Tag Archives: creation

A Documentary Series on Biblical Cosmology..??

Hi there, remember me? I have no idea if anyone will still happen along this ol’ blog of mine here, since I have officially treated it like a forgotten sock, lost behind the dryer, but, I do get people asking about it now and again, and I also just finally got around to fixing what was apparently a broken link to here from my YT page, so, looks like I am still the reigning world champion of procrastination. (undefeated!)

But speaking of procrastination… Since I’m here, I might as well take advantage of my dusty little corner of the blogosphere and stop to brain-puke about the current status and development of a project that I’ve been feeling more and more convinced I need to tackle as time has gone on.

It’s been a crazy last year and a half or so, since I first started tumbling down this “cosmology rabbit hole” as it were. The reason my blog wound up so woefully neglected is because it found itself playing third wheel to the youtube channel, which has indeed been a steadily-growing hub for my investigations into all sorts of aspects relating to “Biblical enclosed cosmology” or “original Hebrew cosmology” etc., as I’ve found myself increasingly referring to it as. The deeper we go, the more questions that arise, and the more things really do seem to continue fitting together in a manner which I can still scarcely believe.

Yet now, after putting up around 120 videos, the vast majority of which delve into the issue of the Flat, Enclosed Earth in some way or another, I am feeling ever-more convicted that despite all of the copious and increasing amount of FE material on YT and elsewhere that exists currently, I still don’t see anything out there which dares to try and take all of these revelations from true Biblical Cosmology, and then present it all in the context of the “whole story”, the grandiose cosmic Genesis-to-Revelation narrative, of which we are now presently somewhere in the middle of that last chapter.

My personal desire at this stage, is to see the Cosmology material put together in a way that starts from Creation, weaves through the ante-deluvian age with the Watchers/Nephilim and “Genesis 6 paradigm”, moves onto the post-flood era, with Nimrod and Babel and the “divine council” topic, and then so on and so forth, tracing the progression of this battle between the kingdoms of Light/Darkness, all the way up to our present day, in light of how the Enemy has been very intently working over the centuries to procure increasing control over various heavenly/earthly “principalities”, dominions, etc., and accomplishing this to a large degree by way of DECEIVING humanity about so many of the truths about heaven and earth, about cosmology, about Creation…

Satan has been fighting a war for heaven and earth, by doing what he does best, lying about the realities of heaven and earth, and the more we learn about just how pervasive and vast this complex of lies is, this spiritual stronghold of “Scientism” that we live entrenched in today, the more pressing it becomes (in my view) to put together all this information in a way that works as a cohesive whole, a holistic rebuttal of this monolithic, pseudo-scientific, Lie.

So, simple right? (!!!) The scope and scale of such a project to me is compelling, yet at the same time utterly terrifying. I keep going back and forth as to what the best overall approach to conceiving an outline would even be. Should it be chronological? Topical? Sort of a mix of both? My head hurts just thinking about it. I really must be getting super delusional to be seriously considering a project like this. But then again, the thing is, when I step back now and look over all the videos I’ve put in the last year and a half, if you add it all up, you’re looking at like dozens of hours worth of material now. And it’s for the most part, material which I sat down, researched, wrote out a “manuscript” for, recorded, mixed the audio, collected visual material, and then edited it all together. I’ll admit that overall it’s been kind of a good way to learn and hone that whole process, and it’s probably prepared me (since before I had ZERO video editing experience), but still… This project idea is simultaneously thrilling, yet totally daunting.

Maybe I’m just writing this out, and posting this little “Title screen” I threw together, so as to motivate my procrastinating butt to finally sit down, and just start writing. I know that’s the first step, and it’s probably going to be a fairly long and involved one, but in the end, I know I truly believe in the importance of this topic, and I believe in the need to see it all formulated in a way that perhaps will finally make BFE Cosmology finally “click” for some of those people out there who already understand all the other pieces, but still, somehow, just don’t see how amazingly and perfectly it all fits together within the context of true, original Hebrew cosmology. I think of it like, seeing a story portrayed in it’s final theatrical presentation, with all the background scenery and locations and historical settings, etc., instead of just reading random excerpts of the screenplay.

Anyhow, here’s the little Title Screen I’ve managed to throw together so far:

Advertisements

Who, Me….???

So, once again I have really lapsed with writing on the ol’ blog, but today I hope to try and explain a bit about why that has been the case, and share a little about the curious position I am now finding myself in at the moment.

For several years I was plugging away here on my blog, rather content with my relatively small amount of readers/subscribers, and appreciating the cathartic nature of being able to post about whatever I happened to find intriguing in the moment, all under the screen of my little WordPress pseudonym…

I had gone back and forth for some time, considering the idea of taking a stab at making videos and putting them up on youtube, and aside from a few that I had done on topics like CERN and “Transformational Festivals”, I really didn’t get that involved with until I found myself diving down the “Flat Earth rabbit hole”, and then suddenly I found myself furiously making videos discussing various “Flat Earth proofs”, as well as looking into the Biblical case for a flat, enclosed Cosmology.

When that began, I could count on one hand the number of Youtube subscribers I had on my little channel. Like I said, I have been accustomed to obscurity, and that has really been my preferred vantage point! Yet, as the months have passed, and the “Flat Earth Movement” has continued to expand and get more and more attention, so have my little videos, to the point where now not only does my “exposure” via YT far surpass anything I had previously experienced through blogging, but now it has also reached the stage whereby I am currently sitting on around half a dozen invitations to be interviewed by other Youtube channels/shows, or participate in discussion panels to talk about Flat Earth, Biblical Cosmology, etc.

the-truman-show

And frankly, I’m terrified. It’s as though I’m inadvertently pushing the ever-shrinking line between remaining “safe” in my anonymity, and finally stepping across that line, into a realm where suddenly the human being has to step out from behind the internet avatar…

I have prayed about it. Agonized over it. Gone back and forth, again and again, between one day feeling like “Okay, I’m willing…” to then the next day feeling more compelled to simply pull the plug on everything altogether, and just get on with “real life”. I’m not trying to be anything remotely resembling an online “figurehead”. I never was. There are few things I dislike more in this world than the phenomena we often refer to as the “cult of personality”.

But then again… I find myself unable to pull myself away from continuing to explore this topic of the “Biblical Flat Earth”, and all the countless ways that it seems to fit in with all the various topics of Bible Prophecy, End-time Deception, New World Order agendas, and so much more, which I’ve already been navigating my way through over the past six years or so now. It’s almost like everything I’ve been learning up to this point has laid the foundation for now considering them all in this incredible “unified context” of a Cosmological model which I now have to confess appears to have been staring at me from the pages of Scripture the whole time. I mean, seriously, SO many things which I’ve written about over the past few years, whether it be interdimensional portals, or the Book of Enoch, UFO Deception, Genesis 6, the Occult, the Creation vs. Evolution debate, transhumanism, the fake moon landings, ancient megalithic structures, the infamous “Illuminati”, the tower of Babel, CERN, and on and on, now suddenly all “gel” in a way which before I never would’ve imagined…

Anyhow, so, this is my conundrum at the present moment. This is my crossroads that seemingly I can’t find a way around…

Another Christian FE Youtube channel by the name of “Celebrate Truth” recently finished a documentary he’s been working on for some time, called “The Global Lie”, and I was very privileged to be able to contribute several segments of content to the production. I’d have to say that the finished product is really quite superb and I hope everyone reading this is able find the time to watch it, as it really focuses on the connections between the Copernican system/cosmology and the Theory of Evolution (among other things). Several other fantastic researchers such as Rob Skiba are featured in the film, and it was truly an honor to be able to take part in this project. Here’s the full documentary:

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…

global-water-volume1

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…

WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER COME FROM, AND WHERE DID IT ALL GO AFTERWARDS….?

global-water-volume2

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!

canopy-theory

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”.

jtot_genesis_cosmology

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!

Pondering the Solar/Six Question…

Often times I’ve been getting questions/objections towards the Flat Earth idea which go something like this: “Well, until you have a perfect and complete model of the Earth, which can explain how all the sun, moon and stars really DO work, then you don’t have anything at all…”

I’m afraid I have to disagree with this, because to put it plainly, if we can first establish with quite simple and repeatable means that the thing which is under all of our feet doesn’t in fact ever demonstrate measurable curvature? Well, regardless of whatever else is going on above our heads, we ain’t standing on a big spinning ball.

But the point is taken, in that yes, I concede that I still have far more questions than answers, and I of course very much am driven by my own internal curiosity to have a “model of it all” that “works” within the framework of my own understanding. Is such a thing actually realistically achievable? Hard to say, especially when you start to allow for the possibility that much of what is going on with the “luminaries” might not actually be limited by the assumed bounds of scientific materialism and non-sentient mechanical matter. 😉

So here is one little thing that I will admit openly still puzzles and intrigues me.

olympicsSochiOpeningHorseSunTransit

ENOCH – CHAPTER LXXII.

1. The book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of each, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons, according to their names and places of origin, and according to their months, which Uriel, the holy angel, who was with me, who is their guide, showed me; and he showed me all their laws exactly as they are, and how it is with regard to all the years of the world and unto eternity, till the new creation is accomplished which dureth till eternity. 2. And this is the first law of the luminaries: the luminary the Sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven, and its setting in the western portals of the heaven. 3. And I saw six portals in which the sun rises, and six portals in which the sun sets and the moon rises and sets in these portals, and the leaders of the stars and those whom they lead: six in the east and six in the west, and all following each other in accurately corresponding order: also many windows to the right and left of these portals. 4. And first there goes forth the great luminary, named the Sun, and his circumference is like the circumference of the heaven, and he is quite filled with illuminating and heating fire. 5. The chariot on which he ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns through the north in order to reach the east, and is so guided that he comes to the appropriate (lit. ‘that’) portal and shines in the face of the heaven. 6. In this way he rises in the first month in the great portal, which is the fourth those six portals in the cast. (the entirety of Enoch chapter 72 here)

PIC-14

Honestly, ever since coming back and looking at this concept in Enoch of the sun having “six portals”, it has really intrigued me, and confounded me. I just can’t for the life of me wrap my brain around what exactly this might actually look like, or how it actually might work. It’s one of those peculiar things, which even though on a certain level I can’t see the logic of it, it still, somehow, “feels” like there is some very fundamental truth to it all.

Is this perhaps due to the fact that our entire system of measuring time is built around multiples/divisions of the number six?

This is an interesting thing to consider, because (at least for me anyways) it really begs the question as to how anyone ever decided upon 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 12 hours + 12 hours, etc. I remember reading somewhere that supposedly the Sumerians had a number system based on sixes, instead of tens. (at least I think it was Sumeria, it was one of those ancient Mesopotamian cultures…) Maybe that’s where people would say it originated from. But even so, that would still beg a further question, namely, as to why they would choose sixes as the basis of all their counting and quantification.

It’s easy to grasp where anthropologists attribute the origins of the ten-based numerical system. Everybody’s got ten fingers and ten toes. Only makes sense to count in tens! So why sixes??

window-broadway

Not only is time divided into sixes, but the means by which we divide and measure sections of a circle is via multiples of six. 360 Degrees… I find that very interesting too, in the context of FE contemplation, obviously you start to see the parallels and inferences, between the sun circumnavigating over the flat circle of the Earth, and the hands of the clock going around the 12 hours, (which I know, is derived from ancient sundials…), and so on.

What’s more, is that I find it of even further interest, when pondering the esoteric and occult connections between Luciferian sun worship, and the number six. Everybody knows about the “number of the Beast” from Revelation, the infamous 666 (even if they know nothing about it’s true prophetic context). Far less people understand that the so-called “Star of David” is in fact an ancient Satanic symbol, the “Star of Remphan”. The six-pointed star has nothing to do with the Israelites faith in the one true God, but seems to trace instead back to Babylon, and possibly was introduced to Israel by Solomon and his downfall into witchcraft.

bluestone

But then juxtapose all of that with the vast amount of Satanic “sun-gods” throughout history, be it Apollo, Rah, etc., and it starts to make sense that the constant use of the number six by the Fallen one might itself be an extension of his affinity for likening himself to the sun. It makes perfect sense, from Satan’s ever-blasphemous point of view.

So, that’s something that’s been buzzing through my mind as of late. Lots of questions, lots to ponder. As always, I’d be delighted to hear what anyone else might think about these things (or whatever else is on your mind!) Have a great day.

midnight-sun-flat-earth

(and here are a couple other links/resources I’ve found, pertaining to the issue of the sun, portals, and the Book of Enoch…)

http://www.creation-answers.com/portals.htm

http://www.testingtheglobe.com/enoch.html

Funny How the Atheists Have No Problem Recognizing Biblical Support of a Flat Earth…

I keep bumping into examples like this recently, and it really does strike me as ironic, and a little funny, but a little embarrassing too. Some of the BEST compilations I have encountered of Bible verses describing a Flat Earth, have been put together not by Biblical scholars or theologians, but by Atheists! And the thing is, I very much now have to agree with them, in that, whatever what one might want to believe about the true nature of the Universe, it’s pretty inescapable to see what the Bible itself actually does say

In the end, it’s really an issue of neither side wanting to end up with egg on their face. One side inevitably will. Most people believe that it’s been soundly decided and proved. But has it really…? (After all, the same folks will tell you that Darwinian Evolution has been soundly decided, and proven as “unquestionable scientific fact”…) Either the Bible was wrong, and Christianity has simply been trying to sweep all these “scientifically ignorant” claims of the Bible under the rug for the last several hundred years, OR… The Bible is right, has always been right, and a good deal of what you’ve been told your whole life is simply a ridiculous lie…

Here is an article titled: Why Don’t Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Also Think the Earth Is Flat?

The creationist crowd is in a tithy lately. First there was “Cosmos” — on Fox, no less! —  giving short shrift to everything they hold dear. Then, adding insult to injury, for those paying close attention, long-awaited evidence of the Big Bang arrived.  It’s been a rough few weeks.

But really, if you’re a biblical literalist, it’s been a rough few centuries, or millennia, actually. You see, according to the Bible, the earth is both stationary and flat. Most pointedly, there are at least two passages in which a single point is visible to the whole world (Daniel 4:10-11 and Revelation 1:7), and one (Matthew 4:8) in which the whole world can be seen from a single point — an obvious impossibility unless the earth is flat.

Although the Catholic Church had forced Galileo to recant his work questioning the immobile earth in 1632 — and only pardoned him in 1992 — they did so in part because they were certain the earth was a globe: a globe around which the sun, moon and all other heavenly bodies revolved. Such was the Ptolemaic system, which had dominated Western views for more than a millennium. And yet, the Bible itself reflects a radically different view of the cosmos, one shared by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, in which the earth is both stationary and flat. And there is a wide range of scriptural passages to prove it.

The late Robert Schadewald made this point conclusively in “The Flat-Earth Bible,” an article posted on the Web back in 1995.  Schadewald was a former board member and president of the National Center for Science Education, a leader in the fight against creationism and other forms of pseudo-science being pushed into schools. But he was as much an enthusiastic student of fringe or “alternative” science as a source of endless fascination as he was a critic of swallowing it whole.

“When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible,” Schadewald begins his piece. Easily the most influential work is “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe,” by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Its first, 16-page pamphlet edition, in 1849, predated Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” by a decade.

“The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages,” Schadewald explains. But he starts with the much more direct, explicit Bible statements about an immobile, geocentric earth. It’s a logical starting point, since he notes, “The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.” There are hundreds of such passages, according to geocentrist James N. Hanson, who spoke to Schadewald at the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, but these are “a few obvious texts” that Schadewald chose to cite:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast …”

It’s remarkable enough that most of today’s creationists, wedded to biblical literalism andinerrancy, rarely mention such passages, particularly given the history of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. But then there are these, as well:

Daniel 4:10-11: [Nebuchadnezzar] “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth … reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him …”

A single point cannot see to or be seen from everywhere on a globe at once. For these words to be literally true, the earth must be flat, end of story.

These are only a few passages, of course. To really comprehend the Bible’s flat-earth cosmology, you have to know what you’re looking for — the other elements of the flat-earth world. That’s why Schadewald noted, “As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.” He went on to document what he meant. In addition to the passages above, he cited passages concerning the nature of the heavens, the order of creation, and the diminutive nature of the sun, moon and stars. All are relevant to the claim of a flat earth, because all are parts of a coherent flat-earth worldview similar to that of Egypt and Babylon’s: The earth is flat; the heavens are a solid dome, fashioned of metal; the sun, moon and stars are relatively small object inside the dome of heaven.  As for the order of creation, Schadewald wrote:

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The orderof creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

Regarding the heavens, he noted that the word “firmament” is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, meaning the “visible vault of the sky,” and coming from riqqua, “beaten out.” “A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl,” Schadewald pointed out. “Thus, Elihu asks Job, ‘Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?’” He went on to cite a number of passages supporting the view that the vault of heaven is “a solid, physical object” and thus “a tremendous feat of engineering,” as well as passages from Isaiah [40:22], Job [22:12, 14], and Ezekiel [1:22-26, 10:1], which “complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome,” not merely an illusion that looks like a dome.

Regarding celestial bodies, Schadewald first noted, “They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven,” but added, “Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still ‘in Gibeon’ and the moon ‘in the Vale of Aijalon.’” He then cited a number of passages presenting celestial bodies as “exotic living beings,” somewhat similar to how various polytheist religions represent them. And, of course, stars can fall from the skies (Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13-16).

While the Bible itself contains no explicit cosmological description, the Book of Enoch, a highly regarded source that influenced the Bible, does. Schadewald pointed out that Jude 14- 15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, attributes prophecy to Enoch, and thus “confers inspired status upon the book.”  He went on to say:

Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.

This includes trips to the ends of the earth, a detailed description of solar and lunar motion, including six openings in heaven for them to emerge from when they rise and another six to pass into when they set, according to the season, and  more information about stars, including their punishment for transgressions.

Some might be inclined to think that Schadewald was overstating his case. That’s understandable. Skepticism is good. So they should consider what a true believer had to say. In “Earth Not a Globe,”  Rowbotham first presented a series of secular arguments on a wide range of specific issues, but in the end he resorted to wide-ranging, detailed arguments from scripture, in which moral, religious and physical arguments were all jumbled together with extensive quotations from the Bible.

At one point, for example, Rowbotham cited more than two dozen passages, such asPsalm 103, 11, “For as the Heaven is high above the Earth,” to argue that “If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate above a thousand miles an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious.” “Up” and “down” are meaningless, he argued, if the place you point to as “up above” you is millions of miles away by the time you’re finished speaking. This may seem like a bizarre position, but it actually accurately reflects a consistent, literal-minded, stationary geocentric worldview — if not an exclusively flat-earth perspective. It simply shows how much scriptural evidence one can find, depending on the set of assumptions one begins with — which in turn shows just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to change the minds of true believers.

In another passage, Rowbotham argued about the nature of celestial bodies, further illustrating how his viewpoint produces a proliferation of scriptural support. First, he rejected the notion that the moon shines with reflected light, quoting Genesis 1, 16-17,“He made the Stars also; and God set them in the firmament to give light upon the earth,”and 10 other passages, before concluding, “Nothing is here said, nor is it said in any other part of Scripture, that the sun only is a great light, and that the moon only shines by reflection.” Then he argued that stars are not sunlike objects vast distances away, but rather are lights in the sky created to give light to the earth at night. These clearly mattered to him because of the entire worldview they are part of — precisely the point that Schadewald made.

Not incidentally, in making his point about the stars, Rowbotham misrepresented the scientific view by claiming, for example, “[T]he modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great distance from it.”  Here, and throughout his argument, he confuses the matter of starlightreaching the earth, so that we can see the stars, with the matter of starlight illuminatingthe earth, so that we can see other objects by the light of the stars. The two are entirely different matters, but Rowbotham, for all his careful attention to words when it suits him, never seems to notice. In the end, however, he makes a claim so wild, it seems to make everything else irrelevant. He says that travelers report that in many other parts of the world, starlight is “sufficiently intense to enable them to read and write.”  Yet, the confusion of terms in his argument is vital to setting the tone for this final, preposterous assertion — all of it, firmly rooted in scripture as he reads it.

Again, this may seem far removed from the idea of a flat earth. But for Rowbotham, our inability to see the connection is but further proof of how little we understand. And he had a point. The world as he envisions it is so radically different than our own that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine what he takes for granted. But if the earth is flat, covered by a physical dome that contains the stars, then the descriptions he offers do make sense — and for Rowbotham, reading the Bible as he did, it’s impossible to separate one part of that cosmology from any of the others.

Rowbotham also made a further argument about the stars that goes to the subject of moral confusion and relativism — neatly anticipating the anti-Darwinians who would follow him. If, he argued, the stars are “not simply lights, as the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds,” then there arise all sorts of theological conundrums — Are the worlds inhabited? If so, have the first parents be tempted? Have they fallen? Been redeemed? Does each world have a separate redeemer? Or is Christ the redeemer for every world? If so, was his suffering on earth sufficient for all the other worlds? And what of Adam’s fall?  Did it implicate the inhabitants of all other worlds? “The Christian philosopher must be confounded!” Rowbotham exclaimed. “If his religion be to him a living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty!”  What a relief, then, to know that it’s all garbage, that earth is the only world ever created!  How strikingly similar, then, his rejection of secular astronomy was to the creationists’ rejection of secular biology.

This is but part of a larger family resemblance, as Schadewald explains in “The Evolution of Bible-Science,” a chapter he contributed to the 1984 volume, “Scientists Confront Creationism“ (adapted version here). In his introduction, Schadewald wrote:

“For two thousand years, various groups of dogmatists have tried to force the universe to fit their interpretation of Scripture. They have judged and rejected evidence and explanations according to the standard of their own religious beliefs. On scriptural grounds, some have rejected (and continue to reject) the sphericity of the earth, the Copernican system, and the evolution of life on earth. In the last two centuries, flat-earthers, geocentrists, and creationists have adopted a label for their dogmas: Bible-science.”

It’s obvious why creationists would not want to be associated with flat-earthers, but it’s not at all obvious why we should let them get away with it, given how similar their arguments, assumptions and purposes are.  In discussing the internal divisions of Bible science, Shadewald wrote:

“Though flat-earthism is as well-supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers….

“[Y]oung-earth creationism closely resembles the flat-earth movement. In fact, young-earth creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate, and conservative branches of the Bible-science tree. The intense hostility expressed by the scientific creationists toward the flat-earthers does not extend to modern geocentrists, who hover on the edge of respectability among creationists. Indeed, though the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, the geocentrists have combined forces with liberal creationists to cast the flat-earthers into outer darkness.”

And, indeed, the similarities are much more basic than the differences, as he quickly went on to note. In an earlier, 1981 article, he explained more fully:

“Despite their internecine warfare, Bible-Scientists are in broad agreement on a number of issues. They agree on the usefulness of the Bible as a scientific text, the weakness of mere theories, the duplicity of conventional scientists, and the impossibility of reconciling conventional science with the Bible. The creation and flat-earth movements have similar foundations and histories, and both have used similar strategies to propagate their beliefs. Indeed, both believe they are battling the same behind-the-scenes opponent.”

Today, more than 30 years after Shadewald wrote those words, belief in the “weakness of mere theories” and “the duplicity of conventional scientists” now extend well beyond Bible science, into the far reaches of the culture war as conservatives see it, including the field of global warming, where conservatives openly parade their contempt for scientific theories, and their suspicion (if not conviction) that scientists are involved in an elaborate deception (“climategate,” anyone?).  In this same article, Shadewald quoted Rowbotham:

“Let the practise of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.”

And he went on to say:

Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”

With these sorts of venomous sentiments now infusing not just Bible scientists, but the wider conservative audience for global warming denialism, birtherism, groundless claims of “death panels” and massive voter fraud, etc., it seems high time that progressives stop playing defense and start going on offense. Asking Christian conservatives to defend flat-earthism any time they open their mouths would be an excellent place to start. The Bible, after all, is far, far clearer in supporting a flat earth than it is in opposing abortion, much less birth control.

So, thank you, Atheists. Nice work! A fair enough challenge indeed. Unfortunately, science might not be coming down on the side we’ve all long assumed after all…

DOMES: Flat Earth Symbolism in Architecture…?


This video explores some questions that have been poking at my brain for a few weeks now, and interestingly enough, the dome/oculus symbolism was something that seemed to keep popping up on my radar even before I had started looking into FE at all. Please remember that when it comes to the concept of portals, “stargates” etc., we are essentially speaking of dimensional realities, and not necessarily a literal, physical “door in the heavens” (although I would say it is still a “literal” door, just not a physical one that can necessarily be accessed from our own current dimensional existence…)

Still putting the pieces together of course, still pondering lots of avenues and angles. I did want to include this video from R$E as well, and I think you can easily see how there is definitely a confluence of ideas going on here.

(and he touches upon it again towards the middle of the video below as well:)

And amazingly, we see the same dome/oculus symbolism yet AGAIN in more commercials/media: