- Start Here
- First Questions Asked?
- Jesuits; Rulers of Evil
- History of Geocentric Theory
- The Heliocentric Globalist Theory
- Reasons to Doubt the Earth is Truly a Sphere
- Reasons to Doubt Everything NASA
- Moon Hoax Images
- Moon Hoax Videos
- Trusted FE Links
- Other Author Websites
- The F.E.S.S. Forum
- Flat Earth Videos
- Flat Earth Library
- Quotes
- Flat Earth Gallery I
- Flat Earth Gallery II
- FE Memes I
- FE Memes II
- FE Music Vids
- New! FE Maps
- Flat Earth Book Now On Sale!
Aplanetruth.info 
Fact check = YOU FAIL.
Sites (Aplanetruth.info) and (TheGeocentricGnostic.com) are just filled with incorrect statements and theory.
A high school physics student can easily disprove all the “supposed” science portrayed on those site.
Don’t distort and misrepresent good science with your lies – just to promote your religious beliefs.
kind regards, John the scientist.
Show less
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere
The Earth is a sphere. CMI has published the, above, article which expands on the HEBREW term, “khûg (חוּג).
“The Hebrew word in question is khûg (חוּג) which is also found in Proverbs 8:27 where, in many Bible versions, it is translated ‘vault’. For example, the New American Standard Bible reads, “Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; and He walks on the vault of heaven.” Clearly ‘vault’ carries the sense of something three-dimensional and is given as the primary meaning of khûg in the well-known Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.1 In modern Hebrew, a sphere is denoted by khûg, along with kaddur, galgal, and mazzal.2 In Arabic (another Semitic language), kura means ball and is the word used in the Van Dyck-Boustani Arabic Bible (1865) to translate khûg in Isaiah 40:22.”
LikeLike
Actually the Hebrew word Chug (חוג), Chûgh or Chuwg means a flat circle like a coin.
The Hebrew word for a sphere like a ball is Dur (דור).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think there is enough doubt on both arguments that a wise man would say let’s keep investigating. Anyone whose mind is closed to either, both, or neither is too self righteous to take seriously. The truth is we just don’t know.
LikeLike
The Author of The Bible and the Creator-God of the Universe are one and the same. Therefore, there MUST be agreement! One aspect of the spherical Earth is its axis tilted at 23.5 degrees off of the vertical. The result is our 4 seasons.
Which direction is UP for all humans? UP is always with respect to the Earth’s surface which is DOWN for all humans. Therefore, those who dwell in the Earth’s southern hemisphere, ALSO, recognize that the Earth’s surface is DOWN for them and that the sky is UP for them. It is GRAVITY which holds all things to the Earth / planets. The UNIVERSE is huge. What, in the UNIVERSE, determines that which is UP and that which is DOWN? What is UP and what is DOWN on the International Space Station? It would, likely, be the location of Earth which would be the determining factor for the astronauts.
We have the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer lattitudes located upon the Earth’s / the globe’s surface. The equator is mid-way between the two lattitudes. It is the tilt of the Earth’s axis throughout the 365 days of the Earth’s year which determines the location of these three lattitude designations. The Northern Hemisphere’s SUMMER and the Southern Hemisphere’s SUMMER determine the location of the two tropics. The equator is the point / location half-way between the two tropics, and the SUN’s mid-point of crossing between the two tropics. The Precession of the equinox, yearly, is also related to the tilt of the Earth’s axis and the fact that the Earth wobbles like a top as it rotates over ~25,000 years.
The Earth behaves like a sphere as it moves in its orbit around our Sun.
Mary
LikeLike
Mary,
I’m curious; who was present to witness or validate the authorship of the bible, as you claim?
LikeLike
“The Author of The Bible and the Creator-God of the Universe are one and the same. Therefore, there MUST be agreement!” Fair enough. But the Bible is not only factually incorrect it is also self contradictory, so as there is no agreement then there is no Creator-God,
LikeLike
The following article answers your question.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_1/j28_1_53-58.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiwwImV6YPPAhVO8GMKHVrqAowQFggEMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNESvAfTgaz90gty9_xkcCq6NeB0FA
JOURNAL OF CREATION 28(1) 2014
Structure, toledoths, and sources of Genesis
The Author of The Bible is also the Creator of the Universe.
Humans did the actual recording of The Bible, but the Author is always the same – Yahweh.
Isa 40:8
“The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary,
Thanks for sharing the information. I may not have understood it fully, but it seems to be saying this. People actually wrote the words down, and other people are telling us the manner of how this was written leads to god as the author.
Did I miss something? Aren’t people always an essential part of capturing everything in the bible?
LikeLiked by 1 person
SG, Yes. The Author of Genesis 1 stated, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.”
Humans were created as PERSONS. Persons have Intellect, Emotive and Volition attributes. Our Creator-God, also, has Intellect, Emotive and Volition attributes. The Spirit of God interacted with the human spirits in such a way that the humans wrote each of the books of The Bible. The characteristics of each of the human recorders of The Bible – ~ 40 men, are evident in the constructs which they used. Their personalities and language skills are evident in their language choices. BUT, the content and the subject matter originated with God-Holy Spirit as He moved them to record.
2Pe 1:21
“for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
Mary
LikeLike
Even though I am the one typing this comment, it is actually the word of God. How do you know? It says so right in the comment, silly!
LikeLike
Harmony,
Now THAT is a tautology I can believe! 🙂
LikeLike
SG, Christians believe by faith that this world was created. We believe the Bibles account of creation by faith. How do you believe concerning earths origins? Can you prove them via the scientific method?
LikeLike
Why do I have to know where the Earth came from? Why am I not allowed to say ‘I dont know’ and have it as an open question?
Only egomaniacs, scientific or otherwise, would actually claim to know.
I guess that’s where your “faith” comes in. I’m sure the missionaries found it helpful when they were raping natives all over the world.
LikeLike
If you make something from what you own, then, you own that which you make.
The fact that the Universe and all that in it is, was Created by our Creator-God, including all humans, that means that He OWNS all that He created, including non-believing humans. Non-believing humans were born into Satan’s kingdom, and will die as members of Satan’s kingdom, unless they volitionally choose to believe the promises of our Creator-God and become a second-birthed-human.
THE FAITH to which The Bible refers, is all that our Creator-God has revealed to us via His Word, The Bible. Specifically, the Good News of Salvation, is that our Creator-God incarnated, lived a perfect human life, died taking upon Himself all of our default sin-guilt from our first birth, resurrected from death and rose to His original status position – in order to be just in removing sinners from Satan’s kingdom by a second-birth-regeneration by God-Holy Spirit power.
The “knowing”-claims of those believing, that which The Bible states / promises, is an experiential “knowing.” which is the result of the BELIEVER becoming a second-birthed-human. Our Creator-God’s Spirit regenerates the once-born-human, birthing him / her into our Creator-God’s Kingdom, and removing him / her from Satan’s kingdom, the default position at our birth.
When the “open-question” status / unbelief in our Creator-God’s stated truths, is maintained, the unbeliever will remain in Satan’s kingdom, eternally.
Mary
LikeLiked by 1 person
Harmony, I was asking SG but since you felt compelled to answer let me say its fine that you don’t know. No trouble. Its good to hear you are not a convinced big banger in contradistinction to the accepted scientific model. Where does this leave you scientifically? It appears that The Christian Creator God, however, is not a possible solution to your open question. Why is that? If it is truly an open question as you say how can you call others egomaniacs when you don’t know the answer yourself? And finally, and to be blunt…what do you know of my faith? Please think about these things. Manny Clay
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary, your threats mean nothing to me. All you’re doing is proving the point that Christianity is purely based on violence against innocent people.
Manny, what I know is that the vast majority of Christians today were either forcibly converted or are descendants of people who were forcibly converted.
Any god that uses rape and genocide to ensure faith is not the god for me. I am a survivor of sexual assault perpetrated by a Christian. So, yes, I know quite a bit about your ugly, anti-human, anti-woman, anti-man “faith.”
LikeLike
Manny,
Religion is a philosophy at best, unable to accurately describe very much of actual existence; by that I mean the real world we inhabit and all that surrounds it. At worst, it is a power trip for those in charge, to subjugate, enslave, and inflict on others any number if inhospitable things, which are also easy to find in their “writings and teachings”. Based on all I’ve found out, I’m not much of a fan of religion as a whole (and never for scientific matters).
As far as creation, well, I am comfortable with the current scientific findings about the earth, solar system, MW galaxy, and universe, which is the “world” I’m a part of. This is a very large and diverse group of things, including medicine, technology, energy, and dozens if not hundreds more. I think the findings and predictions made from them are very consistent and reliable in describing current and future events.
I’m especially excited about the solar eclipse that will cross North America in the near future (as currently predicted).
Thats one of the benefits of science, you can learn from it.
BTW – I agree with Harmony; “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer to many questions.
LikeLike
SG, please review these quotes regarding the Michelson Morley experiment taken from Christian Wilderness Forum.
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”
– Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative (…) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation…”
– Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.”
– Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8
“The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion on physical phenomena allows us to…[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract ‘escape hatch’ theories of Einstein]”
– Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
– Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”
– Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)
“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest….“This, of course, was preposterous”
– Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76
“The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space…The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again.”
– Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pp. 109-110, (World Publishing Co., 1971).
“Always the speed of light was precisely the same…Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”
– Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54 (Addison-Wesley, 1972).
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment [Michelson-Morley] could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge.”
– G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, p. 79 (Harper, 1959).
Regarding the M-M Experiment:
“The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it
– James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman, p. 37
The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.
– Scientific historian Lincoln Barnett, “The Universe and Dr.Einstein”, p. 44
Why was it unthinkable and preposterous that the earth was at rest? Perhaps it is because that would put us in the immovable center of a universe….something a billion big bangs could not do but a Creator God could. Lastly, Dr Hubbell was even more adament in his refusal to believe the earth was the center of the universe despite data to the contrary. One of his words for this was ” intolerable”. How’s that for science?
LikeLike
Manny,
As I recall my college studies, M-M failed to prove the existence of the aether, by not finding any interference pattern in their interferometer. Of course, that is so 19th century; we’ve learned at least one or two orders of magnitude of additional scientific information and discoveries since then.
What would be quite impressive would be a list of any current scientists with their discoveries of one or more of these as described for a FE: the mechanical motions of the sun, moon, star trails and other related movement patterns, comets, eclipses, star-light red-shift, earthquakes (seismic waves included), mid-Atlantic ridge magnetic reversals, Pacific ring of fire, the non-gravity theory of weight, sunrise/sunset (or the FE disappearance of luminous objects within our line of sight due to perspective), or any other prominent FE proof commonly discussed.
All of these observable phenomenon have perfectly understandable explanations in the world I inhabit, which as I said I’m quite comfortable with.
LikeLike
“Can you prove them via the scientific method?” Yes.
Also all your quotes about M-M Experiment etc. simply proved the authors didn’t have a clue what the experiments were or what the intention was.
LikeLike
That there is a Creator of all things is evident in that which has been created:
Rom 1:20
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
We are incapable, via our five senses, alone, to view all that takes place in the macroscopic or the microscopic worlds. Via technologies, today, we are able to place into our brains / minds data which are those “invisible things of him from the creation of the world.” Our inner being should go to “being understood by the things that are made.” The atheist is blind to the “eternal power and Godhead / nature” of our Creator-God. It is sin against our Creator-God to attribute “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world” to a non-entity, evolution.
Mary
LikeLike
“That there is a Creator of all things is evident in that which has been created:
Rom 1:20” Mary, one never, ever cites a document to prove the document you are referring to is correct.
LikeLike
Harmony, I am truly sorry to hear your plight. Praying for you. Manny
LikeLike
Some of you might be interested in this video. A cold case detective went to the Gospels and treated them as a cold case search for evidence that Jesus Christ is God:https://www.audicus.com/products/dia-behind-the-ear-hearing-aid#shopify-product-reviews
There are other videos with Jim Warner Wallace speaking can be found by searching in Youtube.
Mary
LikeLike
SG, you pooh pooh the mm experiment as being so 19th century. You say we have learned things one or two magnitudes beyond. So give me one experiment that proves the earth rotates and revolves?
By the way, all of the secondary items you question have all been answered already as all true relativists know or they wouldn’t allow geocentrism to remain a valid explanation as good but no better than heliocentrism.
LikeLike
“Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.”
You don’t know wtf you are talking about.
Yes, some scientists talk about the universe being geocentric from a /relative/ point of view. That’s because with relativity (not relativism) the observer is the center of the universe. If the observer is on Mars, it’s a Mars-centric universe; if the observer is near Alpha Centauri, it’s an Alpha Centauri-centric universe, and so on.
You’re trying to twist that into the idea that the universe is geocentric for all observers. Is that wha your ugly god tells you to do? Lie to and deceive people?
LikeLike
Harmony, can you cite a recent experiment that proves the rotation and revolution of the earth around the sun?
LikeLike
Harmony, is the earth rotating and revolving on an axial tilt around the sun in the Mars centered universe?
LikeLike
Creation Ministries International is weighing in on the FE deception:
http://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth
“Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
It perplexes us to see that belief in a “flat earth” is gaining traction. This idea was almost non-existent until recently, yet this particular branch of pseudoscience is making inroads. It’s notable that the article The Flat Earth Myth, as recently as 2013, did not receive any negative comments from flat-earth believers. Why? Because there were hardly any people back then who believed it! Rather, readers were grateful to see that the church had never taught this nonsense. Several honest atheists have even slammed people from their own side who have pushed a bad pseudo-history that accuses the church of teaching a flat earth.1
There are people who believe that the moon landings were faked with the primitive video technology of 1969. Yet they are totally oblivious to the fact that the video technology of 2016 could easily fake a flat earth!
So, if almost nobody believed it back then, why do some people believe it now? This includes several who commented on an article published earlier this year: Isaiah 40:22 and the shape of the earth. Most of the influence today is coming from a series of online videos that have been shared widely. These were created by charlatans and, sadly, are deceiving many. Even more sadly, some Christians are being caught up in the hype.”
Rob Skiba, needs to acknowledge his part in this wide-spreading deception. Science, that legitimate DOMINION-CHARGE given in Genesis 1 to Adam and Eve, is NOT a deception! The deceptions are originating in human intellects who, obviously, are NOT scientific regarding scientific thinking!
As I read many of the posts written by followers of Rob, it is evident that the posters are sheep, having non-scientific reasoning abilities.
Mary
LikeLike
Well, prove is bit stronger term than should be tossed around, especially by lay people. I will share some evidence instead.
Every time I’ve watched the early morning sky, I’ve seen the following events in order:
1. The darkness begins to fade away, as things get brighter in the east.
2. The bottom edge of clouds begin to glow, while the top edge remains darker and gray
3. As the sky is becoming much brighter, the initial edge of the sun becomes very slightly visible (appears somewhat like a horizontal sliver of light, elongated and very thin).
4. the sun sliver becomes thicker to to bottom, and much wider side to side. The top edge appears curved, while the bottom edge appears flat.
5. The sun image grows ever larger, more pronounced curve on top & towards the sides, bottom remains flat, still only partially visible.
6. About 1/2 of the sun is visible, showing a 1/2 circular “face” (top curved, sides with a vertical tangent, bottom still flat.
7. As sun is more fully visible, bottom is still flat, but the side edges at the bottom are curving inward, as the bottom edge narrows in width.
8. Before sun is fully visible, the visible image is almost circular, and the bottom “flat” edge is almost gone.
9. The sun becomes fully visible with a circular appearance, and sky becomes visible below the bottom edge.
At no time does a smaller circular image get larger (as in closer). Parts of the sun image are clearly blocked, and are revealed by a relative motion where the earth appears to sink, and the sun appears to rise.
I didn’t add that the sun light on the clouds is increasing thru #3-6/7, becoming fully lit from top to bottom eventually. Also, to the naked eye, the sun (and moon) always appear larger near the horizon than when overhead.
None of these easy, repeatable observations, accessible to nearly everyone, and often featured in FE videos, portray the claimed characteristics I’ve often seen and read about for the FE “sunrise”. They do exactly align with described and predicted apparent motions and visible imagery for a rotating spherical earth.
As for your comment on “all of the secondary items you question”, I’m not sure what this might refer to (my second paragraph contained my primary items). As to helio vs geo centric models, I don’t believe I raised any questions.
I am still looking to understand the mechanics of how FE sun/moon motions are achieved, as a lead-in to all visible movement we see overhead every day (or night). I really don’t see how that is part of a model w/o some set of details on what makes it happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person