[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Ice

I´ve read the entire book and it is amacing. But still, in the URANTIA book they say the Egiptians saild the Atlantic ocean all the way up north to the Faroe Islands- therefore the name of the islands. Thats incorrect! The Feroe Islands lay midway betveen England and Iceland,- where I live. The name of the islands is Faereyjar,- mening Sheep Islands in Faeroe and Icelandic. This is a mispronounsment in English,- has nothing to do with Faro,- only sheep.

___Sweet Ice! A linguistic chink in their declarative armour. (or did the pharohs have a sheep thang goin' )

My baaaaaddd.

[Dweezle]

I read this and it is a hoot! Orange and green people and flying angel aliens that live on worlds out in space. They give all the details. I wonder how long it took to write it?

[arkain101]

It sounds like hoohaa.. but I can personally say that I have seen some events that are logically acurate, much related to the possibilies in this book.

[Saitia]

Originally Posted by Dweezle

I wonder how long it took to write it?

Not an easy question to answer. According to historical accounts the process that resulted in the Papers began in 1906, and culminated in the appearance of most of the papers by 1925. Some of the papers include a published inditement date of 1934 and 1936.

More puzzling, however, was the initial appearance of 500 hand-written pages which were found in the room of the "sleeping subject" one morning in December of 1924, by his wife. The pages contained the answers to 181 questions that had been assembled in response to a "personality" that spoke "through" the sleeping subject, issuing a challenge to the physician who had been monitoring the sessions of this fellow and conversing with various "voices" that claimed to be personal beings from other worlds.
The challenge was something to the effect that, if you knew what you were in contact with you would not ask such trivial questions, you would ask questions that would "elicit answers of supreme importance to the human race."

Dr. William Sadler concluded that the sleeping subject had not produced the material, as it was not his handwriting, his hand tested negative for muscular fatigue, his wife said she doubted he could have left their bed without waking her, and the fellow himself said he didn't write anything. (He was likewise oblivious to the voices that regularly spoke through his vocal cords.)

All of the papers eventually appeared, in handwritten form in pencil, and a typed copy made. The handwritten material was regularly placed in a safe, but the material disappeared as soon as the typed copy was completed. The papers were published in 1955.

—Saitia

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Saitia

Not an easy question to answer. According to historical accounts the process that resulted in the Papers began in 1906, and culminated in the appearance of most of the papers by 1925. Some of the papers include a published inditement date of 1934 and 1936.


—Saitia

Now that right there Sir (Mam?) is more information on the subject than I have seen in over 20 years! The book itself says 1934, but when I wrote the Urantia Foundation to enquire into the details of the writings' appearence they gave no further information. (This did put me on their mailing list & for years I received the most fascinating array of documents.)

So if you please Saitia (Aitias ) what "historical accounts" do you refer to? Thanks for helping to get to the bottom of this.

[Saitia]

Originally Posted by Turtle

. . .what "historical accounts" do you refer to? Thanks for helping to get to the bottom of this.

A History of the Urantia Papers
By Larry Mullins with Dr. Meredith Sprunger
Published 2000 by Penumbra Press

A culling of a few extant accounts and a few persons with firsthand knowledge of events. Very scarce volume; occasionally a pricey copy can be found on Amazon. A must read for the genuine account of how the papers got here, even though the answer is still nobody knows the full details.

That's "Mr." Saitia, to you.

[Turtle]

Can't let a good rant against religious idiocy pie without taking another sharp poke with a stick at this dog inspired work. So, what little committee cooked up this load of dung? Well, I guess you can't talk about that; Urantia says keep no churches, just little private readers groups. Tee hee. How 'bout those stories of Jesus in this thing? Or the bat race on planet Makeupaname? Good grief. If I ever had any faith in the majority of people having any sense to analyze things, this book surely ran it the hell over. This concludes this irregularly scheduled rant. Have a nice day.

[Saitia]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Can't let a good rant against religious idiocy pie without taking another sharp poke with a stick at this dog inspired work.

And I can't let an idiot rant against religion "pie" (sic) without poking back just as sharply at your obtuse observations.

So, what little committee cooked up this load of dung?

My my. So stridently put. After reading your so-called previous analysis of the book in this thread, I say your appraisal is the real "load of dung"; not the Urantia Papers.

Well, I guess you can't talk about that; Urantia says keep no churches, just little private readers groups. Tee hee.

"Urantia" says no such thing; but where is your evidence? Quote it from the Urantia Book. Tee hee hee.

How 'bout those stories of Jesus in this thing?

Yeah; how about them? You claimed to have read the book; let's hear your scientific evidence refuting them.

Or the bat race on planet Makeupaname? Good grief.

Again, no evidence. How long have you been posting on this site, Turtle?

If I ever had any faith in the majority of people having any sense to analyze things, this book surely ran it the hell over.

Why would your meager faith "in the majority of people" have a thing to do with your own inability to analyze things, especially as they are presented in this book? I found your "analysis" predictably shallow for someone who didn't actually read the book, but superfically skimmed it; not worthy of response. But since you find it necessary to attack what you do not understand, why not offer some real evidence supporting your arrogant little rant?

This concludes this irregularly scheduled rant. Have a nice day.

You schedule such things? Yeah; you have a nice day too.

[ughaibu]

Lack of attributable authorship doesn't seem to be a requirement for books to be awarded a spurious authoritiveness. The most likely candidate book for this kind of regard would be the Voynich manuscript (http://www.crystalinks.com/voynich.html) perhaps the fact that nobody can read it discourages those who like to delegate responsibility to fantasia.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Saitia

And I can't let an idiot rant against religion "pie" (sic) without poking back just as sharply at your obtuse observations.

Ahhh, here's my foil. You're late. It took you over an hour to respond. Speaking of claims to reading, I think I said early on that I read the book cover to cover as well as rereading much of it; did you read that part of the thread?
As to proving a negative? Surely you jest! Who ya gonna call? ; the Melcheesadicks?
Did you find that super hard to get tell-all book A History of the Urantia Papers you mentioned? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at that one too.
Since you can't produce a spirit being to testify to their own existence - here & now - you haven't a leg to stand on. By all means try & pray up a Midwayer or sumpin' to pay me a visit; don't pop a vein though. Hey, what if I'm Satan myself fullfilling some prophesy? That'd be a gas huh?