Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:44 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
Is it possible to review the most original text of the book of John's revelations? I presume that would be Greek.

I don't think that text as ever found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which makes sense as apparently the people producing and preserving those scrolls tended to be Essenes and other related sects not directly associated with the apostles.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 922
brooklyn_born wrote:

You created a strawman on me. At no time did I say you could find 666 directly assigned to Satan in TUB. I said that the two numbers, 606 and 666, suggest to me that the two Satans corroborate one another (cross referencing), based on the number pattern 6, accompanied with similar narratives. And that is how you cross-reference narratives from different cultures. This is what scholars do when comparing narratives from different sources and cultures to see if there is a common origin; a collation of texts.



Okay. The thing is, you posted a thread called "Satan, Satani, Urantia 666 and 606" on a Urantia Book discussion forum but the fact is, your speculations have very little to do with the Urantia Book and every time you try to show a direct correlation, you are shown to be wrong. So if your thread is about 'cross referencing narratives from different culture' and 'different sources' then it is not a Urantia Book topic.

brooklyn_born wrote:
Quote:
All you can show is the book of Revelations, which you and I BOTH agree is not accurate. The only books you seem to have 100% faith in on this topic are the "older Hebrew texts" which you never cite specifically.



Where are you getting this from? I never said I put 100 percent faith in any text. I am on record stating all of these texts are fallible because the authors to me are not without error or sin.



Okay, yes, I was incorrect. My apologies. You said the older religious texts are 'valid' - that is where I got it from but I can see that you judge them to be both valid and fallible. That's fine. When texts are 'fallible' in your opinion, how do you differentiate the 'baby' from the 'bathwater'? You say you would not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but if a text is fallible, how do you know what parts are accurate and which are not?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Agon D. Onter wrote:
Okay. The thing is, you posted a thread called "Satan, Satani, Urantia 666 and 606" on a Urantia Book discussion forum but the fact is, your speculations have very little to do with the Urantia Book and every time you try to show a direct correlation, you are shown to be wrong.


Lmao! The same way you think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. None of us are an authority on TUB, something many TUB readers have a tough time accepting. We can agree to disagree.

Quote:
So if your thread is about 'cross referencing narratives from different culture' and 'different sources' then it is not a Urantia Book topic.


What are you talking about? I include TUB in the cross referencing. How is it not about the Urantia Book *shrugs*


brooklyn_born wrote:
Quote:
All you can show is the book of Revelations, which you and I BOTH agree is not accurate. The only books you seem to have 100% faith in on this topic are the "older Hebrew texts" which you never cite specifically.


Quote:
Where are you getting this from? I never said I put 100 percent faith in any text. I am on record stating all of these texts are fallible because the authors to me are not without error or sin.



Okay, yes, I was incorrect. My apologies. You said the older religious texts are 'valid' - that is where I got it from but I can see that you judge them to be both valid and fallible. That's fine. When texts are 'fallible' in your opinion, how do you differentiate the 'baby' from the 'bathwater'?


I treat each individual revelation/scripture/verse etc on its own merit.

Quote:
You say you would not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but if a text is fallible, how do you know what parts are accurate and which are not?


I treat each individual revelation/scripture/verse etc on its own merit.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
According to TUB what we have are fragments of it and even that is corrupted. I tend to agree with that position. There are two variants on the number assigned to Satan in the book of Revelation. One text renders his number 616 and the other, which is the popular one, 666.

Riktare wrote:
Is it possible to review the most original text of the book of John's revelations? I presume that would be Greek.

I don't think that text as ever found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which makes sense as apparently the people producing and preserving those scrolls tended to be Essenes and other related sects not directly associated with the apostles.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3673
brooklyn_born wrote:
I substantiated my position. I showed there are patterns in creation which you denied. The quote I provided is obvious and does not even warrant me to elaborate on the pattern of repeating 6s. Others see it but you don't. It is what it is. We can agree to disagree on this issue, I guess.
:shock:




Quote:
58:1.1 (664.2) 600,000,000 years ago the commission of Life Carriers sent out from Jerusem arrived on Urantia and began the study of physical conditions preparatory to launching life on world number 606 of the Satania system. This was to be our six hundred and sixth experience with the initiation of the Nebadon life patterns in Satania and our sixtieth opportunity to make changes and institute modifications in the basic and standard life designs of the local universe.


Repeating 66666s...

The truth hidden in plain view can be glaringly and painfully obvious at times.


Bradly replies: So....is the magic number 666 or 606 or just any 6 will do wherever its found? And still waiting for the meaning and value of these numbers?

The fact that math and universe reality patterns do include numerical patterns of significance does not in the least support your contentions here BB. You reach beyond all logic and reason to prove something unrelated to either of those, something mystical and mysterious which does not exist. Do the System worlds numbered 17, 58, 149, and 605 also share such numerological "values"? Or is it just recurring 6's? Come come bb...you are so much brighter than this!!

Is truth "hidden"?

Glaringly and painfully obvious indeed..... :?
:roll: 8)[/quote][/quote]


Sorry but you have substantiated nothing and neither have you demonstrated a single pattern in nature - although they certainly do exist and many examples of such relationship patterns of the physical universe of time and space are provided in the Papers as are the relationships of 7 to 3 and the patterns related to 7 and to the decimal system of 10....but all you have done and verified you have done is find repeated 6's. A set of coincidences you have pointed out which you, and only you so far, find important. Yet you have failed to provide any meanings or value you have determined by these repeating 6's. You have demonstrated confidence in numerology only by your posts here...attempting to link 666 to 606 to Satan by way of Satania and the Mark of the Beast as associated with any other numerical value that also includes one or more 6's as if repeating 6's has any meaning.


As I have attempted to point out, there are at least 605 other worlds in Satania (on our way to 1000) and each world is numbered sequentially and Satan being the one time System Sovereign for each. Does each have a repeating number of significance? Good grief. Jesus might call this swallowing the camel I think.


brooklyn_born wrote:
Agon D. Onter wrote:
I think fragments we possess that cross-reference with TUB can be deemed reliable.

This sounds like specious, circular logic to me.

While you may say that your position is not up for debate, your logic is flawed. You say you have imposed a "critical analysis" and yet, in turns, you have said with respect to the question at hand (666/ Beast referring to Satan) that the Bible is correct; the Bible is not correct; the TUB is not correct; and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because 'older Hebrew texts are valid'.

These are not consistent and do not demonstrate 'critical analysis' but simply advancing opinions of these texts that suit your position without regard to logic or consistency.


It does not appear you understand what a critical analysis is based on your above response. Please refer to the screengrab:

Image


A curious and most illogical definition, and one which appears conveniently applicable to your own lack of reason and logic in defending the superstition of numerology. There are so many definitions for "critical analysis" when one googles the term and the one posted stands out from all the others, all of which seem to agree that critical anaylsis requires logic, reason, objectivity, understanding, and insight....far more than mere opinion!!!


Opinion is often uninformed, subjective, and merely an expression of one's ignorance and prejudice seeking its own sources and forms of confirmation...even relying on things like numerology for such support! To call one's subjective opinion "critical analysis" is a flawed, even preposterous claim.


But if one looks up the complete definition offered by the same source as posted, then one finds further information that instructs the writer in "critical reading"...a preliminary requirement for critical analysis designed to inform and to apply objectivity and to challenge one's own opinions so that any writing is not flawed BY one's prior opinions and predispositions - qualities your own presentations here clearly lack:

The purpose for writing a critique is to evaluate somebody's work (a book, an essay, a movie, a painting...) in order to increase the reader's understanding of it. A critical analysis is subjective writing because it expresses the writer's opinion or evaluation of a text. Analysis means to break down and study the parts. Writing a critical paper requires two steps: critical reading and critical writing.
Critical reading:
Identify the author's thesis and purpose
Analyze the structure of the passage by identifying all main ideas
Consult a dictionary or encyclopedia to understand material that is unfamiliar to you
Make an outline of the work or write a description of it
Write a summary of the work
Determine the purpose which could be
To inform with factual material
To persuade with appeal to reason or emotions
To entertain (to affect people's emotions)
Evaluate the means by which the author has accomplished his purpose
If the purpose is to inform, has the material been presented clearly, accurately, with order and coherence?
If the purpose is to persuade, look for evidence, logical reasoning, contrary evidence
If the purpose was to entertain, determine how emotions are affected: does it make you laugh, cry, angry? Why did it affect you?
Consider the following questions: How is the material organized? Who is the intended audience? What are the writer's assumptions about the audience? What kind of language and imagery does the author use?



Critical analysis begins with critical reading which can only be accomplished by critical thinking! A very rigorous and logical application of objective thought which would not find nor attempt to defend meaning and value in numerical sequences or repeated numbers for the validation of such superstition. Socrates is considered the modern source of logic and reason - not subjective opinion. The definition you posted BB contains a warning regarding subjectivity...its dangers and inherent distortions toward fact and reality. Your definition does not endorse nor embrace nor excuse one's uninformed opinions. And certainly does not define opinion as "critical" anything.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Critical analysis)


Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposed assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command to their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism[2][3] and sociocentrism.



Here's a link to an interesting and revealing topic you started at the public UAI Forum entitled "Creative/critical reading as an approach to comprehending the Urantia Book" which shows a similar opinionated approach which actually contradicts the very source you quote as and for the definition of "critical reading":

https://urantia-association.org/forums/ ... ending-ub/

The point to this post is that the UB is a literal, rational, reasonable, and logical presentation of fact and knowledge designed to and written for the elimination of error and reduction of confusion regarding universe reality and our place in that reality. BB's approach to the UB is that it is no different than or more reliable than any other book from any other source and is not to be read or taken literally but MUST be deconstructed and decoded and interpreted....or more likely, IMO, to be reduced to those elements which he perceives supports his own opinions and preconceptions.

That's fine....but none here should pretend that BB is a sincere student of the Papers who seeks any meaning or value from the book as it is written. There is an agenda here to twist the text into BB's own confirmations of his own opinions which contradict the very source of his attempted confirmations. Very illogical indeed.


For example, in the very quote posted by BB which contains the phrase "mark of the beast" - it is a phrase originated elsewhere as an unattributed quote which can reasonably be assumed to be Biblical. In the context in which it is used, it is defined as the animal and material nature of the dual natured mortal. It is not about Satan or Satania or Urantia or 666 or 606 or 616 or any 6 or repeated 6's or original sin or the fall of man (both myths according to the UB)...no, none of that at ALL!! It is about removing the vestiges of the animal nature during the time mortals spend in the first 3 Mansion Worlds.


How we got here is a dizzy tale of the pursuit of superstition....and repeating numbers!! The definition of numerology...a primitive pursuit which defies reality and reason....still.


8)


Last edited by fanofVan on Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:58 am +0000, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 922
brooklyn_born wrote:



I treat each individual revelation/scripture/verse etc on its own merit.



BB, are you familiar with the phenomenon of cognitive bias? When you read texts with a presumption or bias toward a particular interpretation, you will judge text that supports your perspective as 'true' and text that does not support your bias as 'false'. We all do it, it's human nature.

The difference with TUB is that when the text is less than absolutely factual/ true, it says so itself. Just do a TUB word search on the word "speculate" to see what I mean. Likewise, a search on the word "opinion". Where the authors of TUB do not intend us to take their words as fact, they let us know by informing us that they are speculating or that it is their opinion.

The Bible and older religious Hebrew texts do not do this. So the fallible parts of those materials are at the mercy of our own cognitive biases.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Agon D. Onter wrote:
BB, are you familiar with the phenomenon of cognitive bias? When you read texts with a presumption or bias toward a particular interpretation, you will judge text that supports your perspective as 'true' and text that does not support your bias as 'false'. We all do it, it's human nature.


Of course! That is what religion is about.

Quote:
The difference with TUB is that when the text is less than absolutely factual/ true, it says so itself.


That is your interpretation. Not mine. And of course, you are entitled to it.

Quote:
Just do a TUB word search on the word "speculate" to see what I mean.


I am aware there are speculative revelations in the text. The Revelators admit to this.

Quote:
Likewise, a search on the word "opinion". Where the authors of TUB do not intend us to take their words as fact, they let us know by informing us that they are speculating or that it is their opinion.


Yes and even those they claim to be fact are not exempt from cognitive bias. The revelators are subject to error and sin.

Quote:
The Bible and older religious Hebrew texts do not do this.


And you base this on what?

Quote:
So the fallible parts of those materials are at the mercy of our own cognitive biases.


Like I said, it's all interpretation, buddy. This is not math or physics where it is either right and exact or wrong. Holy texts are driven by opinions of the authors and readers. That , my friend, is the nature of the beast.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
foV,

I'm not wasting time with you, moving forward. You are insincere, disrespectful and just can't come to grips we all have opinions. I have grown tired of your personality, filled with character flaws, real talk. My advice to you, observe how you, not others, seem to keep clashing with people on these TUB boards. You have a history of this, foV. Your post responses leave a distaste in my mouth. How I wish these boards had an ignore feature. Perhaps the admins can look into creating such feature.

Do some introspection. You need a lot of work on your personality. You do not know how to interact with people of differing views.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
the "mark of the beast" is basically our original mortal, creature nature and all that goes with it whereas the "number of the beast" is just some meaningless manmade poppycock tacked on to the end of revelations chapter 13.

it may have been presented to john of patmos as being connected to the vestiges of life on experimental world number 616 though and confuzzled over time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Makalu wrote:
the "mark of the beast" is basically our original mortal, creature nature and all that goes with it whereas the "number of the beast" is just some meaningless manmade poppycock tacked on to the end of revelations chapter 13.

it may have been presented to john of patmos as being connected to the vestiges of life on experimental world number 616 though and confuzzled over time.


so, which is it? manmade or presented to John as a revelation?

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3673
Makalu wrote:

the "mark of the beast" is basically our original mortal, creature nature and all that goes with it whereas the "number of the beast" is just some meaningless manmade poppycock tacked on to the end of revelations chapter 13.

it may have been presented to john of patmos as being connected to the vestiges of life on experimental world number 616 though and confuzzled over time.

BB asks: so, which is it? manmade or presented to John as a revelation?

_________________
BB


Bradly here: The revelation given to John has subsequently been twisted, edited, materially changed...or manmade by others after some large portion was removed or destroyed or lost altogether.

But the whole revelation experience itself could not be adequately or accurately portrayed by John either, due to his own lack of experience, knowledge, context, and reference points and perspective to describe the revelation he experienced.

It was personal revelation...not epochal. John misinterpreted and misrepresented the vision/revelation experienced, and then it was subjected to the interpretive torturing of others with their own prejudices and axes to grind. Sound familiar?

It's what some readers attempt to do to the Urantia Papers here. Even though the UB is an epochal presentation of fact in written form, still do some remain committed to their own personal distortions and demands of confirmations of preconception and personal error.

:wink: 8)

PS I understand you are not reading this BB....maybe someone else will copy it and comment so you get a glimpse? Hahaha.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 941
brooklyn_born wrote:
Makalu wrote:
the "mark of the beast" is basically our original mortal, creature nature and all that goes with it whereas the "number of the beast" is just some meaningless manmade poppycock tacked on to the end of revelations chapter 13.

it may have been presented to john of patmos as being connected to the vestiges of life on experimental world number 616 though and confuzzled over time.


so, which is it? manmade or presented to John as a revelation?


those are not the options i stated...presented to john as a revelation and confuzzled over time equates to manmade nonsense


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
fanofVan wrote:
The fact that math and universe reality patterns do include numerical patterns of significance does not in the least support your contentions here BB. You reach beyond all logic and reason to prove something unrelated to either of those, something mystical and mysterious which does not exist. Do the System worlds numbered 17, 58, 149, and 605 also share such numerological "values"? Or is it just recurring 6's? Come come bb...you are so much brighter than this!!


It's certainly worth noting that "6" is an artifact of our now common number system, i.e. the decimal system or base ten. Numbers 666, 606 or 616 will not have a multiplicity of 6's in hexadecimal or other number bases.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
I found this extremely interesting. The author realizes that within the canonized Apocalypse book there is a core of original material that stands separate from the present version of this book. He attempts to identify and reconstruct that. He also lists several possibilities on what the number 666 refers to.

http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 934
Location: Brooklyn NY
Makalu wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
Makalu wrote:
the "mark of the beast" is basically our original mortal, creature nature and all that goes with it whereas the "number of the beast" is just some meaningless manmade poppycock tacked on to the end of revelations chapter 13.

it may have been presented to john of patmos as being connected to the vestiges of life on experimental world number 616 though and confuzzled over time.


so, which is it? manmade or presented to John as a revelation?


those are not the options i stated...presented to john as a revelation and confuzzled over time equates to manmade nonsense


Your wording confused me. Thank you for the clarification.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group