Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: aryzia on February 24, 2016, 11:05:10 AM
-
Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?
-
Geocentrism is not complete as science or historical fact unless flat earth is included.
Consider this simple proof that earth is not a globe:
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall (curvature) from starting point will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, 5 miles-16 feet, 10 miles-66 feet, 20 miles-266 ft.
The mathematical and scientific fact above, shows that a panorama view of the horizon, say sixty miles east and west, should curve at least 1200 feet on the west side of your view, and 1200 feet on the east side of the same view. This never happens, the horizon remains level and no curvature is ever demonstrated. Also, no matter how high you go, the horizon rises to the eye and doesn't decline front or side, as it would if one was on a ball. The horizon itself is proof there is no curve and we do not live on a ball.
Even the term "globalist" is a doctrine of Satan.
-
If earth is spinning at a 1050 mph as NASA and prior corrupt scientists say, a helicopter could take off, wait for an hour hovering, and land 1050 miles east of his takeoff. That never happens. Earth does not move. Earth is not a globe. Heliocentric theory is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind.
-
Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?
Yes. There is a search engine you can try.
-
Flat earth geocentism arguments.
I know heliocentrism (and then relativity) are ʝʊdɛօmasonic lies, but the Earth being a sphere was an accepted fact since antiquity and as far as I know never in doubt in Catholic philosophy.
I've read about the horizon measurements and seen how most if not all space-claimed pictures of the Earth are fakes, and that's very suspect, however also Scriptural proof about the Earth being flat is weak/inconclusive (contrary to it being at the center of Creation for instance).
-
Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?
What do you want to know Aryzia? The geocentrism of Dante or the geocentrism of the Bible defended in 1616, or the latest attempt to argue we live on a flat earth?
-
Geocentrism necessarily embodies a flat earth. The round earth belongs in the heliocentric model only. There is no case for round earth in history, nor in science. Round earth belongs to heliocentrism and the Kabbalah which is why NASA and the elite constantly flaunt the globe in our faces, promoting, hypnotizing people with this New World. Why do you think they call themselves globalists?
-
Geocentrism necessarily embodies a flat earth.
Am I missing something or for 1600 years the Church held a geocentric model with a spherical Earth (Ptolemaic?)
The round earth belongs in the heliocentric model only.
Why?
There is no case for round earth in history
When exactly was the flat earth even believed in?
nor in science.
Maybe.
Round earth belongs to heliocentrism and the Kabbalah
I thought heliocentrism was from the Kabbalah, while Spherical Earth simply the universal norm across all models.
which is why NASA and the elite constantly flaunt the globe in our faces, promoting, hypnotizing people with this New World.
This is word for word Flat-Earther promotional slogan.
Why do you think they call themselves globalists?
Because they're working/striving for a global government/regime?
-
All geocentric theory in the past was based in scripture, which necessarily teaches a flat earth, with a dome, fixed and immovable, water above and below. Ancient maps were always flat. None were round. Although the discussion of a round earth existed since Augustine's time, a Catholic monk in 550 debunked that theory in his book Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocopleustes which held until the late 1500 and early 1600's when the test of the great Robert Bellarmine began.
You can read his book here:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_00_2_intro.htm
I didn't answer your questions specifically hoping this would cover most of them. If I was unclear or missed something, let me know.
The problem with the heliocentric theory is that it is a replacement for the scriptural version of creation. The entire thing, round moving earth is not only completely untenable in reality and scientifically speaking, it was never held by any of the Church Fathers. All Geocentric Fathers were necessarily flat earthers because they took the bible literally.
Globalist is a name that represents politically speaking as you said, but it is also an agenda of the "global elite": heliocentrism, round earth, big bang, global warming, evolution and worst of all, it seeks to discredit the Church's literal interpretation of scripture.
-
Here's another book called Zetetic Astronomy, The Earth is Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robatham or Parallax. http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
Fortunately these books are available to read online for free. Thass right, no cash! The first pages of this particular book are enough to get the fe picture as the entire book is made up of experiments to show the proof of the math on the physical earth. The first few experiments are pretty clear, but there's a book you can sink yourself into if you so choose. Great stuff.
-
If you're a youtube kinda guy, this shows the science of the flat earth with respect to math, experiment and reality. The host is not Catholic, but he does present the scientific aspects quite well. This is only a bullet point view of 200 proofs earth is not a globe. For deeper explanation, you can review his other videos for a more complete explanation of the science of flat earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg
-
Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?
What do you want to know Aryzia? The geocentrism of Dante or the geocentrism of the Bible defended in 1616, or the latest attempt to argue we live on a flat earth?
Sorry, I missed quoting you but my reply is just below your post. We do live on a flat earth as scripture attests.
-
Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?
What do you want to know Aryzia? The geocentrism of Dante or the geocentrism of the Bible defended in 1616, or the latest attempt to argue we live on a flat earth?
Sorry, I missed quoting you but my reply is just below your post. We do live on a flat earth as scripture attests.
In fact it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian merchant who last seriously propagated that the earth is flat.
‘He was scornful of Ptolemy and others who held that the world was spherical. Cosmas aimed to prove that pre-Christian geographers had been wrong in asserting that the earth was spherical and that it was in fact modeled on the tabernacle, the house of worship described to Moses by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat has been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC. His view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era’ --- Wikipedia.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
It seems some individuals in the long past did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid. ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:12) That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also indicated the earth as a sphere and the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon demonstrated to them without doubt the curved nature of the earth. Geocentrism and flat-earth belief then do not go hand in hand, as many propagandists would have you believe.
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
The Newtonians then did a new survey that they believed would show the Cassinis’ measurements as flawed. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as their illustration shows here:
Now if this is true, no matter how it was reasoned out, does it or does it not confirm the Cassini measurements of 1720 that found the northern hemisphere was narrower at the hips and higher at the Pole, a measurement that was rejected on principle?
Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady in the hands of God.
-
Flay maps of the earth do not accurately reflect the sizes of continents and land Masses closer to the poles. This is because of the distortion caused by showing a spherical earth on a flat plane.
-
Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?
What do you want to know Aryzia? The geocentrism of Dante or the geocentrism of the Bible defended in 1616, or the latest attempt to argue we live on a flat earth?
Sorry, I missed quoting you but my reply is just below your post. We do live on a flat earth as scripture attests.
In fact it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian merchant who last seriously propagated that the earth is flat.
‘He was scornful of Ptolemy and others who held that the world was spherical. Cosmas aimed to prove that pre-Christian geographers had been wrong in asserting that the earth was spherical and that it was in fact modeled on the tabernacle, the house of worship described to Moses by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat has been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC. His view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era’ --- Wikipedia.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
It seems some individuals in the long past did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid. ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:12) That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also indicated the earth as a sphere and the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon demonstrated to them without doubt the curved nature of the earth. Geocentrism and flat-earth belief then do not go hand in hand, as many propagandists would have you believe.
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).
King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
The Newtonians then did a new survey that they believed would show the Cassinis’ measurements as flawed. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as their illustration shows here:
Now if this is true, no matter how it was reasoned out, does it or does it not confirm the Cassini measurements of 1720 that found the northern hemisphere was narrower at the hips and higher at the Pole, a measurement that was rejected on principle?
Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady in the hands of God.
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used. In Genesis, earth is described like a tent, with a dome over it with water over the dome (for rain) and water under the earth in the great deep. Also under the earth is a great pit, which is hell. A pit is not a central location on a ball, but a pit under the plane of earth. The earth is described as a footstool. What footstool is a ball? And what ball has four corners?
Besides scripture attesting to the flat plane with a dome over it and water above, the problem with the sphere becomes manifest when the globe's curvature cannot be demonstrated anywhere. Not today, not in history. No curve demonstrated--EVER. Experiments with far reaching lasers, airplanes and balloons sent into the upper layers of sky have proven logically, mathematically, and visually speaking, that earth is a plane.
But lets look at the globe more closely. Firstly, discussion in history about the globe remain that. Popes fought the pythagoran doctrine with a vengeance. Most saints and popes who discussed it at all were adamantly flat earthers because they were geocentric. Flat and stationary belong to the same model--geocentricism. Round and moving earth belong to the same model--heliocentrism. Ptolemy never said earth was a globe, rather, only that the heavenly bodies circled above the stationary earth. A stationary globe is a new invention by modern geocentrics who were globe indoctrinated from infancy. It was never that way in history.
No curvature commensurate with a globe of 25,000 mi in circuмference has ever been demonstrated. That's a serious statement--no curve, no ball. The surface of water on a globe is arguably unable to curve, let alone stay put on a surface where it can't possibly cling to the ball in all directions. Direction itself is challenged to scorn on a globe. One has to wonder: Is "up", up? Or is "up" actually just "out", in every direction? Is there an east or a west on a ball? Or are these just relative directions without basis? Did Jesus Christ rise to heaven above, or go "out" sideways? And when Jesus rose, did he technically go "down" relative to those on the opposite side of the globe? Is the horizon a horizontal line or a circle? God is not illogical, but profoundly simple. Earth is not a globe. The globe is the necessary groundwork for relativism and denial of truth. Satan's ape of creation visibly subverts the Faith, logic and scripture.
Besides the discussions in history that included saints and popes and outsiders, without exception, the only people who firmly taught a moving/globe earth were atheistic, demonic pagans, no matter what Wikipedia says. Those who taught geocentricism were Christian. Always, without exception.
Since Satan has recreated the world in his own image, replaced the truth for a lie, making a physical science to prove relativity and nonsense, rather than doctrine and truth, he gains a tangible platform for chaos and contradiction because the people interact with ridiculous contrary notions of God in the world in which they live. Heliocentrism/globe moving earth, is the PHYSICAL BULWARK for the SPIRITUAL ANARCHY we endure today.
It is without question that the sun danced in the sky not only to affirm the truth of the prophecies of Fatima but also to prove that it is the sun that moves, not the earth. With the reality of creation affirmed, Sister Lucy's words about diabolical disorientation take on a whole new dimension.
-
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used. In Genesis, earth is described like a tent, with a dome over it with water over the dome (for rain) and water under the earth in the great deep. Also under the earth is a great pit, which is hell. A pit is not a central location on a ball, but a pit under the plane of earth. The earth is described as a footstool. What footstool is a ball? And what ball has four corners?
Besides scripture attesting to the flat plane with a dome over it and water above, the problem with the sphere becomes manifest when the globe's curvature cannot be demonstrated anywhere. Not today, not in history. No curve demonstrated--EVER. Experiments with far reaching lasers, airplanes and balloons sent into the upper layers of sky have proven logically, mathematically, and visually speaking, that earth is a plane.
But lets look at the globe more closely. Firstly, discussion in history about the globe remain that. Popes fought the pythagoran doctrine with a vengeance. Most saints and popes who discussed it at all were adamantly flat earthers because they were geocentric. Flat and stationary belong to the same model--geocentricism. Round and moving earth belong to the same model--heliocentrism. Ptolemy never said earth was a globe, rather, only that the heavenly bodies circled above the stationary earth. A stationary globe is a new invention by modern geocentrics who were globe indoctrinated from infancy. It was never that way in history.
No curvature commensurate with a globe of 25,000 mi in circuмference has ever been demonstrated. That's a serious statement--no curve, no ball. The surface of water on a globe is arguably unable to curve, let alone stay put on a surface where it can't possibly cling to the ball in all directions. Direction itself is challenged to scorn on a globe. One has to wonder: Is "up", up? Or is "up" actually just "out", in every direction? Is there an east or a west on a ball? Or are these just relative directions without basis? Did Jesus Christ rise to heaven above, or go "out" sideways? And when Jesus rose, did he technically go "down" relative to those on the opposite side of the globe? Is the horizon a horizontal line or a circle? God is not illogical, but profoundly simple. Earth is not a globe. The globe is the necessary groundwork for relativism and denial of truth. Satan's ape of creation visibly subverts the Faith, logic and scripture.
Besides the discussions in history that included saints and popes and outsiders, without exception, the only people who firmly taught a moving/globe earth were atheistic, demonic pagans, no matter what Wikipedia says. Those who taught geocentricism were Christian. Always, without exception.
Since Satan has recreated the world in his own image, replaced the truth for a lie, making a physical science to prove relativity and nonsense, rather than doctrine and truth, he gains a tangible platform for chaos and contradiction because the people interact with ridiculous contrary notions of God in the world in which they live. Heliocentrism/globe moving earth, is the PHYSICAL BULWARK for the SPIRITUAL ANARCHY we endure today.
It is without question that the sun danced in the sky not only to affirm the truth of the prophecies of Fatima but also to prove that it is the sun that moves, not the earth. With the reality of creation affirmed, Sister Lucy's words about diabolical disorientation take on a whole new dimension.
First let me apologise for quoting the wrong verse of Isaias, it should be 40:22, not 40:12. You say 'is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth" not "globe" of the earth.' Well in my 1956 Catholic Family Bible, Douay-Challoner Text, imprimatur by Cardinal Stritch, checked by a list of 50 scholars, all priests, you find ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…' Besides, it is very reasonable to assume the circle of the earth describes a global earth. Again, for me, the Child of Prague confirms the earth is a globe. so too when I see ships disappear from sight, and when I see the vapours of jets appearing in the sky.
I see you are getting a knocking on another thread aryzia. There is no need for that. This matter was never dogmatised like the moving sun was, so one is allowed to make comments as you do. And yes, there was a time when Genesis was interpreted as portraying a flat-earth as we have all seen in various ways.
Your flat-earthism is now getting more popular as I have witnessed. I was given a disc with the arguments and they are quite good.
However, for me a global earth is in keeping with my reasoning and I am a biblical geocentrist. And yes, here lies a mystery, described as follows:
Understanding Gravity:
To say Newton solved the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or a lie for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on earth, and indeed probably on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth from space, as man can do now, we find it surrounded by nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below.
Thus Jesus goes 'up to heaven, for heaven is up to everyone on earth.
Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.
Finally, in that infamous Galileo case where faith and reason was fought for on earth, not once was the shape of the earth mentioned, not by either side, and that is all for now.
-
The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth" not "globe" of the earth. There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used. In Genesis, earth is described like a tent, with a dome over it with water over the dome (for rain) and water under the earth in the great deep. Also under the earth is a great pit, which is hell. A pit is not a central location on a ball, but a pit under the plane of earth. The earth is described as a footstool. What footstool is a ball? And what ball has four corners?
Besides scripture attesting to the flat plane with a dome over it and water above, the problem with the sphere becomes manifest when the globe's curvature cannot be demonstrated anywhere. Not today, not in history. No curve demonstrated--EVER. Experiments with far reaching lasers, airplanes and balloons sent into the upper layers of sky have proven logically, mathematically, and visually speaking, that earth is a plane.
But lets look at the globe more closely. Firstly, discussion in history about the globe remain that. Popes fought the pythagoran doctrine with a vengeance. Most saints and popes who discussed it at all were adamantly flat earthers because they were geocentric. Flat and stationary belong to the same model--geocentricism. Round and moving earth belong to the same model--heliocentrism. Ptolemy never said earth was a globe, rather, only that the heavenly bodies circled above the stationary earth. A stationary globe is a new invention by modern geocentrics who were globe indoctrinated from infancy. It was never that way in history.
No curvature commensurate with a globe of 25,000 mi in circuмference has ever been demonstrated. That's a serious statement--no curve, no ball. The surface of water on a globe is arguably unable to curve, let alone stay put on a surface where it can't possibly cling to the ball in all directions. Direction itself is challenged to scorn on a globe. One has to wonder: Is "up", up? Or is "up" actually just "out", in every direction? Is there an east or a west on a ball? Or are these just relative directions without basis? Did Jesus Christ rise to heaven above, or go "out" sideways? And when Jesus rose, did he technically go "down" relative to those on the opposite side of the globe? Is the horizon a horizontal line or a circle? God is not illogical, but profoundly simple. Earth is not a globe. The globe is the necessary groundwork for relativism and denial of truth. Satan's ape of creation visibly subverts the Faith, logic and scripture.
Besides the discussions in history that included saints and popes and outsiders, without exception, the only people who firmly taught a moving/globe earth were atheistic, demonic pagans, no matter what Wikipedia says. Those who taught geocentricism were Christian. Always, without exception.
Since Satan has recreated the world in his own image, replaced the truth for a lie, making a physical science to prove relativity and nonsense, rather than doctrine and truth, he gains a tangible platform for chaos and contradiction because the people interact with ridiculous contrary notions of God in the world in which they live. Heliocentrism/globe moving earth, is the PHYSICAL BULWARK for the SPIRITUAL ANARCHY we endure today.
It is without question that the sun danced in the sky not only to affirm the truth of the prophecies of Fatima but also to prove that it is the sun that moves, not the earth. With the reality of creation affirmed, Sister Lucy's words about diabolical disorientation take on a whole new dimension.
First let me apologise for quoting the wrong verse of Isaias, it should be 40:22, not 40:12. You say 'is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth" not "globe" of the earth.' Well in my 1956 Catholic Family Bible, Douay-Challoner Text, imprimatur by Cardinal Stritch, checked by a list of 50 scholars, all priests, you find ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…' Besides, it is very reasonable to assume the circle of the earth describes a global earth. Again, for me, the Child of Prague confirms the earth is a globe. so too when I see ships disappear from sight, and when I see the vapours of jets appearing in the sky.
I see you are getting a knocking on another thread aryzia. There is no need for that. This matter was never dogmatised like the moving sun was, so one is allowed to make comments as you do. And yes, there was a time when Genesis was interpreted as portraying a flat-earth as we have all seen in various ways.
Your flat-earthism is now getting more popular as I have witnessed. I was given a disc with the arguments and they are quite good.
However, for me a global earth is in keeping with my reasoning and I am a biblical geocentrist. And yes, here lies a mystery, described as follows:
Understanding Gravity:
To say Newton solved the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or a lie for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on earth, and indeed probably on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth from space, as man can do now, we find it surrounded by nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below.
Thus Jesus goes 'up to heaven, for heaven is up to everyone on earth.
Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.
Finally, in that infamous Galileo case where faith and reason was fought for on earth, not once was the shape of the earth mentioned, not by either side, and that is all for now.
Your phenomenon is not beyond human understanding these days. Words can mean lots of things, pictures are often distorted. But when scripture uses terminology, it isn't flexible in the same way as today. So I would disagree on the premise that God doesn't paint false pictures or give anyone reason to believe Christ did not ascend into heaven. In a way, it appears to be a denial on the round earth. No, that's not a proof. Still, if the flat earth model is inserted (against your sensibilities as you've been taught) everything fits. But it wouldn't be fair to use just one or two proofs to say that earth is flat. I agree with that and can't blame you for holding what you've been told. But when the discussion is settled, I personally have found that there are zero serious proofs for earth being a ball and hundreds for it being flat, including the fact that flat better jives with scripture. Keep studying because there's a lot in this model that makes sense.
Now its true that Galileo case did not discuss flat earth, but I have to say that geocentricism has always included flat earth in the model up until the 20th century. You see it in ancient maps and old cartographers, you see reference to it in the mobile represented as a toy hanging above the bed of children, you hear from the Catholic monk in Christian Topography in the year 550 etc. explaining how earth is flat and that they've been to the edges where it joins the sky.
Its true, during Galileo they don't mention the flat earth when discussing geocentricism, they more talk about the heavens. So, rather than depending on the Church Fathers for certain proof, I've turned to modern science, legitimate modern science, for answers. I have to ask myself, is it logical that water sticks to the outside of a ball? I know what modern science says about it, I went to school, too...but is that logical? Especially knowing the law of gravity is not well received in much of the scientific community. Also, the stars. How is it that the pole star remains absolutely stationary year after year after year. Use a telescope made of PVC pipe and point it to the North Star. The star will NEVER move. Aim that telescope at the sun and the sun will leave the view in 1 1/2 minutes. This is contrary to what NASA says, so why believe them about anything? So, we probably already agree earth is stationary, but what is the explanation for water staying put? Science used to say that the spinning action in combination with the molten iron magnet in the center of the earth created a "gravity" that kept the water on. But if the earth isn't spinning, how does that theory hold? It also doesn't make sense that water curves. Water in my glass is level. Water in my pool is level. Water in the lake behind my house is level. Yet the ocean curves? Really? Also, why did the head engineer laying railroad track in England take his team to the authorities and asked if they should include the curvature in their calculations to make up for the curve of the earth over long distances. They told them no and there was a huge disagreement. The authorities won, and the engineers laid hundreds of miles of track completely on the level. How can that be? The track would need to curve at a rate to include 6500 feet of curvature over a span of just a 100 hundred miles. There's more, but I'll leave that to you. I find this fascinating and wanted to share. Good luck!
-
I'm not ignoring anything you've said, but this is a lot. Can we start with just one or two things and go from there. Its great seeing all this information and I'm happy to imbibe all you write, but we're going to overshoot each other with this much going on.
Let me posit an answer for one thing: As for the globe in Baby Jesus' hand, I must consider two things in light of the fact that I'm convinced that earth is flat. Either 1. The person making the image was of the school that earth was round and reproduced what he knew. Or, the one I favor, 2. That the globe does not represent earth only, but since Jesus is the King of all of creation, that globe in his hand represents all of creation...for this reason: dome of heaven, flat earth inside, and the great deep with hell making up the bottom of the globe. Seems more accurate to me that God is the Creator of all things, so all of creation is included in his hand.
-
I'm not ignoring anything you've said, but this is a lot. Can we start with just one or two things and go from there. Its great seeing all this information and I'm happy to imbibe all you write, but we're going to overshoot each other with this much going on.
Let me posit an answer for one thing: As for the globe in Baby Jesus' hand, I must consider two things in light of the fact that I'm convinced that earth is flat. Either 1. The person making the image was of the school that earth was round and reproduced what he knew. Or, the one I favor, 2. That the globe does not represent earth only, but since Jesus is the King of all of creation, that globe in his hand represents all of creation...for this reason: dome of heaven, flat earth inside, and the great deep with hell making up the bottom of the globe. Seems more accurate to me that God is the Creator of all things, so all of creation is included in his hand.
You that is an elaborate hypothesis maybe I should look into that.
Who would've thought that I'd be considering Earth is flat?
I may get back to you later Aryzia!
-
I'm not ignoring anything you've said, but this is a lot. Can we start with just one or two things and go from there. Its great seeing all this information and I'm happy to imbibe all you write, but we're going to overshoot each other with this much going on.
Let me posit an answer for one thing: As for the globe in Baby Jesus' hand, I must consider two things in light of the fact that I'm convinced that earth is flat. Either 1. The person making the image was of the school that earth was round and reproduced what he knew. Or, the one I favor, 2. That the globe does not represent earth only, but since Jesus is the King of all of creation, that globe in his hand represents all of creation...for this reason: dome of heaven, flat earth inside, and the great deep with hell making up the bottom of the globe. Seems more accurate to me that God is the Creator of all things, so all of creation is included in his hand.
You that is an elaborate hypothesis maybe I should look into that.
Who would've thought that I'd be considering Earth is flat?
I may get back to you later Aryzia!
Excellent! Hope to hear from you!
-
I've provided the most concise video on the subject of flat earth for those who want to know the science. But there is also biblical proof as seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnIx6x6uO3Q
Please refrain from rude comments before you've investigated this for yourself.
-
Wow Aryzia, you've got me bought and sold! Never seen such convincing proof that Earth is flat. Who would've thought it!?
Thanks for opening our eyes, Aryzia.
-
Wow Aryzia, you've got me bought and sold! Never seen such convincing proof that Earth is flat. Who would've thought it!?
Thanks for opening our eyes, Aryzia.
Cool. Thanks for posting! Have a holy Good Friday!