Tag Archives: end times deception

Did Billy Graham Die…?

Before I took a little “Christmas break” for myself, I made a couple of videos talking about the Mandela Effect, the second being Mandela Effect, Flat Earth, and the Nature of Reality. These videos received a fair amount of attention right away, and I got a lot of very interesting comments as well.

One comment which really floored me however, was one which mentioned the fact that Billy Graham is still quite alive and kicking at the age of 97. Again, if you had asked me, I would’ve been quite ‘certain’ that Graham had died some time ago in his eighties. I distinctly remember hearing about how his family had gone ahead and built a “Billy Graham Museum”, which went so far as to feature an animatronic Billy preaching a sermon, like it was Disneyland or something. I remember thinking how Graham must be rolling in his grave, to have such an edifice erected which brought so adulation to himself, rather than Christ. (this was obviously back when I still assumed that Billy Graham was the stalwart bastion of Evangelical Truth that he is maintained to be by the pseudo-Christian establishment…)

I found the video below this morning, and most interesting is to note that it was uploaded in Aug of 2014, and so we can see that even at that point, over a year ago, people were talking about the Mandela Effect and the Berenstein Bears, etc….

The fact that false teacher Benny Hinn has made such bold “prophecies” about the death of Graham being the sign which will usher in some new era of ‘revival’ is also extremely peculiar, if you ask me.

Wandering Stars: Spheres of Deception…

This video is one I just made as a reflection on the Planets from a Biblical Flat Earth perspective…

Additional info on the angels being stars, Book of Enoch, etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfev-ivn320

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:

A World Full of Santa’s Helpers…

(No, this isn’t a post about Christmas. Just bare with me.)

Almost all us probably knew at least one kid when we were growing up, who continued believing in Santa Claus far longer than their peers. Maybe you were that kid, I dunno. If so, please don’t be offended, but simply try to appreciate the allegory I’m working to build here. For me, it was my younger cousin, whose steadfast belief in Santa extended far beyond that of even her own younger siblings. I don’t remember how old she was before she eventually let it go, but I do remember her fearlessly defending her beliefs in Santa to her younger brother and sister, explaining to them that yes, Santa CAN visit all the children in the world in just one night, and yes, he DOES have a sleigh with reindeer that can fly, because, after all, he is Santa, and Santa has special Christmas magic available to him that we just don’t have…

But what about all the “mall Santas”? Those guys with the fake beards hired to have children sit on his lap and get their picture taken. (which actually really creeps me out, now that I’m an adult and a parent, but nevermind…) As some still tender young age, most kids start to figure this one out too. “They can’t ALL be the real Santa, cuz I just saw three of them in the same afternoon!” But then of course, everybody knows the explanation that we are told as young children, whose parents are still trying to preserve the mythos of Christmas lore in our young yule-time-bedazzled minds. “Why, yes, you’re so smart. They aren’t all the real Santa. But, they are Santa’s helpers, and they work for him like this, because they know he can’t be everywhere at the same time, especially this time of year when he’s so busy getting everyone’s presents ready!”

And so, this little maneuver seems to pacify the curious young mind, at least temporarily, preserving the innocent belief in Santa’s magical altruistic mission for at least one more year.

And the reason I bring up such a random example of psychological reinforcement? Honestly, it’s the best way I can describe what I have been constantly coming up against almost everywhere I turn when it comes to discussions of the Flat Earth question. Virtually everyone I talk to about this, who is skeptical, or even downright aggressively hostile, to the FE questioning, seems to be in this weird “Santa’s many helpers” phase of their intellectual relationship with NASA, or all the “proof” that they and other space agencies have allegedly produced for the reality of space travel, or even “space” itself.

I hear things like “Well, I totally understand that NASA has faked photographs, and have misled the public”, etc., and often times they may even completely agree that we never went to the moon at all, yet they’ll still insist, “..but that doesn’t mean that everything is fake”.

Well okay, I’ll grant you that. But now that you’ve gone so far as to recognize the ruse, to admit the existence of fraudulence, then how exactly do you KNOW where the fakery ends, and the reliable data begins? How do you KNOW, unless you go back to the beginning, and retrace through all of it, questioning everything….?

It seems that in lieu of even entertaining the possibility of the Earth being a plane, many conspiracy folks would rather just lean even harder in the opposite direction. They admit NASA is lying, but then are far more drawn to the idea that this is only because NASA’s fakery is due to the fact that they are hiding the REAL “secret space program”, and that in fact right now there are military bases on the moon and Mars who knows how many other planets, and they’re using satellite-based space weapons against various Earthly targets already, and the “Elite” are all getting ready to leave the planet altogether once the SHTF, etc…

Mercator_north_pole_1595

But, ok. I don’t dismiss such possibilities altogether. Could be. But… Hmmmm. Does that seem like something that we would really have much of a realistic chance of ever really knowing, barring the event that it was all “disclosed” at some point? (presumably around the same time that the “bad E.T.’s” showed up, and the intergalactic war began in earnest..?) It’s the “Land of Rampant Unprovable Speculation”, and part of me suspects that a lot of “conspiracy folks” really prefer those kinds of “safer” environs. The thing about this Flat Earth stuff, in contrast, is that sooner or later, it WILL be either decisively debunked, or decisively proven. And not by NWO-owned institutions or governmental agencies, but by average Joes, doing experiments, testing data, repeating said experiments, etc. If the curvature of the Earth exists, well then it can be measured. Period. If the surface of the Earth is a plane, then it can be measured and shown to be so as well. We are not living in the days of the Bedford level experiment after all, with nothing but looking glasses and flags and such. We have lazers, rockets, balloons, digital cameras (even ones without fish-eye lenses!) And these things are being put to use, and experimentation is being done, and collected in various online forums and compendiums. People are taking this inquiry very seriously, and doing very real science!

When I first started digging into the Flat Earth question, I was really blown away by the kinds of in-depth questioning and cooperation that is going on surrounding this investigation. It is so far beyond what almost every snarky skeptic assumes, as they rifle off some regurgitated response or another about ship’s hulls disappearing over the horizon, or Erotosthenes “proved” the spherical Earth around 170 B.C. These are knee-jerk reactions. Manifestations of the internal programming that we have ALL had to experience to some degree, and eventually get past, just as we have to in order to learn the Truth about all KINDS of things going on in the world today….

But the Santa’s Helpers crowd? I don’t get that one. I get how people who are still 100% bought into the whole system, and the whole narrative, can scoff and smirk, but for those people who already understand that the world isn’t simply everything they say it is on CNN?? The people who understand that the “Illuminati” isn’t just some corny plot device that Dan Brown came up with? 😉 Those people who can sit there and say, “Yeah, I know that NASA has lied, and faked pictures of planets, and moon landings, and the Earth itself, but…..” I don’t get that. I don’t get why people would go out of their way to make excuses for why they should just continue on swallowing the nonsense we have been fed by NASA and others, instead of doing the (admittedly) more difficult work of examining the evidence for oneself and seeing if it really holds water. Are we too afraid to lose our precious beliefs that filled our heads with visions of “interstellar sugarplums” in the nostalgic days of our youth…?

giphy

What do we really know? What images, and information, is truly reliable? That which we have been spoon-fed since toddler-hood, or that which we can observe and test with our own two eyes….?

New Video: “The Cult of Pythagoras”…

In this video I explore how both Darwinian Evolution, and the Copernican heliocentric model, originated not from the application of the modern scientific method but instead from the ancient Mystery School traditions and pagan mysticism, specifically as evidenced through the figure of Pythagoras himself. In essence, heliocentric cosmology is an ancient satanic counterfeit to the true, Biblical, flat/enclosed Earth (just as Evolution is a Satanic counterfeit to God’s act of Creation…)

This made from the content of my previous post “Evolution needs Revolution”

Babel 2.0, Elevator to Space…

So a Canadian company has recently successfully filed a U.S. patent for a “space elevator”. The company’s name? “THOTH TECHNOLOGY“…(!!) You really couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried…

Needless to say, I am as of late rather skeptical of the idea that such a thing as “outer space” even exists, at least not in the heliocentric conception of it that we have long been told it does. But even so, that doesn’t mean that Lucifer and his human minions wouldn’t be quite dedicated to exploring every possibility towards “cracking the veil” above, does it…

on The Book of Enoch, Truthers, and Daring to Question the Globe…

(the following is what I am hoping will serve as an adequate transcript for a I video I hope to complete and upload by sometime next week. Figured I’d go ahead and throw the textual content of it up here)

The Book of Enoch…

bookenochFor centuries it was all but forgotten, abandoned by the majority of both Catholic and Protestant scholars as a bizarre relic, of a more superstitious and mythological age.

In recent years however, there has been a resurgence in the interest with this ancient writing. Large portions of it were discovered amongst the collections of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the famous Caves at Qumran. Many people who believe that the eschatological prophecies of the Bible are increasingly beginning to be fulfilled in our time, have also concluded that there is a great deal of relevance to be found in the book of Enoch, towards the events we see unfolding. Indeed, the ancient mystery schools, which are the occultic heritage of the modern day Luciferian, New World Order agenda, could be said to trace their origins all the way back to the days before the Flood, when the 200 Watcher angels, prompted by Azazel, or Satan, abandoned their heavenly posts and came down to Earth, taking human women as their wives, who bore to them hybrid offspring, giants, called the Nephilim, who ravaged the Earth until almost all of Creation was corrupted.

nephilim2Students of prophecy today can look at these events in our distant past, and conclude that it might very well bode as a warning for what kinds of genetic abominations might be incorporated into the anti-christ’s One World Kingdom, which is right now being rapidly put into place. Many teachers such as Chuck Missler, Tom Horn, Doug Hamp and others, have helped reintroduce the book of Enoch, pointing out things such as the insufficiency and contradictory nature of the “Sethite theory”, (commonly used for generations to explain away the passages in Genesis 6 which speak about the Nephilim), and how books in the New Testament refer to it as well, the book of Jude quoting from Enoch directly, and calling it “prophecy”. Indeed, the topic of Enoch, the Nephilim and how the fallen Watchers taught mankind all sorts of wicked knowledge, such as sorcery and astrology and warfare and seduction, is a far more widely accepted idea than it was even just ten years ago. Secular tv shows such as “ancient aliens” have even helped bring awareness of the book’s existence to the mainstream…

Enter the Flat Earth…

As most of you know, in the past six months or so, the internet has seen an sudden and unexpected exponential rise in the discussion surrounding the question of the true nature of the Earth itself, as well our universe as a whole. Bolstered by years of questionable NASA footage, an increasing awareness of how much the government and it’s various agencies lie to the public about all manner of things, and the realization that there are people behind the scenes manipulating virtually every aspect of what we are told is reality, this really shouldn’t be all that surprising.

Just a few months ago, I would’ve scoffed at the idea of a Flat Earth just as heartily as anyone else. About a year prior to that, I would’ve still been rolling my eyes at the suggestion that the Apollo missions didn’t actually make it to the moon’s surface. Rewind five years before that, and I was still unable to conceive of the notion that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by elements within the American government itself.

In each case, my initial disbelief was confronted by some new piece of data which could not be made to conform to the official narrative. The intrusion of new data would refuse to go away, and agitate my thoughts like a burr under a saddle, prompting deeper investigation, until the questions grew into skepticism, and then skepticism grew towards finally having to question, and perhaps rethink, a framework of beliefs which I had held for a very, very long time.

So, this is what strikes me as particularly interesting, and rather odd actually, in terms of this current debate going on within the quote “Truth movement” around the flat Earth. Especially in terms of so many of my fellow Christians, who on the one hand have for YEARS been talking about the Book of Enoch, and Genesis 6 and the Nephilim and so on, but now when it comes to this Flat Earth issue, I find it ironic that so many of them appear all too ready to just write it off as a “distraction” or a “psy-op” or whatever else, and get in line with the scoffers before really doing much in-depth investigation on their own, (Rob Skiba excluded!)

ane-cosmography-simpleThe reason I find it so ironic, is that if you really take a look at all that the Book of Enoch talks about, you will quickly see that it speaks about far more than just the Watchers coming down and creating the Nephilim. The majority of the Book actually deals with how Enoch is basically taken and given a tour of the entire Cosmos by a heavenly angel, and it is quite hard to deny the degree to which his descriptions fall right in line with the basic ancient Hebrew model of the Flat Earth. Enoch describes the Earth having distinct edges, there are “portals” and “gates” at each of the four cardinal directions. There are “storehouses” for certain elements such as the winds, the lightning and thunder, and the frost. It speaks about the four corners, about the four pillars, and a great deal about the firmament as well, above which is the very throne room of God, just as the typical ancient cosmology reflects. There are literal, cave-like pits under the Earth, a literal Sheol, as well as another place, a dry, desert-like place of chaos, which has no water either above or below it. An “outer darkness”, where certain angels and spirits are held imprisoned until the Day of Judgement.zodpic

Now, beyond all of this, Enoch speaks a great deal of not only the basic idea of the Earth being a plane, covered by the firmament, with water both above and below, etc., but also about how there are all these various orders of angelic beings, who have been assigned different jobs basically, in accordance with the different physical elements of the Earth, sky, heavens, and so on. In this “Enochian cosmology”, the Creation is not merely material and mechanical, but rather vastly multi-dimensional and involving the routine participation of immortal, sentient beings in the daily function of all that is going on around us. The sun and moon and stars are all shown to be intentioned by God to follow their assigned circuits, as the spirits assigned to these duties fulfill them. The “Luminaries” are said to even have dwellings or abodes within the heavens, as though they have actual doors in the firmament which lead to their own little angelic apartments! In the context of all of this, I find it most interesting then to consider the idea of the “Fallen Stars”, the fallen Watcher angels, juxtaposed against the idea of the “wandering stars”, those bodies today we call the planets, envisioning them to be other spherical planetoids, millions of miles away, orbiting the sun. But are we sure that’s really what they actually are? Do we even have a single photograph of a planet, which hasn’t actually been a “composite” or just an outright painting or CGI rendering…?

Anyhow, the fundamental question regarding all this extremely mythological stuff from the book of Enoch which speaks of luminaries and firmaments and such, is ultimately; “Is this ‘Enochian Cosmology’ really just a more detailed examination of what already can be found in the Biblical description?”

flatmapI find it to be quite parallel to the same sort of question that is so often asked when dealing with Enoch in the context of the Nephilim question. Does the Bible actually already teach this basic idea that “the Sons of God” had offspring with the “daughters of men”? Like I said, more and more people are beginning to agree that in fact it does, and amazingly, by doing so are then realizing that by letting this piece back into the Biblical puzzle, it actually helps to explain a LOT about other parts of the Bible which were previously rather confusing as well, such as the matter of why God commanded the Israelites to wipe out certain tribes entirely from Canaan, or why Paul makes that bizarre comment about women covering their heads “because of the angels”, or why demons freak out when Jesus threatens to cast them into the Abyss, and so on.

So, when we look seriously at that question, when we start to take a fresh look at the traditional canonical scriptures, suspending for a moment all of our modern assumptions about how it does actually describe a globe Earth, then what do we really start to find…?

I honestly can’t tell anyone what to think, because I do believe that this is one of those issues which really is first dependent on one’s own predetermined level of openness. It is really pointless to try and force someone to question something which they are internally quite unprepared to question. All I can really speak for is myself, and to the fact that when I actually began to start taking a new look at the Bible, to see if it really could be said to describe not just a globe but a vast, expansive, Copernican-esque universe, or, instead something which more closely resembles the “dome idea”, well, I was pretty amazed at what I very quickly began to see.

Right off the bat, you can start there in Genesis 1, where it says God hovered over the “waters”. What waters? Water, before an Earth? Weird… And then, right there, he separates the waters, and makes the “sky”. Right there, in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, it’s talking about the firmament… The earth is created before even the sun, moon and stars. Light was created and separated from darkness, before God created any of the light sources. (again, weird…) And on it goes from there. You go through books like Psalms, or the prophets, and see it talking about the corners of the earth, the earth being fixed and unmovable, the sky being stretched out like a tent. You get to the book of Job, and the last few chapters are intensively descriptive of a dynamic, Enochian flat Earth model. It even mentions “Leviathan”, the massive sea creature, which lurks in the water depths surrounding the Earth’s foundations. In Job, God talks about it like a literal creature.

There is so much to reconsider from this alternate vantage point. The ascension of Jesus, as well as His triumphant return, where the Bible says everyone on the Earth will see Him in His glory… (kind of hard to imagine how that works on a ball Earth..) I think about the Tower of Babel, I re-evaluate things like “Jacob’s Ladder”. The “Star of Bethlehem”, suddenly seems to make a lot more sense within this Cosmology as well. Then you get to Revelation, and again, the direct connection between angels and stars is virtually undeniable. How do entire stars fall to Earth, if they are millions of miles away, comprised of massive nuclear explosions many times larger than Earth? How do such falling stars have names, and personification? How DOES the sky actually get “rolled up like a scroll”…? There are so many verses, so many descriptions, which start to take on new life, and make a lot more sense, when we allow ourselves to consider them through a paradigm that is yes, rejected and ridiculed by mainstream scientific institutions. (the same institutions, remember, which also scoff at anyone who doesn’t accept that we are all evolved hairless apes, and that everything in the Universe essentially created itself out of one single point of infinitely compressed matter, billions of years ago…)

1120HOLDING20BACK20THE20FOUR20WINDSSo… The question I would end with is for my fellow Christian brothers and sisters, my fellow students of Biblical prophecy, and particularly, my fellow adherents of the “Genesis 6 paradigm”, who are so fond of talking about Matthew 24 and how “as in the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be”, and pointing to the Book of Enoch as an authentic, “Biblically-endorsed” work that people should take seriously, because of all the End Times ramifications and implications involving things like transhumanism and alien deceptions and everything else, is this: HOW does one pick and choose which portions of I Enoch to take seriously? How can the Nephilim idea be emphasized so heavily and so routinely, even though that in itself is largely rejected and ridiculed, both by mainstream Christianity and the secular world, while the BULK of the content in that Book which would lend great weight to the argument for investigating much further the possibility that the Earth might INDEED be flat, and might very well have a dome-like firmament, and the sun, moon and start might be very, very close, is summarily rejected?

Just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I don’t get how “Truthers”, whether Christian or non, for that matter, can make these kinds of statements about how the Flat Earth issue could “destroy the credibility of the Truth movement” and so on.. Am I confused, or isn’t the solitary objective of the “Truth Movement” supposed to be the unhindered, unapologetic quest to seek the TRUTH, no matter how laughable or counter-cultural or “conspiratorially wacky” it might seem to the mass majority?

Isn’t the idea supposed to be that there are no “stupid questions”, only stupid assumptions? And I find this PARTICULARLY weird when it comes to my fellow “Christian Truthers”! I mean, really!? You’re worried about appearing “credible”, or not looking like a crazy person, when you’re already talking about UFO’s being demonic and Nephilim hybrids and CERN being some kind of interdimensional portal that might open the Abyss in Revelation, and so on???? That ship of “perceived credibility” has sailed my friends. It was gone from the mainstream world when you started questioning things like the official narrative of 9/11, and it was even gone from the secular “Truthers” when you started talking about the Bible being true, and Jesus dying for our sins, and the Book of Revelation being something that is being fulfilled, right now, before our very eyes.

I honestly don’t care anymore about being viewed as “crazy” by other people. I am not afraid to ask questions that most people would find insufferable, or to entertain notions of conspiracies and cover-ups that most people would reject outright, simply because they cannot allow themselves to imagine that so many millions of people could all be fooled in such a way. But I know we’ve all been fooled, in all kinds of ways, and I myself have been no exception. I’ve had to cross that bridge of paradigm-reconstruction many times now, and I actually find it much less painful of a process nowadays than I used to.

I find it quite amazing, really, that so many people who are seriously questioning the globe model, and researching the possibility of the Earth being a plane, doing experiments with curvature and re-examining all the things we have been taught as unquestionable fact since we started kindergarten, so many of these folks, are not Christians, but atheists, agnostics, or people with all kinds of different “spiritualistic” beliefs. You’ve got people believing that our world is just one “puddle”, and that it sits on an infinite plane, a sheet of ice, riddled with an infinite number of other “puddle systems”, or other people who basically look at the Earth and the sky and the heavenly bodies as a huge collection of holograms and mechanistic fakery, the “Dark City” concept, and all sorts of other interesting theories about what the World is truly like.

So it’s quite odd to me, that for people who claim to believe in the Bible and take it as literal Truth, that we would find such questioning to be at all threatening, when we ALREADY believe in the realm of the Supernatural, in the existence of an Eternity beyond our temporal existence, in angels and demons and spiritual warfare between the two… Does the shape of the Earth threaten to change any of that? Has anyone started out questioning the globe, and by doing so eventually found themselves rejecting the Gospel, or abandoning the cross, because they couldn’t find proof that the Earth is really curved…?

Grey_Alien4I haven’t heard a single testimony of that kind as of yet, but I sure have encountered a lot of people who have wound up rejecting the Bible, and the Creator, in favor of the established “scientific fact” of an infinite, evolving Universe…. I know many people today, who bristle at the idea of an all-powerful God, with His oppressive morality, and instead prefer the prospect of there being “millions of other worlds out there”, potentially filled with an endless array of other intelligent species and “fellow travelers in the Evolutionary journey”. The “Star Trek Gospel” is a very real thing in our time, and more and more people are gravitating towards putting their hope in the possibility of having our “big brothers from Space” come along, and give us a little Evolutionary boost in our advancement towards godhood.

So that’s my rant. You can decide for yourself, if the “crazy” idea of a geocentric, angelically administrated Cosmos, where humanity is truly the focal point of Creation, and deemed worthy of being redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice, is something that fits within the description of Enoch, and most importantly the rest of the Bible. But to be able to make that decision, you have to be courageous enough to actually look. You have to be brave enough to ask those crazy questions for yourself…