Biblical Proof of the Flat Earth: THE GREAT FLOOD…

Anyone who has ever debated Creation vs. Evolution has almost certainly encountered the incredulity of the Evolutionist when it comes to the topic of Noah’s Flood.

While some Evolutionists might concede that perhaps there WAS at some point in the past a very significant flood event, due to the fact that so many ancient writings and oral traditions around the world refer to one, they almost inevitably insist that such an event would have had to have been merely some kind of localized occurrance, regardless of how cataclysmic it may have felt to the people at that time.

Why do Evolutionists have such a difficult time entertaining the possibility of Noah’s flood? When we look at the Biblical text it becomes fairly easy to see. In Genesis 7, starting in verse 11, it reads:

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.”

Believers in Evolution, and it’s assertions that the Earth took billions of years to form, with various stages and ice ages and such, understandably scoff at the idea that water filled the entire Earth could have been covered with water for a 150 days, especially to the degree that it covered the highest mountains on Earth, surpassing them by 15 cubits (roughly 20 feet).

But if one holds the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, as a reliable and accurate account, then this is precisely what must be upheld if one wishes to hold to a position of literal Biblical interpretation, and not start sliding down the slippery slope of trying to make the text conform itself to our own modern assumptions about what is and isn’t possible.

Now, the reason I bring all this up, is because as I was thinking about this recently, I started to ask myself just how much water that would have actually required, to completely cover the entire Earth, over the tops of the highest mountains…

After a little googling and a little multiplication, this is what I came up with…

According to current models of the alleged Globe, the surface area of the earth is around 510 million square kilometers. Everyone knows that the highest mountain peak on Earth is Mount Everest, and if that is indeed the case, it’s elevation is purported to be 8.848 kilometers above sea level. When we multiply the two, we get the figure of 4,512,480,000 cubic kilometers. That’s how much water it would require to cover the top of Everest, if we are talking about how much water would be needed in ADDITION to the amount of water already present in all the oceans/lakes/rivers in the world today.

Now, I do recognize that this is a crude calculation, because it is not accounting for the amount of dry land that is above sea level, which would be cutting into that amount of required volume, however, it is also not accounting for the fact that in a globe model such a calculation really shouldn’t be made in a way that assumes a rectilinear volume, so in fact, if the Earth WAS a ball, the amount of required water would in fact be MORE than 4 1/2 billion cubic kilometers, (because the surface area of the top of the Flood waters would naturally be greater than the surface area of present day sea level, the required volume increasing the higher in elevation you fill, and so on). That being said, I am basically letting these two factors cancel each other out, since the whole point is really just to get a ball park idea of how much H2O we’d really be talking about anyway…

Because here’s the kicker: according to the USGS, (if we believe their statistics) the TOTAL amount of water, both saltwater and freshwater, in the entire Earth, amounts to somewhere around 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers…


Now, assuming that the topography of the Earth was generally similar, both before and after the Flood, (and that’s a big assumption, I admit) then the total Flood waters would have been the present-day 1.386 billion cu km, PLUS the 4.5 billion cu km, bringing it to a total of 5.886…

But the bottom line is, if we are talking a different of 4.5 BILLION cubic kilometers of water, from the current amount that is on, above, and below the surface of the entire Earth, then the glaring question arises…



I mean, we are talking about a total difference of about 4.2 TIMES the amount of all the water supposedly on the Earth right now. And that, is a lot, of liquid…

For some time, many advocates of Biblical Creationism proposed the so-called “canopy theory” in attempt to explain this. The idea was that the flood waters were being held in a canopy of water vapor above the earth, and so this would have meant there were radically different atmospheric conditions between pre-flood and post-flood eras, as well as giving some effort into explaining the verses in Genesis which speak of the “waters above the Firmament”. However, many Creationist organizations and teachers have been shying away from the Canopy model in recent years, for very understandable reasons. Namely, it just doesn’t give you nearly enough water!


As we have seen, the amount of water required, in LIQUID form, to cover the tops of the highest mountains, is a phenomenal, mind-numbing amount. For that much water to have been up in the atmosphere, is gaseous form, would provide a whole host of other problems to your model. Would sunlight even be able to get through at all? Would it even be able to say in a gas form, if being pushed that far out into the upper edges of the atmosphere, and not turn to ice from the cold? Not only this, but I have even read an article from Answers in Genesis, the renowned Creationist organization, where in explaining why they have moved away from the canopy model, they mention that it also proves problematic, because if the “waters above the firmament” were actually this whole water vapor canopy idea, it would mean that the sun, moon and stars were inside the atmosphere…(!)

Which, of course, I can’t help but see the irony there. Because, truly, when you allow yourself to stop, take a step back, and re-examine the same model of the Earth/Cosmos that was held by the very same individuals who WROTE Genesis and the other books of the Bible, you suddenly no longer have any of these problems, which inevitably arise when trying to conform the Bible, and accounts such as that of the Great Flood, to the heliocentric Copernican model.

Beyond this, even if we were to grant the possibility of the Flood waters coming from a “vapor canopy” above the globe, this STILL wouldn’t explain the simple question as to where all that water went as the Flood waters receded, because even advocates of the Canopy Theory have to concede that the canopy is no longer present. Did all that water, (remember 4.8 billion cu km MORE than the 1.86 we can supposedly account for on the Earth today) somehow seep into the bowels of the spinning globe Earth? To try and argue such a thing would mean having to stand in opposition to the very same geological models of the Earth structure which the Copernican model asserts is established fact. You have to then start assuming the existence of MASSIVE fissures and caverns in the Earth’s oceanic and continental crusts, which overall is another interesting example of the problems which inevitably arise when trying to simultaneously conform the Biblical model to the models provided by modern Scientism, and yet also disregard them, whenever you need to need to force something to fit. How does such an approach know when to accept the official data, and when to dismiss it…?

However… If the Firmament isn’t some confusingly convoluted concept of the sky, and/or the atmosphere and/or “outer space”, but instead some kind of literal dome above our heads, then yeah, the “waters above the Firmament” could be of such a vast quantity that our tiny human brains couldn’t even fathom it. We no longer have to ignore or allegorize verses such as the ones that speak of the “floodgates” or “windows” of heaven, nor the ones that speak of the “fountains of the deep”.


It really is the only way to honestly render a literal interpretation of what Genesis has been plainly saying for thousands of years.

It is not difficult to understand why so many people, even those professing to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, would have such a difficult time accepting the idea that the globe model is false. Not only are there the intellectual obstacles of accepting the massive deception required to perpetuate things like the fake moon landings, Mars Rover, ISS, etc., but it would affect so many things which we assume to understand, about not just the “heavens” or outer space, but about our own atmosphere, the subterranean world, and even things as fundamental as the “water cycle”.

Psalm 148
1 Praise the Lord from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
2 Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
3 Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all you stars of light!
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!

46 thoughts on “Biblical Proof of the Flat Earth: THE GREAT FLOOD…”

      1. Well it only jumps out from the KJV pages…like Job 11: 9 ‘…longer than the measure (extent of height – not measure a flat plate) of the earth..’ original text reads a different implication and since these translations like Bible – Greek for Temple of Biblos…is a Papal deception as Lucifer – Yeshuas name of Son of light for the substituted son of Howling which is what the actual Hebrew word is curiously and not Lucifer…all changed by the famous alterations of Jerome…notorious for altering the original Hebrew texts unrecognizable in Latin for those who first read it and so much so he questioned whether the text of Revelation 22:19 would take him to hell for doing just that a hundred times over…and now we have everyone turning the ball of earth and ball of water that circled it making the earth an Eden before the flood and flood windows were opened and emptied…into a flat plate…even God would tell you to throw a flat plate into the skies above our firmament and then a sphere as they all are and see which one will keep the orbits…no you change the Word of God into your Papal Luciferian heretical lies just as they outlawed the scriptures for a thousand years and burned and beheaded as Islam has and does the same for reading scriptures and daring to speak scripture in anything but Latin and that only the Papal whores and elite could read…and burning all those who dared not confess the Papal lies the earth was flat for no other culture did this…yah you now begin to spread the Papal lies which beggars which Illuminati trolls you serve. Altering Gods Word so is exactly the same and bears all fools that do so to hell.
        Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 

  1. Great post! An intriguing deluge of biblical reasoning! I keep thinking about how the Bible says that Satan “deceives the whole world” and how the great deception of the false prophets and messiahs would deceive even the elect if possible and how God will send a strong delusion that those having not love of the truth would believe either “the lie” or “lies” (depending on the translation…I prefer “lies”). And I think about how big of a stumbling block “deep space cosmology” is for the faith; just like deep time of an old earth. I think about the statement that Khrushchev attributed to the Russian cosmonaut, the (supposed) first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, when he was supposedly reporting from space saying, “I see no God up here.” Yuri’s friends deny he said it, but the quote and story are out there and have become part of the “historical” record. Whether he said it or Khrushchev fabricated it as atheistic propaganda…the idea and spirit behind it is true. A vast empty “space” that the earth is just a tiny inhabitant of can be a tough hurdle for someone to jump over in order to maintain their faith in an intimately personal God. Of course, it is possible…I even used to view the vast expanse of deep space and the seeming insignificance of earth as glorifying to God…a testament to His awesome power. But admittedly, that was a justification I had to invent and that the Bible describes something all together different. Now it seems to be becoming quite clear…if you can hide the true nature of “space” from people, you can effectively hide God from them…and thus…truly…deceive the whole world.

    1. So glad you liked it. I’m putting the finishing touches on a video version of this point right now. Almost ready.

      I’m totally with you though, on everything you said about the “Grand Delusion(s)”, and how it makes sooo much sense when you’re able to see just how much “deep space cosmology” is so intertwined with Cosmic Evolution, etc. It amazes me how much I never really appreciated this before. I actually watched a two-hour thing on the National Geographic channel the other day, called “To the Edge of the Universe”, where for 2 hours Alec Baldwin was narrating over cgi animations of the solar system, the milky way, nebulas, black holes, etc., etc., and when I got to the end, I had to conclude that if you were to try and edit out all the explanations of stars, orbits, and everything else, which relied upon an Evolutionary paradigm? You’d be left with PERHAPS five minutes of the program. It’s ALL completely dependent upon Evolutionary assumptions, even things such as the “theory of Gravity”…

  2. As a creationist, I believe the “fountains of the great deep bursting forth” is the onset of plate tectonics. If there were no plate tectonics before the flood, then the mountains would not have been anywhere near as high as they are today – thus not as much water would be necessary as you calculated. If you bring the mountains down and the valleys up – there is enough water on the earth now to cover it sufficiently. The high mountains/valleys/canyons would have been formed rapidly after the flood as plate tectonics ‘calmed down’ to the gradual rates we observe today.

    1. Well, that’s an interesting idea I suppose, but I’m afraid it’s got a lot more holes than I suspect you might think. First off, it’s a rather forced mangling of the text itself. Anywhere else in the Bible, we would all understandably interpret “fountains” to mean water that is shooting upward somehow, and “deep” to mean, well, “DEEP”! Such an interpretation contorts the text to say something completely different, that instead of water shooting upward, land was shooting upward. I’m pretty sure both God, and the human author of Genesis, knew the difference between fountains and mountains, water and land… (so why wouldn’t they have simply said that, if that’s what they meant.?)

      Secondly, such a proposal essentially falls into the same pit as the example I gave about the “Canopy theory”. Once again, in the attempt to make the Genesis account conform to modern scientific “fact”, you have to play fast and loose with the text, but then eventually have to stop and completely abandon what modern science would say is possible anyhow. This is the weird schizophrenia of so much Biblical Creationism that I just don’t understand. We don’t want to appear “silly and unscientific” by even entertaining notions like a domed, geocentric Earth, and be laughed at by the “scientific community”, but in the end, do you really think they wouldn’t LAUGH at the notion that at some stage less than ten thousand years ago, “there were no plate tectonics”?

      You see, yet again, you’re trying to have it both ways, appealing to the official model, but yet jettisoning it when forced by having no other choice. So, my question to that is, why continue the charade of trying to appease the Evolutionary scientists, as if we can meet them halfway, and they will tip their hats to the fact that at LEAST we accept most of what they say as unquestionable truth…?

      And finally, I would say that the idea itself, that the mountains basically didn’t exist before the Flood (at least no like they do now) doesn’t really hold up either. First, the Bible says that when the waters fell, it “covered the tops of the mountains”, so clearly there was SOMETHING present on Earth which God considered high enough to be called “mountains”. They were there before the flood waters, and then, as the flood waters recede (and we must note that the text says recede, not that mountains “grew”…) we at the very least have to accept that the “mountains of Ararat” were present, which we can clearly see today. (right?) So, I guess you could try and claim that we couldn’t prove that the floodwaters had to cover Everest, but you’d still have to go back and calculate how much water it would take to cover the mountains of Ararat. (and then I suppose also theorize that Everest only grew up to be higher than that in the succeeding millennia?) You’re STILL left with the prickly question of “where did all that water go!?”

      But overall, it’s just ironic, that we would chastise things like the Flat Earth theory as being ridiculous, unscientific, etc., yet at the same time we see that Creationists have been themselves tossing aside “science” to no small degree, as they have to stop and quickly produce some completely untested, unverifiable theory about some hypothetical scenario like the “water vapor canopy” or “no plate tectonics before the Flood” etc… (and by the way, do you really think “plate tectonics” is something that has actually been empirically proven, or is it just another theoretical model which is presented as fact?) 😉

      1. I apologize, I was not suggesting that rock was shot up through the fountains of the great deep. I believe that was water that shot up from underneath the crust. I believe rips occurred in the crust and the water shot up from an underneath source. We now call those rips plate tectonics.

        And as for the differences with science – you should well understand that. There is some science that is sound, there is some that is not. That is because all science that we cannot directly observe must be interpreted – and it will always be interpreted through your starting assumptions about how the world works.

        1. Well, even the suggestion that the water shot up through the “cracks in the crust” doesn’t adhere to contemporary models of plate tectonics really. (the plates are said to slide over/under each other actually, they aren’t said to be separated by simple cracks which go straight up and down)

          But I think your point about “assumptions” is really telling, because again, it begs the question, where should the starting place really be, when making those assumptions? Why do mainstream Creationists feel justified in questioning certain elements of modern Scientism’s assumptions, but not ALL of them…?

          Do we really believe that rejecting something as “basic” in the eyes of Science as Evolution itself, isn’t every bit as much of a ridiculous, backwards, non-scientific position as entertaining the notion of an enclosed, geocentric cosmology?

          1. As a Christian who accepts the Bible as the word of God, I believe we should interpret ALL claims through the lens of scripture first and foremost. Most scientific ventures pass that scrutiny with no problem. If it creates a problem like evolution does, then we need to look into that more carefully/critically.

            1. Agreed, and that’s the whole point! Because the question now facing us is, are there actually a lot more problematic issues with most modern “scientific ventures” than perhaps we originally realized…?

              If the Earth is claimed to be a sphere, but then scores of evidence starts coming out which demonstrates that somehow we can’t actually demonstrate the existence of the curvature which is supposed to exist, then that is a problem!

              If the moon landings weren’t even real, but can be shown to have been a rather crude and pitiful hoax, full of holes and contradictions, then that is a problem…

              If we can’t even say for sure that we even have authentic photo/video evidence of the ball Earth, then that is a problem.

              I know you probably react to such ideas as ludicrous. I was no different. It wasn’t until I started looking into the vast amount of evidence for myself that I began to have to admit that indeed there is much to be questioned about just how well so many of our modern “Scientific ventures” really do pass scrutiny with no problem….

              1. I’ve seen experiments where lasers have been returned from the moon where they put in place mirrors. And doesn’t remnants of the Apollo missions show up in photographs of the moon that anyone can take nowadays?

                1. Yes, these claims are made, and there has been a lot of material that has come out showing how both are extremely dubious. (I mean, honestly, if they went to all the trouble of faking the moon landings, and the “Earth rise” photo, etc., then faking a few pics of Apollo left-overs is pretty small potatoes…)

                  They love to parade out the “lazer-reflector on the moon” thing, I know. I’ll try and find you some links to videos/articles on how that has been taken apart as well, if you like. I’m remembering one which showed how they demonstrated that the lazer supposedly used to do this actually widens it’s beam pretty rapidly, so by the time it got to the moon, it would have such a huge spread it couldn’t possibly do what they say it does. Plus, I believe there is also information out there talking about how scientists were claiming to be able to bounce a laser off the moon even BEFORE the Apollo missions, which it seems they suddenly stopped talking about after 1969…) 😉

                  But I know, the whole “fake moon landings” thing is a tough one to swallow. I dismissed it for years as just paranoid conspiracy-theorist hype. I eventually learned about the work of a guy named Bart Sibrel (who also happens to be a Christian), who made a documentary called “A funny thing happened on the way to the moon”, which can be found on YT. That really started me down the path of looking into it all seriously. I wound up finally walking away no longer being able to say I believed that men walked on the moon. So many crazy little anomalies and contradictions. In that documentary, he shows footage he found which CLEARLY shows the Apollo astronauts faking a shot of the Earth, to make it look like a ball, thousands of miles away, by turning off all the lights in the capsule and the round window with the Earth making it appear like a distant sphere. Then they turn the lights on, and voila! It’s plain to see that they are still in “low Earth orbit”! It’s pretty wild.

                    1. I was insinuating that our GPS systems work based on the understanding of the curve of the earth. Isn’t their correct operation proof?

                    2. Ok, I gotta throw this your way, in case you’re really curious. This interview was really one of the things that made a big impact on me in really taking this idea seriously:

                      The Navy missile instructor guy being interviewed here also happens to be a Christian, and in later interviews he talks more about Biblical evidence, etc., but here he just gets into how in his job, operating missile guidance systems which use a narrow-beam radar to “paint the target”, it absolutely couldn’t work on a globe. There is no accounting for curvature in the calculations, ever. He also talks about gyroscopic navigation, used by the ship, and how that never accounts for curvature either (and I later went and made several videos on this topic investigating it further) Anyhow. This is a great resource.

                    3. Yes, if the existence of gps satellites, (and satellites in general) is indeed verifiably true, then sure, that would be strong evidence for the globe. But, (again), we’re forced to question this. A lot of people have a hard time thinking that even satellites could be fake, but once again, lots of other people are coming out and showing how GPS doesn’t actually function the way everyone assumes it does, namely, it ISN’T actually GLOBAL after all, and all signs now seem to point that in fact it is merely an upgraded version of the LORAN system, which was a land-based system of towers that was used before the GPS system was supposedly rolled out. (keep in mind that GPS is solely a proprietary system of the U.S. military…) Also, in that interview i just linked to, the Navy guy talks about how they don’t even rely on GPS at sea for navigation, but only use it as a “back up system”… I believe he talks about satellites and all that stuff as well….

          2. There were no cracks or fissures before the flood. Its 323rd grade science and common sense that proves the earth is flat. You don’t need a degree or be trained as a scientist to go outside and see for yourself. Don’t go by what you were taught. Learn for yourself.

    2. Hey guys, I’m a first time reader. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated Tim’s questions, and Daring’s responses. It is refreshing to see a reasoned debate, without hostility or other childish and small-minded behaviors. I have no idea who is right! It benefits someone in my shoes, being able to “listen” to the discussion. Because, for one thing, some of us, like myself, don’t even know enough to know what points to raise or issues to consider. Thank you to both of you!

      1. Awesome response! Please let me know if you have any questions about young earth creationism. I run a blog at as well. Thanks!

      2. Well thank you so much for that feedback. I totally understand how all too often this topic (like so many others) quickly turns into a needlessly vicious debate, instead of just an open and honest conversation. I admit I’m still trying to get better at boiling down all the various bits and pieces I’ve encountered over the last few months while looking into this, in a way that will hopefully be more helpful to others who are encountering it for the first time…

        I guess I could mention that a few of the things that really began to throw me for a loop, when I was first investigating, such as when I was first made to stop and ponder just how it could be possible that sometimes the full moon is completely visible during the middle of the day. Or, questions such as how is it that the Earth rotation around the sun doesn’t eventually turn mid-day into midnight, every six months (the official explanation is that of the “sidereal day”, where supposedly the Earth doesn’t actually rotate a full 360 degrees each day, but miraculously stays in perfect alignment towards the sun, as it orbits around it over the course of a year.) There are just so many weird, anomalous things when you start scrutinizing things such as this, which I had of course never before thought to even stop and think about.

        Then you go online and find time lapse videos of the sun, clearly getting larger/smaller as it goes across the sky, or dozens of examples where people have used telescopes, or even the naked eye, to see across expanses of water to landmarks on the other side, which should be completely obscured according to the amount of curvature that is supposed to be present, etc…

        All I would say is, take your time, keep an open mind, and just let yourself look through as much evidence as you can, because this itself will take a lot of time! Allow yourself to ask and mull over questions, such as, “How is it that the North Star hasn’t moved the tiniest bit, from our perspective, over thousands of years, if indeed our own solar system is supposedly orbiting through the milky way galaxy….? Is Polaris too somehow in some kind of exact synchronous orbit with our own Earth/Sun system…?”

        Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts.

  3. Hey, I just want to say I’ve been reading your blog for a while now, and I appreciate it. I feel like I’m about the same point in this whole flat earth thing as you are, where I’ve read enough on both sides of the issue to be unsure of either. It’s frustrating, people don’t want to talk about it, and it’s absolutely amazing that it is so hard to be sure of the shape of the ground we stand on. Thanks for continuing to research the topic.

    1. Hi “Pie”, (I agree, it is awesome, especially pumpkin…)

      Thank you for the encouragement, and for saying hi. I’m wondering, have you listened to any of the interviews yet that Mark Sargent has done with the Navy Missile instructor, or the retired Navy Submarine commander, the retired land surveyor, or the flight instructor, etc…?

      It was when I started listening to those that I finally began to reach somewhat of a “tipping point” and realize that the “curvature” just never factors into any of the applications where it absolutely should. Just yesterday I heard an interview on a YT channel called “FE and other hot potatoes”, where she was talking to a retired Army Radio operator, who was talking about how in her experience she had found instances where radio was reaching distances which shouldn’t be possible according to the alleged curve. It’s crazy how many professional type people like this are coming out and saying “Hey… now that I think about it, I’ve never had to account for the curvature either”.


      1. I have checked out some of Sargent’s stuff, not all of it. I’ve seen some thought provoking stuff on youtube, though. Some of these guys have valid stuff, and then they also throw in something that seems ridiculous, like that gravity can be explained by the earth constantly moving up. Another site banned me for asking questions about sundials, I was accused of being a shill. This is such a tough topic to really explore.

        1. Yes, I know exactly what you mean. There is admittedly a LOT of fluff and noise you have to weed through, in order to find the good stuff. There isn’t any single person who has it all 100% figured out, so you do have to wade through a lot of stuff, and try and let the pieces of the puzzle slowly come together in a sort of macro kind of way. (though, I suppose I’m already sort of used to doing this, after having spent several years digging through other various conspiracy topics, but who knows)

          Is the site you got banned from that “IFERS board” site? (Eric Dubay’s?) Just curious. I’ve actually heard from a lot of people the same thing, where they got banned simply for asking a question (or not hating Mark Sargent enough…)

          I’ve been accused of being a shill too, though, so don’t feel bad. 😉 There’s a lot of um, shall we say, “zealous FE’ers” out there who are ready to jump down anyone’s throat who doesn’t adhere to whatever exact FE model they have championed, so you have to learn to ignore all that junk I guess.

          I also certainly don’t believe that gravity is caused by the Earth constantly moving upwards (I’ve heard that one too, hilarious). But… at this point, I DO think that there is very possibly something to the whole “electro-magnetic” concept of the Universe, (vs. gravitational), though I don’t have any idea exactly what that really might mean at this stage.

          Anyhow…. Another place I would HIGHLY recommend, is Rob Skiba’s site called, where he has done a pretty good job compiling stuff from around the web, as well as his own material. Definitely worth checking out if you haven’t already.

          1. Ha, yeah, I was banned from IFERS. Which is unfortunate because there really is some neat stuff to read, and I can’t load the forum anymore. I even wrote to Dubay to appeal my ban, and never heard back from him at all. I would caution anyone interested in this topic to avoid posting there. They accuse everyone else in the FE movement of being shills and disinfo, then ban anyone who asks real questions. They will happily re-answer the same handful of dumb questions, though. They also heavily promote some other controversial stuff. Regardless of whether the holocaust is a hoax or not, I can’t refer a friend to information on that site without looking like a nazi apologist or worse.
            I checked out Skiba’s site, it looks like he finished before he was done, which is a shame. I read all he’d posted and wanted more.
            I saw some compelling info that the sun is electric somewhere on the web, and it sounded reasonable to me. I think that could make sense for either model, but the site I read was for the globe. It had electric current flowing from out outside our solar system to power the sun. That could certainly explain why a sunburn and a burn from an arc flash exposure while welding feel the same, right? I guess that’s not exactly scientific, but I am trying to make sense of all this conflicting info.

  4. The quote below is taken from the seventh edition [2001] of Dr. Walter Brown’s book In the Beginning …

    Quote page 199: About 85% of a comet’s mass is frozen water. Therefore to understand comet origins, one must ask, “Where is water found?” Earth … must head the list … other planets, moons and even interstellar space have only traces of water, or possible water. These traces, instead of producing the comets, may have been caused by comets or water vapor that the “fountains of the great deep” launched into space [at the beginning of the Genesis Flood]. Quote continued, page 200. How could so many comets have recently hit the moon, and probably the planet Mercury [and Mars] that ice remains? Ice on the Moon and certainly on Mercury [and Mars] should disappear faster than the comets that deposited it. However, if 50,000 comets were ejected recently [5,000 years ago] from the Earth and an “ocean” of water vapor was injected into the inner solar system, the problem disappears. Comet impacts on Mars probably created brief saltwater flows, carving the famous “erosion” channels.

    Brackets in the above quote are my added words. Dr. Brown’s discussion then continues for several more pages and includes tables of data and equations. Dr Brown’s hydroplate theory proposes that prior to the Genesis Flood there was an annular space between the Earth’s outer shell and the solid inner core. That space was maintained by supporting pillars between the shell and the core and was filled with hot salty water under pressure. At the time of the Flood the outer shell cracked down the center of what is today the Atlantic Ocean and the crack continued around the world at the ocean bottoms; there is abundant evidence for this. The Genesis Flood was initiated by this fracture opening to release the water jetting into space, breaking up into frozen balls and becoming orbiting comets. Evidently, some of these comets have since hit the Moon, Mercury and, in recent discoveries, possibly Mars. In another place he points out that on these planetary bodies the ice turned to water that left evidences of its presence by gullies, canyons etc but in the very low atmospheric pressures, this water quickly vaporized.

    I can thoroughly recommend Dr.Brown’s rather massive though well reproduced book but particularly his scholarship. It can be purchased or downloaded at no cost at

    1. Hmmm, yes, I have heard many theories along these lines, and again, the more I hear them now, and compare them to the much more straight-forward interpretation of the Firmament and “windows of heaven”, the more I just can’t subscribe to such a tenuous approach to the Biblical text.

  5. Hey Brother,

    Just read your article on Noah’s flood and the Flat earth. You need to watch this

    Mount Everest for example probably did not even exist at the time of the flood as the rest of the very tall mountains did not. As the fountains of the deep broke open, the sea floor rose and the continents split. That’s why we see sea shells on the top of Everest. Your calculation for the amount of water needed to cover the earth during a global flood is far too much. The flat earth is a giant psy-op meant to make Christians look stupid to the world. Peace!

    1. Yes, I am very familiar with this theory, and I would have to say that I myself held to it for a long time, when I too was still working from a Creationist standpoint which tries to shoehorn the Creation and Flood accounts into the accepted heliocentric/Copernican model. Now, I look at this theory and see as relying far more on speculation and modern “scientific” consensus than it does on anything found in the actual Biblical text itself. Does ANYTHING found in the words of Genesis actually suggest that the word “mountains” should be taken to mean something different pre-Flood than it’s intended to mean post-Flood?? No. It says that the water “covered the tops of the highest mountains”. The author is obviously writing in a post-Flood context, yet nowhere does he bother to stipulate that the pre-Flood “mountains” weren’t the same as what are considered mountains after the Flood. I mean, if Everest WAS more or less as big as it is now before the deluge, and the Flood waters covered, that could easily explain sea shells on the mountain today, no? But yes, I am also quite familiar with the claim that the FE is just a “psy-op” meant to make Christians look stupid. I agree that to the majority of the world, the Flat Earth WILL look absolutely stupid. But guess what..? Rejecting Evolution makes you look “stupid” in the eyes of the world too, does that mean that YEC is just a “psy-op” as well?? Did you reject the “scientific facts” of Evolution because you just wanted to be some crazy conspiracy theorist, or was it because you put more stock in the Word of God than the arrogant claims of atheistic men? Evolution REQURIES a Copernican cosmology, hands down. Think about that…

      “Old Earth Creationists” try to squeeze Genesis into an Evolutionary mold by allegorizing many passages in order to make them align with what they believe modern science has “proven”. So why is it impossible to concede that just MAYBE, we “YEC’s” (of which I have been for a long time) have actually been doing this very same thing when it comes to a good many other verses which speak about the Firmament, the “pillars”, the “fountains of the deep”, the “floodgates of heaven”, the “sun stopping in the sky” in Joshua, and so on… You paint yourself into a very awkward little corner indeed, if you are to insist on interpreting THOSE verses symbolically or allegorically, because honestly, what leg do you have left to stand on to argue for a literal six-day Creation, or a literal world-wide Flood…..? Just some things for you to consider. I appreciate your comments very much.

  6. Flat earth can be easily disproven!! Flat earthers believe the sun is 4000 miles above us, and the diameter is 8000 or 16,000 miles wide, therefore the sun is a quarter of the way above planet… It would always be sunny in philadelphia if earth and sun were actually in those proportions… Try drawing it out. Ball planet is even stupider, oceans would fly off the equator if earth spun 1000 mph at the equator..

  7. The Imaginary Ball Earth

    2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV
    [5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Auguste Piccard … Popular Science Magazine

    Flat Earth Proof Popular Science 1931 Proff Auguste Piccard View … Highlight
    Jun 16, 2016 … Popular science Magazine is proof that the Earth is Flat interview with Physicist Explorer Auguste Piccard? Lost in time but recorded in history …

  8. Correct me if I’m wrong but you’re saying the flood covered the whole world to a depth of roughly 30 000 ft and the Earth is a flat plane not a globe. How did the water stay in place? There would have to be an edge 30 000 ft tall all the way around or it would just spill over like an overfull bathtub. You’ll probably counter this with some sort of dome around the Earth that stretches to the heavens. OK let’s say that is the case. How far back is the edge? It would have to be far enough to not be easily discerned. For every km it is that would be adding billions more cubic kilometres of water to your hypothesis. The flood works much better on the globe Earth because gravity would hold it all in place no matter how much there was.
    This means that one of them can’t be true. The Earth is either flat and didn’t flood or it flooded but it’s a globe.
    Was it fresh water or salt water? If it was fresh then all salt water life would die and vice versa. Noah didn’t have any fish but we still have both fresh and salt water varieties.
    Noah didn’t have any plants either. If there was a flood of that magnitude for that length of time all plant life would have perished except those that can survive for a year without sunlight (not many) which would mean a very limited flora would remain today. Which is just not the case.
    Just another reason to realise the Bible was written by primitive men with very little understanding of science. That is the truth. Remember the truth will set you free.

    1. “Science”…. You mean, the science that teaches that everything around us originated from the sudden explosion of an infinitesimal speck, 14 billion years ago…? The science that teaches the first single-celled forms of life sprang into being when a puddle full of proteins and amino acids etc was hit by lightning, and suddenly cells came alive and started reproducing…?

      “Science” indeed! Yes, the Earth is Flat, and yes, it was covered by a Flood, because the entire thing, the entire dome (i.e., the Firmament) is surrounded with water. There’s no problem of not enough water. There’s enough water to fill the sky…. (in fact, that’s almost certainly why the sky is blue. But I know, that’s too simple…) 😉

  9. This artical is a truly sad conception of reality. really people if only you would read Gods word as it is and all the way through so you can make the required connections to truly understand. like you guys probably dont know, but their are three different expanses/locations in the Bible referenced as “the heavens” and the one that is mentioned in
    Genesis 1 6-8 is the earths atmosphere, it says that the expanse separated the waters from the water and the water below the expanse were gathered one place. and if your smart enough you can make the connection that one place can be seen as a spherical shape. i dont know how in the world the earth could be flat anyway, it goes against like everything in reality, like really have you guys ever been too the ocean? and if youve been to the summit of mount everest you can also see the curve on the horizon. if the earth was flat you wouldnt see that curve, you would see a flat perhaps mountainous horizon with absolutely no curvature.

    also if you believe in a flat earth and you think your so smart, how about you travel to the “edge” of earth, and try to figure out how you magically ended up right where you started even though you were traveling in the same direction the whole time.

    even though you flat earthist are like extreme skeptics, im just gonna say, theres a litteral livestream of earth from the international space station on youtube, theirs absolutely no digital effects added. and the earth in fact looks like a massive sphere from that livestream video.

    i dont know how many times you thickskulled skeptical flat earthists have to be plainly shown that your wrong.

    and really you take what the Bible says about people decieving you, and lying, and your correct, but that doesnt mean you have to go and believe this crazy, wacko, extremely impossible, way far off conspiracy. that has about 90% of it completely wrong and ignorant. if anybody who believes in a flat earth still believes it after reading my comment, everyone who isnt as thick skulled as you will call you willfully ignorant.

    1. Hi Joshua… Believe it or not, there are actually very reasonable and well-considered answers to all of the objections you posed, along with many, many more. I too reacted the very same way when first being presented with this idea, (because let’s face it, we all do…) It sounds crazy! But once you actually start to LOOK into the issue, instead of just falling back on the initial reactions and presumptions that we all do, it begins to look much different…

      First in response to your point about the Biblical Heavens… If you look into the Scripture itself, into the Genesis account, you will see that when it clearly speaks of the “expanse which divides the waters from the waters”, this cannot merely be the atmosphere of air around the Earth, because the sun, moon, and stars are placed WITHIN that expanse…

      So what have modern theologians done? They have come up with this 3-tiered heavens concept, based partially off of Paul’s comment of going “up into the third heaven”, They claim that the atmosphere is the first heaven, “outer space” is the second heaven, and the highest heaven is the spiritual realm where God’s throne is. Only problem is this does not conform to what the Bible plainly says. In Scripture, not just in Genesis but in Psalms as well, there are waters “above the heavens” (psalm 148 I believe) This is after the Flood, mind you…

      No, according to the Bible, the sky where the birds fly, the heavens where the Luminaries are, and heaven where God is, are all used interchangeably. If you are honest with the text, that’s what you get….

      If you want to get into the veracity of things like NASA footage, and the ISS, etc., we could be here all day. Suffice to say, that it was actually the case that the MORE I looked at NASA/ISS footage, the more I began to realize that it IS fake! I didn’t come at it with some preconceived belief that it wasn’t real. I believed it was real for most of my life. I had no reason not to. But once you start to simply look at it.. Oh boy…. It’s bad! There are astro-nots actually grabbing the cables their hanging from. CGI goofs everywhere. Bubbles in the spacewalks. Clone tools on the Earth “photos”. Honestly, the NASA footage is one of the best evidences AGAINST the globe. There is so much it would take you days to go over it all…

      There is no space. There is no globe. There is no curvature, not from a mountain, or a plane, or from a “space station”. There is no curve! It’s been demonstrated through experiments again and again and again. Sorry friend. The Earth, it’s flat….

      1. If you truly believe the earth is flat, and you truly want to prove it to be flat how about you make a trip to the edge and use evidense of what you see, because nobody ive talked to that believes in a flat earth can tell me that they have seen the edge, “seen” any clear evidense that it is flat, but there is some completely clear evidense, “seeable” evidense that the earth is a sphere, nasa could actually prove it to you if they really wanted by giving you a ride to there international space station, but all of you who believe that earth is flat cant get the equipment and get your own space station and go up into the atmosphere and i guess “prove your right” by actually getting the solid evidense, other than just words, that earth is flat. we can prove it with videos and images, that you think are just digitally composed, but how about you show some videos of the “flat earth”. how about you go take some videos of the “edge of the world”.

  10. First a couple things. The Earth really can’t be flat just look at the recent solar eclipse the shadow cast on the moon was elongated across the Earth. If it was flat it would all be circular and it would be even and itwould be circular all the way across America but it wasn’t.
    Next all that water came up from the earth besides. Most of it is still in the earth Center somewhere and you can’t really measure how much is in the clouds can you?
    And the Bible also tells us that the Earth is a sphere and the book of Job. Honestly the whole thing is true that the Earth did have a sphere around it of water the Earth is not flat because you can see when you flying a plane to Horizon curves as you keep going. I’m sorry you’ve been deluded by so much information out there that is so messed up no wonder we have so many people to don’t have a clue about God and what he really did and what he really wants to tell us. but the most important thing about all this is face and Jesus as our Lord and savior believe in that he died for us on the cross for our sins and rose again and is sitting at the right hand of the father and will be coming soon so be ready!!!

    1. BREADTH Dean Odle-link below jyj85cr
      Greek 4116 from Strong’s 4111; spread out “flat” (“plot”), i.e. broad: — wide.
      KJV English word breadth
      Revelation 20:9 KJV
      [9] And they went up on the breadth of the earth,…

  11. Interesting point, although there is no place in Job that the earth is referred to as a sphere. Furthermore I concur with you that Yeshua will return and every eye will see Him and every knee will bend and proclaim He is King. My question is how will every eye see Him on a globe? You need to do more research – there are more than 67 references in Scripture to a still, flat, unmoving earth. Peace brother.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s