Rob Skiba: Is Flat Earth Really A “Psyop”?


Monday, September 5, 2016
One of the things I hear a LOT these days is that FE is a “psyop”. OK. When thinking about what may or may not be a “psyop” consider this: Without applying ANY preconceived bias unto the text, there is no question the Bible is a Flat Earth book. Even Dr. Heiser fully admits this – as do his highly intelligent, well credentialed colleagues over at Logos Bible Software. No one who has never seen a globe and has never been taught anything about a globe would ever get a spinning, heliocentric globular Earth out of Scripture.
They may get a geocentric model quite easily from the text, but they still won’t get a spherical Earth out of it. Rather, they will see a consistent thread among ALL of the Biblical authors who took the time to describe this place, each referencing an inscribed circular, flat world, set on pillars, under a dome, within which the sun, moon and stars were placed on Day 4 of Creation. This theme runs from Genesis to Revelation, with not one person deviating in the slightest from that basic description. This being an absolutely indisputable fact (for anyone not suffering from extreme levels of cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance), what if the true “psyop” began about 2000 years ago, with pagan, sun god worshiping men claiming the Earth was a sphere by doing experiments that WORK JUST AS WELL on the FE model (when you change the starting assumptions)?
It was then pushed a step further when the Earth was beginning to be pushed out of the center stage spotlight and replaced with the sun, an idea that was finally solidified about 1500 years later. Then, with the Earth moved from central focus, now in orbit around a “star,” the stage was set about 300 years later for men like Lyell, Darwin and Huxley to come in and call the age of the Earth into question, and then finally the origin of man. With all of that firmly established, along comes Hubble, Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins, Kraus and company and what do you know?
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to put any more faith in the Creation account of Genesis, nor in any other Biblical text concerning the cosmos. After all, now we “know” the Earth is nothing special. It’s just a 4 billion year old “pale, blue dot” – a “blue marble” floating in a backwater corner of a wing in an average galaxy among billions of other galaxies, each boasting trillions of stars, most of which likely have planets going around them. What does the above narrative do? It effortlessly tosses out YHWH and His Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. Indeed, NOTHING even comes close to leading more people astray and into atheism than the above.
Kids get raised on the Bible.Then they go to college, learn about the above described timeline and then toss whatever faith they had out the window. Happens far more often than not. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that nothing has led more people away from YHWH and their trust in the truth of Scripture than the spinning, heliocentric globe model. It is the foundation of atheistic and evolutionary philosophy. Evolution and pan-spermia are ONLY remotely plausible with the spinning, heliocentric, globular Earth in an ever expanding cosmos model. Whereas, BOTH go completely out the window if we are in a terrarium, as THE central focus of the God who created it. FE is 100% supported by Scripture.
The spinning, heliocentric globe absolutely is not – unless you do a TON of mental gymnastics and take everything as “figures of speech” and allegorical. Moving from heliocentric to geocentric is the first step into throwing off a TON of the “science” (falsely so-called) that we’ve all been taught. That’s why for many it is the “gateway drug” that gets people off the Kool Aid we’re fed in school. Geocentricity IS also 100% Biblical. But Delano and others fall short on “taking the Bible literally” with their theory. They are being “selective literalists” as are die-hard six day Creationists like Kent and Eric Hovind, David Rives, and others (as Heiser so well points out). But the enclosed FE model takes everything regarding Creation into account and is in perfect harmony with geocentricity and the six day Creation.
So… therefore, what makes for a more likely candidate as a “psyop” within Christian circles? Something that is 100% backed by Scripture’s Creation narrative? Something that is 50% backed by the Creation account? Or something that isn’t even remotely supported by Scriptures at all concerning the Creation account? The Serpent will always try to steer us AWAY from trusting Scripture. Never toward it. One of my Facebook friends summed this up nicely in her comment (below):
Just some food for thought.
– Rob Skiba

2 thoughts on “Rob Skiba: Is Flat Earth Really A “Psyop”?

  1. Big T February 26, 2017 at 3:13 pm Reply

    Wow, a long article that absolutely proved nothing. Just a bunch of generalizations and fluff. But, it did save me a bunch of time from having to look at anything else from this Skiba guy.


  2. chubb March 11, 2017 at 11:22 pm Reply

    all the while Big T wrote a very short note that absolutely not helping.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: