Back in the 1970s, the Jewish-Israeli press reported that for some unexplained reason, Apollo 11 astronaut, Neil Armstrong, carried a small Israeli flag with him all the way to the moon and back — and that it was ultimately presented as a gift to the Israeli President on behalf of President Richard Nixon:
At a short ceremony on April 19, 1970, Israel received a rare gift – two pieces of the moon brought back on the successful Apollo 11 mission to the lunar surface, which was headed by Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in July 1969.
The rocks were presented at the time to Prime Minister Golda Meir and President Zalman Shazar by U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour on behalf of U.S. President Richard Nixon, but when it came to dusting them off recently as part of the 50th anniversary celebrations for the moon landing, no one actually seems to know where they are.
But it’s not just the Israelis that are desperately seeking their little pieces of the moon.
Officials all across the globe – and even in the U.S. itself – are hunting for the hundreds of moon rocks handed out as gifts to to world leaders and American governors.
Of the two rocks presented to Israel in 1970, one was placed in container, sealed with a glass lid, and put on displayed at the Eretz Yisrael Museum in Tel Aviv.
A small Israeli flag taken into space by the American Aldrin and Armstrong was returned along with the rocks, as well as a letter from Nixon reading: “This flag of your nation was carried to the Moon and back by Apollo 11 and this fragment of the Moon’s surface was brought to Earth by the crew of that first manned lunar landing.”
The second moon rock was given to Prime Minister Golda Meir.
Several years later, in July 1973, a third piece of the moon – from the Apollo 17 mission – was given to President Efraim Katzir. This was the last manned Apollo mission to the moon.
So where are Israel’s moon rocks today? The Justice Ministry, which is responsible for cataloging all gifts given to the state says: “The Civil Service Law (Gifts) wasn’t enacted until 1979, therefore, gifts given to public employees were not transferred to the custodian general.”
No one in the President’s Residence in Jerusalem or in any other government ministries seems to know where the three rocks are. The United States Embassy in Jerusalem didn’t respond a request on the subject from Ynet.
Oddly, a story that appeared in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency circa 1974 claimed that the Israeli flag was on Apollo 17, but made no mention of the flag on the previous Apollo 11 mission:
A tiny piece of moon rock brought back by the final Apollo mission and a small Israeli flag which the American astronauts carried to and from the moon were presented to President Ephraim Katzir yesterday as a gift from President Nixon. The presentation was made by the U.S. Charge d’affaires Owen Zurhellen at the President’s residence here.
Zurhellen conveyed Nixon’s request that the moon fragment be displayed at an Israeli museum. Katzir said such an exhibition was under consideration. The Israeli President, who is a scientist, described the moon rock as “a symbol of American scientific genius and achievement.” He said he did not know of any accepted formula for expressing thanks “for receipt of a piece of the moon,” adding, “It’s quite an extraordinary gift.”
The first story from 1970 claimed that there was an Israeli flag on Apollo 11 but no mention of one on Apollo 17, but the second story from 1973 claims there are an Israeli flag on Apollo 17 but no mention of one on Apollo 11. That’s odd.
Leaving aside the evidence that the Apollo moon missions were faked, this story raises many interesting questions.
Whose idea was it that Neil Armstrong should be carrying an Israeli flag for this historic mission to the moon?
And whose idea was it to allegedly have the Israeli flag again on Apollo 17, the last manned mission to the moon?
It’s not as if the U.S. and Israel had a close, stable ‘friendship’ in 1969, barely two years after the Israelis intentionally attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in a vain false flag attempt of drawing the U.S. into their war with Egypt.
And it is highly unlikely that it was Richard Nixon’s idea, considering he had a well-deserved distrust of Israel — and of Jews in general — and the Israelis knew how he felt.
In fact, Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, believed that pro-Israel Jews were behind the campaign to force him to resign.
According to Michael Collins Piper, in his book, Final Judgment, one of the first things Nixon requested from J. Edgar Hoover when he took office was, “Get me the files on Israeli nuclear espionage.” (p. 364) And given Hoover’s close relationship with the ADL, there can be little doubt that Nixon’s unhealthy interest in that subject immediately raised some red flags in Tel Aviv.
In 1973, Nixon went behind the back of the Israelis to make an alliance with King Feisal of Saudi Arabia in an attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was this ‘stab in the back’ that, according to Piper, lead the Mossad to orchestrate the Watergate break-in in order to bring about the political downfall of Nixon. (Final Judgment, p.366)
Another strange twist is that it was John F. Kennedy’s goal for the Apollo program to put a man on the moon, and considering the overwhelming evidence that the Israeli Mossad was behind the JFK assassination, the very idea that Neil Armstrong was carrying an Israeli flag to the moon, on a mission dedicated to JFK, makes it even more improbable and symbolically troubling.
It’s worth noting that during a 1974 interview with Walter Cronkite, notorious exiled international financier, Robert Vesco claimed that “the forces that threatened me are the same politically that eliminated President Kennedy and then President Nixon and want to eliminate all of Nixon’s associates.” (Final Judgment, p. 367).
What did the liberal Kennedy and the conservative Nixon have in common? They both crossed Israel.
Christ Is King
Did they have this in the recent First Man film? Did anyone watch it?
On Apollo 11, Michael Collins who didn’t land on the moon with Armstrong and Aldrin, took three flags with him on the trip: flags of the USA, the District of Columbia, and the US Air Force. The DC flag is a very strange choice…..
For me…………….just more proof how “infiltrated” the Jew has been in our history.
The movie “Capricorn One” is proof enough for me. NASA and the moon hoax was simply an extension of their movie abilities.
We have never faced an Enemy on par with the Jew. Fascinating.
Come at us with a Sword and we will defeat you. Come at us with mental, emotional and spiritual weaponry, and we fold like a cheap lawn chair.
We’ve lost the “Fear of the Lord”. Jesus said, “When the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
The road is Narrow and only a Few will pass the test.
That’s just it–the Jews are masters at emotional appeals and manipulation. Their schtick would never work appealing to our logic and common sense, so they’ve got to target our women and children through television and advertising. And to our misguided Christian altruism…
Investigate ‘Flat Earth’. Then you’ll see how NASA and all other ‘space’ programs are simply overfunded sci-fi hollywood studios and that it is all part of satan’s huge lie to completely discredit the validity of The Bible from it’s first Word to it’s last…
‘Heliocentricy’ (the idea that our sun is our center) is straight pagan sun worship and disregards everything the Bible has to say the subject. Yes, there is indeed a reason ALL ASTRONOTS are masons…
There’s nothing in the Bible that is refuted or contradicted by a ‘globe-shaped’ Earth. In fact, one of the beautiful qualities about the Bible is that it is NOT dependent on any theory about the shape of the planet. The shape of the Earth is moot in terms of comprehending scripture.
I will respectfully disagree. There is quite a bit written in the Scriptures that supports a continued understanding of the condition of the earth as created by God. I am not here to argue for or against. I am here to simply suggest honest research on the subject, since there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that SUPPORTS our current ‘heliocentric’ view of our earth and everything around it that God created…Satan has indeed deceived the whole world 😉
That’s my point–the Bible does not take a specific stance on any particular model of the Earth, ‘heliocentric’, flat, or donut shaped. That’s why the Bible is so brilliant–it’s not contingent on intellectual fads from 3,000 years ago. If you think you somehow have a better understanding of God’s will because you believe the Earth is flat, you’ve perhaps taken a wrong turn somewhere.
But it does. What is the relevance of the firmament? of the tower of Babel? or Christ ascending the highest point to see all the kingdoms of the earth? or that God claims the earth is built on a foundation, that the earth is his footstool? or that the earth is a CIRCLE (when there is a word for “ball” that could be used) that He puts His feet on? These are but a few of many examples. If you understand that the earth is anything but the realm God created and centered everything around, you’re missing out on understanding quite a few things in Scripture.
I want to make it clear I am not trying to stir contention, but provide applicable, alternative considerations. That’s what brings us all here, after all…
To believe that the Bible espouses a literal Flat Earth paradigm, you have to be very selectively literal minded. For example, you obviously are making reference to Matthew 4:8, “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ” So where is this literal high mountain today? It clearly doesn’t exist, and therefore to take this verse literally makes no sense.
And those who quote Matthew 4:8 conveniently avoid the retelling of this scene in Luke 4:5, “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” No mountain is necessary here to see the whole earth very quickly.
What these two verses show is that this metaphorical episode in the Bible is NOT contingent upon any particular shape of the earth, unless you insist on being literal minded when it suits your agenda. Attempt to read any of Christ’s parables literally and you won’t understand any of them–and it was the literal mindedness of the Jews that made it impossible for them to understand His message.
I was once just like you. I mocked the notion. I didn’t think it could 1) be true or 2) be relevant to Scripture. When I finally stopped mocking long enough to start doing what many of us here seem to do best – read and research with an open mind – I came to a much different understanding. Do you admire the genius of Nikola Tesla, a self-professed Christian? Do you know he believed the earth was a realm, not a sphere? Did you know the first man to the stratosphere in 1931, Auguste Piccard declared the earth appeared to be a flat disc with an upturned edge? I could go on, but I won’t. Please don’t mock. Just research for yourselves.
You conveniently ignored my point comparing Matt 4:8 and Luke 4:5, and instead make a false appeal to authority, falsely claiming that Nikola Tesla believed in Flat Earth. He did not. The alleged quote where he claimed the Earth is a ‘realm’ is actually fake.
The Piccard quote is also taken out of context:
What is your answer to Matt 4:8 and Luke 4:5? And why is me asking you to locate the actual mountain on which Christ stood in Matt 4:8 a form of “mocking”? Where is this mountain so we can stand on it and see the flat earth as Christ did? You made this assertion, so you have the burden of proof. And asking for proof is not mocking. Scrutinize all things.
Since you’d like to continue, I’m claiming that your demeanor and attitude is indeed mocking. However, I will give you your first link – I cannot disclaim it and appears a legit debunk. I am no expert on Tesla. However, there is a big problem with Auguste Piccard. Is he not the science community’s posterboy for the “first man to observe the curvature of the earth”? Your own attempt to debunk proves the science communities to be liars, as Auguste supposedly declares he did NOT observe curvature, even if he supposedly is misquoted in the first place. But you act as if I’m hanging my hat on those – they just happened to be easy to mention. As for going ‘tit for tat’ as I’m supposedly “ignoring Matt 4:8 and Luke 4:5” – you have MY original points that YOU ignored to address first, choosing to cherry pick from my comments: the firmament, the earth’s foundations and footstool, use of the word “circle” instead of “ball” in Job, or the tower of Babel? All I have been trying to say is the understanding of the earth as a stationary realm around which God set the “heavenly bodies” is worth looking into. This was not intended to a pissing match.
Never did I argue for a spherical Earth–you’ve put words in my mouth. I stated that the Bible does not commit to any particular shape of the Earth, and I stand by that. You’re the one trying to prove it’s flat, and I’ve easily refuted a number of your contentions in attempting to do so. But I cannot refute that you feel that I’ve “mocked” you–as those are your personal feelings which cannot be proven either way, nor was it my intention. But to make that claim certainly gives you an implicit excuse not to be obliged to answer my challenges.
It is a crying shame you have missed my point this entire debate, as I scratch my head wondering when I accused you of anything, let alone put words in your mouth. “Flat Earth” is simply an understanding that can take many forms. The main understanding is that our universe is not heliocentric as the Bible absolutely does NOT support the theory, which then rules out any concept a solar system, therefor rotating and revolving globes, and then brings special attention to what the Bible truly says about the earth – giving us a better understanding of the Scriptures, and therefor our place in this world – whether or not we want/choose to believe the earth is flat, or a sphere. It is not because my wittle feewings got hurt that I will no longer debate this with you, but because it is plainly obvious that you believe I’m trying to convince you of something, when all I’ve done, and continue to do, is present a relevant alternative to investigate. Argue with ‘flat earthers’ all you want on many other platforms…let’s leave this forum to honest scholarship and brotherly love, shall we?
Agreed. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who has mastered the art of moving the goal posts.
Lol…good one, really 😉 I have a feeling if we knew each other in the ‘real world’, we could be friends…
The bible does refute the heliocentric model multiple times.
“And I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria: and I will defend this city.
7 And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he hath spoken;
8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.”
“Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”
“Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.”
The Hebrew for “riseth” at Job 9:7 and Ecc. 1:5 is H2224 ‘zaw-rakh’ which means specifically “to appear,” but obviously can describe the sun appearing to arise over the horizon.
All these verses clearly describe the sun as moving itself. And before we think to say it is just how David, Job and Solomon perceived it from their earthly view, recall Isaiah 38:8 posted above where God made the sun retreat 10 degrees.
Assuming the sun itself moved, a geocentric globe model still works. Just depends how powerful you think God is… Moving stars and planets like billiard balls? No problemo.
Although… That’s not what Isaiah 38:8 is saying. Look at the ESV Isaiah 38:8 “Behold, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps.” Most literal translations render it the same way. So it doesn’t necessarily say the sun itself moved… Rather, it says the shadow moved. They render it like this because the Hebrew says the sun moved on the dial, not the sun itself moved: https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/38-8.htm
Psalm 19:5 says the sun is coming out of a chamber, which doesn’t fit with the flat earth (or any model), so it’s obviously all metaphorical (As a side note, compare Psalm 19:1-6 with the rest of the passage… Really beautiful imagery… not really related to our discussion).
To say the sun “appears” as in the Hebrew, that is fundamentally subjective. It is not a literal description of how the sun moves according to the flat earth model. Therefore, already we can see that they are describing a subjective view of the sun.
In the Greek Septuagint Ecclesiastes 1:5, they use G393 which literally means rise, and G1416 which literally means go down. See those entries in the NT as well, especially when they relate to the apparent movement of the sun. In flat earth, the sun only appears to rise, but does not actually rise. Therefore, not only is the description fundamentally subjective in the Hebrew, but the Greek OT and NT directly contradict flat earth.
So flat earth relies on the subjective view of how the sun appears to interpret any verse to do with the rising of the sun and have no claim to literally interpret movements of the sun. To claim a literal interpretation here and a subjection interpretation there would be cherry-picking and/or double standards. But like I showed, Isaiah 38:8 doesn’t talk about a literal moving of the sun in any case.
A subjective interpretation of the sun’s movements works in all cases.
Kevin, you are begging the question. Regardless of whether the sun actually moves or is stationary, how would anyone otherwise describe how the sun changes position in relation to the horizon? Even people who believe that the sun is stationary and doesn’t actually move, will describe the sun as moving because that’s what it appears to do. The same is true with the sun dial….how could you describe the sun dial shadow reversing without referring to the apparent halting the sun from appearing to move across the sky? You couldn’t. There is no other way for a human to describe the apparent “movement” of the sun across the sky, regardless of your model. It simply is impractical and awkward.
Otherwise, you would have to say, “The horizon slowly dipped lower and lower during the day, making the sun appear to move higher in the sky.” That’s confusing, awkward and nonsensical.
Obviously if the sun dial retreats 10 degrees, and God even says the sun itself retreated, then the sun retreated.
If the sun were stationary, then the only way for the shadow on the dial to retreat ten degrees is for the earth to reverse its spin direction, which – within the spin theory model – would cause great disruption on the earth.
What you’re suggesting is completely illogical.
It says that the sun moved because there would be no other practical way to describe it. Please tell us how it would otherwise have been worded? Do you honestly think Isaiah or anyone else would say, “God stopped the earth from rotating so that it no longer appeared that the sun was moving across the sky”? Are you serious?
Huh? Again you are not making very much sense in your replies. I think you are triggered and reactionary.
The crux is, God made the sun decline by a measure of ten turns of degrees on the dial. That is all.
If that occurred because of the earth reversing its rotation there would have been epic whiplash world wide.
Therefore, the sun is not “seeming” to move across the sky, it literally is, according to God at Isaiah 38:8.
Kevin, you are so far into your own conviction of FE that you cannot understand the simplicity of what I’m asking you. Go ahead and try to describe the apparent “movement” of the sun across the sky AS IF it’s the earth moving and not the sun. You say “Huh?”
Exactly. It makes no sense, and you can’t do it without sounding ridiculous. The Bible says the sun “moves” not as “proof” that the sun actually moves, but rather because there is not other practical way of describing it.
You’re claiming that if the earth were a rotating globe, God or the prophets wouldn’t say the “sun moved across the sky.” You’re claiming that if the earth were a rotating globe, they would say, “God reversed the rotation of the earth so that the sun appeared to change direction in the sky from the perspective of people on the earth.”
You say “the plain words of scripture” says the sun literally moves. I say, it HAS to say that because there is no other practical and comprehensible way of expressing the phenomenon from our subjective perspective on earth, as my example shows.
You are right. I am convicted in my belief that the sun is local and that it moves. My conviction is based on observed phenomenon and real science, not kabbalistic theories of the world.
You must realize that i understand the simplicity of what you are saying, and I know what is fueling your perspective. It is your conviction of the worlds cosmology, or some close variant of it.
We disagree. But God did say that the sun went back. Hezekiah would have had to have seen that in order to recognize the sign that God promised him. So I believe it happened.
You obviously misunderstand where I’m coming from. I’m not trying to “disprove” flat earth, nor even claim that there is language in the Bible that could conceivably lead people to believe the Bible is saying the earth is flat.
That you can’t agree with me — that describing the apparent movement of the sun across the sky in any other way would be confusing and and incomprehensible for most people — suggests to me that you fear you can’t concede any point for fear of “losing” some imaginary debate that you are not having with me or others.
My view is simple — the language of the Bible accommodates both flat earth and the rotating globe. And the proof of that is that highly intelligent people are able to take either side of the argument and not have it have a detrimental affect on their faith. And if you can’t agree with that, I think you’ve really lost all perspective on this issue.
I disagree. This notion of equality = good is numbing to a faithful debate.
The bible does not offer language that suits both globe and flat. That is just what Christians are saying a lot these day in order to keep a false sense of peace.
From my own experience, it is what globe leaning Christians say because otherwise they fear losing the debate.
Which, btw, they have already lost. The natural laws of physics (as opposed to renaissance inspired theoretical physics) have always been the same, and will remain so.
I am not the bad guy here. But I have been down this road and I am testing spirits on this subject at CFT.
So far between you and Clock all I see is denial of the plain words of God at Isaiah 38. You can’t interpolate the modern kabbalistic cosmology into the bible and make God say something He didn’t say, that Hezekiah somehow didn’t see.
Why would you claim this is having a detrimental effect on my faith?
It is comments like that, and your overall agitation at the outset that give you away.
Why not take a breath and come back to this. I haven’t attacked or lied and yet from the get go it was you who were agitated.
Yet it is you who advocated equality in the issue. But you failed to keep to it from the start.
That is why I disregard the notion that we should all agree that the bible says nothing on the issue. It certainly does though.
“Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?”
How could Elihu know this if not from prophecy? It can’t be perceived from mere sky gazing.
His statement is also not congruent with modern globe cosmology. However, it is congruent with the observed and tested law of thermodynamics, which have long proven that gas pressure can only exist within a container.
This is also consistent with Genesis 1:6,
“And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.”
Obviously – logically – something solid must be between the waters.
The language here certainly jibes with a flat earth and not a globe. Isaiah 40:22
“It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;”
Would we ever doubt it if we had not been over saturated with nasa propaganda? Of course not.
“Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?”
This is metaphorical, poetic language, not rational objectivity. It is a rhetorical question. The phrase “spread out the skies” is a metaphor, as skies are not literally spread out like butter or pastry. And “hard as a cast metal mirror” is a comparative simile, a figure of speech, again, not literal. He is clearly describing something here as other than what it is. Metaphor and simile are taught in high school English classes, very basic language arts here.
Brother, that is your subjective opinion. What would “hard metal” symbolize then?
And is the Genesis 1 creation account pure metaphor as well, or just the parts that talk about dividing the waters?
If something like a hard metal plane is separating waters from waters (Gen 1:6), then how are we all not under water? Where does the air around and above us come in?
I suppose one might argue the gathering of the waters below the firmament in Genesis 1:9 created the atmosphere, but that’s just an assumption. It doesn’t say the atmosphere was created in that act. Unless the firmament, or expanse, already was the space between the waters and the waters?
Genesis 1:14-16 says the sun was placed in the firmament itself. How can the sun have been placed IN a hard plane? Unless the sun was placed within an expanse between the waters and the waters that is not a hard plane?
When looking up at the sky, it looks perfectly flat. Just like a hard metal plane. Ezekiel 1:22 says it was like crystal — another way to describe the sky. So is it crystal or metal? Or just poetry..?
Why do Bible authors say the sun goes down and comes up?
Kevin, I can assure you that it’s not my “subjective” opinion that this verse uses metaphor and simile. I know metaphors and similes when I see them, but don’t trust me….
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Metaphor: “an object, activity, or idea that is used as a symbol of something else”
The “activity” in this verse is “spread”. God spread out the sky….it could have used other words to express the same idea such as distribute, expand, stretched out, unfold, circulate, disseminate, diffuse, disperse, scatter, fan out, extend out, etc.
God does not literally “spread” out the sky any more than He “expanded” or “dispersed” or “unfolded” or “scattered” the sky. These words are but shadows of an idea to convey how God accomplished something in language that humans can related to. Language is a rudimentary, blunt tool to describe an infinite act of God, but we have no other choice but to use it. As Paul tells us, we see through a glass darkly, but the in the Kingdom we will finally see God face to face without physical reality and language separating us.
Back to Merriam-Webster
Simile: “a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as”
The sky is being compared to something unlike it, to “cast” or “molten” metal. The sky is not literally “molten metal” but it’s something we can visualize that “spreads out” or “stretches out” or “expands out” or “ripples out” like water or melted butter. This is a textbook simile. Not my subjective opinion.
Think about this act of creation from, say, Adam’s perspective. Would he have understood the metaphor/simile here of expanding molten metal to describe the sky being created by God? No, such technology had not been invented yet, so it would have had to have been described to him in another way that he could understand. Therefore, the description of how the sky was created cannot be a literal, objective, description.
The Bible is replete with such poetic language, and it causes many people to stumble because, depending on their doctrine, they may want to take that language literally, not metaphorically — or conversely, they may prefer to take it metaphorically not literally. Or both. If we are going to be honest, we must acknowledge the poetic ambiguity of the language here — not build rigid, reductive doctrine on it.
Well written response brother. However, you failed to prove your point.
You said “the Bible is replete with metaphorical and poetic language.” Well, it is also replete with literal descriptions.
You will need to go beyond rhetoric, then, to prove to me that “molten metal” is metaphorical. Metaphorical for what?
And you didn’t address my question about Genesis 1 and the waters being divided.
Also, metaphorical language often implies its literal point of reference. I could say, for example, “the man stood tall like a planted oak tree.” Surely “oak tree” isn’t literal, however it implies that he stands erect and firm.
Similarly “spread out like a canvas as a tent to dwell in” implies imagery in the same way. Certainly I never meant to convey that God put a tent above us, rather, that the imagery implies the manner of reality being referenced.
Ultimately, it is begging the question to assume that mans observations failed to grasp what I assume you mean to be the modern cosmology working in the minds of the masses today.
And I maintain that Elihu is referring to the firmament. Firm, barrier, that divides the waters. Just as Genesis tells us. We can’t allow the television or theories of the modern world dictate how God’s ancient words ought to be interpreted.
It is also conjecture to assume Genesis 1:6 is metaphorical, as if the entire creation account were as well.
If I wanted to us a metaphor to describe the sky as the modern world believes it to be, I would not refer to it as strong or metal, nor would i mention the dividing of waters, especially since it is an alleged vacuum up there.
The word for “rise” is H2224 ‘zerah’ and can be used to refer to rising, like rising up from sleep or the sun rising. But also means ‘specifically to appear.’ That is the specific concordance definition at least.
Whatever ‘waters’ means is irrelevant to the point of fact that they are separated by a firm barrier.
As for the sun, the bible tells us it is a light, as well as the moon and all the stars. Light itself is obviously not a firm substance, and could easily run its course within a firm substance. I certainly do not believe the modern psuedoscientific views about the sun, space, moon or stars.
The metal metaphor implies hardness, firmness, and crystal too is a firm, hard substance but also clear and transparent. Two different ways to refer to the FIRMament.
The Hebrews word for rise is ambiguous. What about the sun rising in the new testament or in the Septuagint?
BTW I did address the perspective “from ground level” aspect of your argument in my initial post.
Obviously I fully comprehend why we say “rise” in reference to the sun.
Either way the sun is explicitly stated to be moving and Isaiah 38 refutes the “it’s merely the perspective of man from earth” argument, which I was careful to point out from the outset.
“So it doesn’t necessarily say the sun itself moved… Rather, it says the shadow moved.”
Well sure, if you completely ignore the very next verse, which says:
“So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it (subject – the sun) had declined.”
It mentions both the shadow’s turning and the sun’s declining.
So who is cherry picking?
Then Clock says:
“Psalm 19:5 says the sun is coming out of a chamber, which doesn’t fit with the flat earth (or any model), so it’s obviously all metaphorical.”
Which flat earth model would that be? Weird statement bro, and an obvious strawman.
They crux of my and many other Christian men’s cosmology is anti-model. If a man constructs a model and then tries to test reality with it, it is like a man who dreams up the perfect wife before every going on his first courtship-date.
Observation and testing of observed phenomena are the main reasons I and others accept a stationary, flat plane.
Kevin, what you quoted isn’t the next verse… It’s part of the same verse I quoted and referred to. But that’s what I’m saying… “the sun turned back on the dial”. They’re talking from the perspective of the sundial, not the sun itself. If you say the sun turned forward or backward on the dial, you’re talking about the shadow on the dial itself.
My apologies, I didn’t mean to create a strawman of your view. Would you kindly give me a concise summary of the model you use, or provide me with some reading material? Do you see the sun as literally coming out from a chamber?
Reread again, slowly.
“So the sun (subject #1) turned back on the dial (subect #2) the ten steps by which it (subject – the sun) had declined.”
It says, “….the ten steps BY which it declined,” relating the two aforementioned subjects together.
Either your reading comprehension is skewed or you are trying to conform scripture to what you believe must be true.
Again, I don’t ascribe to a model.
Kevin, I’m afraid I don’t see what you’re saying regarding that passage. Here are two points why:
1. It says the sun returned ten degrees ON THE DIAL. The focus is the dial, not the sun. Yes, the two subjects together explain how the shadow could move ON THE DIAL.
2. It says the sun declined or went down. It comes from H3381 which literally means to descend or go down. This is a subjective view of the sun, because as far as I’m aware, the sun doesn’t literally go down in any view (FE or GE). This further proves that the focus is the sun’s effect ON THE DIAL. The sun WENT DOWN from a subjective viewpoint, so the dial went back ten degrees.
Just a few more points:
* Even if I were to hypothetically concede that Isaiah 38:8 means the sun itself moved, this doesn’t discount a geocentric globe earth.
* If a globe earth rotated on its axis, it doesn’t mean there will be whiplash. Saying that assumes modern scientific theories and discounts God’s power. For example, an east wind blew back deep waters so the Israelites could pass through the Red Sea. A wind strong enough to part such a deep sea would blow the Israelites a mile up into the air… But we assume that God did it in such a way that defied the “laws of nature” as we perceive them.
* I would still like to know your view on how this all works physically. I’m trying not to use the word “model”, but I hope you know what I mean. If I don’t understand your view, them I’m arguing from the dark and run the risk of creating straw men.
Read the Brenton’s septuagint translation as well. The sun goes back and the shadow goes down.
“8behold, I will turn back the shadow of the degrees of the dial by which ten degrees on the house of thy father the sun has gone down – I will turn back the sun the ten degrees; so the sun went back the ten degrees by which the shadow had gone down.”
Whichever translation you use – ESV, the “sun declined,”or Brenton’s, the “sun turned back,” – the sun moved, causing the shadow to go back ten degrees on the sun dial.
That is how sun dials work. They reflect the position of the sun in the sky. Honestly I think you are being stubborn.
Sure, Isaiah 38 doesn’t disprove a geocentric globe. Fine, but that can be for another discussion if you’d like.
I don’t underestimate God’s power, but to your own point, for any to assume he reversed rotation whilst keeping equilibrium on earth is the most subjective statement made this entire discussion.
The plain words of scripture say that the sun turned back, declined etc. It is clearly stated that the sun turned back AND the shadow declined upon the sun dial which, again, is exactly how sun dials work.
Kevin, on Isaiah 38:8, from my side I will agree to disagree.
Furthermore, until I understand your view, I will respectfully decline discussing the matter further.
My view is that Isaiah 38 says exactly what it says and that you are obfuscating what it says because you don’t want to admit FEers are right about the sun.
My view is that if you set a drone in the air above kansas for an hour, that it should wind up near california at the hours end IF the earth were rotating 1,000 mph west to east. The fact that it doesnt happen is an observable phenomenon that refutes the “spin theory.”
Another one of my views is that the earth cannot open up into a space vacuum, for if it did, all the oxygen nitrogen etc would rapidly escape to fill the vacuum. But the gas pressure on earth stays relatively stable. Therefore the earth does not open up into a vacuum. 2nd observable and tested law of thermodynamics.
My view is that the cosmology of the pagan sophists and renaissance occultists have become the cosmology of modern babylon, and it is entirely based on psuedoscientific theories that hold no water, have no roots, and therefore no substantive place in God’s creation.
I believe in logically dividing truth from falsehood, as well as being as honest and true as I can be regarding scripture.
I do not accept your excuses, brother, regarding Isaiah 38. If you aren’t going to be honest with me, then perhaps we shouldn’t speak again.
Read the language from the septuagint translation.
“8behold, I will turn back the shadow of the degrees of the dial by which ten degrees on the house of thy father the sun has gone down – I will turn back the sun the ten degrees; so the sun went back the ten degrees by which the shadow had gone down.”
It clearly says that both the sun went back AND the shadow of degrees went down.
Yes the Hebrew language itself is much different than Greek.
I also did concede early on in this debate that I fully comprehend why “rise” would be used to describe the coming of the sun. That is obviously what it looks like.
Though, the Greek culture fully entertained a globe earth, which is where the renaissance theorists came up with the idea in the first place.
I would point you back to Isaiah 38 though.
And there are observable anecdotes to why the sun appears to be rising in the first place. The laws of perspective prove that there is a vanishing point in how far we can see with our fleshly eyes, like when staring out down traintracks, our eyes see the illusion of a convergence of those tracks because our eyes can only see so far.
But what can not be observed, tested and proven is that the earth spins and revolves around a giant sun. Nor can it be proven that sun rays would appear on earth the way they do from a sun larger than the earth, whose rays would then surpass the earth completely.
There are practical reasons based on simple observed phenomenon that allow me to fully accept what God showed Hezekiah at Isaiah 38.
The Septuagint was translated in the mid third century BC, which is before the Greeks started to formulate their globe earth theory. Your point doesn’t explain the rising or lowering of the sun in the Septuagint translation.
In globe earth the sun circumnavigates the earth or vice versa. Assuming the new testament and Septuagint writers accepted globe earth, it would still make no sense to describe the sun as literally rising or going down. The language depicts perception, not reality.
So the sun can appear to rise and go down in the Septuagint and the new testament, but it can’t appear to rise or go down in Isaiah 38?
If the moon reflects the sun from the side (half moon), or the moon eclipses the sun, how could both be two-dimensionally IN the hard plane of the firmament?
What is the water below and above the firmament according to Genesis 1:6 if the firmament is a hard plane?
“So the sun can appear to rise and go down in the Septuagint and the new testament, but it can’t appear to rise or go down in Isaiah 38?”
The sun always appears to rise and go down. I never said otherwise. I merely pointed out that the Hebrew ‘zerah’ is defined as such but ‘specifically to appear.’
Whatever the septuagint translaters believed about the sun is irrelevant to me, nor does it bother me if people then and now say “sun rise.”
Cars rise into view in the distance as they approach on a desert highway.
As I walk down a long town road lined with trees, I see the ones far down the road as inch tall shrubs. But as I approach them, they rise to 30 feet heights.
As for the moon reflecting the sun light, I see no proof of that. Yeah, they are opposite one another, and so the view that the moon reflects the sun’s light is understandable – and might be true, I dunno. Though, I have neverseen rays of light shooting across the night sky towards the moon, have you?
As for the eclipse, that is a good point, and I have no hard proof of anything of much value. Though, it all depends on what the firmament is. Is it solid all the way through, or do the sun and moon exist within a hollow portion of it.
At that, what is the moon? I don’t know. As I told Clock, I do not ascribe to a preset fixed cosmology. I only ascribe to what has been observed and tested.
So I admit I don’t know everything about the firmament. But I don’t think we can disregard a firm barrier of some kind dividing “the waters,” just because we ourselves don’t have answers. It makes sense that we would never know all that can be known about heaven.
Far cry from the modern model, which informs itself of everything with models and theories.
Yes, the sun appears to go down to everyone, whether vanishing point or horizon, which is why the Septuagint and New Testament authors wrote it that way. It’s why Isaiah 38 words it that way. Will you concede then that Isaiah 38 is not a literal moving of the sun, but rather is a perception of the sun moving? If you say no, then please explain how the sun could literally go up and down in the Septuagint and New Testament (especially Matthew 5:45).
If the earth is a circle according to Isaiah 40:22, how can the earth have four corners according to Isaiah 11:12?
Just to be clear, I view above as heaven, not space. And in keeping with the ethic of proving all things, I don’t have much to say about the nature of heaven beyond what scripture tells us, or what, if anything, we can observe.
There are numerous amateur zoom in footage of stars that support the bible, that they are lights. Personally, I see heaven as being strange as opposed to earth, and certainly not a vacuum, which – whatever ‘waters’ refer to in Genesis – seems to support that idea.
And for anyone still confused as to why I abhor heliocentrism, watch this 12 second clip:
That is what I mean about observation. That is the first step in the scientific method. So, the next step is hypothesis. The hypothesis here is that for a thin stream of reflected light that is far smaller than the surface it reflects on to exist, the light source itself must be smaller than the surface upon which it reflects.
The next step is testing. So anyone can do this. Take a flashlight and try to create the same effect on the concrete floor of your garage, making sure the flashlight is the sole source of light.
Then take that flashlight and shine it upon a dark jelly bean – which is smaller than the light source – and see if you can create the same effect.
Spoiler: you cannot. Therefore, the sun is smaller than the earth.
“Will you concede then that Isaiah 38 is not a literal moving of the sun, but rather is a perception of the sun moving?”
No, because correlation does not equal causation. Just because the appearance of the sun rising is an illusion of our vanishing point, does not automatically mean that the appearance of the sun moving is also an illusion.
Further, Isaiah 38:8 clearly states the relation of the sun moving back to the declining of the shadow on the sun dial which, if the sun weren’t moving, would require a reversal in the earths rotation. Someone else in this debate said that could be the case, and that it shows God miraculous power. But that is begging the question and only seems possible to those who have a preconception in their minds of a giant heliocentric cosmology. I have added a few real life observational prompts thar debunk the giant sun theory.
So it is far more realistic that the sun moves on a circuit around the circle of the earth, which is also stated several times in scrioture as well.
As for the 4 quarters existing on a circle, I am surprised you would ask that. Anyone can cut a cake into four equal parts, quite easily.
Though affixing four quarters on a globe makes less sense.
I’m sure the moon rocks were sold for shekels.
Interesting article by William Cooper on the masonic/illuminati connections to the Apollo missions:
Oh what tangled webs they weave…
Practically all astronauts are Scottish Rite masons. Masonry comes right out of jewry. If you look at the degrees, a lot of the sacred names and passwords are in Hebrew. It comes as no surprise to see masons kissing the tail of jewry. Masonry is jewry for the goyim.
Praise the Lord
A must read about the jewish-masonic connection:
Practically, they’re responsible for the french revolution, bolshevik revolution, WW1, WW2, the fake “war on terror”….
Millions of people mowed by these demons.