The Urantia Book
Standardized Reference Committee Text Alterations to First Printing
Function of the Standardized Reference Committee:
Excerpt from the Standardized Reference Text Committee Draft Report, December 2008
Since the first edition of The Urantia Book was published in 1955, there have been a number of changes made over the years. At this time, Urantia Foundation is on its 19th printing and Urantia Book Fellowship on its 4th printing of The Urantia Book. Each version has been revised, creating the need to review the changes made, including changes in the:
3. Table of contents; and
4. Referencing system
In the winter of 2007, a joint committee was formed by Urantia Foundation and Urantia Book Fellowship to undertake this review. The committee was chaired by Seppo Kanerva. Merritt Horn, long time reader of the book, joined our detail oriented chair in finding over 300 changes for the committee to review.
Members of the 2007-2009 Standardized Reference Text Committee:
Chair, Seppo Kanerva, President, Urantia Foundation
Liaison Chair, Marvin Gawryn, Urantia Book Fellowship
Merritt Horn, Urantia Book Fellowship
Nancy Johnson, Urantia Book Fellowship
Marilynn Kulieke, Trustee, Urantia Foundation
Jay Peregrine, Executive Director, Urantia Foundation
The alterations adopted by this Committee have been incorporated in this set of Urantia files; paragraphs containing variation from the first printing text are marked with an asterisk which links to this Committee explanation document.
To view the paragraph where the alteration occurs click on the explanation Paper:Section.paragraph link. To return to this document click the browser “Back” icon.
The electronic text has Paper:Section.paragraph annotation added to each indented portion of the standardized text. Each indented portion has an invisible name address associated with it so that it can be linked to from another internet document. The link format is the file name (English file names are “p” for Paper, followed by a 3 digit paper number, 000-196, with suffix .htm — the file name for Paper 123 is http://truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=2544), added to that the link name address, such as#U123_4_5 for Section 4, paragraph 5 of Paper 123. The link address would be http://truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=2544#U123_4_5.
Page and paragraph annotation, which has also been added to each indented portion of the standardized text, cannot be linked to.
Titles have been converted to title case whereas in the original printing titles were in upper case.
Informational: In all printings after the first, the title Foreword was moved before Part I; the text of the Foreword was moved to before the Part I title page in the book. Bill Sadler Jr., contact commissioner, in his talks on the Urantia papers, states that the Foreword is a foreword to Part I, not a foreword to the book.
Informational: In all printings after the first, the Foreword was moved before Part I; the text of the Foreword was moved to before the Part I title page in the book.
First printing: 4. The Teachings of Amenomope
Changed to: 4. The Teachings of Amenemope
— Amenemope is the correct spelling; his name is spelled correctly in the ten paragraphs where he is mentioned so this was simply a typographical error.
PFirst printing: 9. Hebrew History Ephriam and Judah
Changed to: 9. Hebrew History Ephraim and Judah
— Ephraim is the standard transliteration of the Hebrew name.
First printing: 2. The Twenty-eighth Year (A.D. 22) Meeting Gonid and Ganid
Changed to: 2. The Twenty-eighth Year (A.D. 22) Meeting Gonod and Ganid
— Gonod is the correct spelling.
First printing: (An exhaustive index of the Urantia Book is published in a separate volume.)
— Sentence removed.
Foreword and Papers:
First printing: 5. Absolute perfection in no direction, relative perfection in all other manifestations.
Changed to: 5. Absolute perfection in no direction, relative perfection in all manifestations.
— other removed. The original phraseology is incorrect because the reference to other manifestations requires the existence of one or more additional manifestations to which this other is being contrasted. As this particular phase of perfection exists in only one manifestation — relative perfection — there are no additional types which require or permit the use of other in this context. There error occurred when “other” was inserted into the 1955 text during one of the pre- publication transcriptions by accidentally repeating the pattern of use found immediately before and after this sentence.
First printing: 2. Deified reality embraces all of infinite Deity potentials...
Changed to: 2. Deified reality embraces all infinite Deity potentials...
— The committee decided that this revised phraseology is all-inclusive without implying any limitations and without requiring a change of tone.
Change from first printing: PART I The Central and Superuniverse
— heading removed from the top of Paper 1. Part I is defined by the title page just prior to Paper 1. Removing the duplication is therefore a reasonable standardization.
First printing: The relatively quiet zone between the space levels,...
Changed to: The relatively quiet zones between the space levels,...
— The plural, found in all editions after 1955, agrees with the verb “are” and is otherwise consistent with the general sense of the paragraph.
First printing: But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space...
Changed to: But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space,...
— The comma after “outer space” is required to set off the parenthetical phrase concluded with the subsequent comma.
First printing: ...complement or equilibrant of gravity
— Missing period in first printing restored.
PFirst printing: ...supervisor No. 572,842 has...
Changed to: ...supervisor number 572,842 has...
— The spelled-out version is more correct for this usage and is used in all similar constructions except one in the UB. Because of the orthographic dissimilarity between ‘No.’ and ‘number,’ it is necessary to explain how the former could be in the 1955 text if the latter was intended. It seems likely that the symbol ‘#’ was likely used here and perhaps at many or all of these points in the manuscript — being a common and appropriate handwritten shortcut — and was converted to ‘No.’ here at some later point at variance with the preferred usage elsewhere in the text and by a reasonable interpretation of the guidance in the CMOS.
First printing: The Significance of Origins are the living ready- reference genealogies...
Changed to: The Significances of Origins are the living ready-reference genealogies...
— The plural is required to agree with the verb “are,” and its construction is paralleled by the formation of the plural Discerner(s) of Spirits in a similar setting at 28:5.20 in the text. The structure of the plural as a whole is confused by the plural form of the last word in the singular of the name.
PFirst printing: ...the Significance of Origins teach these ascenders...
Changed to: ...the Significances of Origins teach these ascenders... Same explanation as 28:6.4 above
PFirst printing: ...the Seven Supreme Power Directors and the Seven Central Supervisors...
Changed to: ...the Seven Supreme Power Directors and the Seven Center Supervisors...
— There is no other reference to Seven Central Supervisors anywhere in the text but there are multiple references to Seven Center Supervisors (primary description at 29:2.10-11 in the text) who function closely with the Supreme Power Directors and can be very reasonably substituted here for the otherwise unknown Central Supervisors.
First printing: ...beings enroute elsewhere who pause...
Changed to: ...beings en route elsewhere who pause...
— Although the original may be understandable, it is incorrect French and is not the form that has been adopted into English (according to Webster’s, the OED, and the Chicago Manual). A simple dropped space-key explains the original.
First printing: * * * * *
Changed to: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
— Asterisk separators were used in the first printing at the end of Parts I and II and in several other locations. The asterisks have been replaced with tildes in this standardized HTML version to avoid confusion with the asterisks used as links from the text into this standardization document. (31:10.21,
56:10.22, 119:8.8, 120:3.11, 134:6.13, 144:5.10, 144:5.23, 144:5.35, 144:5.50, 144:5.68, 144:5.81, 196:3.35. )
Change from first printing: PART II The Local Universe
— heading removed from the top of Paper 32. Part II is defined by the title page just prior to Paper 32. Removing the duplication is therefore a reasonable standardization.
First printing: ...subsequently add any thing new or supplemental...
Changed to: ...subsequently add anything new or supplemental...
— The compound word is the correct choice in this case. The sentence simply does not read well if, to test an alternative hypothesis, the assumption is made that the two-word format was chosen by the author for emphasis (which, to this editor, is the only discernible rationale for the two-word form).
First printing: Andovontia is the name of the secondary Universe Circuit Supervisor stationed in our local universe.
Changed to: Andovontia is the name of the tertiary Universe Circuit Supervisor stationed stationed in our local universe.
— While both a secondary and a tertiary Circuit Supervisor are assigned to the supervision of a single local universe’s circuits, only the tertiary Circuit Supervisor is stationed within the local universe — the secondary Circuit Supervisor is located on the superuniverse headquarters (See 24:1.5 -7 in the text). Therefore, if Andovontia is “stationed in our local universe” he would be a tertiary Universe Circuit Supervisor. A straightforward explanation for the origin of the error relies on the inferred use of the somewhat unusual but nonetheless valid abbreviations 1ry, 2ry, and 3ry in the manuscript. These abbreviations are common within several disciplines (e.g., grammar/phonetics, medicine, chemistry) and when used in close proximity to each other their meanings are clear even to the general reader, but this instance is not located near similar references, so the likelihood of its use here remains only a probability based on typographical observation, rather than a certainty. This explanation, however, makes an impossible typographical error into common one — a mis-typed character.
First printing: Within the domain of this Paradise Son of God the Supreme Power Centers and the Master Physical Controllers collaborated...
Changed to: Within the domain of this Paradise Son of God, the Supreme Power Centers and the Master Physical Controllers collaborated...
— comma inserted. By indicating the end of the initial adverbial phrase, a comma here does greatly assist the reader. If present in the original manuscript, a simple dropped keystroke would have produced the 1955 text.
First printing: ...having become sixty thousand times as dense as your sun...
Changed to: having become forty thousand times as dense as your sun...
— Textual consistency and current scientific estimates of our sun’s density both support the change to “forty thousand.” The first paragraph of this section states that our sun is about 1.5 times the density of water, or about 0.054 pounds per cubic inch, and 40,000 times this is about 2,160 pounds per cubic inch; the current scientific estimate of the sun’s density is 1.4 times the density of water; 40,000 times that is roughly 2,035 pounds per cubic inch. The likely cause of this error in the 1955 text is that the number in question was written as a numeral in the manuscript (40,000 not forty thousand), and the error was caused by a simple keystroke error in which 6 was mis-keyed for 4, creating 60,000 instead of 40,000. When the text was formatted for printing, the numerals were changed to words, and an error that formerly consisted of one digit was transformed into an incorrect word. The formatting of words and numbers for printing is not a revelatory issue; it is a matter of style, and is covered extensively in the Chicago Manual. (The problem at 43:1.6 in the text appears to have had an identical origin, and 42:5.1 in the text is very closely related.)
First printing: ...ten octaves up are the X rays, followed by the Y rays of radium...
Changed to: ...ten octaves up are the X rays, followed by the gamma rays of radium...
— Y rays changed to gamma rays. From external reference to physics, and multiple internal cross-references (see for example 42:5.7 in the text), gamma is clearly intended here. As to the origin of the “Y” in the 1955 text, it is likely that the Greek letter “?” (gamma) was mistakenly transposed into “Y” at some point in the preparation of the original edition (probably at the time of the first typing from the original manuscript) either because of a faulty inference from the immediately preceding X, from an unfamiliarity with the Greek alphabet, or simply because there was no better way to represent the character on a standard typewriter. Even though a typesetter would have been able to place the Greek letter “?” on the page, the later decision to replace that letter with gamma is clear, reasonable, and consistent with the usage found elsewhere throughout The Urantia Book.
First printing: ...an electron weighs a little less than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom,...
Changed to: ...an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom...
First printing: The positive proton... weighs from two to three thousand times more...
Changed to: The positive proton... weighs almost two thousand times more...
— [For historical reference, the first discussion of the relative masses of the structural elements of atoms in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is found in its 11th Edition (1910 / 1911) with revisions in the 12th (1922). The calculation of the relative masses of the electron and the hydrogen atom was undergoing a rapid evolution just prior to the writing of The Urantia Book, the ratio being 1:1700 in 1897; 1:2000 in 1904; and 1:1845 by 1922. This last ratio is also the one quoted in the 1934 Websters.] The revised wording is consistent with the statement in the paragraph following the subject paragraph (42:6.8), in the text where the author states that a proton is “eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron;” and is also in general agreement with current scientific opinion which places the ratio at about 1:1836. After the committee’s work, this item, plus the closely-related following item, are the only recommended changes that do not have a straightforward typographical explanation.
First printing: The endless sweep of relative cosmic reality from the absoluteness of Paradise monota...
Changed to: The endless sweep of relative cosmic reality, from the absoluteness of Paradise monota...
— comma inserted. The inserted comma, with the following one, correctly separate the enclosed parenthical phrase “from the absoluteness...of space potency,...” from the primary structure of the sentence.
First printing: ...established almost four thousand years ago, immediately after...
Changed to: ...established almost forty thousand years ago, immediately after...
— The second edition correction appears to be warranted based on a reference at 119:7.2 in the text: “The public announcement that Michael had selected Urantia as the theater for his final bestowal was made shortly after we learned about the default of Adam and Eve. And thus, for more than thirty- five thousand years, your world occupied a very conspicuous place in the councils of the entire universe.” The default occurred about 37,800 years ago, so “almost forty thousand” and “more than thirty-five thousand” would seem to be equally reasonable descriptions. The committee concluded that the problem here is identical in origin to that of
41:4.4 in the text: the number in question was written as a numeral in the manuscript (40,000 not forty thousand), and the error was caused by the loss of a zero before the number was formatted into words for printing.
First printing: While you are rekeyed each time...
Changed to: While you are re-keyed each time...
— The only other occurrence of re-keyed is in hyphenated form (48:2.21) in the text. Words formed with the “re-” prefix, fall under the same general Chicago Manual rule, but this instance is covered by an exception: “a) When the first vowel of the added word would...suggest mispronunciation, the hyphen is retained.” In this case, the un-hyphenated form appears to indicate that the first syllable is pronounced with a short e, causing the reader to stumble. Insertion of the hyphen resolves the problem.
First printing: Among the courtesy colonies of the various divisional and universe headquarters worlds, may be found the unique order of composite personalities...
Changed to: Among the courtesy colonies of the various divisional and universe headquarters worlds may be found the unique order of composite personalities...
— This is the only one of the committee's recommendations that allows the reasonableness of the original but recommends the change because both publishers have long since adopted the change.
First printing: Some time they hope to be granted virtually complete autonomy.
Changed to: Sometime they hope to be granted virtually complete autonomy.
— The one-word form is correct as the reference is to an indefinite point in time rather than to an indefinite period of time. (See Webster’s) Given the location of this word in the 1955 text — with a line break occurring between Some and time — it is possible that the original error was simply a missing end-of-line hyphen.
First printing: We might conjecture that such a plan must prevail in the outer universes; on the other hand the new orders...
Changed to: We might conjecture that such a plan must prevail in the outer universes; on the other hand, the new orders...
— The structure of the sentence calls for a comma here. In the 1955 text, hand was at the end of the line — so the comma could easily have been dropped.
Change from first printing: PART III The History of Urantia
— heading removed from the top of Paper 57. Part III is defined by the title page just prior to Paper 57. Removing the duplication is therefore a reasonable standardization of the database.
First printing: 900,000,000,000 years ago the Uversa archives testify...
Changed to: 900,000,000,000 years ago, the Uversa archives testify...
— The added comma correctly separates the introductory phrase from the body of the sentence (and is consistent with the structure of the other sentences in this list).
First printing: ...the planetary atmosphere filters through to the earth about one two-billionths of the sun’s total light emanation.
Changed to: ...the planetary atmosphere filters through to the earth about one two-billionth of the sun’s total light emanation.
— The singular is correct. Compare, for example: ‘one two-hundredth’, ‘one ten- thousandth’.
First printing: Ameba are typical survivors of this initial stage of animal life,...
Changed to: Amebas are typical survivors of this initial stage of animal life,...
— The plural is required here to agree with the predicate “...are typical surviors...” A modernized Latin plural form “amebae” could be used without being a unique choice (see for example “Seleucidae” at 59:2.12 in the text) but as the authors chose to use the modern form “ameba” rather than “amoeba” the committee decided that the English form “amebas” would be appropriate.
First printing: ...warm the shores of Greenland, making that now ice-mantled continent a veritable tropic Paradise.
Changed to: ...warm the shores of Greenland, making that now ice-mantled continent a veritable tropic paradise.
— Changed to lower case.
First printing: The bivalve gastropods...embrace the muscles, clams, oysters, and scallops.
Changed to: The bivalve gastropods...embrace the mussels, clams, oysters, and scallops.
— Muscles is an acceptable variant (Webster) and there are no other instances with this meaning, so standardization is not required, but the committee determined that the form “muscles” is now so uncommon for this meaning that adoption of the modern form “mussels” is justified.
First printing: 85,000,000 years ago Bering Strait closed,...
Changed to: 85,000,000 years ago the Bering Strait closed,...
— Though the construction without “the” seems stilted in today’s usage, the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica illustrates that in the early years of the 20th century, it was quite acceptable to use “Bering Strait” without the article “the.” The committee determined that even though the usage was correct when The Urantia Book was written, it is now so unfamiliar that the insertion of “the” is justified here and at 61:0.2 and 61:3.4 in the text.
First printing: But some time previously there had appeared new types of the herbivorous dinosaurs...
Changed to: But sometime previously there had appeared new types of the herbivorous dinosaurs...
— The one-word form is correct as the reference is to an indefinite point in time rather than to an indefinite period of time. (See Webster’s)
First printing: Weasels, martins, otters, and raccoons...
Changed to: Weasels, martens, otters, and raccoons...
— A single mistaken keystroke could have produced martins from an intended martens. It is also possible, however, that the original form was the author’s choice, being a correct, though less common, variant. (We cannot assert that the author would not use an unusual variant, because coons was used for raccoons only two pages previously. (61:2.7 in the text.) However, even if originally correct, this usage of “martin” is no longer current so the modernization of the spelling is reasonable.
First printing: ...corresponding to the beginning of the Holocene or postglacial period.
Changed to: ...corresponding to the beginning of the Holocene or postglacial period.
— All other geologic periods are italicized; including ‘Pleistocene’ and ‘Cenozoic’ on this same page.
First printing: ...the flint flakers and stonemasons;
Changed to: ...the flint flakers and stone masons;
— The original is clear, and is a correct form, but of nine occurrences in the text this is the only instance in which the compound form is found; this change is therefore a reasonable standardization of the database.
First printing: The dispensation of the Prince has passed, the age of Adam,...
Changed to: The dispensation of the Prince has passed; the age of Adam,...
— The initial clause is a complete sentence; a semicolon is the correct way of linking the two parts of the larger sentence.
First printing: In the days of the first Eden Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice...
Changed to: In the days of the first Eden, Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice...
— An inserted comma appropriately separates the initial adverbial phrase from the remainder of the sentence.
First printing: after much deliberation the plan of Bablot, a descendant of Nod, was indorsed.
Changed to: after much deliberation the plan of Bablot, a descendant of Nod, was endorsed.
— Change in spelling. Webster’s says “indorsed” is more common in American English, while “endorsed” is more common in British English, though endorse was becoming more common in American English. In light of the obsolescence of the original form, the committee recommends the modern “endorsed.”
First printing: Three differing views were propounded as to the purpose of building the tower.
Changed to: Three differing views were propounded as to the purpose of building the tower:
— This sentence clearly introduces the following list, so the colon is appropriate. In the 1955 text, this is found at end-of-line, immediately below another line ending with a period, so a typesetting error by inadvertent pattern copying could have easily given rise to the original. An identical construction, properly punctuated is found on the following page at 77:4.2 in the text.
First printing: And they brought to Him all sorts of sick peoples...
Changed to: And they brought to Him all sorts of sick people...
— Neither ‘people’ nor ‘peoples’ appear here in the original Greek of this Matthew passage; a more common rendering being “And they brought to him all the sick...” However, if one form or another of ‘people’ is to be used to place the Matthew passage in this context, ‘peoples,’ which indicates not multiple individuals but multiple large groups of people — whether tribal, national, or other, does not fit the grammar of the sentence and is clearly not intended here. A mistaken additional keystroke would account for the problem; ‘peoples’ should be changed to ‘people.’
First printing: ...was there a civilization in anyway comparable.
Changed to: was there a civilization in any way comparable.
— The two-word form is the appropriate choice when serving as an adverb only, rather than as an adverbial conjunction, in which case the compound “anyway” is more common. This latter use, roughly synonymous with “at any rate” or “in any case,” is well illustrated by its only occurrence in the papers (at 148:6.4) when Job’s friend, Eliphaz, is quoted as saying: “Anyway, man seems predestined to trouble, and perhaps the Lord is only chastising you for your own good.”
First printing: ...religious, philosophic, and commerical civilization of the world.
Changed to: ...religious, philosophic, and commercial civilization of the world.
— simply an error in typesetting.
First printing: One hundred thousand years ago the decimated tribes of the red race were fighting with their backs to the retreating ice of the last glacier, and when the land passage to the west, over the Bering isthmus, became passable, these tribes were not slow...
Changed to: One hundred thousand years ago the decimated tribes of the red race were fighting with their backs to the retreating ice of the last glacier, and when the land passage to the West, over the Bering isthmus, became passable, these tribes were not slow...
— The change from “west” to “east,” as found in many printings, is geographically correct but typographically impossible; the committee adopted the alternate “West” referring to the Western Hemisphere — the word thus indicating a place rather than a direction of travel.
First printing: ...following the disruption of Graeco-Roman civilization...
Changed to: ...following the disruption of Greco-Roman civilization...
— A change for the purpose of database standardization is reasonable, as the original text contained both forms at different locations, so the committee decided upon the more modern form. The origin of the variants in the text may be related to a change in recommended spellings between the 1927 and 1937 editions of the Chicago Manual. (The former specifying Graeco-, the latter, Greco-.) The OED and Webster’s include both forms, but their preferences are split along lines the reader can, no doubt, predict. (See also note for 98:4.1 below.)
First printing: ...to the level of the Atlantic Ocean
— Period missing in first printing restored. This period was at the end of the last line on the page in the original format. There were only two missing periods in the first edition. (See 117:7.4 below.)
First printing: Central Europe was for sometime controlled by the blue man...
Changed to: Central Europe was for some time controlled by the blue man...
— The two-word form is correct as the reference is to an indefinite period of time rather than to an indefinite point in time. (See Webster’s)
First printing: ...there persisted for sometime a superior civilization...
Changed to: ...there persisted for some time a superior civilization...
— As in the previous case (80:5.8), the two-word form is correct because the reference is to an indefinite period of time; not an indefinite point in time.
First printing: ...a life-long partnership of self-effacement, compromise...
Changed to: ...a lifelong partnership of self-effacement, compromise...
— The committee decided for database standardization here and at (89:8.1) below, as out of the ten occurrences of lifelong or life-long in the text, only these two were hyphenated. Although Webster’s lists the compound word, differences between Chicago Manual editions may have given rise to the varied spellings. The 1927 and 1937 editions contain the general rule: “Compounds of ‘life’ and ‘world’ require a hyphen: life-history, life-principle (but: lifetime)...” But the 1949 Chicago Manual modifies the rule slightly and lists “lifelong” as a specific example: “Compounds with ‘god’ and some compounds of ‘life’ require a hyphen: ...life-history, life-line, life-principle, life-story (but: lifeblood, lifelong, lifetime, etc.)”
First printing: The enhancement of parental instinct. Each generation now tends to...
Changed to: The enhancement of parental instinct — each generation now tends to...
— M-dash revision of format makes this section consistent with the others of this series.
Informational: first printing; Baptism became a religious ceremonial in Babylon, and the Creeks practiced the annual ritual bath. The Urantia Book passage does appear to parallel the first paragraph of Chapter IV in Hopkins, Origin and Evolution of Religion, (Yale 1923), and the typographical difference between “Greeks” and “Creeks” is only one letter — an easy error — however, the flow of references is slightly different, making “Creeks” seem out of context in The Urantia Book. Further, and more importantly, it is inappropriate to modify the text of The Urantia Book based on an assumed link to another text. If the revalators had stated that they were quoting Hopkins, or if there were no Greeks who practiced the annual ritual bath (which is not true — such a rite was practiced by the adherents of the Eleusinian mysteries, one of the largest cults of the Greek world in the times prior to Jesus’ bestowal), then it could be reasonably asserted that a typographical mistake had been made. In the absence of such an error or such a direct assertion by the author of the paper, renders such a change beyond the scope of the editor’s range of action. The authors of The Urantia Book often adapted pre-existing texts to their own purposes — modifying them as they deemed appropriate.
First printing: The children of Badanon developed a belief in two souls,
Changed to: The children of Badonan developed a belief in two souls,
— Badonan is the correct spelling; Badanon was, no doubt, the result of an inadvertent key transposition.
First printing: The custom of adopting children was to make sure that some one would provide offerings after death...
Changed to: The custom of adopting children was to make sure that someone would provide offerings after death...
— The two-word form is appropriate when referring to some one member of a particular group, as “Some one of you will go with me...” The compound form is used when the group of which the ‘one’ is a member is not specified. Fowler (1926) clarifies the differentiation by stating that ‘someone’ should be used when ‘somebody’ could be substituted for it; ‘some one’ should be used in all other cases.
First printing: The whole phallic cult grew up as a defense against evil eye.
Changed to: The whole phallic cult grew up as a defense against the evil eye.
— The phrase “evil eye” without an article seems extremely stilted, while such forms may have been used somewhere by some author, the committee could find no instances of such usage — even in texts of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — and certainly could not find a reason not to amend the text here to conform with normal practice.
First printing: Soon it became the custom to forego many forms of physical pleasure, especially of a sexual nature.
Changed to: Soon it became the custom to forgo many forms of physical pleasure, especially of a sexual nature.
— The revised “forgo” is etymologically preferable and so has been adopted by the committee. However, it should be noted that “forego” was not an error per se, it has been in use for over 400 years and leads to no confusion. [F]orego/foregoing is also found at three other locations in the text, while forgo was absent altogether. Though forego appears (for the first time for either form) as the preference in the 11th edition (1949) of the Chicago Manual, the modern trend has been toward the adopted revised form.
First printing: ...5,740,352 sacks of coin...
Changed to: ...5,740,352 sacks of corn...
— Early Egyptians developed a system of exchange of gold and silver rings, but true coinage was not introduced until the period of Persian domination (525-415 BCE), during which the gold daric and silver siglos of Darius I (reigned from 521-485 BCE) would have been used for some transactions. Coins were not actually minted in Egypt until ~ 404-343 BCE during the brief period of independence between the 1st Persian period and the reconquest by Artaxerxes III (342-336 BCE), when silver imitation Athenian Owls were minted. Coins were regularly minted in Egypt during the Ptolemaic (283-30 BCE) and subsequent Roman periods. The Harris Papyrus I commemorates the reign of Rameses III, and was commissioned by his son Rameses IV at the former’s death in 1172 BCE. The list of gifts to the Gods in the UB at 89:4.9, excerpted from this papyrus, thus predates the earliest significant presence of coins in Egypt by 650-750 years. Therefore, the reference in The Urantia Book is a simple typo made when quoting a known source; but regardless of quantities, the 1955 text cannot be correct — it is erroneous on its face. This is the key difference between this item and the Greek/Creek item above.
This precise list, including the “coin” typo, is found in William Graham Sumner/Albert G. Keller, The Science of Socety, Yale, 1927.
First printing: ...the Shawnee Teuskwatawa, who predicted the eclipse of the sun in 1808 and denounced the vices of the white man.
Changed to: ...the Shawnee Tenskwatawa, who predicted the eclipse of the sun in 1806 and denounced the vices of the white man.
— Tenskwatawa is the standard transliteration for the Shawnee prophet’s name; the spelling in the first edition may have been caused by a mistaken keystroke or may have been the result of an error in reading the original manuscript. (Regarding the latter possibility, see the note for 195:3.10.) — 1808 — Since nothing in the text is dependent on the 1808 date, nor linked to it in any way, and since the change from the incorrect to the correct date — 1806 — is just one digit/keystroke, this is no more significant a change from a technical standpoint than the correction of a spelling mistake — except that so many people have spent so much time making so much over this obvious mistake in The Urantia Book.
First printing: 1. Level values—loyalties.
Changed to: 1. Level of values — loyalties.
— “Level values” has no discernible meaning in this context; “of” must have been omitted at some point in the process of preparing the text for publication. The phrase “Level of values” is not only meaningful, but consistent with the context, and is also a parallel construction to the other items in this series: “Depth of meanings”; “Consecration intensity” (i.e., ‘Intensity of consecration’); and “progress of the personality.”
First printing: In Japan this proto-Taoism was known as Shinto, and in this country, far distant from Salem of Palestine,...
Changed to: In Japan this proto-Taoism was known as Shinto, and in this country, far-distant from Salem of Palestine,...
— This was the only instance of the un-hyphenated form “far distant” in the 1955 text. The committee’s decision to hyphenate and thereby standardize usage in The Urantia Book is the least complex resolution to the perceived problem of variant forms of the term and is in agreement with Webster’s of 1934.
First printing: He taught that “man’s eternal destiny was everlasting union with Tao, Supreme God and Universal King.”
Changed to: He taught that man’s eternal destiny was “everlasting union with Tao, Supreme God and Universal King.”
— The original phraseology asserts that Lao-Tse himself was speaking in the past tense as in “man’s destiny used to be everlasting union...” This would be a very strange construction and could not have been the intention either of Lao-Tse nor of the paper’s author. The relocation of the opening quotation mark resolves the difficulty and relies on a straightforward typing or typesetting error.
First printing: Such teaching gained the ascendency for more than one hundred and fifty years...
Changed to: Such teaching gained the ascendancy for more than one hundred and fifty years...
— “[A]scendancy” is first choice of Webster’s though both forms are in about equal usage, but “ascendant” is definitely preferred above “asendent”... Out of 5 instances, “ascendancy” is found 3 times, “ascendency” twice. The committee decided to standardize on “ascendancy.”
First printing: ...from Egypt to the Arabian desert under his leadership...
Changed to: ...from Egypt to the Arabian Desert under his leadership...
— The formatting of geographic names is covered by the Chicago Manual; the correct form is “Arabian Desert.” The several occurrences of this name have been standardized on the capitalized form.
First printing: But none the less he sought to enlarge their concept...
Changed to: But nonetheless he sought to enlarge their concept...
— The difference between “none the less” and “nonetheless” as followed throughout the 1955 text — except at this point — is thus: “None the less” is used where the meaning is a comparative roughly equivalent to “no less,” and the latter could be substituted without a change in meaning. “Nonetheless” is interchangeable with “nevertheless” and is used when the meaning approximates “even so.”
First printing: The fall of Assyria and the ascendency of Egypt brought deliverance...
Changed to: The fall of Assyria and the ascendancy of Egypt brought deliverance...
— See note for 95:1.3 above.
First printing: Only in the second sketch you are favored with a widened horizon.
Changed to: Only, in the second sketch you are favored with a widened horizon.
— The comma after “Only” is required to convey the intended meaning, which approximates “however, in the second sketch you are favored...” as opposed to the meaning without the comma which would be “It is only in the the second sketch that you are favored...” Also note that for the sentence to work without the comma, “...sketch you are...” would have to be inverted to “...sketch are you...” in order to be grammatically correct.
First printing: ani malistic
Changed to: animalistic
— hyphen missing at end of line in the original text; end of line hyphenated words are no longer hyphenated.
First printing: ...to the consciousness of true reality; while the co-ordination...
Changed to: ...to the consciousness of true reality; while the co-ordination...
— semi-colon italicized. 10th CMOS ss 124: “All punctuation marks should be printed in the same style or font of type as the word, letter, character, or symbol immediately preceding them.” (Exceptions noted for parentheses and brackets.) This continues to be the rule.
First printing: Science indicates Deity as a fact; philosophy presents...
Changed to: Science indicates Deity as a fact; philosophy presents...
— semi-colon italicized. See note for 102:3.5 above.
First printing: Ethics is the eternal social or racial mirror which faithfully reflects...
Changed to: Ethics is the external social or racial mirror which faithfully reflects...
— While it may be possible to extract some meaning from the original wording, changing “eternal” to “external” on the basis of an assumed dropped keystroke in the original, suddenly makes the sentence not only clear in meaning but also reveals a contrastive point which is completely absent from the original. (This also resolves the otherwise completely opaque “Ethics is the eternal...racial mirror...”)
First printing: Unifier of the deified and the undeified; corelater of the absolute...
Changed to: Unifier of the deified and the undeified; correlator of the absolute...
— Although it is possible that the original word (which is not found in either Webster’s or the OED) was a coined extension of corelation and corelative (both of which are found), it is not readily apparent how corelater would differ in meaning from correlator(s), the now standard form, which is found five times elsewhere in the text. The more likely situation is that two separate typographical errors were made when this word was set. The first was a dropped keystroke error at the end of a line of type; the second was an incorrect keystroke error, substituting e for o. This doubly misspelled word would still be difficult to catch in proofing because it would sound the same if read out loud, and interestingly enough, if it looked odd to a proofreader and consequently led him or her to consult the dictionary, the spelling could neither be confirmed nor denied by either Webster’s or the OED — neither dictionary contained correlator or corelater — and without an electronically searchable text, it is unlikely that the evidence of the otherwise unanimous usage within the revelation itself could have been brought to bear on the problem.
First printing: ...is invalidated by the eternity co-existence of the Son,...
Changed to: ...is invalidated by the eternity coexistence of the Son,...
— The hyphenated form is not found elsewhere in the text and is not supported by the guidelines of the Chicago Manual or the reference dictionaries. “Coexist” [no hyphen] and its various derivative forms are found twenty times throughout the Papers.
First printing: ...the union of God the Supreme, God the Ultimate, and the Unrevealed Consummator of Universe Destiny.
Changed to: ...the union of God the Supreme, God the Ultimate, and the unrevealed Consummator of Universe Destiny.
— The lowercase version appears to be correct because “unrevealed” does not seem to be part of the name but is solely descriptive (the title being found in several places without unrevealed preceding it). In the one other case in which “unrevealed” is found in conjunction with Consummator of Universe Destiny, it is not capitalized (0:12.7) in the text. [“Unrevealed” is found in one other location as a capitalized component of a title — The “Unrevealed Creative Agencies of the Ancients of Days” (30:1.108) — so such a format is possible.]
Informational: first printing; The Adjuster is man’s eternity possibility; man is the Adjuster’s personality possibility.
— The original text does appear unusual at first glance because one expects a noun like ‘possibility’ to be modified by an adjective such as ‘eternal’; not by another noun. In this situation however, ‘eternity’ is not serving as an adjective, rather the two nouns together form a single concept or nominal group, identical in structure to the group which ends the subject sentence: “...man is the Adjuster’s personality possibility.”
First printing: Personalized Thought Adjusters are the untrammelled...
Changed to: Personalized Thought Adjusters are the untrammeled...
— Although both variants are acceptable, “untrammeled” is the unanimous usage elsewhere in the text (four other locations) and is preferred by the Chicago Manual.
First printing: ...wholly compatible with a light-hearted and joyous life...
Changed to: ...wholly compatible with a lighthearted and joyous life...
— All other occurrences in the text follow the compound form, “lighthearted,” with the possible exception of one which is hyphenated at a line break. The committee decided that standardization is appropriate here.
First printing: Vertical depth embraces the organismal drives and attitudes
Changed to: Vertical depth embraces the organismal drives and attitudes
— “Depth” should be italicized as it is the substantive paralleled by the other items in the context (“Breadth” and “Length” — both italicized) and “Vertical” is merely the modifier.
First printing: ...while the united midwayers, since the departure of 1- 2-3 the first...
Changed to: ...while the United Midwayers, since the departure of 1-2-3 the first...
— “United Midwayers” is the usual form of the term.
First printing: And none of this philosophy does any violence to the freewillness of the myriads of...
Changed to: And none of this philosophy does any violence to the free- willness of the myriads of...
— Free-willness is found at four other locations in the text and all in instances it refers to an attribute or characteristic of a being or beings. Freewill and free will each occur numerous times — the former as an adjective (modifying such words as choice, action, or personality), while the two-word form is used when free modifies will itself (i.e. when will is under discussion). In light of these consistent usages, conforming this variant is appropriate as the original was probably the result of a dropped hyphen.
First printing: But to accept the fallacy of omnificence is to embrace the colossal error of Pantheism.
Changed to: But to accept the fallacy of omnificence is to embrace the colossal error of pantheism.
— Though religions and even philosophical schools are normally capitalized, e.g. “Platonism,” “Stoicism,” “Deism,” “pantheism” is more of a philosophical concept than an organized system of ideas and so is normally not capitalized — either currently or in writings contemporaneous with The Urantia Book.
Informational: first printing; These men of God visited the newborn child in the manger.
— “in the manger” removed at the second printing. Presumably, this change was made because the original seems to be inconsistent with the narrative of Jesus’ birth in 122:8, which states that three wise men from the east visited Jesus when he was almost three weeks old — about the time the family left the inn and over two weeks after they had moved out of the stable. However, it is certainly possible that Joseph and Mary might have taken the manger with them up to the room in the inn in order to continue to have a cradle for Jesus. The need for a cradle would have been no less in the room than in the stable, and if the manger was portable, as small feed-boxes often are, moving it along with the family seems quite reasonable.
First printing: And your record tells the truth when it says that this same Jesus has promised some time to return...
Changed to: And your record tells the truth when it says that this same Jesus has promised sometime to return...
— See note for 60:3.20 above.
First printing: [This paper...in the year A.D. 1935 of Urantia time.]
Changed to: This paper...in the year A.D. 1935 of Urantia time.
— Removal of the brackets makes the formatting here consistent with the credits at the ends of Parts I and II.
First printing: This group of papers was sponsored by a commission of twelve Urantia Midwayers acting
under the supervision of a Melchizedek Revelatory Director.
The basis of this narrative was supplied by a secondary Midwayer...
— Capitalization removed. All three of these changes reflect the adoption of a “down” style for the descriptive information on the title page for Part IV. This is a matter of format only, but the original style was viewed as being more formal than required.
Change from first printing: PART IV The Life and Teachings of Jesus
— heading removed from the top of Paper 120. Part IV is defined by the title page just prior to Paper 120. Removing the duplication is therefore a reasonable standardization of the database.
First printing: ...one who did not hestitate to clash with dogmas...
Changed to: ...one who did not hesitate to clash with dogmas...
— simple typesetting mistake.
First printing: ...one month before his fifth birthday anniversay...
Changed to: ...one month before his fifth birthday anniversary...
— simple typesetting mistake.
Informational: first printing; Far to the east they could discern the Jordan valley and, far beyond, the rocky hills of Moab. Also to the south and the east...
— Punctuation and wording changes were rejected by the committtee. The context for this sentence is the “panoramic view” from atop the Nazareth hill: Jesus and his father are standing on top of the hill and are moving their gaze from Mt. Carmel in the northwest around an arc to the north, east, south and west. Mt. Hermon is to their north, and from springs in its foothills near Dan (northeast of Nazareth) the Jordan valley extends to the Dead Sea in the south. Thus, as Jesus and Joseph follow the line of the river valley along the arc of their survey, as the Jordan approaches the Dead Sea, father and son “discern...far beyond, the rocky hills of Moab.” This interpretation is further supported by the punctuation of the following sentence which does not read “Also, to the south and the east,...” (suggesting a change in direction from the last reference), but rather, “Also to the south and the east,...” which implies that the last referenced location (Moab) was in the same direction.
First printing: ...on pleasure or business to nearby Cana, Endor, and Nain...
Changed to: ...on pleasure or business to near-by Cana, Endor, and Nain...
— All other instances of near-by as an adjective are hyphenated; with one exception (135:11.2r1 below) adverbs are open (near by), and the closed form, originally found here, is otherwise entirely absent from the text. Consistent usage would therefore support this change.
First printing: Not far away he could look upon Tannach...
Changed to: Not far away he could look upon Taanach...
— The corrected spelling is the standard transliteration of the name.
First printing: some superhuman or miraculous peformance, but always...
Changed to: some superhuman or miraculous performance, but always...
— simple typesetting mistake.
First printing: ...its abject fear-slave and the bond-servant of depression...
Changed to: ...its abject fear-slave and the bond servant of depression...
— Bond servant is found in three different forms in the first edition. The only form found in our primary references is the open form (bond servant) in Webster’s. The decision was made to standardize on the open form. This word is hyphenated and is broken at the hyphen to begin a new line of type, so it is impossible to determine whether ‘bond-servant’ or ‘bondservant’ was intended. The only form that the type (as set) could not have represented was the two-word form ‘bond servant’. In the following sentence, ‘bondservant’ is found as one word, so it would be a reasonable assumption that the same closed form was intended here. Both ‘bond servant’ and ‘bond-servant’ are found once elsewhere in the Urantia papers
(69:5.8 and 130:6.3, respectively). In the 10th and 11th Urantia Foundation printings, both occurrences in the present paragraph were separated into two words, as was the 130:6.3 instance, thus standardizing all four to the two-word format. Database standardization could be reasonable for this word, but the electronic editions and the printed texts subsequent to the 11th have diverged (as noted).
First printing: ...and even if any one should be so unthinking as to do such a thing,...
Changed to: ...and even if anyone should be so unthinking as to do such a thing,...
— The usage here falls under the same guidelines outlined in Fowler as applied to some one / someone at 87:3.3 above, and 100:4.4 above; that is, ‘anyone’ is correct if ‘anybody’ could be substituted; ‘any one’ should be used in all other cases. Therefore, the revised single-word form is correct.
First printing: ...functioning of a consciousness sorter and associater...
Changed to: ...functioning of a consciousness sorter and associator...
— While the meaning of ‘associater’ is clear and that variant is found in a reference dating to 1616 in the OED, it is probably the result of a keystroke error because the common form, ‘associator’, is the unanimous usage elsewhere in the text. [Unlike other archaic English words occasionally used in The Urantia Book to convey unique meanings (e.g., inconcussible at 118:3.3 in the text) the ancient word-form ‘associater’ did not convey a meaning distinct from ‘associator’ and no such differentiation is apparent here.] The original spelling may have been caused by a typist’s inadvertent repetition of the ‘er’ pattern from sorter, but in any case, the committee chose to adopt the modern and consistently used form.
First printing: The lectures and discussions in this school of religion began at 10:00 o’clock every morning in the week.
Changed to: The lectures and discussions in this school of religion began at ten o’clock every morning in the week.
— The spelled-out form is clearly supported by ss 142 of the 9th CMOS. Sections 98 of the 10th ed. And 99 of the 11th ed. give identical guidance. The three occurrences of time (10:00, 3:00, 8:00) here are spelled out.
First printing: Beeroth, Lebonah, Sychar, Schecham, Samaria, Geba, ...
Changed to: Beeroth, Lebonah, Sychar, Shechem, Samaria, Geba, ...
— The standard transliteration is Shechem. [A similar problem occurred at 186:3.2. ]
First printing: ...Caesarea Philippi...
Changed to: ...Caesarea-Philippi...
— Caesarea-Philippi is the standard. Of the 24 occurrences of the name of this town (plus four additional instances found in page headers), only two are found in the un-hyphenated form in the 1955 text, and both of those are on the same page, here and 134:8.1 in the text on page 1492). The twenty-two (plus 4) instances of the hyphenated form are found in six different papers, one of which is named “At Caesarea-Philippi.” The statistical unlikelihood of having, in a carefully edited text, two intended forms of a word and twenty-two incorrect forms, is ridiculously high. The text itself bears strong witness to standardizing on the hyphenated form rather than the open one. Though the open form is in more common use, the hyphenated form has been found in texts pre-dating the UB and is found today in various references (as illustrated in the Image document). So, the format used in the UB is neither unique nor incorrect. Given the almost universal consistency of usage in the text, the hyphenated form must have been the author’s choice and has been adopted by the committee.
First printing: ...the so-called “great temptation” of Jesus took place some time before his baptism...
Changed to: ...the so-called “great temptation” of Jesus took place sometime before his baptism...
— Closed form “sometime". See note for 60:3.20 above. “Sometime before Michael’s death in the flesh the fallen Lucifer’s associate,...”
First printing: ...brought back to Jesus fresh, first-hand reports...
Changed to: ...brought back to Jesus fresh, firsthand reports...
— Of the five occurrences of “firsthand”/“first-hand,” only this one is hyphenated; no differentiation in usage exists. Therefore standardization of the text was the choice of the committee: “firsthand”
First printing: ...friend of the bridegroom who stands near-by and hears him rejoices...
Changed to: ...friend of the bridegroom who stands near by and hears him rejoices...
— All other instances of near by as an adverb are open; with one exception adjectives are hyphenated (near-by). Consistent usage would therefore support this change to the open form.
First printing: Throughout all this momentous dialog of Jesus’ communing with himself,
Changed to: Throughout all this momentous dialogue of Jesus’ communing with himself,
— Though this is, arguably, a more modern and American English form, it is the only instance of the shorter form. Multiple instances of “dialogue” are found elsewhere (all in Paper 91) and, as there is no distinction in meaning and both forms are acceptable, the choice was made to standardize on the majority usage: “dialogue.”
First printing: ...this was their first clearcut and positive intimation...
Changed to: ...this was their first clear-cut and positive intimation...
— This word is found eight additional times; all are hyphenated.
First printing: Judas’ parents were Sadducees, and when their son...
Changed to: Judas’s parents were Sadducees, and when their son...
— The correct form is Judas’s and it is found that way at all other locations except at one other at 177:4.9 in the text.
First printing: He was liberal, bighearted, learned, and tolerant.
Changed to: He was liberal, big-hearted, learned, and tolerant.
— The only other occurrence of this word is at 139:9:8, where it is open. This compound wouldn’t be considered common in current usage, and dictionary support can be found for both forms, so it was decided to standardize on the hyphenated version as the one least likely to cause the reader to stumble.
First printing: The Sabbath week ends they usually spent with Lazarus...
Changed to: The Sabbath weekends they usually spent with Lazarus...
— The two-word form is supported by Webster’s; the hyphenated form (week-end) by the OED, but the closed form is not found in any of the contemporary sources. However, the closed form has become the standard usage since that time, as has the related “weekday,” therefore the committee decided to adopt the closed form for both words.
First printing: Give me this water that I thirst not neither come all the way hither to draw.
Changed to: Give me this water that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw.
— The comma properly separates the phrases, making this sentence much easier to read.
First printing: ...teach and preach at the week-day evening assemblies...
Changed to: ...teach and preach at the weekday evening assemblies... — The closed form weekday, unlike week-end/week end, is the one found in both Webster’s and OED; further, as noted for 142:8.4 above, it was decided that “weekday” and “weekend” should have the same format (as they do in modern usage).
First printing: ...for the encouragement of evil doing.
Changed to: ...for the encouragement of evil-doing. — While the earliest occurrences (14th — 16th centuries) of evil doer & evil doing are open, there has been a clear preference for the hyphenated form since the 17th century and it is the form approved by both the OED and Webster’s. The closed form, found at three locations in the 1955 text (159:3.9; 188:4.3; 188:4.5) is, as far as we can tell, unsupported by any contemporary source. [cf evil-intending in the preceding paragraph which is essentially a coined concept and its form illustrates general CMOS principle of hyphenating adjectival phrases prior to a noun.
First printing: He was a half-hearted believer, and notwithstanding...
Changed to: He was a halfhearted believer, and notwithstanding... — The closed form is the unanimous usage elsewhere in the text, so database standardization is in order.
First printing: ...a question about anger, and the Master among other things said, in reply:
Changed to: ...a question about anger, and the Master, among other things, said in reply: — See also note for 149:7.1 below. This sentence required two edits to make it flow correctly: at this location a comma was inserted after “the Master” and per the following item, a pre-existing comma that originally followed “said” was moved in front of it — to follow “things”
First printing: ...and return to Bethsaida some time on Thursday, December 30.
Changed to: ...and return to Bethsaida sometime on Thursday, December 30. — See note for 60:3.20 above. “sometime” is correct.
First printing: ...with fetters and chains and confined in one of the grottos...
Changed to: ...with fetters and chains and confined in one of the grottoes... — Though both forms are correct, this word is found elsewhere in the text as grottoes. Therefore, database standardization was adopted on the latter.
First printing: ...but you are short-sighted and material-minded...
Changed to: ...but you are shortsighted and material-minded... — The closed form is the unanimous usage elsewhere, so the committee decided to standardize on that form.
First printing: Jairus’ only reply to all this pleading was...
Changed to: Jairus’s only reply to all this pleading was... — The corrected form is supported by usage elsewhere (152:1.1 and 152:1.3). The CMOS recommendations have been evolving over time, with the 9th — 11th editions favoring the original version here, but the (12th) and 13th, supporting the revision. This evolution is recognized by the other contemporary sources, with Fowler (1926) noting that the form s’ is still retained “in poetic or reverential contexts...But elsewhere we now add the s...” Strunk (1918) however, in that author’s famously opinionated way, has as its very first rule of usage: “Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding ’s. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant... Exceptions are the possessive of ancient proper names in -es and -is and the possessive Jesus’...” [author’s emphasis] Usage in the 1955 text follows, with only this exception, the more modern practices supported by Fowler and Strunk. (An important supporting example being Lazarus’s, which would be found without its ’s under the older rules.)
First printing: He said: “But hearken to me all of you.
Changed to: He said: “But hearken to me, all of you. — The comma properly separates the phrases, making this sentence much easier to read.
First printing: Come out of him you unclean spirit;
Changed to: Come out of him, you unclean spirit; The comma properly separates the phrases, making this sentence much easier to read.
First printing: The apostles had slept very little that night; so they were up early and ready to go.
Changed to: The apostles had slept very little that night, so they were up early and ready to go. — The stronger separation created by the semi-colon is not incorrect, but a comma appears to be more appropriate.
First printing: ...they are at once restful and time-saving.
Changed to: ...they are at once restful and timesaving. — Though the original is clear, the closed form is the common one and was the approved form in Webster’s 1934.
First printing: ...we wonder if the deliverer, when he does come, will really do anything more wonderful than this Jesus of Nazareth has already done?
Changed to: ...we wonder if the deliverer, when he does come, will really do anything more wonderful than this Jesus of Nazareth has already done. — This is an indirect question contained within a declarative sentence, so the period rather than the question mark is the correct closing punctuation mark.
First printing: ...from these regions during the times of Judas Maccabeus.
Changed to: ...from these regions during the times of Judas Maccabee. — Although Maccabeus is a more accurate transliteration of the Greek, Maccabee is very common in English works and is used in all other occurrences of the word in the Urantia papers. Therefore, the committee decided to standardize on “Maccabee.”
First printing: ‘With their mouths they make a show of love, but their hearts are set upon their own selfish gain’.”
Changed to: ‘With their mouths they make a show of love, but their hearts are set upon their own selfish gain.’” — Quotation marks — single or double — should always enclose a comma or period which follows the last word of the the section set off by the quotation marks. The 9th CMOS (1927) states it rather strongly: “Put the period inside the quotation marks. (This is a rule without exception.)” [Question marks, unless part of the quotation itself, are placed outside of the quotation marks.]
First printing: Lord open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom.
Changed to: Lord, open to us; we would also be great in the kingdom. — In the original format, Lord was the last word in the line, making a dropped comma not unlikely. It is possible that the comma was simply viewed as unnecessary within such a short phrase, and it should also be noted that while the use of the comma in direct address is now regarded as standard, the Chicago Manual was silent on the matter until its 12th edition (1969). The committee decided to adopt the modern format and insert the comma.
First printing: ...so that on the second, or even the third, day such a one would come forth from the tomb.
Changed to: ...so that on the second or even the third day, such a one would come forth from the tomb. — Arguments can be made for several different ways of punctuating this sentence. The original, though reasonable by the rules, is very difficult to read — almost always causing the reader to stumble. The committee decided that the form adopted here is by far the most readable punctuation of any known alternative; it paces the reader smoothly through the sentence and conveys its meaning clearly.
First printing: ...he had become enamoured of a better-looking woman
Changed to: ...he had become enamored of a better-looking woman — This word is also found at 121:5.6; there, the American spelling, enamored, is used. Both forms are acceptable so in the interests of database standardization the American form was adopted.
Informational: first printing ...Bethphage...; — The 1955 text uses Bethpage in all thirteen occurrences of this word. In the 4th printing, the original was changed to Bethphage here, and at ten other locations; the remaining two were changed in the 9th printing. These changes were presumably made because Bethphage is the spelling found in English Bibles since the Authorized Version (King James) of 1611. While the apparent misspelling in The Urantia Book is not theologically or historically significant, it seems unlikely to the committee that so many identical typographical errors could have occurred, so the spelling “Bethpage” must have been used in the original manuscript. The committee made its decision to retain the original form based on three factors: 1) It is the only form found in the text of the UB itself; 2)The form is a reasonably accurate transliteration of the sound of the original; and 3) Though the form found in the UB is uncommon, it is not unique — the spelling having been found in numerous texts pre-dating the UB and in various references down to the present day including a number on the Web.
First printing: Lazarus remained at the Bethany home, being the center of great interest to many sincere believers and to numerous curious individuals, until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus, when he received warning that the Sanhedrin had decreed his death.
Changed to: Lazarus remained at the Bethany home, being the center of great interest to many sincere believers and to numerous curious individuals, until the days of the crucifixion of Jesus, when he received warning that the Sanhedrin had decreed his death. — The change from “day” to “days” here is required because the former is inconsistent with the ensuing narrative (at 174:0.1, 175:3.1, and 177:5.3) which would place the time of Lazarus’s flight between Tuesday at midnight (when his death was decreed by the Sanhedrin) and Wednesday evening (when “certain ones” at the camp “knew that Lazarus had taken hasty flight from Bethany”) — two days before the crucifixion of Jesus. Because of the near impossibility of a typographical error leading from “week” in the manuscript to the “day” found in the 1955 text, the committee rejected the “week” resolution (found in numerous printings) and adopted “days.” If the original manuscript read “days,” the loss of only a single character in typesetting would create the problematic “day.” This is a very common type of error and well within the realm of possibility. Though “days” is a new resolution to this problem and therefore unfamiliar to readers — perhaps some will see it as a “stretch” — it bears repeating (as with West/west at (79:5.6) above that if the 1955 text had originally read “days,” there would have been no contradiction in the text and the issue would never have been raised in the first place.
First printing: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who laid at this rich man’s gate,...
Changed to: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at this rich man’s gate,... — This sentence, as structured, does require “lay” rather than “laid,” the former being the past tense of the intransitive verb “to lie;” the latter being the past of the transitive verb “to lay.” However, it is the committee’s opinion that the error here is not poor grammar by the author, but a lost word in transcription. The authors of Part IV of The Urantia Book generally follow the text of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, with certain modernizations and corrections as needed. The ASV text of Luke 16:19-21 is as follows: “Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day: and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table; yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores.” In view of the apparent reliance of The Urantia Book on the ASV at this point, the committee decided to reject “lay” and reconstruct the verb as “was laid.” Additional contextual support for this argument is based on the beggar’s inability to fend for himself. If “even the dogs came and licked his sores,” he surely would have been carried to the rich man’s gate by others, who would then have laid him there.
First printing: If any one asks you why you do this, merely say, ‘The master has need of him.’”
Changed to: If anyone asks you why you do this, merely say, ‘The master has need of him.’” — See note for 133:1.5 above. Also here, as this is at EOL, a missing hyphen in the first printing could have given rise to the two-word form.
First printing: Andrew was busy watching some of his associates whom he feared might be led away by their emotions...
Changed to: Andrew was busy watching some of his associates who he feared might be led away by their emotions... — The pronoun here is the subject of the verb phrase “might be led away;” not the object of “feared.” To clarify, Andrew feared they might be led away by their emotions; he was not watching his associates, whom he feared. — He did not fear them, but he was afraid they might be led astray.
First printing: He was concerned about the attitude of some of the twelve whom he knew were armed with swords...
Changed to: He was concerned about the attitude of some of the twelve who he knew were armed with swords... — The pronoun is the subject of the verb “were armed,” not the object of “knew” nor of “were armed;” therefore “who” is the correct form. To illustrate: ...some of the twelve whom he knew Peter had armed...[he knew Peter had armed them] ...some of the twelve who he knew were armed... [he knew they were armed] The sentence might have been written “He was concerned about the attitude of the twelve, some of whom he knew were armed with swords.” In which case, “whom” would be the object of the prepositional phrase “some of whom,” while the phrase itself would be the subject of “were armed,” but it was not.
First printing: ...was one-half shekel, a coin about the size of a ten cent piece but twice as thick.
Changed to: ...was one-half shekel, a coin about the size of a ten-cent piece but twice as thick. — “[T]en-cent” is the standard form and is specified by the CMOS.
First printing: And so did all of these servants make gains for their master except he who received but one talent.
Changed to: And so did all of these servants make gains for their master except him who received but one talent. — The pronoun is the object of the preposition “except” therefore “him” is correct. See last sentence in subject paragraph for parallel usage where “him” is object of “to” also creating a “him who” phrase.
First printing: ...still others whom you think love the truth will be scattered,...
Changed to: ...still others who you think love the truth will be scattered,... — This is a situation similar to the two found at 172:5.2 above. The pronoun concerned is the subject of love, not the object of think; therefore who is the correct form. To illustrate: ...others whom you think Jesus loved... [you think Jesus loved them ] ...others who you think love the truth... [you think they love the truth].
First printing: ...he said to the twelve: “And as often as you do this...
Changed to: ...he said to the eleven: “And as often as you do this... — There were only eleven apostles still present for the establishment of the remembrance supper because Judas had left earlier; so the “twelve” of the 1955 text was incorrect, and was changed to “apostles” to make this sentence consistent with the rest of the narrative. However, if the manuscript had read “apostles” it could not have become “twelve” in the course of text preparation, therefore a different solution was required. The committee adopted “eleven” as the resolution of this problem based on the proposition that the manuscript contained numerals at this point — as written documents commonly do — thus “11.” At some point prior to formatting for printing, the last digit was changed either by accident or through the common typographical error of seeing what you expect to see rather than what is on the page. When the number was formatted for printing, the “12” which was so similar to “11” became “twelve” which is completely dissimilar to “eleven.” [Note that there are several other examples of errors in the 1955 text that apparently had a similar origin: see 37:8.3, 41:4.4 and 43:1.6 above; the several time statements that are formatted incorrectly — 134:3.3.1-3 and 177:4.1 above also lend weight to the idea that numbers were written as numerals in the manuscript (as is common practice), and were formatted to words later in the process of text preparation.]
First printing: ...and then, by faith, discern that you shall all some time sup with me...
Changed to: ...and then, by faith, discern that you shall all sometime sup with me ... — See note for 60:3.20 above.
First printing: Be not downcast even when faint-hearted believers turn against you...
Changed to: Be not downcast even when fainthearted believers turn against you... — See note for 139:12.1 above.
First printing: ...stations in the Father’s heaven to which you shall some time ascend.
Changed to: ...stations in the Father’s heaven to which you shall sometime ascend. — See note for 60:3.20 above.
First printing: ...on informal charges of law-breaking, blasphemy...
Changed to: ...on informal charges of lawbreaking, blasphemy... — Of the five occurrences of lawbreak[er] [-ing] in the text, three are closed and two are hyphenated. There is no differential in meaning indicated by the two forms, so database standardization could be appropriate.
First printing: Philadelphia, Sidon, Schechem, Hebron, Damascus, and Alexandria...
Changed to: Philadelphia, Sidon, Shechem, Hebron, Damascus, and Alexandria... — The standard transliteration is Shechem. [A similar problem occurred at 134:7.5. ]
First printing: ...relations between man and his Maker on this world and on all others...
Changed to: ...relations between man and his Maker, on this world and on all others... — The addition of this comma properly sets off the following parenthetical phrase.
First printing: It was even suggested that any one claiming to have seen him should be put to death;...
Changed to: It was even suggested that anyone claiming to have seen him should be put to death;... — See note for 133:1.5 above.
First printing: ...the far-away ascetics teach reverence...
Changed to: ...the faraway ascetics teach reverence... — Except for this single instance, The Urantia Book uses the closed form, so it was decided that standardization on that form would be appropriate.
First printing: Poutaenus taught Clement and then went on to follow Nathaniel...
Changed to: Pantaenus taught Clement and then went on to follow Nathaniel... — The correct spelling of this name is Pantaenus; Dr. Sadler, in a March 17, 1959 letter to the Reverend Benjamin Adams of San Francisco, suggested the possible source of the error: “I think the spelling of the name of the teacher in Alexandria is undoubtedly an error in transcribing the manuscript into typewriting. An “an” was undoubtedly transcribed as an “ou”. I remember when we were sometimes in doubt as to whether a letter was an “n” or a “u” in the manuscript. Of course, we who were preparing this matter, did not know the name of this teacher so could have easily made this mistake.”
First printing: And the spirit of the Father is in his Son’s sons—mortal men.
Changed to: And the spirit of the Father is in his Sons’ sons — mortal men. — Sons’ does appear to be correct in light of the prior sentence which provides the context — “...this life of the Father is in his Sons.”