I love how you explain Christ’s connection to the creation. He created it and therefore knows how to communicate the truth of it with language that means what it says. Very profound.
Indeed, I really don’t understand how so many of our brothers and sisters can rationalize these consistent descriptions away as mere metaphors or poetic imagery.
Florida is a great place to do these types of experiments with lots of water and very flat terrain. I performed a similar experiment with a P-1000 from Sanibel Island to Marco Island (approx. 41 miles).. The whole globe lie breaks down once you scrutinize any part of it so it really takes a willingness to be ignorant once presented with verifiable, easily testable experiments and simple research that anyone can do. The wisdom in the Bible has proven itself to be true time and time again.
"The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction." - Proverbs 1:7
Some good links for Biblical Cosmology:
Dr. Michael S. Heiser: The Cosmology of the Old Testament:
Amen brother, that’s a very impressive experiment in its own right. Refraction just can’t explain almost 1000 feet of missing curvature, although that certainly won’t stop the heliocentrists from baselessly invoking it.
Yeah, very frustrating to explain the flat, Biblically correct cosmology to nearly anyone. Told a data scientist colleague who is married to a physics professor about the experiment, showed the Apollo 11 moon lander images on NASA's site that look like curtain rods and duct tape (with no "moon dust on the lander' feet), discussed the improbable idea of air surrounded by an infinite vacuum of space, etc. Just repeated the mainstream view. Thomas Dolby was correct, "She Blinded Me with Science".
You are one tenacious dude. I enjoy reading all your Works.
I, like many others, I suspect, since learning in school, since youth, & through pictures seen, hear & there, believe in a spheroid Earth.
But I am intrigued by your math & other thoughts.
Presently, if I watch a raindrop form, from one of those slowed-down videos, the drop forms spheroid. I reason, this is due to surrounding gravitational effects.
I have also viewed both solar/lunar eclipses, & saw the arced shadows, of intervening celestial bodies, Moon/Earth, move across the eclipsed projected visual surface.
But again, I am interested in your Reasoning & calculations.
On the circular (Earth) diagram, with super-imposed right triangle, the person (h) is standing, I assume, at that triangle tip, that passes across the circle's circumference.
Is the "hidden height" that you speak of, the distance (height) measured along a radial trajectory, at the end line of d0?
As a lad, sitting on the shore, I do remember always watching the horizon & thinking about its distance, from my sitting space of position, & asking others, "How far is the horizon?" & most people would say "at infinity," or some such.
This is an aside, & probably not the same as what you are proposing, but that corner of the right triangle that extends past the circle's circumference, reminds me of non-Euclidian geometry, but the difference is that the triangle tip, I believe, is contoured, off of the body triangle plane, perhaps suggesting, another dimension, of inquiry, or view.
Also, you might want to read Dr. Judy Wood's Excellent Book about The Towers.
John Hutchinson, as you probably know, was using (I think) the overlapping waveform or projecting fields, to create movement, against gravity, as well as other molecular changes, that he found, subsequently occurred, but may not have anticipated.
David Adair, spoke of manufacturing many things, more easily, in a low or zero gravity, "workplace," that Space, would offer.
David offered the probability, that tremendously strong steel could be produced, because on Earth, during the normal slow cooling of metallurgy productions, gravitational field effects, would hampen, pure crystalline structural formation, due to separation, of alloys, from strengthening positions, along the crystalline lattice, of normal steel.
And like Hutchinson, Adair stated, that free-form... (sans an additional physical structure encompassing "mold" to contain & shape fluid metal) ...could allow new & exquisite shapes, being driven by, focused beams, that would contour outer shapes, unthought of before, but now new.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply Brother Paul, I’ll definitely check that book out.
I’m still relatively fresh to some of these realizations myself. Like you, I was a life long stargazer and space enthusiast who couldn’t wait to go to Mars.
Lunar eclipses are a fascinating phenomenon, no doubt. Selenelion eclipses, lunar eclipses where the Sun and Moon are both visible in the sky, should be physically impossible on the globe - and yet, they are a fairly common occurrence.
On a view, with underneath caption of "toroidal model..."
...there is a picture of flat earth, overhead dome, & middle-positioned "circle connecting", I presume Sun/Moon.
The author does not explicitly state that the circle represents the orbit of both, if fact, the next image below, shows Sun/Moon, at different heights.
Nor is there mention of orbit changes of Sun/Moon, that we observe & relate to seasonal changes, via heliocentric model, of Earth's elliptical orbit.
When you get a chance in your busy schedule, you needn't answer me directly, but A Written Piece on Sun/Moon movements would be greatly appreciated.
Quick question, was the purpose of your laser experiment, to show that the water surface is/was essentially flat?
That is, following Science's calculation of Earth's circumference, then your team could figure out just where the arc (height) of water, would interfere with the straight coherent laser beam.
And that flash of light seen...was that a sensor or some such, that was farther in distance, than Science's proposed top-arc of water, therefore proving a flat water surface?
That flash of light is the laser beam hitting the camera lens dead on.
You are correct. Given that the horizon should be a physical location on the globe model, the fact that we can see the leveled laser at all over this kind of distance is a sheer physical impossibility on a globe. As you can see from the selection of other laser tests I included, there have been laser tests done over distances of 40 miles that show the same results.
I am not challenging your beliefs, & I only have a layman's understanding of physics, & have not keep up with the new science(s). So a general answer will suffice.
Long ago, some dude "proved" the Earth was a sphere, by knowing a distance b/w 2 locales & simultaneously measuring the angle of the shadow line of 2 vertical sticks, at these 2 locales, at noon (one would cast no shadow), which allowed circumferential estimation of Earth. You are probably familiar. I guess a flat plane could present the same findings, with the Sun directly overhead at one spot.
Also, early observations of ship masts height diminishing as they ventured away in a presumed straight line, with a concomitant overall reduction in vessel size.
The test I believe you're referring to is Eratosthenes' measuring of shadows. For his experiment, he arbitrarily pre-supposed the nature of the light rays hitting the Earth and hypothesized that the light rays would be parallel due to the Sun's distance. This was not observed then, and it has never been observed since. This speculative framework is what resulted in the original curvature formula, resulting in a size that was significantly larger than the supposed circumference today.
Although I vehemently disagree with his views on the Trinity, I recommend this channel for a more thorough dissection of some of the questions you have posed, such as perspective:
he also has diagrams of orbital patterns of sun, celestial bodies over flat earth to explain phenomena that we have been conditioned to understand as due to a rotating globe model.
all of it blows my mind… going through K-12-college and not realizing the big lie.
Also, when you say, "horizon should be a physical location," is that the same as, the high arc of the water surface? Forgive the elementary-ness of my question, I'm simply trying to visualize the experimental design. THANX.
Know that I do NO math calculations on any of this stuff.
It's just theorizing, & maybe it's simple wording of what I'm been taught, & studied on my own.
What I have written really isn't what I heard from another, but it's definitely based on the typical scenario presented in celestial mechanics & mapping.
For instance, Kepler's (I think) law states that the planets sweep out equal areas in equal time, I take that almost with a religious zeal, of God's Balanced Genius.
Also, that both Earth/Moon are the exact size to completely eclipse, Moon/Sun, seems wonderous to me.
On GG's demonstration of water running off bottom of spinning Earth model.
Would not the reason be that the small model is within, the Earth's g field. And the lines of force, along the model globe are continuing "downward," towards Earth's center, & hence pulling water off the models southern pole?
The moon and the sun both look pretty round to me and I would be surprised if they were flat rather than globes. Is the Earth different? If so please explain how and why.
I’m not wedded to globe Earth btw as it looks pretty flat from 36 thousand feet. I just want it explained. I’m thinking that it might be both somehow.
Great question Richard, and it's one that I immediately conceived of as well because we've always been told it's gravity causing the spherical shape of objects in space (which I naturally have my own ideas about, see: https://dfreality.substack.com/p/the-alien-agenda-part-i.) Long story short though, gravity is a function of electromagnetic forces and the inherent electrostatic properties of all matter, not mass attracting mass.
The Sun and Moon appear to be spheres to me as well, and naturally one would assume the same forces causing that would be acting on the Earth, if indeed we were in the vacuum of space. But while that line of reasoning makes sense from the heliocentric paradigm, the Biblical creation account of our cosmos is entirely geocentric.
Without the concept of mass attracting mass, there is no reason to assume that Earth is the same as heavenly bodies, especially since the Earth is a unique creation in the Biblical account. The Sun, Moon, and stars were made specifically for us, further solidifying the idea in my eyes that the Earth is the unique object in this schema. Logically speaking, it's a bit like looking at the lights in the ceiling and assuming the house is the same shape. It may or may not be, but that's not proof for it, if you follow my analogy here.
Yes lots of questions. I’m an atheist so Biblical explanations don’t immediately hold water although I’m also a classicist so realise that the Ancient Greeks are there about.
I think there are likely more than 49 earth-related references to "face". I did a quick search in the Greek NT for προσωπον (prosōpon) meaning "face" and right away encountered "face of the sky" in Mt. 16:3. I came across that one in Luke also. Since you use the KJV, I used the TR for my NT search. I didn't take on the OT this evening.
ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς is "on all the face of the earth", word for word.
The BDAG defines the usage here and in a number of other places as "3. the outer surface of something, face=surface πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς". It does not, however, cite any usage of this kind outside the Bible. I suppose your reading could be possible. It's not going on my "clear meaning of scripture" verse list just yet, though.
The KJV doesn't always translate πρόσωπον as "face", either. For example, in Heb 9:24 and in other places it is translated as "presence" (of God). The word has a semantic range. Most of the time in the NT it is used to mean the face of a being.
Heb. 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:...
νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν - "now to appear in the face of God for us". It's a good, tight translation. "Face" didn't quite fit in English and they used "presence" instead.
In James 1:11 it's "fashion". In Jude 16 it's "persons".
In Rev. 10:1 we have καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, "and his face was as it were the sun". And in Rev. 20:11 there's οὗ ἀπὸ προσώπου ἔφυγεν ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ οὐρανός, "from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away". That's interesting.
I can't delve further into this tonight -- I have choir in the morning and need sleep -- but it's an interesting proposal you make. I see what the Bible says about these matters and I don't disagree. I just don't see it, yet. There are things quite real that we can't see. If we could, perhaps it would all fall into place.
I agree with you, this particular aspect is definitely the greyest area of Scripture in regards to the physical characteristics given to the Earth, becoming clearer once that greater context unfolds. The Greek word translated as face in the NT is indeed multifaceted, as is panim (H6440) in the OT. However, when applied to a circle, which I believe is what Isaiah is describing, a face must definitionally be flat and enclosed by the boundaries of its shape.
My thought process is essentially this: if the Earth has a face, and the Earth is a circle, then that face would be a geometric/physical one and not just a metaphorical or allegorical one. Others see it differently obviously and I certainly wouldn’t fault them for doing so.
Frankly, quite a few things make a lot more sense when viewed the way you describe. I just can't "see" it, yet. But I know our senses are limited.
I mentioned elsewhere my father being a pilot. He also had my mother and I (at different times) in the copilot seat, flying the plane (small four-seaters). My mother did not catch on but I did, and at a fairly young age I learned straight-and-level flight, and even did a takeoff, with verbal help (once that I remember), and a landing except for the final touchdown, again with verbal help from my father. I don't clearly remember my age or where we were, but I was in elementary school.
Later on, as an older teenager, my father attempted to get me to where I could solo and get my license -- he was also a military and civilian flight instructor. Unfortunately, I have weird visual problems that interfered with judging landings correctly and I eventually had to give up (and I still have trouble backing my car into the garage, for related reasons). I could land the plane, and did so repeatedly, including touch-and-goes, but not well enough to solo. But I spent many hours as a teenager in either the copilot's seat navigating or in the pilot's seat flying, day and night, and I saw what I saw, especially as the pilot.
When you are flying the plane you have to be paying attention and looking where you are going. It's not like riding along, looking out a passenger window. You have a full view of what's ahead, and a good view of what's below, above, and all around. You get to be rather familiar with the horizon, which you can view from low altitude or high (although not terribly high in a small plane that isn't pressurized).
What I saw from that cockpit, ~55 years ago and more, doesn't quite square with most of the attempts I have read thus far to reconcile scripture with observation concerning earth's configuration. Instead, it has offered a fascinating literal worldview that I have carried with me ever since. I was also a Bible student back then, and I read the Bible all the way through for the first time in the same time frame as when I was piloting those planes. What I observed didn't strike me as being in conflict with scripture, but I didn't go very deep on my first reading.
There's that "sea of glass" before the throne of God. God's view of Earth? How does it all fit together? I don't exactly know, but I expect that it does. It makes so much more sense to accept the biblical account for what it reveals than to reject it because it includes things I don't understand.
It does my heart good that there are still platforms for truth to be told.
Completely off the subject, but I ask your thoughts (and for any others that may wish to help), because I have read almost all of your works, and you have some wisdom. My question is this: With all of the digital IDs being implemented and prepared for, I continuously hear people say they won't do it because it is unbiblical. When I press for a reason, I have only gotten silence. I understand Rev., and its implications, and wish to put that aside for the moment. The CBDCs are a much easier topic. For example, Matt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Or, as Jesus is our perfect example, the only times he was expressly mad (I believe) is when the moneychangers had taken over the temple. In his example, we are now the temple of God, the central bankers are the moneychangers. He would not have us do such a thing (and there are more examples). But, back to just the digital ID... why, Scripturally, should we not allow such a thing? I respect you (and your readers), and would truly appreciate some insight into this. Thank you, and God bless you and your work.
Scripturally what I would say is that any law barring us from freely earning a living is unbiblical. The lockdowns were straight up satanic for a host of reasons, but to put it succinctly, Ecclesiastes 2:24 states “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.”
Just look at China or the UK, we don’t have to guess where this is going or whether a digital ID/social credit/carbon taxes/CBDCs will be used in a tyrannical and authoritarian manner. Eventually all these digital tools will be moved to one platform (what Elon’s X is in the workings to become), a la China’s WeChat. Social media, banking, carbon tracking, it’s nothing less than slavery to an inherently alchemical financial system.
I’m of the belief that the mark spoken of in Revelation is more a spiritual brand personally, but digital ID’s are clearly an earthly manifestation of that spiritual marking. The Feds are putting Christians on watchlists for purchasing Bibles. It doesn’t take a genius to realize where this is going next when the proverbial “they” have even further control of our lives via these technological shackles.
I thank you for your prompt and insightful thoughts. That is possibly the perfect verse, and I believe, will get my thinking headed in the right direction. The CBDCs and the rest are absolute and blatant slavery, and the digital ID is the obvious runup to it. This eases my mind. I have been after this bit of wisdom for some months now.
I love how you explain Christ’s connection to the creation. He created it and therefore knows how to communicate the truth of it with language that means what it says. Very profound.
Indeed, I really don’t understand how so many of our brothers and sisters can rationalize these consistent descriptions away as mere metaphors or poetic imagery.
Outstanding evidence. I love your work.
Thank you 🙏
Florida is a great place to do these types of experiments with lots of water and very flat terrain. I performed a similar experiment with a P-1000 from Sanibel Island to Marco Island (approx. 41 miles).. The whole globe lie breaks down once you scrutinize any part of it so it really takes a willingness to be ignorant once presented with verifiable, easily testable experiments and simple research that anyone can do. The wisdom in the Bible has proven itself to be true time and time again.
"The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction." - Proverbs 1:7
Some good links for Biblical Cosmology:
Dr. Michael S. Heiser: The Cosmology of the Old Testament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcNeHXOiUMg
Dean Odle's The Sevenfold Doctrine Series:
https://www.deanodle.org/videos-sevenfold
Rob Skiba's The Bible and the Still Flat Earth:
https://www.testingtheglobe.com/bible.html
Amen brother, that’s a very impressive experiment in its own right. Refraction just can’t explain almost 1000 feet of missing curvature, although that certainly won’t stop the heliocentrists from baselessly invoking it.
Yeah, very frustrating to explain the flat, Biblically correct cosmology to nearly anyone. Told a data scientist colleague who is married to a physics professor about the experiment, showed the Apollo 11 moon lander images on NASA's site that look like curtain rods and duct tape (with no "moon dust on the lander' feet), discussed the improbable idea of air surrounded by an infinite vacuum of space, etc. Just repeated the mainstream view. Thomas Dolby was correct, "She Blinded Me with Science".
Dear Brother Scipio,
You are one tenacious dude. I enjoy reading all your Works.
I, like many others, I suspect, since learning in school, since youth, & through pictures seen, hear & there, believe in a spheroid Earth.
But I am intrigued by your math & other thoughts.
Presently, if I watch a raindrop form, from one of those slowed-down videos, the drop forms spheroid. I reason, this is due to surrounding gravitational effects.
I have also viewed both solar/lunar eclipses, & saw the arced shadows, of intervening celestial bodies, Moon/Earth, move across the eclipsed projected visual surface.
But again, I am interested in your Reasoning & calculations.
On the circular (Earth) diagram, with super-imposed right triangle, the person (h) is standing, I assume, at that triangle tip, that passes across the circle's circumference.
Is the "hidden height" that you speak of, the distance (height) measured along a radial trajectory, at the end line of d0?
As a lad, sitting on the shore, I do remember always watching the horizon & thinking about its distance, from my sitting space of position, & asking others, "How far is the horizon?" & most people would say "at infinity," or some such.
This is an aside, & probably not the same as what you are proposing, but that corner of the right triangle that extends past the circle's circumference, reminds me of non-Euclidian geometry, but the difference is that the triangle tip, I believe, is contoured, off of the body triangle plane, perhaps suggesting, another dimension, of inquiry, or view.
Also, you might want to read Dr. Judy Wood's Excellent Book about The Towers.
John Hutchinson, as you probably know, was using (I think) the overlapping waveform or projecting fields, to create movement, against gravity, as well as other molecular changes, that he found, subsequently occurred, but may not have anticipated.
David Adair, spoke of manufacturing many things, more easily, in a low or zero gravity, "workplace," that Space, would offer.
David offered the probability, that tremendously strong steel could be produced, because on Earth, during the normal slow cooling of metallurgy productions, gravitational field effects, would hampen, pure crystalline structural formation, due to separation, of alloys, from strengthening positions, along the crystalline lattice, of normal steel.
And like Hutchinson, Adair stated, that free-form... (sans an additional physical structure encompassing "mold" to contain & shape fluid metal) ...could allow new & exquisite shapes, being driven by, focused beams, that would contour outer shapes, unthought of before, but now new.
Anyway.
Interesting Piece You Wrote.
Thank You.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply Brother Paul, I’ll definitely check that book out.
I’m still relatively fresh to some of these realizations myself. Like you, I was a life long stargazer and space enthusiast who couldn’t wait to go to Mars.
Sphericity of water is largely driven by surface tension actually, not gravity (https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/26712/why-are-water-droplets-shaped-like-that#26751). Our textbooks are still teaching mass attracting mass as the reason for globes, yet that hasn’t been true since Relativity supplanted Newtonian physics.
Lunar eclipses are a fascinating phenomenon, no doubt. Selenelion eclipses, lunar eclipses where the Sun and Moon are both visible in the sky, should be physically impossible on the globe - and yet, they are a fairly common occurrence.
(https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/lunar-eclipse-provides-extra-twist-skywatchers-selenelion-n219586).
Naturally, refraction is always invoked to explain away these kinds of physical impossibilities that seem to plague the globe model.
Scipio/ksa,
ksa shared some work of Gregory Garret.
On a view, with underneath caption of "toroidal model..."
...there is a picture of flat earth, overhead dome, & middle-positioned "circle connecting", I presume Sun/Moon.
The author does not explicitly state that the circle represents the orbit of both, if fact, the next image below, shows Sun/Moon, at different heights.
Nor is there mention of orbit changes of Sun/Moon, that we observe & relate to seasonal changes, via heliocentric model, of Earth's elliptical orbit.
When you get a chance in your busy schedule, you needn't answer me directly, but A Written Piece on Sun/Moon movements would be greatly appreciated.
Thanx.
Scipio,
Thank You for the sites & info.
Quick question, was the purpose of your laser experiment, to show that the water surface is/was essentially flat?
That is, following Science's calculation of Earth's circumference, then your team could figure out just where the arc (height) of water, would interfere with the straight coherent laser beam.
And that flash of light seen...was that a sensor or some such, that was farther in distance, than Science's proposed top-arc of water, therefore proving a flat water surface?
Hope that made sense.
That flash of light is the laser beam hitting the camera lens dead on.
You are correct. Given that the horizon should be a physical location on the globe model, the fact that we can see the leveled laser at all over this kind of distance is a sheer physical impossibility on a globe. As you can see from the selection of other laser tests I included, there have been laser tests done over distances of 40 miles that show the same results.
Scipio,
Also, do you have a moment for a few more ?s?
I am not challenging your beliefs, & I only have a layman's understanding of physics, & have not keep up with the new science(s). So a general answer will suffice.
Long ago, some dude "proved" the Earth was a sphere, by knowing a distance b/w 2 locales & simultaneously measuring the angle of the shadow line of 2 vertical sticks, at these 2 locales, at noon (one would cast no shadow), which allowed circumferential estimation of Earth. You are probably familiar. I guess a flat plane could present the same findings, with the Sun directly overhead at one spot.
Also, early observations of ship masts height diminishing as they ventured away in a presumed straight line, with a concomitant overall reduction in vessel size.
No worries, I'm glad I sparked your curiosity.
The test I believe you're referring to is Eratosthenes' measuring of shadows. For his experiment, he arbitrarily pre-supposed the nature of the light rays hitting the Earth and hypothesized that the light rays would be parallel due to the Sun's distance. This was not observed then, and it has never been observed since. This speculative framework is what resulted in the original curvature formula, resulting in a size that was significantly larger than the supposed circumference today.
Although I vehemently disagree with his views on the Trinity, I recommend this channel for a more thorough dissection of some of the questions you have posed, such as perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJenY3zKWLs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIyGmw2iM1I&list=PLoeKBeKeoPx4ASWZ9nQiBxLJUFzAz6Tpg&index=14
Thank You Scipio. Always More To Offer. Thanx Again.
Gregory Lessing Garrett also has a lot of material on flat earth…
https://gregorylessinggarrett.substack.com/p/simply-think-about-it-water-never
he also has diagrams of orbital patterns of sun, celestial bodies over flat earth to explain phenomena that we have been conditioned to understand as due to a rotating globe model.
all of it blows my mind… going through K-12-college and not realizing the big lie.
For Scipio & You.
EnJoy !!
https://youtu.be/jcjRvNBvIwQ?si=jMIDemEdJBLz7_UI
Thanx ksa.
Ok. I think I understand.
Also, when you say, "horizon should be a physical location," is that the same as, the high arc of the water surface? Forgive the elementary-ness of my question, I'm simply trying to visualize the experimental design. THANX.
Yes sir 👍
ksa/Scipio,
Know that I do NO math calculations on any of this stuff.
It's just theorizing, & maybe it's simple wording of what I'm been taught, & studied on my own.
What I have written really isn't what I heard from another, but it's definitely based on the typical scenario presented in celestial mechanics & mapping.
For instance, Kepler's (I think) law states that the planets sweep out equal areas in equal time, I take that almost with a religious zeal, of God's Balanced Genius.
Also, that both Earth/Moon are the exact size to completely eclipse, Moon/Sun, seems wonderous to me.
But it's just a belief.
Scipio,
On GG's demonstration of water running off bottom of spinning Earth model.
Would not the reason be that the small model is within, the Earth's g field. And the lines of force, along the model globe are continuing "downward," towards Earth's center, & hence pulling water off the models southern pole?
Perhaps I am incorrect.
great experiment… mountain of evidence.
Thanks, we have been planning this one for several months now. Thank God for the perfect conditions.
This article is irrefutable!!! There is no possible way this testimony of Scriptural Truth can be challenged! Jesus truly loves you!
In your view, what does our flat earth look like? Two sides like coin? 🤔
My conception is closer to the enclosed Hebrew model, although I'd quibble on some of the particulars of this one: https://cobble.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/-5ab5f5161.jpg
The moon and the sun both look pretty round to me and I would be surprised if they were flat rather than globes. Is the Earth different? If so please explain how and why.
I’m not wedded to globe Earth btw as it looks pretty flat from 36 thousand feet. I just want it explained. I’m thinking that it might be both somehow.
Great question Richard, and it's one that I immediately conceived of as well because we've always been told it's gravity causing the spherical shape of objects in space (which I naturally have my own ideas about, see: https://dfreality.substack.com/p/the-alien-agenda-part-i.) Long story short though, gravity is a function of electromagnetic forces and the inherent electrostatic properties of all matter, not mass attracting mass.
The Sun and Moon appear to be spheres to me as well, and naturally one would assume the same forces causing that would be acting on the Earth, if indeed we were in the vacuum of space. But while that line of reasoning makes sense from the heliocentric paradigm, the Biblical creation account of our cosmos is entirely geocentric.
Without the concept of mass attracting mass, there is no reason to assume that Earth is the same as heavenly bodies, especially since the Earth is a unique creation in the Biblical account. The Sun, Moon, and stars were made specifically for us, further solidifying the idea in my eyes that the Earth is the unique object in this schema. Logically speaking, it's a bit like looking at the lights in the ceiling and assuming the house is the same shape. It may or may not be, but that's not proof for it, if you follow my analogy here.
I'll be honest though, I have even more questions about the Moon now than when I started out between lunar waves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xUGxysKSGEM), "moon bouncing" radio waves off the lunar surface like a repeater (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=0zTtAq6lk0c), or MIT bouncing lasers off the Moon pre-NASA missions (https://www.nature.com/articles/1941267a0.pdf).
Yes lots of questions. I’m an atheist so Biblical explanations don’t immediately hold water although I’m also a classicist so realise that the Ancient Greeks are there about.
I think there are likely more than 49 earth-related references to "face". I did a quick search in the Greek NT for προσωπον (prosōpon) meaning "face" and right away encountered "face of the sky" in Mt. 16:3. I came across that one in Luke also. Since you use the KJV, I used the TR for my NT search. I didn't take on the OT this evening.
Acts 17:26 does turn up in the search:
Acts 17:26 ἐποίησέ τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματος πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ _πρόσωπον_ τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προτεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν·
ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς is "on all the face of the earth", word for word.
The BDAG defines the usage here and in a number of other places as "3. the outer surface of something, face=surface πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς". It does not, however, cite any usage of this kind outside the Bible. I suppose your reading could be possible. It's not going on my "clear meaning of scripture" verse list just yet, though.
The KJV doesn't always translate πρόσωπον as "face", either. For example, in Heb 9:24 and in other places it is translated as "presence" (of God). The word has a semantic range. Most of the time in the NT it is used to mean the face of a being.
Heb. 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:...
νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν - "now to appear in the face of God for us". It's a good, tight translation. "Face" didn't quite fit in English and they used "presence" instead.
In James 1:11 it's "fashion". In Jude 16 it's "persons".
In Rev. 10:1 we have καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, "and his face was as it were the sun". And in Rev. 20:11 there's οὗ ἀπὸ προσώπου ἔφυγεν ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ οὐρανός, "from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away". That's interesting.
I can't delve further into this tonight -- I have choir in the morning and need sleep -- but it's an interesting proposal you make. I see what the Bible says about these matters and I don't disagree. I just don't see it, yet. There are things quite real that we can't see. If we could, perhaps it would all fall into place.
Thanks for this great response CM.
I agree with you, this particular aspect is definitely the greyest area of Scripture in regards to the physical characteristics given to the Earth, becoming clearer once that greater context unfolds. The Greek word translated as face in the NT is indeed multifaceted, as is panim (H6440) in the OT. However, when applied to a circle, which I believe is what Isaiah is describing, a face must definitionally be flat and enclosed by the boundaries of its shape.
My thought process is essentially this: if the Earth has a face, and the Earth is a circle, then that face would be a geometric/physical one and not just a metaphorical or allegorical one. Others see it differently obviously and I certainly wouldn’t fault them for doing so.
Frankly, quite a few things make a lot more sense when viewed the way you describe. I just can't "see" it, yet. But I know our senses are limited.
I mentioned elsewhere my father being a pilot. He also had my mother and I (at different times) in the copilot seat, flying the plane (small four-seaters). My mother did not catch on but I did, and at a fairly young age I learned straight-and-level flight, and even did a takeoff, with verbal help (once that I remember), and a landing except for the final touchdown, again with verbal help from my father. I don't clearly remember my age or where we were, but I was in elementary school.
Later on, as an older teenager, my father attempted to get me to where I could solo and get my license -- he was also a military and civilian flight instructor. Unfortunately, I have weird visual problems that interfered with judging landings correctly and I eventually had to give up (and I still have trouble backing my car into the garage, for related reasons). I could land the plane, and did so repeatedly, including touch-and-goes, but not well enough to solo. But I spent many hours as a teenager in either the copilot's seat navigating or in the pilot's seat flying, day and night, and I saw what I saw, especially as the pilot.
When you are flying the plane you have to be paying attention and looking where you are going. It's not like riding along, looking out a passenger window. You have a full view of what's ahead, and a good view of what's below, above, and all around. You get to be rather familiar with the horizon, which you can view from low altitude or high (although not terribly high in a small plane that isn't pressurized).
What I saw from that cockpit, ~55 years ago and more, doesn't quite square with most of the attempts I have read thus far to reconcile scripture with observation concerning earth's configuration. Instead, it has offered a fascinating literal worldview that I have carried with me ever since. I was also a Bible student back then, and I read the Bible all the way through for the first time in the same time frame as when I was piloting those planes. What I observed didn't strike me as being in conflict with scripture, but I didn't go very deep on my first reading.
There's that "sea of glass" before the throne of God. God's view of Earth? How does it all fit together? I don't exactly know, but I expect that it does. It makes so much more sense to accept the biblical account for what it reveals than to reject it because it includes things I don't understand.
It does my heart good that there are still platforms for truth to be told.
Completely off the subject, but I ask your thoughts (and for any others that may wish to help), because I have read almost all of your works, and you have some wisdom. My question is this: With all of the digital IDs being implemented and prepared for, I continuously hear people say they won't do it because it is unbiblical. When I press for a reason, I have only gotten silence. I understand Rev., and its implications, and wish to put that aside for the moment. The CBDCs are a much easier topic. For example, Matt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Or, as Jesus is our perfect example, the only times he was expressly mad (I believe) is when the moneychangers had taken over the temple. In his example, we are now the temple of God, the central bankers are the moneychangers. He would not have us do such a thing (and there are more examples). But, back to just the digital ID... why, Scripturally, should we not allow such a thing? I respect you (and your readers), and would truly appreciate some insight into this. Thank you, and God bless you and your work.
All glory to God brother, thank you.
Scripturally what I would say is that any law barring us from freely earning a living is unbiblical. The lockdowns were straight up satanic for a host of reasons, but to put it succinctly, Ecclesiastes 2:24 states “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.”
Just look at China or the UK, we don’t have to guess where this is going or whether a digital ID/social credit/carbon taxes/CBDCs will be used in a tyrannical and authoritarian manner. Eventually all these digital tools will be moved to one platform (what Elon’s X is in the workings to become), a la China’s WeChat. Social media, banking, carbon tracking, it’s nothing less than slavery to an inherently alchemical financial system.
I’m of the belief that the mark spoken of in Revelation is more a spiritual brand personally, but digital ID’s are clearly an earthly manifestation of that spiritual marking. The Feds are putting Christians on watchlists for purchasing Bibles. It doesn’t take a genius to realize where this is going next when the proverbial “they” have even further control of our lives via these technological shackles.
I thank you for your prompt and insightful thoughts. That is possibly the perfect verse, and I believe, will get my thinking headed in the right direction. The CBDCs and the rest are absolute and blatant slavery, and the digital ID is the obvious runup to it. This eases my mind. I have been after this bit of wisdom for some months now.
More awesomeness from brother Scipio!
On the Nikon video, when you're worried about burning out the camera, the laser started to resemble a star.
Great job ya'll, keep crushing!
Good bless!