HELLO- I found this link I think ,... :blink: On Debateing Christianity & Religion,
I do believe Robert Reno used it for a reference .

Anywho... I found it very insightfull & enlightening , and came across this
Time bomb theory , although not new , yet still interesting.

I am personaly , as of yet undecided , as to what , to really think of it .
As it seems to make some sense , yet I do not think it is correct . <_<

So I thought i would share it and maybe get some feedback of opinions on it from others . It is chock full of science & cosmology facts in the UB. ;)


SEE - link --->

http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/bain/science-urantia.pdf




TIME BOMBS _ PAGE 47 ....on


How to prevent The Urantia Book from becoming a fetish?
How would you like the job of putting together an epochal revelation in book form? What an awesome
responsibility! Consider the care and planning that went into putting the Urantia Papers together. Consider
the problems that the revelators had to foresee and find solutions for and the compromises they had to
accept in order to bring Urantia its fifth epochal revelation. Some of the problems and compromises we are
told about; there may be some what we are not told about. One of the problems that I am sure they dealt
with was how to prevent The Urantia Book from becoming a fetish. [Bain et al. 1991: 29]
I speculate that the revelators felt certain steps were needed to insure that the book would not become a
fetish. A definition of fetish from Webster’ s New Collegiate Dictionary is: “ an object of irrational
reverence or obsessive devotion.” Was the concern of the revelators justified? [Bain et al. 1991: 29]
Bain, R., & Glasziou, K., et al. (1991) The Science Content of The URANTIA Book. The Brotherhood of
Man Library.
We mortals seem to have a persistent tendency to worship anything and everything. Rocks, trees,
mountains, stars and planets, people, books, shrouds, bones of saints, etc. have all been fair game. This
tendency has always been a problem for those bringing new revelations to this planet. [Bain et al. 1991: 29]
On page 832 we read:
They decided that divinity had descended to earth in bodily form, that Adam and Eve were in
reality gods or else so near such an estate as to be worthy of reverent worship.”
On page 1022 it states:
Melchizedek’ s decision to terminate his sojourn in the flesh was influenced by numerous
conditions, chief of which was the growing tendency of the surrounding tribes and even of his
immediate associates to regard him as a demi-god … they were beginning to reverence him
unduly.”
We know that Jesus came to lead us into the worship of our Father, but how quickly the worship of him
submerged his teachings. The Bible has become an object of superstitious awe to some people. [Bain et al.
1991: 29]
Incorporate safeguards?
I feel that in light of all this, the revelators incorporated safeguards in the papers that would form The
Urantia Book to diminish the tendency to regard it as an object of worship. What safeguards did they use?
Suppose they decided to make sure that mortals reading it understood that some cosmological statements in
the book would be found to be inaccurate. [Bain et al. 1991: 29]
We read on page 1109:
Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these
revelations is not inspired.”
On page 1009 we are informed:
… [while] the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand
on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements on the
physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific
developments and discoveries.
Therefore, some of the cosmology we are given is inaccurate by the admission of the revelators. But
perhaps the frank admission of inaccuracies in the cosmology of the book isn’ t adequate to prevent undue
reverence for the book. What else could the revelators do? [Bain et al. 1991: 29]
Suppose some inaccuracies were found soon after the book was published. That would not only reinforce
the idea that the book is fallible, but it would do it immediately before we had a chance to begin to revere
it. How then could they make certain that we would find inaccuracies soon after the book was published?
My second speculation is the revelators planted some “ time bombs” with short fuses in the papers of the
book dealing with the science portion or the cosmology. Now that I’ ve gone out on a limb by saying that
they planted time bombs, can I prove it? [Bain et al. 1991: 29]
Where are the time bombs?
Bain, R., & Glasziou, K., et al. (1991) The Science Content of The URANTIA Book. The Brotherhood of
Man Library.
Consider two ideas introduced in the book. The first is the concept of continental drift. According to Ken
Glasziou in an article in Six-O-Six newsletter entitled, “ The Second Remarkable Prediction,” the theory of
continental drift was put forth by Wegener in 1912 but not accepted by science until the 1960’ s.
Continental drift is mentioned quite specifically in The Urantia Book on page 663. Now consider this
example: On page 657 we are informed that Mercury keeps the same face to the sun at all times.5 A decade
after the book was published, scientists bounced radar signals off Mercury and discovered that it has a slow
retrograde rotation, so it does not keep the same face to the sun. Could it be that the revelators didn’ t know
about Mercury? This seems unlikely, considering all the things that are correct in the cosmology of the
book, such as continental drift. My feeling is that this was a deliberate plant that we couldn’ t miss. There
are other time bomb candidates as well. There is the “ seraphic velocity” problem, the “ 100 elements”
problem and the “ 46 versus 48 chromosomes” problem. Two of these three problems, the first and third,
were addressed but not necessarily resolved by speakers at Scientific Symposium I in Nashville, Tennessee
in May, 1988. [Bain et al. 1991: 29-30]
It may be instructive to examine the time-bomb theory in the light of several statements about the purpose
of revelation given in the book. On pages 1109 and 1110, we are given five reasons for presenting
cosmology in the revelation. The reasons pertinent to the science of the book are:
1. The reduction of confusion by authoritative elimination of error.
2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be known facts and observations.
3. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned
information.
-- [Bain et al. 1991: 30]
The book is fallible?
Giving information that will be found to be incorrect soon after the book is published doesn’ t seem to serve
any of the above purposes. The only purpose I can see that such information serves is to prove the book is
fallible. In fact, The Urantia Book, in introducing these purposes, states: “… such revelations are of
immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by… .” Transiently clarify knowledge for
whom? While the purposes sound convincing, I would like to point out that the purposes given are fulfilled
only when the book gets general acceptance. How can the purposes help science when most scientists
don’ t even know about the book? And even if they did, how many of them would accept it? Acceptance
may take so long that a portion of the science will be obsolete before the stated advantages are realized. On
the other hand, I am confident that some of the science and cosmology will serve the stated purposes. [Bain
et al. 1991: 30]
Take the ultimaton for an example. Scientists may speculate about particles smaller than quarks and
electrons, but are still ignorant of the reality of such particles. It could be far into the 21st century before we
discover the ultimaton. Perhaps one day some scientist will read about the ultimaton in The Urantia Book
and go searching for it. If we are given accurate information about the ultimaton far in advance of its
discovery, assuming that it is accurate, why is inaccurate data given about things that would be discovered
soon after the book was published? It does not seem consistent, unless the inaccurate information is indeed
a time bomb. But isn’ t this sort of thing unethical? [Bain et al. 1991: 30]
Is it ethical?
It seems to me that the ethics of an act depend on motive and intent. Remember that the revelators told us
they had put inaccurate information in the papers, so we could hardly say that they lied to us. Further, they
only told us something about Mercury that we already believed at the time. Remember that their mission
was undoubtedly to protect us from our own foolish tendencies. If they gave us inaccurate information to
exploit us or take advantage of us in some fashion, that would be unethical. [Bain et al. 1991: 30]