[Majeston]

Craig,

I can understand how you might come to that conclusion, many people do most notably Martin Gardner. If you carefully look at the compound sentence structure, you will see that there is 2 topics being discussed. The first is slower revolution until axial rotation ceases and the example given is Mercury, and the second concept is cessation of motion and the example given is the moon. The 3:2 year /day ratio is not part of the example. Gardner made many mistakes and erroneous assumptions including blatant outright distortion of the material presented.

[Moontanman]

Majeston, if I ever need support spiritual or other wise you would be the last person I would trust to support me, mind your own business.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Majeston

the second concept is cessation of motion and the example given is the moon.

The moon has rotation and orbit, and hence motion.
It seems that you (or Urantia Book) is speaking of tidal forces, where a planet and its natural satellite get locked in a certain gravitational bond.

I recommend this site for an introductory into the concept of the moon's rotation and Earth orbit.

Does the moon rotate?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Majeston

Craig,

I can understand how you might come to that conclusion, many people do most notably Martin Gardner. If you carefully look at the compound sentence structure, you will see that there is 2 topics being discussed. The first is slower revolution until axial rotation ceases and the example given is Mercury, and the second concept is cessation of motion and the example given is the moon. The 3:2 year /day ratio is not part of the example. Gardner made many mistakes and erroneous assumptions including blatant outright distortion of the material presented.

No. The example given is not from Martin Gardner, it is from Urantia Book, Paper 57: Section 6 -- The Solar System Stage -- The Planet-Forming Era, and the example mentioned is Mercury not Mars. The paper specifically states that Mercury is an example where the axial rotation slowed by tidal friction until one hemisphere is always facing the Sun.

Craig has specifically pointed out that this is false, and provided a Wiki reference to back up his claim. Creating confusion by suggesting that the false claim was actually made by Martin Gardner and his inaccurate interpretations is an attempt to avoid the erroneous statement of the Urantia Paper.

Craig's point is that at the time the Urantia Papers were being penned, the assumption was that Mercury's orbital period and rotation were the same, but that by 1965 it became understood that the ratio was 3:2 Y/D.

This mistake would not have been made by all-knowing angels in an epochal revelation.

Sorry.

[Caligastia]

Originally Posted by REASON

No. The example given is not from Martin Gardner, it is from Urantia Book, Paper 57: Section 6 -- The Solar System Stage -- The Planet-Forming Era, and the example mentioned is Mercury not Mars. The paper specifically states that Mercury is an example where the axial rotation slowed by tidal friction until one hemisphere is always facing the Sun.

Craig has specifically pointed out that this is false, and provided a Wiki reference to back up his claim. Creating confusion by suggesting that the false claim was actually made by Martin Gardner and his inaccurate interpretations is an attempt to avoid the erroneous statement of the Urantia Paper.

Craig's point is that at the time the Urantia Papers were being penned, the assumption was that Mercury's orbital period and rotation were the same, but that by 1965 it became understood that the ratio was 3:2 Y/D.

This mistake would not have been made by all-knowing angels in an epochal revelation.

Sorry.

I don't think you understood Majeston's explanation properly. Here it is in more detail:

With regard to a separate issue, some people have suggested The Urantia Book says that Mercury's axial revolution has come to a stop and that, therefore, The Urantia Book is incorrect with regard to its statements about Mercury. This opinion comes from extracting the following phrases from the sentence in which they occur: "leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury."

This is a flawed analysis of the phrases because they are taken out of context both within the sentence from which they are taken and with respect to the context created by the previous sentence. Proper interpretation of these phrases requires that they not only be put fully in the context of the sentence in which they occur but also in the context of a sentence-to-sentence analysis.

The previous sentence states: "The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction." Here it is important to note that the larger context is specifically about our solar system and the lead-in sentence of the paragraph, quoted above, relates to planets in our solar system being slowed by tidal friction. It does not say that any of the planets have stopped due to this effect. The slowing is the issue being noted and there is no mention here or anywhere else of any planet having stopped already. Though this first sentence would not be inconsistent with a planet having stopped, it certainly does not imply or suggest such a thing either.

Next, and more importantly, we must appreciate the phrases within the context of the sentence in which they occur.

The phrases in question are qualifying/clarifying phrases, additions to the main point of the sentence. This interpretation is necessary and supported by the fact that the first part of the sentence, "Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, . . ." is a complete thought within itself. A period could have been put at the end of this first part of the sentence and it would have been grammatically correct. Not only would it have been grammatically correct, but additionally and more to the point, it would have been instructive all by itself because it brings together two distinct issues. The one issue being the stabilization of orbits and the other being the braking effect on axial revolution. By starting with a complete thought, grammatical conventions require us to interpret what comes afterwards and is separated by commas in terms of how it fundamentally relates to this initial concept/complete thought.

Now let's consider the first qualification/clarification, separated by a comma, that comes after the complete thought - "causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, . . ." The clarification is that the process mentioned above, as regards the braking/slowing of the planets (clearly, this is not addressing the orbital stability issue), is that eventually there is finality to the process, the planet stops. This does not imply that any particular planet has reached the point of having stopped because everything that comes before this comma-separated phrase is in general terms. Therefore, this phrase should not be construed to mean that stoppage has actually occurred, only that the process of tidal friction will eventually lead to this result.

Then we get the next comma-separated phrase which qualifies/clarifies the previous phrase - "leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, . . ." What this phrase does by way of clarification of the previous phrase is to state specifically what is meant by stopped (i.e. one hemisphere always turned toward the sun) and then it adds an additional clarification that this process not only relates to planets but also to other orbiting bodies. This is what the "or larger body" contributes to the clarification of the main point regarding the effects of tidal friction; it expands the tidal friction effect to other orbiting spheres.

Then comes the next clarification -"as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, . . ." So now the question is, "What is illustrated by the planet Mercury and the moon, that they are both examples of the effects of tidal friction (something that eventually leads to stoppage) or that they have both stopped?" To answer this question we must go to the last qualifying/clarifying and comma-separated phrase - "which always turns the same face toward Urantia[Earth]."

This last qualifying phrase distinguishes the moon from Mercury. It could have just as easily said something like, "both of which now turn the same hemisphere toward the body around which they orbit." But it does not do this. Instead, it distinguishes these two bodies from each other by only addressing the status of the moon. By distinguishing the two spheres from each other, it leaves Mercury standing alone as an example of the main subject of the sentence, i.e. that tidal friction slows planets down, eventually to a stop, and first affects the planets closest to the sun.

Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Caligastia

I don't think you understood Majeston's explanation properly. Here it is in more detail:

Are you kidding me with this blatent example of obfuscation? It takes all of that explanation and gramatical break-down to clarify what was a simple statement in the UP, when all that was really accomplished was a greater level of confusion? This only works on those who are either easily manipulated, or unwilling to accept that the UP are not error free. Such unwillingness is indicative of the depth to which someone has committed their beliefs. You know, how much Kool-Aid they have drunk. It is pure denial.

Whatever!

I'm curious, who authorized this expanded explanation for this erroneous passage in the UP? How do we know this revised interpretation is valid? What is the quality of an "Epochal Revelation" from devine beings that must be so heavily translated by unworthy Urantians, scrambling to justifty plain statements that do not correspond with current scientific understanding in an attempt to rescue it's credulity?

Do you actually believe that people with rational intellect cannot see through this fog of deception?

The statement in the UP is clear. Read it again:

The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia.

If it is necessary to turn a couple of sentences in the UP into 9 or 10 paragraphs of explanation by some average Urantian in order to obfuscate erroneous claims, than the book is actually more like 10,000 to 20,000 pages long, and mostly written by human beings. It is nothing more than another monolith to the failure of human reasoning and objectivity.

This Urantia Book society is a cult. So what. It isn't the first, and unfortunately, won't be the last. It will remain a fringe element of the greater population, frequented and supported by those poor souls who have rejected traditional religion, but remain desperate for eternity.

[Caligastia]

Well, the explanation seems pretty clear and simple to me. The passage in question can easily be mis-read, but it makes sense that they were not referring to Mercury as having stopped because they didn't explictly say that it has, like they did with the moon. The UB does not claim absolute perfection, so it's understandable that celestial beings who don't speak english as a first language might accidentally use a sentence structure that is uncommon and prone to misinterpretation.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Caligastia

Well, the explanation seems pretty clear and simple to me. The passage in question can easily be mis-read, but it makes sense that they were not referring to Mercury as having stopped because they didn't explictly say that it has, like they did with the moon. The UB does not claim absolute perfection, so it's understandable that celestial beings who don't speak english as a first language might accidentally use a sentence structure that is uncommon and prone to misinterpretation.

Clear & simple to us as well. We have now gone from error-free, to a few mistakes. Let's not forget the human editors purported to have received the information from the sleeping subject, and all those years they had to edit the work into a 'common' form.

On another factual note, tidal locking does not mean axial rotation stops; it means that there is one axial rotation of the satellite for every one revoution it makes of its parent body.

Just as an aside, with the recent activity on the subject, I repatriated, so to speak, my copy of the book from the private library I donated it to; it is a sixth printing version printed in 1978.

[Majeston]

The only thing obvious is that it was a poorly constructed sentence which left the way open for confusion and misunderstanding.

This does not automatically translate into error. At best it is a wash. There must obviously be a better example to be found of outright error.


Cal has correctly identified one great problem which is translation. The revelators in question do not use English as their native tongue. That alone should be enough to put the matter to rest. Many times in the text it is pointed out the problems of translation and the nuances associated with conveying such ideas. It is not so simple to simply say that some all-knowing angels would not make that mistake or that some other trivial fact should have been included.

0:0.2 It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.

0:0.3 In the hope of facilitating comprehension and of preventing confusion on the part of every mortal who may peruse these papers, we deem it wise to present in this initial statement an outline of the meanings to be attached to numerous English words which are to be employed in designation of Deity and certain associated concepts of the things, meanings, and values of universal reality.


Now, I understand that the above qualifier is really meant to deal with higher spiritual concepts than sentence structure regarding Mercury being tidal locked or not, but anyone should be able to understand the difficulty of the translation process and the unique problems associated with the English language. IIRC many languages have been said to be easier to learn for a foreigner than English, with all it's many ambiguities. Nevertheless, the confusing sentence remains and for someone looking to find error this serves as a good example. Never give an inch I guess, even to supposedly all-knowing celestial beings with a righteous purpose.

[Caligastia]

Turtle-
We don't really know the exact method of transmission. Some versions of events state that no humans made any changes to the text. And there is a big difference between complicated sentence structure and a mistake, which you are now extrapolating this into.
As for axial revolution, the statement clearly defines it as stopping in relation to the larger body.