|
they chose to quote information that we later determined to be erroneous along with correct concepts and facts. For example, the authors cited Edwin Hubble's distance to M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which distance was calculated using the initial value of Hubble's constant. Then the authors tell us indirectly that the initial value of Hubble's constant is incorrect. What message are they sending us?
It appears to me that the authors intentionally created a mystery for us. I think they intended for us to be in a perpetual state of uncertainty about the revelatory status of The Urantia Book. If we are in perpetual uncertainty, then we cannot hold the book aloft and shout to the world, "Behold the Revelation." We are forced to humbly admit that we really don't know if a particular section is all or only in part revelation. It seems to me that although the authors have handed a few certainties to us, we still have to rely on faith to discern God, and our human reason to discern scientific truth.
References
1. "Hubble's Constant and the Age of the Universe," Martin V. Zombeck, at internet address: www.mathsoft.com/mathcad/library/astronomy
2. "Ho: The Incredible Shrinking Constant," Virginia Trimble, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 108: 1073-1082, (Dec.,1996)
3. "Brahma Breathed," Richard Bain, Innerface International Vol 6, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1999.
|
|
