Every place where the text departs from the first printing of 1955,
180 in all, in the order of the book: the 1955 reading as the press gives it,
today’s words around the ring, and the SRT Committee’s decision where it gives one.
A ring opens its note, with the committee’s reasons; a reference opens its paragraph.
The 1955 readings
0:1.24 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
0:4.3 1955
Adopted. The 1955 construction, all of infinite Deity potentials, is awkward because all of is used to modify potentials without the latter being qualified by a limiting adjective (e.g., the, these, those). Thus, an error in transcription was apparently made here. Several alternate reconstructions are possible, but all infinite Deity potentials (assuming that of was mistakenly inserted) maintains the all-inclusiveness of the original without implying any limitations and without requiring a change of tone.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
11:7.7 1955
Adopted. The plural, found in all editions after 1955, agrees with the verb are and is otherwise consistent with the general sense of the paragraph.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
12:4.15 1955
Adopted. The comma after outer space is required to set off the parenthetical phrase concluded with the subsequent comma.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
24:1.11 1955
Adopted. The spelled-out version, number, is appropriate in this context and is used in all but one of the similar constructions in the Urantia Book. 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 had been intended. It is postulated that either symbol # or the contraction No. was used here and perhaps in many or all similarly constructed phrases in the manuscript—both being common and appropriate handwritten shortcuts—and was either converted to No. or left as No. here and at 136:3.5 at some later point in transcription, at variance with the preferred usage elsewhere in the text and with a reasonable interpretation of the guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style .
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
28:6.4 1955
Adopted. The plural, Significances, 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 . The structure of the plural as a whole is confused by the plural form of the last word in the singular of the name.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
28:6.8 1955
Adopted. See SRT note 28:6.4 above.
28:6.4 : Adopted. The plural, Significances, 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 . The structure of the plural as a whole is confused by the plural form of the last word in the singular of the name.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
29:4.23 1955
Adopted. There is no other reference to Seven Central Supervisors in the text but there are multiple references to Seven Center Supervisors (primary description at 29:2.10 ) who function closely with the Supreme Power Directors.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
30:3.12 1955
Adopted. 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 Oxford English Dictionary , and the Chicago Manual). A simple dropped space-key explains the original.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
36:3.6 1955
Adopted. 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).
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
37:8.3 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
41:1.1 1955
Adopted. By indicating the end of the initial prepositional phrase, a comma after Son of God does greatly assist the reader. If present in the original manuscript, a simple dropped keystroke would have produced the 1955 text.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
41:4.4 1955
Adopted. 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.)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
42:5.1 1955
Adopted. 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 γ (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 γ 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
42:6.7 1955
Adopted. The revised wording is consistent with the paragraph following the subject paragraph ( 42:6.8 ), 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. This item and the related following item are the only changes recommended by the SRT committee that do not have a straightforward typographical explanation.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
42:6.7 1955
Adopted. [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. Phraseology mathematically equivalent to the revised wording is necessary to be consistent with the revision at the beginning of the paragraph; both changes being required for the same internal and external reasons.]
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
42:10.1 1955
Adopted. The comma inserted after cosmic reality , correctly separates the enclosed parenthetical phrase from the absoluteness of Paradise monota .
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
43:1.6 1955
Adopted. 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 : 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, leading to four rather than forty being typeset in the first edition.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
43:8.2 1955
Adopted. The only other occurrence of re-keyed is in hyphenated form at 48:2.21 in the text. Words formed with the “re-" prefix, fall under the same general Chicago Manual of Style rule governing prefixes joined to roots, 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
44:0.1 1955
Adopted. Comma removed. 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. (2015)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
45:5.6 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
51:5.6 1955
Adopted. The original In is probably a pattern error from a nearby phrase: “...in one hundred thousand years.....in a million years......in the face of...” Though one knows what the author intends here, this does not appear to be a valid use of in. Acceptable uses of in with world in this context might be “everyone in the world" or “she lives in the world but worships in the spirit” or something similar. The usages are distinguished by the meaning carried by world. If, as in the subject case, the physical sphere is referred to—if planet could be substituted for world—then on makes sense because something can take place or exist on the world (on the planet). However, if any non-physical entirety is meant, then in would be used.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
53:7.8 1955
Adopted. The change from 681,227 to 681,217 was made because of the original’s conflict with following passage: “Since the inception of the system of Satania, thirteen Planetary Adams have been lost in rebellion and default and 681,204 in the subordinate positions of trust.” 51:1.5 Thus, one of the numbers is in error, but whether the 681,227 should be reduced by ten or the 681,204 should be increased by ten cannot be determined from the text. However, the typing error required to convert a manuscript containing 681,217 to 681,227 is much easier to commit than the error required to change 681,214 to 681,204-the former requiring only that the typist should mistakenly strike a key immediately adjacent to the correct one (2 rather than 1); while the mistake required to type 681,204 when 681,214 is intended, involves striking a key with the other hand at the opposite side of the keyboard (1 intended, 0 struck). The relative locations of the numerals in the standard typesetting case also favored the 2 /1 error over the 0 /1 mistake.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
56:7.8 1955
Adopted. The structure of the sentence calls for a comma following on the other hand. In the 1955 text, this was at the end of a line so it could easily have been inadvertently dropped.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
57:1.4 1955
Adopted. 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).
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
59:1.1 1955
Adopted. 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. Both instances (here and 65:2.4 ) were spelled ameba in 1955 text. The author’s choice of the modern English form for the singular leads to the use of the English plural Amebas rather than the Latinate Amebae .
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
59:2.12 1955
Adopted. Muscles was an acceptable variant at the time of the writing of the Urantia Book (Webster’s, 1934), and was viewed as the more common spelling in the U.S. by Webster’s in the mid-nineteenth century (1861). There are no other instances of the word with this meaning, so standardization is not required, but the form muscles is now so uncommon for this meaning that the modern form mussels has been adopted.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
60:3.8 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
60:3.20 1955
Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
61:0.2 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 60:3.8 above.
60:3.8 : Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
61:3.4 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 60:3.8 above.
60:3.8 : Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
61:3.13 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
69:3.9 1955
Adopted. The original stonemasons 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; the spelling has therefore been standardized on the open form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
74:2.8 1955
Adopted. The initial clause is a complete sentence; a semicolon is the correct way of linking the two parts of the larger sentence.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
76:2.3 1955
Adopted. The comma after Eden appropriately separates the initial adverbial phrase from the remainder of the sentence.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
77:3.1 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
77:3.4 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
77:7.6 1955
Adopted. 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. See SRT note for 1:5.16 above.
1:5.16 : Rejected. The committee found that in all items involving the capitalization of pronouns for Deity personalities that have so far been raised through the years, the 1955 text follows correctly and consistently the rules of usage recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS). All items have been returned to the original formats.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
78:2.3 1955
Adopted. The two-word form, any way, 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.”
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
79:5.6 1955
Adopted. 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. There is no question that North America is east of Siberia—that fact being the basis for the 1967 change of west to east. It is difficult to account for the appearance of west in the first printing if east had been in the original manuscript, but if the original had been West— referring to the Western Hemisphere—the only explanation required is a mistakenly un-shifted keystroke. In the Urantia Book, West and East are frequently utilized to designate a generalized geographical location rather than direction, though in all other cases they refer to the western and eastern reaches of Eurasia. Because there is no other instance of West referring to the Western Hemisphere, there is no internal proof of usage, but it is certain that if West had been printed here in the first edition, the meaning would have been obvious, the passage would never have been revised, and the question of this unique usage of West would never have come up.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
79:8.3 1955
Adopted. A change for the purpose of 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. Changes also made at: 98:4.1 , 121:1.8 , 121:5.5 , 121:5.6 , 123:5.12 , 166:5.4 , 195:0.4 , 195:2.5 , 195:3.1 , 195:3.10
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
80:2.4 1955
No action required. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
80:5.8 1955
Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
80:7.1 1955
Adopted. As in the previous case at 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
83:7.6 1955
Adopted. The committee decided for standardization here and at SRT note for 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.)"
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
84:7.7 1955
Adopted. The revision from …instinct. Each… to …instinct—each… makes this section consistent with the others of this series.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
87:3.3 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
87:5.5 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
89:3.1 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
89:4.9 1955
Adopted. 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 Urantia Book at 89:4.9 , excerpted from this papyrus, thus predates the earliest significant presence of coins in Egypt by 650-750 years. Therefore, this reference 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,
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
89:8.1 1955
Adopted. Lifelong. See SRT note for 83:7.6 above.
83:7.6 : Adopted. The committee decided for standardization here and at SRT note for 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.)"
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
90:2.9 1955
Adopted. 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 195:3.1 ).
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
90:2.9 1955
Adopted. 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 text. The date in the text here has been changed because the incident actually occurred in 1806. Since nothing in the text is dependent on, or linked to, the original 1808 date, and since the change from the incorrect to the correct date is just one digit/keystroke, this is technically identical to a number of other corrected items.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
92:7.7 1955
Adopted. 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.”
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
93:5.8 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 89:3.1 above.
89:3.1 : Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
94:4.6 1955
Adopted. The role of the conjunction and between the last two elements of a series is to give the reader an indication that the series is complete. Without the final conjunction, the reader normally assumes that what follows is part of the series. In this case, lacking the conjunction, the reader will find him- or herself inserting the missing and in order to make sense of the sentence. This is not a unique construction; sentences with the same missing and are sometimes encountered in other works, and they create the same problem for the reader.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
94:5.6 1955
Adopted. This was the only instance of the un-hyphenated form far distant in the 1955 text. The 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
94:6.3 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
95:1.3 1955
Adopted. [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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
96:3.1 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
96:4.6 1955
Adopted. 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.”
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
97:5.6 1955
Rejected. This passage is usually translated as a question though it can be formulated as a declarative statement. The committee decided to leave the original, though this may require further attention. This directly quotes ASV/RV; the ? is found there. Aside from a couple of modernizations, this quote is from and is punctuated as the RV. (2015)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
97:9.23 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 95:1.3 above.
95:1.3 : Adopted. [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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
98:4.1 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 79:8.3 above.
79:8.3 : Adopted. A change for the purpose of 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. Changes also made at: 98:4.1 , 121:1.8 , 121:5.5 , 121:5.6 , 123:5.12 , 166:5.4 , 195:0.4 , 195:2.5 , 195:3.1 , 195:3.10
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
100:4.5 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
102:3.5 1955true reality ; while
Adopted. semi-colon italicized. The first rule of punctuation in the first edition of the Chicago Manual was “All punctuation marks should be printed in the same type as the word or letter immediately preceding them.” (Exceptions noted for parentheses and brackets..) ... This continues to be the rule in later editions—with several clarifications and expansions subsequently added.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
102:3.11 1955fact ; philosophy
Adopted. Semi-colon italicized. See SRT note for 102:3.5 above.
102:3.5 : Adopted. semi-colon italicized. The first rule of punctuation in the first edition of the Chicago Manual was “All punctuation marks should be printed in the same type as the word or letter immediately preceding them.” (Exceptions noted for parentheses and brackets..) ... This continues to be the rule in later editions—with several clarifications and expansions subsequently added.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
102:8.4 1955
Adopted. 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...”)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
105:3.8 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
105:3.9 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
106:5.1 1955
Adopted. 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 in the text. 0:12.7 [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.]
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
109:7.2 1955
Adopted. Although both variants are acceptable, untrammeled is the unanimous usage elsewhere in the text (four other locations) and is preferred by the Chicago Manual.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
110:3.4 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
111:0.4 1955ba ;
Adopted. See SRT note for 102:3.5 above. The semi-colon should be italicized.
102:3.5 : Adopted. semi-colon italicized. The first rule of punctuation in the first edition of the Chicago Manual was “All punctuation marks should be printed in the same type as the word or letter immediately preceding them.” (Exceptions noted for parentheses and brackets..) ... This continues to be the rule in later editions—with several clarifications and expansions subsequently added.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
112:1.7 1955Vertical depth
Adopted. Vertical and depth should both be italicized as together they form the substantive paralleled by the other items in the context, Breadth and Length— both of which are italicized.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
117:7.4 1955
No action required. This period was missing in many copies of the 1955 text but it very faintly appears in others, apparently being worn down in the course of the printing. However, by the second printing—from the same plates—the period had been completely worn off. For some reason, it was not restored when new plates were created for the 3rd printing and remained absent until finally corrected in the 6th printing. See SRT note for 80:2.4 above.
80:2.4 : No action required. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
118:6.2 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
118:6.8 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
119:8.8 1955
Adopted. Sometime is correct. See SRT note for 60:3.20 above.
60:3.20 : Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
119:8.9 1955
Adopted. Removal of the brackets makes the formatting here at the end of Part III consistent with the credits at the ends of Parts I and II.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
124:1.12 1955
Adopted. All other instances of near-by as an adjective are hyphenated; with one exception (see SRT note for 135:11.2 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.
135:11.2 : Adopted. All other instances of near by as an adverb are open; with one exception, at 124:1.12 , adjectives are hyphenated. Consistent usage would therefore support this change to the open form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
125:1.5 1955
Adopted. This is clearly the name of the gate; especially since it is in quotations (signifying that it was generally known as.. The more formal name being the Nicanor or Corinthian Gate. Chicago Manual of Style rules here are the same as for any other geographical or architectural reference. The only historical references to this gate by this name are in Acts 3:2 - “And a certain man…whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful,” v10 - “that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple” Note that the construction of the context matters: “the gate called Beautiful” but “the Beautiful Gate" or “Gate Beautiful.” ...the city called New York; New York City
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
130:6.3 1955
Adopted. 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. Therefore, the decision was made to standardize on that form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
133:1.5 1955
Adopted. The usage here falls under the same guidelines outlined in Fowler as applied to some one / someone at 87:3.3 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
133:7.9 1955
Adopted. While the meaning of associater is clear and that variant is found in a reference dating to the early 17th century 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 ), the old 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 modern and consistently used form has been adopted.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
134:3.3 1955
Adopted. The spelled-out form, ten o’clock, is clearly supported in all editions of the Chicago Manual. The three occurrences of time (10:00, 3:00, 8:00) here are spelled out.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
134:3.3 1955
Adopted. The spelled-out form, ten o’clock, is clearly supported in all editions of the Chicago Manual. The three occurrences of time (10:00, 3:00, 8:00) here are spelled out.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
134:3.3 1955
Adopted. The spelled-out form, ten o’clock, is clearly supported in all editions of the Chicago Manual. The three occurrences of time (10:00, 3:00, 8:00) here are spelled out.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
134:7.5 1955
Adopted. Main Reference Caesarea-Philippi : Of the 28 occurrences of the name of this town (plus the four instances found in frontmatter files), only two are found in the un-hyphenated form in the 1955 text, and both of those are on the same page, here and at 134:8.1 . The hyphenated form is 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-six 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. So, the format used in text 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. Changes also made at: 134:8.1 , 152:0.3 , 154:7.3 , 155:2.1 , 155:2.3 , 155:3 , 155:3.1 , 155:3.2 , 155:4.1 , Paper 57 , 157:0.1 , 157:2.2 , 157:3.1 , 157:3.1 , 157:3.7 , 157:6.1 , 157:6.3 , 157:6.3 , 157:6.5 , 157:6.5 , 158:5.5 , 158:7.1
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
134:8.1 1955
Adopted. See SRT Main Reference note for 134:7.5 above.
134:7.5 : Adopted. Main Reference Caesarea-Philippi : Of the 28 occurrences of the name of this town (plus the four instances found in frontmatter files), only two are found in the un-hyphenated form in the 1955 text, and both of those are on the same page, here and at 134:8.1 . The hyphenated form is 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-six 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. So, the format used in text 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. Changes also made at: 134:8.1 , 152:0.3 , 154:7.3 , 155:2.1 , 155:2.3 , 155:3 , 155:3.1 , 155:3.2 , 155:4.1 , Paper 57 , 157:0.1 , 157:2.2 , 157:3.1 , 157:3.1 , 157:3.7 , 157:6.1 , 157:6.3 , 157:6.3 , 157:6.5 , 157:6.5 , 158:5.5 , 158:7.1
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
134:8.9 1955
Adopted. Closed form sometime. See SRT note for 60:3.20 above.
60:3.20 : Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
135:8.1 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
135:11.2 1955
Adopted. All other instances of near by as an adverb are open; with one exception, at 124:1.12 , adjectives are hyphenated. Consistent usage would therefore support this change to the open form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
136:3.5 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 24:1.11 above.
24:1.11 : Adopted. The spelled-out version, number, is appropriate in this context and is used in all but one of the similar constructions in the Urantia Book. 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 had been intended. It is postulated that either symbol # or the contraction No. was used here and perhaps in many or all similarly constructed phrases in the manuscript—both being common and appropriate handwritten shortcuts—and was either converted to No. or left as No. here and at 136:3.5 at some later point in transcription, at variance with the preferred usage elsewhere in the text and with a reasonable interpretation of the guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style .
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
136:8.3 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
142:8.4 1955
Adopted. The two-word form is supported by Webster’s; the hyphenated form week-end by the OED, while 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 closed form has been adopted for both.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
146:4.1 1955
Adopted. 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).
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
147:4.2 1955
Adopted. 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 seventeenth 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
149:4.1 1955
Adopted. See SRT 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
149:7.1 : Adopted. See SRT note for 60:3.20 above. The reference is to an indefinite point in time rather than an indefinite period of time; therefore sometime is correct.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
149:7.1 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 60:3.20 above. The reference is to an indefinite point in time rather than an indefinite period of time; therefore sometime is correct.
60:3.20 : Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
151:6.2 1955
Adopted. Though both forms are correct, this word is found elsewhere in the text as grottoes. Therefore, the text was standardized on that form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
152:3.2 1955
Adopted. The closed form is the unanimous usage elsewhere, so the committee decided to standardize on that form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
153:1.7 1955
Adopted. The corrected form is supported by usage elsewhere at 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’...” 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.)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
157:1.3 1955
Adopted. Forgoing. See SRT note for 89:3.1 above.
89:3.1 : Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
158:7.1 1955
Adopted. The stronger separation created by the semi-colon is not incorrect, but a comma appears to be more appropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
159:3.9 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 147:4.2 above.
147:4.2 : Adopted. 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 seventeenth 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
160:3.2 1955
Adopted. Though the original is clear, the closed form is the common one and was the approved form in Webster’s 1934.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
161:2.9 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 133:1.5 above.
133:1.5 : Adopted. The usage here falls under the same guidelines outlined in Fowler as applied to some one / someone at 87:3.3 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
162:2.4 1955
Adopted. This is an indirect question contained within a declarative sentence, so the period rather than the question mark is the correct closing punctuation mark.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
162:4.3 1955
Adopted. If we thought that the author was just describing the gate, lowercase would be fine, but this gate was known as the Beautiful Gate; therefore capitalization is appropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
162:7.2 1955
Adopted. Bond servant. See SRT note for 130:6.3 above.
130:6.3 : Adopted. 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. Therefore, the decision was made to standardize on that form.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
165:0.3 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
165:4.8 1955
Adopted. 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.]
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
166:3.4 1955
Adopted. In the original format, Lord was the last word in the line, making a dropped comma not unlikely. It is possible that the comma after Lord, 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 modern format has been adopted to assist the reader.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
167:2.2 1955
Adopted. The original to go is a transposition resulting in a grammatically incorrect formulation. Must needs should be paired with a verb form that would be correct if needs had not been added to must; an infinitive is not appropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
167:4.3 1955
Adopted. Arguments can be made for several different ways of punctuating this sentence. The original, with commas following both second and third, though reasonable by the rules, is very difficult to read—almost always causing the reader to stumble. The form adopted here, with only a comma following day, is the most readable punctuation of any known alternative, pacing the reader smoothly through the sentence and conveying its meaning clearly.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
167:5.3 1955
Adopted. 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 text standardization the American form was adopted.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
168:5.1 1955
Adopted. The change from day to days here is required because the former is inconsistent with the ensuing narrative at 174:0.1175:3.1, 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.
79:5.6 : Adopted. 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. There is no question that North America is east of Siberia—that fact being the basis for the 1967 change of west to east. It is difficult to account for the appearance of west in the first printing if east had been in the original manuscript, but if the original had been West— referring to the Western Hemisphere—the only explanation required is a mistakenly un-shifted keystroke. In the Urantia Book, West and East are frequently utilized to designate a generalized geographical location rather than direction, though in all other cases they refer to the western and eastern reaches of Eurasia. Because there is no other instance of West referring to the Western Hemisphere, there is no internal proof of usage, but it is certain that if West had been printed here in the first edition, the meaning would have been obvious, the passage would never have been revised, and the question of this unique usage of West would never have come up.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
169:3.2 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
172:3.6 1955
Adopted. See SRT 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.
133:1.5 : Adopted. The usage here falls under the same guidelines outlined in Fowler as applied to some one / someone at 87:3.3 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
172:5.2 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
172:5.2 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
176:3.4 1955
Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
177:3.7 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 89:3.1 above.
89:3.1 : Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
177:4.1 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 134:3.3 above.
134:3.3 : Adopted. The spelled-out form, ten o’clock, is clearly supported in all editions of the Chicago Manual. The three occurrences of time (10:00, 3:00, 8:00) here are spelled out.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
177:5.2 1955
Adopted. 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].
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
179:5.9 1955
Adopted. 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 SRT notes for 37:8.3 , 41:4.4 and 43:1.6 above; the several time statements that are formatted incorrectly— 134:3.3 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.]
37:8.3 : Adopted. 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
179:5.9 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 60:3.20 above.
60:3.20 : Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
180:3.1 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 139:12.12 above.
139:12.12 : Rejected. Usage is split between the two forms in the 1955 text. Though Webster’s supports the closed form, the Oxford English Dictionary suggests using the hyphen and it is clear from the history of usage documented there that both forms have been commonly used. Text standardization is appropriate here, and because this adverbial variant would be particulary strange in hyphenated form, it was determined that the closed form would be used.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
180:3.4 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 60:3.20 above.
60:3.20 : Adopted. 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)
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
184:3.1 1955
Adopted. 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 text standardization could be appropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
184:3.15 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 184:3.1 above.
184:3.1 : Adopted. 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 text standardization could be appropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
188:4.3 1955
Adopted. Evil-doing. See SRT note for 147:4.2 above.
147:4.2 : Adopted. 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 seventeenth 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
188:4.5 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 147:4.2 above.
147:4.2 : Adopted. 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 seventeenth 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
190:3.3 1955
Adopted. See SRT note for 133:1.5 above.
133:1.5 : Adopted. The usage here falls under the same guidelines outlined in Fowler as applied to some one / someone at 87:3.3 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.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
191:5.3 1955
Adopted. Except for this single instance, The Urantia Book uses the closed form, so it was decided that standardization on that form would be appropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
194:4.6 1955
Adopted. Though one can determine their new concept or determine their new concepts, the inclusion of all here requires the plural concepts. All can be used with singulars, but only when it indicates “the whole of" when referring to ideas which can carry measurements such as “amount, quantity, extent, duration, quality, or degree" (Webster’s). Concept does not convey such a broadly measurable idea. This is illustrated by contrasting its usage with the examples given in Webster’s: “all the wheat; all the year; all this;" nor does it fit the extended range of ideas to which one can apply measures like “greatest possible; complete; perfect;" as in “all happiness; with all speed; in all kindness. Imagine similar phrases with concept such as “in all concept" or “with all concept," which are clearly inappropriate.
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
195:3.10 1955
Adopted. Pantaenus is the correct spelling. 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.”
Source · SRT Committee table ↗
196:3.35 1955
Adopted. 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.”
Source · SRT Committee table ↗