later, some of this originally conflicting information now agrees with science, and some still does not. The information deals primarily with creation of the universe, the Earth and man, as well as the fundamentals of matter and energy. Theories about these kinds of subjects evolve as science matures, and some of science's ideas change. These changes have brought about the new agreement between science and The Urantia Book, and the now agreeing Urantia information can be considered to have been predictions. The authors consider about thirty predictions that are in their areas of expertise or interest, but there are many others in the book. Science does not now know some of the information in the book. There is a distinct possibility that some of this Urantia information may also turn out to be scientific predictions in the future. If more of these predictions ultimately agree with science, it will give the scientific part of The Urantia Book an authenticity that will enhance the believability of the rest of the book. The authors examine about thirty scientific predictions in The Urantia Book, compare them with science's versions, see how much agreement we can find, and how much more we can anticipate. Those predictions that now agree with science and that partly agree constitute about one-third of all the predictions considered. This can be considered remarkable. Most predictions have yet to agree, but this is to be expected of a book with a very long life. More prediction analysis is warranted in the future, as is more detailed study of individual predictions. beamsdoorway.bizland.com/urantia/science.htm Secondarily, this site focuses on the Urantia Book and astronomy: ubastronomy.com/index.php -- Mention is made in this thread about the sun and calcium. It might be of interest to some that recent scientific research has led to the discovery of a solid calcium ferrite covering of the sun's surface. This is very new science and it's remarkable that it was mentioned in a book written in 1935: The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology. -rmm

Hey all...interested in the discussions going on here...so to jump in on discussions here's my first post.