Recently a man pressed me in a commentary how Michal Mazur converted with the shape of the earth then I should too.
No, I will not convert because I will not be a tube of someone blowing this hypothesis.
Here is one of the illuminati cards:
Perhaps the Earth is flat, too, but Michal Mazur, whom I appreciate for many films and for his zealousness, is not interested in conspiracies, so he has no less imagination about what all this might be about.
I believe in the possibility of the concept presented in the movie The Truman Show, which would be consistent with the Bible. I even had a conversation with a friend of mine about it yesterday. They're turning it up under their noses. Their favorite game. Just like conspiracy knowledge. Everything is on the internet. About the Vatican and the Jews collaborating with Hitler, about masses of other FACTS.
However, I wondered why this is such a top news, flagship theory in the end times among truth-seeking Christians (some of whom are not born again).
Here's a reader sent me some rather wise observations just today:
"
I would say BINGO.
Therefore, I will not write about the Flat Earth, because I have salvation without writing about it.
After World War II, the USSR gave birth to the so-called paleoastronautics or the idea that humans were created by aliens.
Of course, the theory had already appeared much earlier but there paleoastronautics was born as a kind of, let's say, scientific movement whose sole purpose was (and still is) to disprove the creation of man by God.
Note where and under what conditions this movement originated.
Then the movement moved mainly to France where it was strongly developed. Most of the important works on paleoastronautics were written in France and just the USSR.
Przykładowo słynny Daniken swoje książki oparł właśnie na francuskich pisarzach – część z nich nawet mocno splagiatował.
Na bazie paleoastronautyki powstały książki, komiksy (komiksy były głównie skierowane do ludzi młodych), filmy oraz jakiś czas temu serial “starożytni astronauci”.
Of course, as it is a series, the first season turned out to be even interesting and the rest became a parody. Of course, this did not stop the series from being hailed a success, as if it presented irrefutable proof of the creation of man by aliens.
The truth is that the series has not presented any proof. The series only presented evidence for the presence of the ufo phenomenon and for the existence of an antediluvian civilization that could have built the pyramids and the famous megalithic structures.
So after World War II, we have a parade of social engineering in the form of ancient aliens that is doing very, very well despite the passage of almost 80 years.
I think paleoastronautics was supposed to give people the missing element of evolutionism which is meaning.
Evolutionism is devoid of deeper meaning because there everything came from nothing, from soulless chance. The universe was created from a super-dense point the size of a dot and then man was created by trial and error. The meaning of human life boils down to mere reproduction and that is all.
We live, we eat, we entertain ourselves, we reproduce, we pass on genes, we die and that's the end of everything. The human being disintegrates into its first parts, the brain dies and so does the consciousness. Man ceases to exist definitively.
Paleoastronautics was meant to give it all a meaning, a creative factor on which humans could rely.
Another interesting movement was born in the 19th century. Namely, theses appeared that the Bible is nothing but a series of borrowings from Sumerian mythology. Among other things concerning the creation of the world, the creation of man or the flood.
At the time, the thesis that Genesis was a Sumerian plagiarism was directly propounded, and today this view holds even much better than paleoastronautics.
Once again, a simple sleight of hand has been used to devalue the authority of the Bible, and I must admit that in this respect this procedure has been very successful. While paleoastronautics was, and is, a piece of junk science, the accusation of plagiarism has found very fertile ground.
Today we can read many scholarly works that compare Sumerian cosmology with the Bible, and interestingly enough these works strongly refute the idea of borrowing/plagiarism.
For example, the Sumerians believed in the existence of 6 heavens that were suspended above each other and were connected by something like cables.
For example, the Sumerians had a concept of a flood but it was totally different from that of the Bible.
The Sumerian gods constantly quarreled among themselves, fought battles, formed conspiracies, and the result was the bringing of the flood.
Enki wanted to save his creation, the creation of man, and ordered the Sumerian Noah to build an ark. After the flood, the Sumerian Noah was granted immortality by the gods.
Another significant example is the creation of man. The Sumerian gods created man by trial and error.
In turn, when it comes to cosmology as such, the Sumerians were more concerned with what today we call astrology and what in the heavens the gods were doing and what consequences this would have for humans.
Pan Sitchin w swojej książce “12 planeta” posłużył się niebywałym nadużyciem. Imionom sumeryjskich bogów przypisał planety układu słonecznego i tym samym reaktywował paleoastronautykę. W ten sposób na nowo odżyła inżynieria społeczna.
So we already have the following 3 trends:
* evolutionism as a process completely rejecting creationism, random and lacking in depth.
* revisionism proclaiming that the Bible is nothing more than a plagiarism of Sumerian accounts.
* paleoastronautics as an attempt to make sense of evolutionism.
Nowadays, a hypothesis is proposed of a dome-shaped firmament on which stars, the sun and the moon are suspended.
Personally, I believe that the concept of the dome simply derives from a thought error.
But first let's jump to ancient Greece because that's where it all started.
Greek philosophers exploring the nature of the structure of the heavens came up with the idea that the heavens might consist of a series of solid, solid spheres.
Greek philosophers, observing the sky, came to the conclusion that distant stars (those that do not change their position) and wandering stars (planetos) must be suspended from something solid, hard and durable.
Remember that the Greeks universally believed that change was a sphere suspended in nothing. There were supposed to be spheres around the earth to allow for the ideal motion of the planetos and a sphere in which the distant stars were located.
These spheres were to be constructed of some durable, solid, and transparent (!) material.
This Greek view of earth building continued until the early Middle Ages.
Now we come to the so-called Hellenistic period. This is when the key word raqia was translated from Hebrew into Greek as stereoma.
The Hebrew for heaven also uses the word raqia while the Greek used the word steroma to convey their idea of hard, solid heavens.
Christians followed very closely the thought of the Greeks concerning the structure of the heavens, and they adopted from the Greeks the idea that the biblical firmament was nothing more than one solid, transparent sphere surrounding the earth. The difference was that the Greeks recognized many such spheres while the Christians preferred to speak of only one such sphere.
The Latin firmamentum was used to translate the Greek stereoma to again convey the whole philosophical sense of the construction of the heavens.
Firmament does not mean some kind of dome. Firmament means a Greek idea describing the heavens as a conglomeration of transparent spheres on which the palentos move. Later all these spheres were reduced to one great sphere, which contained all the so-called heavenly bodies.
The key point to remember is that the firmamentum says nothing about any dome but reflects, conveys the Greek theory of the hard heavens.
And so the Christian as raqia understood something as spread out, stretched out, puffed up, something that contains an element of expansion, as a space in which there are stars, planets, sun and moon but also a space in which birds move.
The late medieval period is still a time of discussion about the nature of the heavens. As a result of astronomical discoveries, the way of looking at the heavens was changed. The concept of hard heavens was slowly phased out in favor of soft heavens made up of elements such as fire and air.
With the discoveries of Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei, the idea of hard, solid heavens was definitely rejected.
To summarize this section:
* wcześni chrześcijanie do opisu niebios kierowali się hebrajskim słowem rqia jako coś rozpostartego, rozciągniętego, ekspansyjnego zawierającego w sobie ciała niebieskie jak i … ptaki;
* took over the concept of Greek hard, transparent spheres on which planetos could move;
* on this basis the firmament was created. Remember that firmament does not mean dome but only hard heavens with spheres;
* as astronomical discoveries progressed, hard skies were abandoned in favor of soft skies.
“Owszem kto jest ugruntowany to jest ugruntowany ale co z tymi co wahają się”
If this is an argument to compromise on the subject of biblical cosmology, it might as well be a compromise on the subject of, say, transubstantiation, papal primacy, the ascension, etc., etc.
Because to those who aren't grounded, maybe it's better not to say that there isn't a real Jesus in the wafer, that the head of the Church isn't the Pope, that Mary wasn't taken into Heaven? 🙂 Because they'll think we're crazy? 😉 Jesus was accused of having a demon 😀
God's word is like a sword, Jesus was persecuted and will be persecuted. Jesus was followed by a handful and we will be followed by a handful. And from affirming is the Holy Spirit, not conforming to the theories of this world that contradict the words of God 😉
if in Timothy it is written of the Law of Moses thus:
“Unikaj natomiast głupich dociekań, rodowodów, sporów i kłótni o Prawo [Mojżeszowe]! Są bowiem bezużyteczne i puste”
let alone when it comes to PZ.
It is like the name of Jesus: Jesus or Yeshua, Isus or Jehoshua. People can argue about such things
For many, PZ has even become an idol. Not the light of the gospel, but PZ.
Tomorrow I'll reconcile (I think) everyone 🙂
And now let's necessarily jump back to the trial of Galileo because many people believe that this was a clash between the concept of a flat earth and heliocentrism.
Well, it wasn't. The broad church of the time recognized a spherical earth but in terms of geocentrism.
Galileo's trial was a clash between geocentrism and heliocentrism.
At that time there was no discussion about the shape of the earth but what the heavens were made of. Whether they are hard or soft.
Galileo built himself a telescope and pointed it at planetos jupiter. While observing, he noticed that planetos was circling some bright celestial bodies.
He began to observe them regularly and concluded that they must simply be moons of the planetos. Just as the earth is circled by a moon, Jupiter is circled by 4 other moons.
From this he concluded that Copernicus might be right after all, because small celestial bodies circle the much larger Jupiter, so the earth must also move around the sun.
And that's what the whole process was about. It was a clash of two currents of thought.
An important figure in the trial of Galileo was the Benedictine scholar Calmet. Calmet wrote such an introductory treatise to compare the ideas of geocentrism and heliocentrism as seen in the Bible.
Calmet zastosował mały trick – mianowicie starał się pogodzić z jednej strony Biblię a z drugiej strony odkrycie Galileusza. To Calmet zaczął promować ideę niebios jako wielkiego, rozpostartego namiotu nad ziemią (ale nie płaską), w którym znajdowałby się wszystkie ciała niebieskie.
So again there was an evolution in terms of the construction of the heavens:
* the primordial raqia as a spread out space, something stretched out containing stars as well as birds;
* Greek stereoma as the Greek thought of hard, solid heavens (but not in the form of a dome only spheres);
* firmamentum as preserving the continuity of Greek cosmological thought;
* Galileo's treatise. The heavens are depicted as an outspread tent.
To summarize.
Personally, I think the idea of a flat earth with a dome is:
1* an error of thought resulting from ignorance of early Greek cosmology, which described the heavens as something hard, solid, permanent containing transparent spheres on which the planetos move;
There was a confusion between the original Hebrew concept of the heavens as something spread out, stretched out, containing stars and birds, and the Greek.
From this, the firmament was born and this became the dome.
2* This is mere social engineering aimed mainly at young people but also at so-called evangelical circles. It is a kind of penultimate test on society.
The biggest danger I have long suspected has already become apparent in the comments.
Namely, people have begun to be convinced that disproving the flat earth is tantamount to disproving the Bible. And that is what the idea of a flat earth with a mythical dome is for. The fruits are already visible.
And it will be exactly as Voltair did. He described Christians as superstitious, backward-looking because they believe in a flat earth, and since Galileo's findings prove otherwise, their Bible is worthless too.
Dzięki za komentarze, naprawdę wiele wiadomości tutaj wniosły…
Our human reasoning tries to give everything a shape, be it a circle, triangle, cylinder, square, etc... or maybe the world we are in now is just the breath of God which has no shape. True beauty has no shape like the four elements of water, fire, air and earth, and the love of God.
Well, aptly observed!!! 🙂 ?
Hello
In fact, it is not important what this Earth actually is. The most important thing is to worship God and follow His principles. This theory is introduced so that people would argue with each other and focus more on what this Earth is like than on the real God. Every theory of this kind leads to conflicts in which an evil spirit participates. Therefore, it is worth focusing on the true God and making others realize that only the way through God leads to Salvation.
I am a nonbocentric, which means I believe we live inside the earth, but the bible clearly describes a flat earth, I even watched 1 such lecture by a Christian
Pamela, it's all described in the Bible, the shape of the earth, why? Why is it given to us? In the Word of God? Well, because the whole world has been able to deceive people, to deceive, and even more so from childhood, if the shape of the earth and its creation was not so important it would not be in the Bible, and yet God wants to tell us something so that we are not deceived by today's science, these alleged discoveries that supposedly man has been on the moon or knows what the center of the earth looks like because the nucleus is? moment, then let these scientists reach out to Job, what does Job's God ask there? and the same questions can be asked of these pseudo-NASA and other agencies that force everything into people's brains, ranging from the education system to movies and fairy tales and sci-fi games where you can only see the globe everywhere, a little strange, the globe and there is nothing else, and it's interesting why they fight so much this flat earth now? because they are afraid of the truth when it comes out generally what they immediately attack, and I have material on the fact that we are a threat to the global elite http://globalne-archiwum.pl/zlo-ktorego-korzenie-siegaja-czasow-genesis-chce-siegnac-po-twoja-wolnosc-po-przez-dzialania-ludzi-nalezacych-do-tajnych-stowarzyszen/ worth reading