Q: Does the Bible support the notion that the earth is flat? One has to wonder…to what extent can we make meaningful statements about the cosmos? How might we best describe the very things that are just beyond our reach?
In some sense, it would be irreverent to presume every inner working of Creation can be reduced to natural phenomena that can be explained in mundane terms. And yet, despite that there is indeed mystery which exceeds comprehension, the prophecy of the End Time in Daniel 12:4 affirms that “knowledge shall increase”. However, as it pertains to Scripture, this shouldn’t be viewed as a reference to scientific or technological advancement, but would be best understood as an increase in spiritual knowledge.
I used to discuss the “Flat Earth” issue at length in times past, but I tend to set it aside in most instances now, since it isn’t [directly] a matter of salvation (although what people believe certainly affects their worldview) and is generally just cause for controversy and division.
That being said, I confess that I am the odd man out, as I no longer believe that the nature of our world/reality is as we’ve been told by contemporary scientists and TV personalities, and I don’t think it’s compatible with Christianity–a conclusion I arrived at only after many months of sustained efforts I painstakingly made to prove just the opposite. But whether or not the Scriptures explicitly affirm a flat earth is another matter.
Despite what many Flat Earth proponents suggest, I’ve personally never claimed that, “The Bible says the earth is flat”, because no such reference is ever made. So, I’m perfectly content to concede to that being a false claim. The fact is many flat earthers simply make bad arguments—some of which are actually pretty hilarious.
However, although the earth’s flatness can’t be derived directly from Scripture, I would also object to people trying to argue that the Bible proves the opposite (a spherical earth), because Scripture doesn’t explicitly provide any justification for the earth’s curvature either; the Bible doesn’t really speak to the earths dimensions one way or the other, despite memes that suggest otherwise.
In the spirit of solidarity, I wanted to make a point of admitting I thought the above memes were quite clever, despite the obvious jab intended; if you can’t laugh at yourself, right?
All jokes aside, what I generally say is that, in the absence of any preexisting notion about the earth or cosmology, a plain reading of Scripture is consistent with our lived experience—that we exist on a stationary plane and that the heavens are revolving around us. That’s a more conservative way of phrasing it and maybe lacks the punch Flat-Earth-Christians want when they say, “Here’s IRREFUTABLE evidence that the Bible 100% PROVES the earth is flat!”, but it’s more accurate and a more honest way of presenting it. Being led by emotion on this muddies up the actual message.
Section II: Analyzing errors
This article written by several Christians makes a number of points I’d like to review throughout this presentation:
Right out of the gate, the authors reveal their not-so-subtle contempt for the subject matter at hand—a tone which is noticeable throughout the article by their choice of words—and they misrepresent some of the information (probably unintentionally), meaning they establish sympathy for their own presuppositions under false pretenses right from the beginning.
By employing the word “nonsense”, this particular “debunking” is presumably guided by disdain rather than an objective assessment of the facts in an honest pursuit of the truth, which (in my view) effectively taints the entire analysis moving forward, because it’s clear the writers are not looking through an impartial lens. Therefore, their every conclusion will be predetermined prior to any critical thinking process, because the lens itself through which they are looking at the information is skewing the results by default, so that it comports with their personal convictions.
I’m not sure how they concluded that this has been “debunked for thousands of years”, given that it wasn’t until the 1500’s that Copernicus contributed his theories to the cosmic narrative, and it wasn’t until the 1960’s that we allegedly first started sending rockets into outer space which would be the necessary vantage to have before we could definitively confirm or deny those claims on an empirical basis.
The authors could claim it’s been posited for thousands of years (which would still be a notion I’d say is speculative), but to add that [spherical earth] was believed by the majority would be completely unfounded, and to add that [flat earth] was “debunked” is simply historically impossible. The proposal of an alternative hypothesis does not constitute a debunking–even if most accept it as plausible and adopt it as the favorable position–nor is the mathematical pragmatism alone a confirmation of its veracity.
With no disrespect intended, saying that these are, “ideas that would not exist were it not for the internet”, is both disingenuous and presumptuous, because the statement almost demands that you grant a certain level of “omniscience” to the author, since they’re essentially claiming to know what would or wouldn’t happen given a different set of circumstances.
While I don’t approve of the condescension that is now commonly implied in labeling someone as an “internet researcher” which is a sort of reductio ad absurdum—as if the truth or falsity of something is determined by whether the medium by which a person accesses the information is on a screen or in a book—I do agree that YouTube videos were the initial source of this topic trending anew. Yet, it’s entirely possible that belief in a flat earth could have spread any number of ways, and to claim to know otherwise with certainty—that you know what would be the case in some other version of reality where the internet never existed—is arguing from ignorance. This fallacy is reiterated a number of times, but what’s worse is the recurring falsehood that no one believed this in times past, including the Church.
They make this claim more than once, yet they never actually cite who these “global earth teachers throughout church history” are, or provide any quotations that we might examine the context of their alleged “globular” teachings. In an earlier article, they cite a single monk (St. Bede) as having described belief in a ball-earth, and they cite a contemporary author of almost a dozen books on the subject of witchcraft and how the concept of the devil is an idea which has evolved over time, who exclusively makes reference to medieval European [western] Christians from 1200 AD and on—and this is supposedly what constitutes “unambiguous, universal belief”, in flagrant disregard of all the ancient [eastern] believers for the first thousand years.
Conversely, however, there is no shortage of literature demonstrating that, in their own words, the Early Church Fathers were almost unanimously geocentrists. One would have to ignore centuries worth of ancient writings in order to claim they didn’t, or—like the author’s here—disregard it as a separate issue. At best, I would say most early Christians were agnostic about the earth’s shape, and at worst, they weren’t even agnostic because it was probably such a complete non-issue that it wasn’t even on their minds at all—hence the focus on such a narrow region and limited sample of early sources in the article.
But, to the authors’ credit, they did make a point to note that they had already responded to the issue of flat earth and the issue of geocentrism in previous articles.
However, since that is the case, it would seem that they ought to know that these are not two separate issues for flat earthers, assuming they did the research on the position they are refuting. Yet, they treat them as if they are completely unrelated throughout the article as I will show, which highlights that they actually misunderstand the argument at the most fundamental level. In other words, they are “debunking” a position they aren’t even familiar with, which causes them to relentlessly strawman flat earthers arguments.
**It is not necessarily just the shape of the earth that is in question, but the entire model of cosmology which is inherently problematic and inconsistent.**
Again, I’ll be the first to admit that the Bible does not say that the earth is flat. But this is still a prime example that the authors, and many others like them, do not understand the nature of the argument, as they incorrectly imply that the earth being stationary and the earth being flat are separate issues. That is FALSE.
It would be much like me saying that the earth being a globe and the force of gravity are unrelated issues. That would obviously expose my ignorance of the laws of physics and of heliocentrism as a paradigm, since the main principle of gravity—that matter attracts matter—is directly responsible for the formation of stars and planets into spherical shaped masses around a dense central core, according to that model. If I dispense with such an integral part of that model, then is my “debunking” of their entire position really justified? Or is it necessary for me to address those laws/principles together as a unified system and show how all of it is faulty rather than just a single aspect? (Or in this case, not simply “faulty”, but in direct contradiction of Scripture).
Section III: The Flat Earth Model
Much like the ancient Hebrew conception above, an accurate and full portrayal of the biblical flat earth position could be summarized as follows (external links underlined):
We live in an enclosed system, on a “flat” plane that isstationary, around which the entire heavens revolve, with a sun and moon that both emanate their own light independently of one another and are celestial bodies that are localized and comparatively small relative to the earth (suspended in circuitous “orbits” that follow reciprocating radial trajectories). On the ground, we are encompassed on all sides by a naturally-formed “wall” of ice which encircles the entire perimeter of the earth, all of which exists beneath the firmament (a vaulted barrier in the heavens, beyond which nothing physical can transgress) which separates the waters below from the literal waters above. These waters above serve as a liquid-medium for the stars which are [theoretically, possibly] extradimensional sources of light generated by ultrasonic frequencies. The entire system is electromagnetically charged [theoretically, possibly] by the immense current of the liquid-medium within the resonance chamber/firmament; thus, gravitational values of objects can be expressed in simple terms of density/buoyancy.
Of all the resources contained in this article, to understand the very basics of the “flat earth” position and the arguments being made, one must (at a minimum) take the time to regard each of the links in the premise above, as those are the fundamental components being proposed within the model.
An illustration of one potential scenario concerning the physics of the flat earth model; the earth exists at an intersectional point on a single axis within the perpetual vortex of a toroidal field.
*Interesting sidenote; according to the Dynamo theory, “fluid motion in the [earth’s] core moves conducting material across an existing magnetic field and creates an electric current. This current produces a magnetic field…”
In other words, the mainstream scientific narrative has a similar view in terms of what phenomenon generates geomagnetic fields—the motion of fluid—the only difference is where the fluid is that we’re saying is the source—up above us or down below us (or perhaps all around). The [actual] science indicates our current understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed.
–High altitude photo showing a horizon line which never recedes below eye-level and no observable curvature at 105,600 ft (20 miles high)
In terms of a formal debate, the authors of this article are basically only refuting one word (flat) of a very long premise while disregarding every other qualifying item in the argument, meaning they aren’t actually refuting the whole argument since they’re only addressing a fraction of the premise.
Moving on…
Section IV: Biblical Interpretation
Ironically, I agree with their point here about the Bible not being intended as a scientific text, although my agreement is for different reasons. I would argue that, if/when science is conducted honestly and correctly, then what we see in reality is perfectly consistent with what we see in Scripture, which makes it a text that does indeed affirm scientific findings, albeit not intended by the various biblical authors.
With respect to the kind of language the Bible is communicating throughout the passages of different books—an argument I hear quite often used against a literal interpretation of Scripture—I do think there’s a sort of fallacious reasoning to be identified, namely in the reference to symbolic/poetic language.
There seems to be a false dichotomy being drawn as they suggest that something in a particular passage is intended to be interpreted poetically and NOT literally, as if the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. And yet, at the same time, many will then turn around and talk about how a different interpretation of said passage DOES comport with SOME literal meaning. So, poetic language can be used to describe something in literal terms.
For example, we are literally welcomed into heaven by Christ who is figuratively the door. Those two notions are not mutually exclusive, despite that verse often being used to illustrate that exact point since the Son of God is not made of mahogany. Poetic language (or other) doesn’t necessarily detract from a literal interpretation, which people seem to affirm themselves by admitting a verse can be understood contextually and is not a purely poetic text that is devoid of any practical meaning.
Among other examples of types and shadows, Job—from king to sufferer—was a prefiguration of Christ in a distinctly literal way, although he is not literally the Christ. It is both literal and not.
So, it isn’t “literalism” the authors of the article have a problem with, or even literalism in the context of cosmology; just literalism specifically in the context of geocentric cosmology. Because, while I agree the Bible is not intended as a cosmological reference book, I would point out the authors are conveniently willing to refer to it as such when it appears to correspond with their heliocentric presuppositions (i.e. the earth “hangs on nothing” aka floating in outer space). In other words, it IS appropriate for them to use as a scientific proof text, but NOT appropriate for someone holding an opposing view.
But double standards aside, this approach many take is to impose a preexisting belief onto the text because they’re bringing those beliefs with them to the table. We should never twist/reinterpret Scripture to accommodate our preferences and understanding, but must allow our understanding to accommodate Scripture.
Either the Bible determines how we see the world, or the world determines how we see the Bible. And to that point, interestingly, despite their zeal and sincere faith, many Christians have adopted a sort of composite worldview that has both worldly, atheist-inspired elements as well as biblical aspects to it. This is the result of constant exposure to the ever-increasing secular culture, which has influenced Christian’s thinking all the way down to their theological beliefs, unbeknownst to them.
This tendency to project themselves into the Bible has led people to form an array of beliefs tailored to their own thinking, from something as benign as claiming “Jesus was black”, to something as extreme and blasphemous as claiming, “Jesus was gay.” They seem to forget Whose image is on who.
Icon of the First Ecumenical Council, 325 AD, which formally condemned Arianism—the heretical teaching of the Bishop Arius that Christ was a created being.
It should be noted that every heresy in Church history was espoused by sincere, devout Christians who claimed they were simply holding to the Scriptures. This is the natural result of every individual treating the Bible like it’s a completely private, devotional text by interpreting it in a vacuum in total isolation from the cultural, historic, linguistic, apostolic context in which it was intended to be understood as a primarily liturgical text written by the Church, for the Church.
So, we may think to ourselves, “Well, the globe v.s. flat earth subject isn’t a matter of salvation, so it isn’t really that important”, which I agree with to an extent—but there are consequences to a faulty approach to hermeneutics itself, which has led untold thousands of [modern, western] Christians to hold novel beliefs that are becoming increasingly progressive and New Age in nature, as well as mutually exclusive doctrines that cannot all be true, despite that they all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit (this is why, for the sake of objectivity, I eventually recognized the absolute necessity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (Orthodox) Church, among other reasons).
To that end, our cosmic perspective does relate to salvation, even if indirectly. It all matters.
Notice how the sciences relating to the cosmos are repeatedly cited as justification—and often times the very reason—for a persons atheism. Coincidence?
In the link to the report above which includes numerous graphs/polls according to multiple surveys, the data suggests that:
“Christians are declining not just as a share of the U.S. adult population, but also in absolute numbers, while religiously unaffiliated numbers steadily rise (atheists, agnostics, etc.)…Trends documented in the PEW research center closely resemble those found in the long-running General Social Survey (GSS)’… What was the word that many respondents used to explain their lack of belief? Science! Others used phrases like ‘common sense, ‘logic’, or a ‘lack of [scientific] evidence.’
…Some specific responses from young people who participated in the study in regards to why they have changed their beliefs:
“Learning about evolution when I went away to college.”
“Rational thought makes religion go out the window.”
“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator.” (-PEW Research Center)
*This poll chart reveals an interesting correlation; the largest number of people who don’t believe in God/a higher power happen to belong to the Geosciences and Astrophysics–precisely the two fields which contradict the age of the earth and the origin of the cosmospresented in the book of Genesis.
“Basically, Pew Research found the same thing that we found; a large percent of young people are leaving the church because of questions about science that lead to doubts about God’s word. If we can’t trust the historical portions of the Bible that deal with our origins [like Genesis], why should we trust the message of Jesus Christ?” (-Answers in Genesis)
Our faith faces a constant barrage of claims and explanations from myriad irreligious philosophies which affect us—even if imperceptibly over the span of decades or centuries—until people eventually assimilate the rationale and identify it as Christian in nature, even suggesting that “this is always what Christians believed.” From this cosmogonic rationale, the subject of whether or not aliens from outer space have salvation is now discussed among many Christians, Mormonism gave rise to “Space Jesus”, and Scientology maintains the eccentric beliefs about the origins of humanity coming from disembodied alien spirits whose fate was intergalactic banishment.
Since we can have certitude–knowing the objective truth about the nature of our world–any belief system with such cosmic first principles as these is disqualified by default, so there’s no need to examine the theology, history, or anything else contained within those systems any further, because their very existence is predicated on a false idea from the outset. But again–since I hold myself to the same standard I expect–I would still say that it is incorrect (and thus ineffective) to take one feature of a system in isolation from everything else, analyze it, and then think that your conclusion about that single feature defines the whole system. Beliefs within a system ought to be weighed together.
For instance, when the authors say, “Clearly, the earth was created in a short space of time a few thousand years ago”, they are making a claim which flies directly in the face of the mainstream scientific narrative they supposedly champion by making exceptions within that uniform system.
But why is that obvious? Why is that not also something that was “debunked thousands of years ago”?
It seems it has not yet registered for them, that when they say, “clearly the universe did not arise through naturalistic means”, they are refuting the same sciences they are using to refute flat earth cosmology; the heliocentric model is a holistic system, so to simply pick and choose which aspects are acceptable because they happen to satisfy some unjustified, arbitrary criteria they have determined to be requisites is question begging.
(Top right) 1960 Apollo 8 at 260,000 miles v.s. (Full frame) 2015 DSCOVR craft at 1,000,000 miles; juxtaposition shows wildly inconsistent spatial relationships relative to each perspective (indicating that at least one image is not an authentic photograph).
The writers explicitly affirm in the article that Genesis is an historic book (not poetic or metaphorical), so it’s vitally important to recognize that a number of questions then demand an answer:
Is it “clear” that the earth existed before the sun as described in Genesis, despite what scientists say?
Is it “clear” that the earth is not millions of years old, despite what geologists and proponents of radiometric dating continually say?
Is it “clear” that the universe is not billions of years old, despite what astronomers/astrophysicists say?
I ask these questions as a way of pointing out that, apart from the notion of “trust” in the intellectual authority of some person/agency, there is no discernable standard for which scientists theories/claimed discoveries are to be granted and which are to be discarded, which inevitably leads to a system that is internally inconsistent/incomplete.
Faith = trust, and the scientific method isn’t supposed to be based on faith, from what I understand.
Photo taken by me personally in 2020 during the SpaceX launch, when I noticed that two of the mounted camera angles they were cutting back and forth from during the LIVE broadcast showed varying degrees of curvature, despite being at the same altitude on the same shuttle, recording at the same time—something 99% of people watching probably didn’t even notice (I’m assuming).
I don’t intend this as a blanket statement, but in the case of many Christians, there are competing views stemming from both progressive and traditional values simultaneously, and each perspective conflicts with the other—a hybrid worldview really can’t even be considered coherent except in the context of being lukewarm.
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)
Bible Verses
Due to their unfamiliarity with the actual premise/argument, this is where they begin to continually strawman the flat earth position. I agree with them here—these verses don’t prove a flat earth, nor is anyone saying they do—but they’re missing the point entirely by failing to understand that the overwhelming majority of scientific consensus clearly undermines the biblical narrative of the created order in terms of cosmic ORIGINS and cosmic MECHANISMS.
Because, even if the earth’s flatness if not derived explicitly from Scripture, if nothing else, Scripture at a minimum still shows itself to invalidate the heliocentric model. So, why embrace certain secular teachings as authentic while rejecting others as fraudulent? Since the system itself directly contradicts the biblical account of Creation, what exactly is the metric for determining which portions of Genesis to take exactly literal and which to reinterpret in order to reconcile them with the claims of scientists (especially when you’ve already conceded it’s an historic account)?
…and the failure to understand FLAT+STATIONARY are not separate issues persists.
Section VI: The Best FE Argument (w/ math & science)
I don’t suppose it’s fair to expect them to know what the best argument is (or what the best argument is according to people who actually believe the earth is flat), but to say it is the “high altitude perspective” is incorrect—though it’s a close second.
The best argument is simply that there is not a single ounce of detectable, measurable or observable curvature across any given distance of water (which is always level), according to the very formula based on the circumference of the earth in their own model—8 inches x miles(squared).
The strength of this point is 1) it refutes one of the central arguments made long ago that first established belief in the globe by convincing everyone the reason a ship’s sail disappears over the horizon is due to the earth’s curve, and 2) we don’t need to fly way up into the sky to test and demonstrate the reality; we can perform experiments right here on the ground that show the math fails miserably—this circumvents the objection to high altitude images invariably made that, “you’re just not high up enough yet to see the curve.”
A boat sets out to sea. It disappears over the horizon—base first, mast last—so it must be sloping down away from us, right? But then, with a telescope or high-powered zoom camera, you can bring the entire vessel back into view. Tada!
For my next trick, I’ll explain why the boat now appears to be hovering above the water. This is due in part to the limits of the human eye (perspective) and/or the vanishing point of light based on the angle of incidence—more on that in a moment.
The common arguments against this are either, “that’s just a superior mirage”, or something to do with light refraction, pending weather conditions (cold/humidity, etc.)
Firstly, that is a disingenuous attribution of a superior mirage, unlike the following:
Notice (above) how the distorted area that constitutes the mirage is (1) partial, and (2) inverted above the actual vessel.
With this smaller boat (below), the mirage is the (1) partial, (2) inverted area of distortion underneath the vessel, and the vessel itself appears distorted due to the refraction of light through the air. Simple.
Now, the reason the water above the horizon appears invisible is, again, due to the limits of the human eye (perspective) and the vanishing point of light based on the angle of incidence—the human eye functions as such that it perceives everything in terms of angular resolution (0.02°).
To illustrate further, here’s a professional drawing, compliments of yours truly:
When Dave is looking at the sun at its zenith, the angle at A1 is, let’s say, roughly 80–90 degrees. However, even if the sun is moving forward away from him in a straight path (rather than curving), the angle will inevitably become smaller. As the angle decreases, the area of the sun at A2 that is greater than the angle of incidence causes the sun to appear to be going down beneath the horizon (the horizon depicted by Dave’s dotted line-of-sight), even though it is still moving in a straight path at the same exact height).
The suns elevation isn’t changing, its angle relative to you is. The horizon is nothing more than the vanishing point of our perspective.
…and that was all just the “firstly”. SECONDLY, even if this “mirage” explanation were true, it doesn’t address the numerous experiments that have been performed independently of one another by various individuals in much colder climates, at night (no heat from the sun), using long distance lasers across 20–60 miles of lake water. Light should not be visible from one end to another (according to the math, based on the globe model), being obscured by no less than 266–2400 feet of curvature.
One famous example is that of the Chicago Skyline; this photo was taken at 56 miles away at 15 ft elevation.
The base of the Sears Tower is at 596 ft Elevation. The dunes at Stevensville, Grand Mere Lakes Park are 596 ft Elevation The Lake Michigan Water is at 581 ft Elevation (above sea-level)
That brings it to 1,780 feet that would be hidden beneath curvature if the earth was a globe with a 24,901 mile circumference.
Guess what?
The Sears Tower is 1,729 ft tall at the tip of the antenna (it’s only 1450 ft tall at the top of actual structure). Another fact: only 13 buildings in Chicago Skyline are over 800 feet tall (yet you can count at least 43 buildings in the photo above).
All that said, it doesn’t really matter how tall the Sears tower is, because you can see the entire skyline, including buildings that are only a fraction of the height of Sears Tower. Given that this photograph has been captured countless times under a variety of weather conditions from different perspectives by different people, there’s no amount of optical illusions that can account for this.
To really drive this point home with a touch of irony, consider that the people claiming that just 3 miles is far enough to observe a ship disappearing beneath the earth’s curve are the same people claiming that seeing a flat horizon at an altitude of 105,600 ft (20 miles) means you still aren’t high enough yet—meaning that, somehow, curvature is observable at ground level but not from a vantage in the sky.
This. Defies. All. Logic.
Hence, I think THIS is the strongest/best argument flat earthers have. Because anyone can test the math for themselves through observation and experimentation (the way REAL science works, which isn’t entirely reliant on a complacent populace to take fallible scientists at their word when they provide us with data/results that cannot be reproduced by anyone except them).
There’s any number of ways to create a formula with inputs that express something mathematically “true”, but this doesn’t automatically mean the formulaic expression is an actual reflection of reality, even if the math technically works.
Any time you have a conclusion in any of the sciences that cannot be derived from direct experimentation and observation, that’s a red flag—because if you need to say of some law, “X is logically incoherent, therefore it must be the case that X because Y“, you’re probably creating more problems in the system than you’re solving (i.e. the law of conservation of angular momentumdictates that matter at the outer edges of galaxies ought be flung outward into space by the centripetal force of the galaxies rotation; this doesn’t occur in reality which violates this law; therefore, they posit that there must be some additional mechanism at work (dark matter/dark energy) holding everything together, because they assume the model is correct).
Submitting an additional theory to place underneath the stack of previous theories to reconcile problems is totally unjustified and is ultimately inconsequential, because if you can’t measure the thing or even detect it (i.e. dark matter), then it can’t be tested or proven/disproven, which is the very definition of an unfalsifiable theory. That isn’t science.
Speaking of things that can’t be replicated or falsified…
Section VII: The Sun & Moon
During the total solar eclipse in 2017, we observed a “shadow being cast onto the earth” that was approximately 70 miles wide, while the moon itself is said to be 2,151 miles in diameter. Notice anything wrong with that scenario?
It is not possible to cast a shadow that is smaller than the object, despite the completely illogical and unscientific claims made about the “umbra”. Yet, it is assumed that this is what we’re witnessing, regardless—even though we haven’t recreated this particular effect (because we can’t, because it’s nonsense). The illustrations they design admit they’re not to scale, yet they argue that the sun being comparatively massive and its light shining in all directions accounts for the cone-like umbra when its light strikes the moon, even though if we adjusted the model to reflect the actual 93 million mile distance between them, then the angles of light they’re trying to depict would be completely different (i.e. nonexistent). This is why, according to their model, the sun and moon only “appear” to be the exact same size, becauseeven though the sun is about 400 times as wide as the moon, it is also just so happens to be 400 times further away.
Given the Newtonian laws of motion that are absolutely fundamental to physics (i.e. that the amount of momentum remains constant and is only changed by action of forces) I’ve also long since said that our always seeing the same side of the moon does not make sense. Because, since its orbital path is said to be elliptical, the moon would literally need to be accelerating and decelerating in order for its rotation to remain perfectly uniform with the speed of its orbit around us so that we NEVER glimpse a different side.
Under the currently accepted model, the [mainstream] understanding/explanations of these natural phenomena are wildly insufficient in giving an account for these problems, which is what happens when you apply real physics to imaginary cosmology.
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but going back to the authors of this article, they simply don’t understand the argument(s) and are thus straw-manning the flat earth position once again. They ask how the earth’s shadow could be cast onto the moon if the sun and moon are both circling above the earth. However, flat earther’s are not claiming that eclipses are even the result/effect of a “shadow” to begin with—that’s their presupposition coming into play again—so they’re asking us to answer a question on their terms according to the very model in question.
Along with every mainstream pop-culture scientist, an article in Forbe’s also listed this among “5 impossible facts that would HAVE TO BE TRUE if the Earth were flat“, which demonstrates that this false dichotomy is essentially universally accepted. But these are all based on assumptions.
As per Genesis 1:14–18, the Moon is a LIGHT that shines on its own, NOT merely a passive object reflecting light from the sun. This was attested to as early as 1954 by Prof. R. Foster who reiterated in a 1965 LIVE broadcast that, “the moon is not a piece of rock, it is a plasma; a plasma phenomenon, a cosmic plasma”, and he was adamant that “they won’t be able to land on it.” Interestingly enough, this claim which Foster insisted he had already all but proven came 4 years prior to the first manned mission to the moon (–see cold moonlight experiments).
Recount what I mentioned earlier about the nature of lights in the firmament—that they are [plausibly] “extradimensional sources of light generated by ultrasonic frequencies.”
With this in mind, to understand lunar eclipses (which are admittedly more tricky to explain than solar eclipses), one must think in terms of frequency. Having over a decade of extensive experience in Audio Engineering, I’m actually in the perfect position to give an example that illustrates this point:
When two audio recordings have similar/identical wavelengths, the total decibels of the signal through the stereo output will increase exponentially (dB increases on a logarithmic scale) as long as those wavelengths are in alignment with one another. However, if you drag one waveform so that it is slightly offset with the other, or so that their wavelengths are the inverse of one another, they actually cancel out each others sound, resulting in a signal output that is much quieter or completely silent—which is known as being “out of phase”.
From a practical standpoint, since audible sound and visible light are both frequencies (behaving as waves), it stands to reason that a similar principle applies to the visual spectrum. Dimensions of the earth notwithstanding, here is a short video explaining how this lunar phenomenon works. Based on the verifiable science relating to frequencies—and the biblical revelation that the sun and moon are both lights—to infer that an eclipse is the result of overlapping frequencies creating a change in the overall polarity of the combined wavelengths is a perfectly sound explanation.
At a given point during the course of their “orbits”, the wavelength of light being emitted from one begins to overtake the other wavelength, until they are “out of phase” and the light is then “masked”, which we perceive as an eclipse.
The problem is, if the moon is a light, it’smass is WAY less than projected, which would undercut the explanation of the tides and shatter ALL theories of gravity in the process.
Section VIII: Problems in Paradigm
So, again, the issue flat earthers are addressing is at the paradigm level, which means refuting whether or not the earth is “flat” is only addressing one aspect of a multifaceted argument. It isn’t just the curvature (or lack thereof) that demands attention, but the model of cosmology itself—and trying to determine which model of cosmology is more consistent with 1) Scripture 2) the Christians of the Early Church 3) our actual lived experience, and 4) the entirety of its own scientific narrative.
Because even if the world were spherical, many Christians functionally reject every other aspect of heliocentrism, despite that it’s a unified system, and fail to realize that once you divorce certain aspects that are integral to that understanding, you undermine the validity of the entire system by implying that the scientific method can be arbitrarily, selectively adhered to/discredited. Either that, or they implicitly admit sometimes scientists might be dishonest.
If you claim a young earth based on the Bible, you de facto reject cosmic-background-radiation data that suggests a universe aged billions of years following the big bang.
If you believe the earth existed before the sun based on the Bible, you reject the laws of physics accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
If you adjust the mass of the earth to account for our inability to see curvature, you change the value of gravity by default, as well as the orbital trajectory of the moon, as well as the aeronautical calculations necessary for the escape from and reentry into the atmosphere, along with all the other math pertaining to the system that has supposedly been working properly because our estimation of the relative sizes, speeds and distances is supposedly correct. This is quite a dilemma–unless, of course, you recognize that we are mistaken about the nature of the sun, moon and stars.
Still shot of Venus as it actually appears, apart from CGI renderings.
Star Sirius as it actually appears.
Grains of sand oscillating at 1893 Hz on a Chladni plate (–see Cymatics)
([Right] Magnet underneath a ferrocell showing the center of light at the inertia plane.)There are noticeable similarities between these images, which is not so surprising if we simply take into account the prospect that these phenomena are all governed by the same universal principles of electromagnetic energy, sonic frequencies and other laws. In other words, whether it is viewed as generating something new or merely transforming preexisting matter and energy, sound has manipulative and creative properties.
For someone who affirms that God spoke all things into existence according to the Scriptures, this should hardly be a new concept to grasp. But the mainstream narrative of science has no place for these phenomena at the foundational level, because they cannot be inserted into the paradigm as necessary components without displacing other laws. Under the current model of cosmology, they cannot obtain a status beyond “fun facts” worthy of little more than the momentary intrigue they provide through experimentation.
This is how the monolith of cosmic pseudoscience has backed itself into a corner; nothing can be walked back without bringing down the whole house of cards, and they’re well aware of this. But is not wanting to have to reevaluate previous beliefs an acceptable reason to reject alternative ideas? Is “possibility” not the mark of scientific progress? And is that not the very essence of repentance for Christians? Of humility?
Scientists will swear that “religion is stuck in the past because it denies change, while science fosters progress by welcoming new ideas and admitting we were wrong before. We’re okay with not knowing everything!” Yet, each successive generation of scientists has contributed to the instability of this structurally unsound model by refusing to surrender the territory gained by previous assumptions in a system whose eventual collapse is all but guaranteed.
Either the math/science is objective or it isn’t. Either the model is true or it isn’t. Either the Bible gives account of Creation or the sciences do.
When a model cannot adequately explain its own fundamentals—like the movements of the stars, sun and moon—then the model itself is unreliable, and thus, useless. Despite that the motive driving [most] Naturalists is to find an alternative to God, many Christians remain staunchly committed to the tenets of Naturalism as the explanation of our cosmic/biological origins—even knowing that it’s an ideology which precludes divine revelation and everything transcendent in nature—which only serves to inhibit the ability to think critically at the paradigm level.
That is why I wouldn’t typically label myself as a “flat earther”—as that characterization is a rather crude summation of the model by a single detail that’s negligible—but rather, an ENCLOSED COSMOLOGIST. Because, at the end of all this, the thing that will ultimately alter your perspective of reality and violently flip your entire worldview upside down is not the shape of the earth, but the existence of the dome-like barrier known as the firmament.And the reasons for that are obvious, if you think about it.
Section IX: The Firmament
If the firmament exists…
It would mean that our very concept of “universe” and everything in it is mistaken; that there is no sentient life elsewhere (on the physical plane); that the nature of the sun/stars, and meteors/asteroids/comets are not what people think; that there are no trillions of light years worth of distance between things; that our understanding of gravity is more or less false, meaning the famous theory of relativity/a distorted space-time continuum is completely irrelevant, because there is no such thing as orbital motions, because there are no planets, or nebula, or black holes/quasars, because there are no galaxies, because there is no outer space, meaning no craft—manned or unmanned—has ever left the earth. Not once. Which would mean that, not only did NASA stage the moon landing in the 1960’s, but that everything they’ve claimed to do in space for the entire history of their organization since then has been fake.
That’s 60 years worth of beliefs people have formulated pertaining to a realm that doesn’t even exist.
That’s an entire film genre that stems from nothing more than a fictional idea.
That’s whole libraries worth of books and entire fields of science people have dedicated their life’s work to, that are all based on a monumental hoax.
That’s the false vindication of the nearly 500 year old Copernican theory. It is the mindset of almost all people worldwide where even the knowledge of up and down have been reduced to a concept that is relative—the view of reality itself—being tethered to literal nothingness. What a fantastic lie.
Notice the vaulted dome architecture which is characteristic of most Orthodox Churches; a tacit reflection of the reality of the cosmic order and the “great cloud of witnesses” surrounding us in the heavens.
Now, all too often, even our reading of Scripture is subservient to the culture and alleged sciences. At best, a proper interpretation of the Bible becomes secondary. At worst, people depart from the faith with the express reason that “science and reason changed my mind”, in no small part due to cultural pressure which views traditional thinking as something obsolete and ignorant, standing in the way of progress.
So, when you wonder what difference it makes, thinking to yourself that faith in Christ isn’t contingent on what people believe about the shape of the earth or the nature of the cosmos, bear in mind the myriad cults and off-brand denominations of Christianity that have sprung up as a direct result of altering the context of the Lord’s words even slightly, just as the serpent did in the Garden.
Souls go astray. Hope begins to dissipate. Lives are lost.
So it goes when Christians’ minds are occupied by the world instead of what has been revealed in spirit. …Or by trying to live by combining the two.
Section X: SAG – The Space Actors Guild
Of everything covered here thus far, quite little has been said of the distinguished organization which people defer to most in these matters: NASA.
I prefer not to get into the weeds exposing any space agency of fraud prior to establishing a foundation for understanding the alternative model of cosmology, because it all sounds like conspiratorial paranoia in the absence of any context. But it is necessary to refer to NASA at some point, because they’ve been instrumental in promulgating this narrative–they are 100% charlatans and propagandists by every definition–and are quite admired by most people for their exploits, which is why the pertinent question on everyone’s mind is always this:
WHY WOULD THEY LIE?
It’s a fair question. People don’t feel they’ve ever had the need to scrutinize NASA or question the information they’ve been given. What could go wrong with trusting a government agency?
Setting aside the obvious financial incentives, it should be noted first that the question is not usually being asked out of a sincere curiosity, but rather rhetorically/sarcastically as a sort of knee-jerk defense mechanism to provide the person asking with a wall of skepticism to hide behind. They are assigning the flat earther with a burden of proof that they have already decided in advance it is impossible for them to satisfy, because in some sense we must admit that no one truly knows the inner dispositions and motives of any other individual except for the person(s) themself.
But from a Christian perspective, while the specific motivations of others may be ineffable, we can offer some insight, at least in a general sense, according to what is revealed to be among man’s most prevalent spiritual weaknesses–namely, the tendency to fall into idolatry. Given that New Ageism coupled with Scientism have laid the groundwork for the kind of cosmic self-worship common among today’s “spiritual but not religious” crowds, as well as many Christians, it seems apparent that naturalism (i.e. Big Bang heliocentrism and Darwinian evolution) have supplemented faith with naturalistic theories, wherein science is the religion, the men and women in lab coats are the high priests, and the universe itself is god (and by being “one” with the universe, man is made god by extension, thereby completing the circuit of the same old self-destructive thought process that originated in the Garden).
*The sciences don’t tell us anything, people who interpret the sciences do. And whether or not it comports with our sense experience or totally contradicts common sense is irrelevant, as far as they’re concerned. You’re 99% nothing, according to the most reasonable of men.
Make no mistake, Scientism is a religion. The adherents of this religion will believe just about anything, and contrary to popular claims, these beliefs are often founded with no regard for evidence–or even in the complete absence of it–which is verified by people’s widespread approval of unscientific ideas like simulation theory, multiverse theory, and whatever other quantum gibberish issues forth from the mouths of the “experts”.
Russian pilot and astronaut Yuri Gagarin’s famous statement, “I see no God up here”, which he made upon his alleged journey as the first human into space in 1961 seems an odd first observation to make, does it not? I dare say, it’s almost as if this line were rehearsed beforehand as a favorable conclusion that would coincide with the interests of the atheistic Soviet regime of the time. For communism to work, it must always commandeer the narrative, whether that is to blend the truth together with misleading information or just to lie wholesale. If there is any god authorized to exist under their watch, he will surely be sympathetic to their cause.
This astronaut [performance] opened the door to viewing Creation in a radically different way for both theists and atheists. What was previously viewed as the heavens above suddenly became an endless cosmic expanse in all directions with a totally different origin story. And for the first time, something in nature had been ascribed with the attribute of being “infinite”–a quality which previously belonged to God alone–meaning the sheer scale and complexity of the universe alone gave already rebellious men yet another reason to turn their affection, fascination and worship towards created things.
And throughout the OT and NT, there is a pattern of what kind of response it warrants from God when we submit to idols or conduct worship improperly.
So, in asking why they would lie and how people somehow managed to fall for it, consider broadening the question and then apply the same insight you might to another question: Are trials not permitted by God to separate the sheep from the goat? ..the superficially pious from the true faithful strugglers? ..those who listen to the world from those who listen to the Lord? Historically, this could be viewed as nothing more than just another refining process.
But in reflecting on how men could manipulate countless hearts and minds by telling this lie to the world, it should be clarified that no one is claiming “everyone at NASA is in on it”, because that’s not how these schemes work—any more than if the vaccines really did turn out to be lethal injections, that we would just leap to the conclusion that ALL doctors, nurses and volunteers must necessarily have known about it—all that is really required is a convincing sentiment to circulate within a group long enough for that idea to begin spreading organically, until the lie eventually becomes a self-sustaining mechanism maintained by well-meaning people who genuinely believe what they’re saying/doing is right.
The whole world doesn’t need to be “in on it” for it to work—finessing photos/videos/data doesn’t require everyone’s participation—that’s the point. All a lie needs is repetition and persistence, and people then perceive the effects of the echo chamber as verification.
More imagery with significant size/distance problems, as the depicted land masses are inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with the currently known and accepted projections of the seas and continents relative to the earth’s circumference.
And yet, the level of dissociation from reality gets even worse, as the continents on the earth apparently have ever-changing sizes and colors depending on the year, or perhaps based on the mood of the CGI modeling software engineer.
Because, of course, these poor scaling and color/contrast issues are merely the product of imperfect computer imaging work, which is admitted by lead data visualizer and information designer Robert Simmon, who stated in an interview that “pictures” of the earth (released to the public under the pretense of a globe captured by a single photograph) are actually composite images comprised of multiple high-altitude snapshots that are stitched together. “I turn data into pictures”, said Simmon on Nasa’s official website.
Without getting into the meddlesome questions of WHY the images have to be manipulated–that we cannot simply have an authentic image of the earth in light of the alleged thousands of satellites floating around in low earth orbit which continuously transmit crystal clear images of all the other planets that are supposedly authentic photos–I would concede that this is probably what this fellow sincerely believes based on the presuppositions he has concerning the work he does.
Courtesy of Nasa’s official gov’t website; image of an astronaut in space shows a reflection of the earth in the visor of his helmet. But wait a minute, isn’t that the earth behind him? What ON EARTH is going on here!? I guess it’s probably just that pesky light refraction again, bending the light 180° and throwing the image of the earth onto the opposite side of the photographer like a hologram… Those blasted superior mirages!
To account for this peculiar sight above, one online user suggested, “The ISS is at an altitude of approximately 250 miles. At that height, the Earth takes up a HUGE portion of the sky!”, to which I would simply refer readers back to the aforementioned perplexities relating to altitude and how the amount of visible curvature seems to vary from one camera angle to the next.
Red Bull Stratos freefall in October 2012; curvature plainly visible at 24 miles up (39 kilometers), but no discernable curve in the astronaut ISS photo 226 miles higher (because the earth is SO huge).
These surface level explanations being proposed may satisfy most people most of the time. But for some of us who are prone to inquire further, the many inconsistencies are not so easily waved away–especially in the context of outright deception–so the sort of nonchalant attitude and flippant remarks offered to explain these things are not sufficient to dismiss legitimate suspicions.
The Age of Deception
In this final age—which in the Bible is characterized primarily as an age of deception and a time where many people fall away from faith in God—this spiritual warfare for the hearts and minds of men is waged on a primarily psychological terrain, where the grand fabrication of naturalism has been erected center stage as the idol to serve as the parent doctrine of every subsequent satanic, relativistic, nihilistic ideology which demoralizes and brutalizes the people once it’s normalized.
Despite every demonstrable instance of fraud, the mounting frustrations brought on by cognitive dissonance typically causes the initial question to persist in the average person’s mind, “WHY would they lie??” But this is putting the cart before the horse; the problem must first be acknowledged and accepted as a reality, and the “why” may crystalize thereafter. When you have multiple items of conclusive evidence, motive becomes a secondary detail.
Really, the answer to the “why” depends on whose motivation is in question. For men, it may be wealth, recognition, power, control; the usual. For the devil, it is to gain a potential foothold over the destiny of man’s soul and exalt himself to godhood. But regardless, in both cases, the result casts doubt on the truth of God; heliocentrism leads to atheism, pure and simple. Because if you cause people to question whether the Creation account is purely allegorical, then perhaps the whole of Scripture can be reduced to allegory. Why should anyone assume the rest of the Bible is true if its very opening lines are false?
Slow shutter speed photography reveals star trails that form geometrically perfect circles around a fixed point (Polaris, the north star), despite mainstream secular scientists who espouse that it’s impossible for perfect concentric circles to occur in nature.
Imagine an atheist looking up and seeing God’s design rather than feeling His absence in a black, empty vacuum of nothing randomly caused by nothing.
The firmament [more biblical citations implying a literal context here] separating the waters above from the waters below on day 2 of Creation is just as vital a piece of the truth mosaic as the 6th day, which reveals the act of God’s bringing forth animals and humans as two distinct acts, each coming forth out of the earth independently of the other as opposed to some symbiotic relationship based on Darwin’s theory of evolution (which is incompatible with Christianity andtheologically unsound).
That’s the real kicker…biological evolution and cosmological evolution are really two sides of the same coin; they’re codependent myths. The acceptance of each one relies on perceiving the efficacy of the other, despite that the other is predicated entirely on theoretical ideas (or known forgeries), which makes it a circular system sustained by little more than persuasive sentiment. Copernicus is to Darwin, as NASA is to Ernst Haeckel. It’s all theater.
In other words, while biological evolution offers an explanation concerning everything that is you, cosmological evolution offers an explanation concerning everything that is not you. Both are naturalistic in principle, in that they aim to provide a “rational” explanation of our origin that doesn’t invoke the divine.
To further illustrate the parallels, consider the following sentence using these key words (Evolution, Heliocentrism, Terrorism, Covid, Climate change, etc.):
Various institutions teach people that ______ is real and must be taken seriously, which affects their feelings about the world/themselves. These feelings created by the idea of ______ may determine how they think about their fate/destiny. If they weren’t pressured until they were convinced of ______, they may have a very different set of moral values and be motivated towards different goals. Many have treated certain people poorly, because ______ has caused them to have a lower view of them for one reason or another.
Plug in any of those words interchangeably and the meaning of the sentence on a whole will remain principally the same, which is because, while these issues may appear superficially unrelated, they share a common ideological objective: fear.
Why did Satan deceive Eve? Why is Evolution taught in schools despite that it is a bogus teaching? Why do communist ideologies always want to supplant God? Why was the entire world coerced into receiving a dangerous, experimental vaccine for an illness with other known cures?
The answer to one question is ultimately the same in every case: destruction. The destruction of the soul, of the family, of love, of morals, of knowledge, of all meaning, even of one’s very sense of self (i.e. gender identity politics).
To say of cosmology, “the ancients didn’t know because those primitive peoples didn’t have sophisticated technology like us”, isn’t a sensible argument particularly for Christians to make, because we affirm that our God (Who knows everything) is the one Who directly shares divine revelation with mankind. The apostles were assured that, “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). To suggest that earlier civilizations “just didn’t know what we know” ironically pushes the same progressive narrative as those who use these modern, secular standards to justify their atheism, because they insist, “we know more than those superstitious shepherds.” Nonsense! God was with them!
“Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” -Genesis 5:24
To those with discernment, who’ve been standing with their lamps trimmed; who’ve been watching vigilantly to know the season; who’ve been down enough rabbit holes to know how to connect the dots and how to identify false leads; who’ve determined within themselves that compromise is not an option; who are well familiar with the prophetic teachings of the Church, it’s clear which direction things are headed in the world.
Meanwhile, the people who are not considered to be paranoid conspiracy theorists because they simply “trust the science”:
Section XII: Closing thoughts
I realize that my challenging entire scientific communities of people much smarter than myself will be seen as the pinnacle of hubris; that’s inescapable. But my main point is that THIS IS NOT A PRIMARILY INTELLECTUAL PROBLEM..
Be it the pharisees and Judas denying Christ, or later heretics, or today’s scientists—it is not for a lack of evidence or because their reasoning faculties are insufficient that they reject Truth. In all of these cases, the problem was and is the heart. When the heart is bent towards sin, the mind is darkened by default. So, discerning the truth is a matter of humility, not intelligence. That goes for all of us, myself included.
What does it take for a person to admit that they are fundamentally mistaken about their entire view of reality? Does it require the mountains of evidence that atheists insist would be necessary to believe in God? Or is it perhaps simply the willingness to consider an alternative view in light of the possibility of being wrong, as a fallible individual who’s following the lead of other fallible individuals that don’t know everything? Whose word ought we trust? Are the supposed facts really true? These are worthwhile questions.
To be fair, there are countless other issues left surrounding the flat earth controversy that could still be submitted here for debate and discussion. But to be frank, none of those nuances are even worth covering at this juncture (if you’re a beginner exploring this matter) because unless all of the other issues I’ve addressed here are resolved first (no measurable curvature across any distance or from any altitude, impossible lunar “umbra” size, NASA’s fakery, scale/distance inconsistencies in images, etc.), then pivoting away to present some other challenge by asking, “but what about XYZ” is really just a deflection. The main point stands–one cosmological system is testable and one is not, one is consistent with the Bible and our lived experience and one is not– so deal with the issue.
When the widespread belief in something like the moon landing is based on an event that no one actually witnessed (even on television, as most people were listening over the radio); when a model of cosmology is predicated entirely on a repository of doctored photos and fails to adhere to its own mathematical calculations without presupposing additional theories; when the supposed science is championed by popular TV personalities who conveniently refuse to publicly debate the issue that they claim they could easily put to rest, then even the most devout space geeks should be raising some eyebrows.
Neil deGrasse Tyson once stated, “I think it’s important to combat people who claim that they are using math, science, evidence and physics behind their cause, when in fact they aren’t, or they’re using it badly. That needs to be called out.” And yet, with respect to a formal debate which would be conducted in an uncontrolled environment where he cannot guarantee things will lean in his favor, he thinks, “I will not enter a debate where I have the objectively true side of the argument and the other person does not.” Despite that he believes he could easily win because he represents the truth that the majority of people accept; despite that he believes letting this idea thrive is dangerous and threatens to hinder intellectual progress; despite that he DOES make a point of making public statements and engaging with those who have a platform that could potentially influence others, it seems that a debate is where he happens to draw the line. He’s happy to appear on talk shows, just so long as there’s no one there who might contradict him. He wants to combat and call people out, but only on his own terms.
Enclosed cosmology may not bequeath us with every answer to every question, but at the very least, the model itself is tenable. At least its representatives welcome scrutiny and debate. It’s an arcane system, but at least it’s real.
(Left) Triangulation of crepuscular sunrays, according to the angle at which the light disperses through the clouds, create an isosceles triangle which indicate a light source that is local when traced back to the point of origin. (Right) At 93 millions miles, even if there were a disparity between the angles of cloud shadows, any difference would be so negligible it would be completely imperceptible.
It’s simple. All one must ask of themself is, “Is there even the slightest chance that scientists are wrong, because the sun I’m looking at is not a star 93 million miles away? Could it be possible that all of society is being taught incorrectly? Could I be wrong?” Personally, I was humbled to the point I truly came to the end of myself after a long series of life events which spanned years, until I finally had to admit one day that I simply didn’t know what I thought I knew. Upon that inner concession, I called on the name of Christ for the first time in my life, saying that “if you’re really who You say You are, I know you’ll reveal yourself to me”. As an answer to that prayer, enclosed cosmology came before me and eventually served as the catalyst for my journey towards Christ after my many failed efforts to disprove it (see my testimony). I first glimpsed God by recognizing the true nature of the cosmos–that it was a neatly ordered system rather than random chaos.
The fact is people conspire and the devil is real–there’s a whole world of esoteric teachings and occult affairs the general public knows very little about–but in realizing the devil is up to no good, some may discover, like me, that there is one Who is the ultimate good. The awareness of one reality points directly to the other. And we can point to exactly where He is, because the heavens are not relative, nor is anything which has been made. So, go on! Look with your God-given eyes and point to He who is above all things! Point to the God who dwells in the heavens! Point UP!
Very well written and presented. I read some of the material but scanned the entire length of the argument. I will return to do a complete reading. I find your arguments very thought-provoking.
Blackletter 
Very well written and presented. I read some of the material but scanned the entire length of the argument. I will return to do a complete reading. I find your arguments very thought-provoking.
LikeLike