From Christian Identity Ministries
Weekly Sermon, 28 May 2022
This week is more of a collection of articles than the usual audio sermon. The lead article is titled: Post Christian Era and the New Dark Ages, which I thought was appropriate considering what we are going through today. This was written in 2010. This is what the evil people hope to happen, but you and I know that it will be the dawning of a New Age in Christ’s Kingdom.
.
Searching the internet to find important news for you.
Only a handful of institutional companies as well as rich families do (their names are given here).
Here is the proof.
You can download the film if you want and share it with family and friends.
A cage contains five monkeys. A banana is hung from the top and a step-ladder is placed underneath. Before long a monkey will try to climb the steps to reach the banana.
As soon as he touches the steps, the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.
After a while another monkey makes an attempt, with the same result. The other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Soon when a monkey tries to climb the steps, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put the cold water away.
Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.
The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the steps. To his shock, all the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be punished.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.
The newcomer starts up the steps and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment, and with enthusiasm, because he is now ‘one of the team.’
Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tries for the banana, he is attacked.
Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they are not permitted to climb the steps. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the steps for the banana.
Why, you ask? Because in their minds, that is the way it has always been.
This, my friends, is how Government operates. And this is why, every now and then, all the monkeys need to be replaced at the same time.
Now are all the variations of life on this so-called “planet” of “ours” is by development or evolution, it would be quite proper to ask how life first started on the earth after it had cooled down sufficiently to form the so-called “crust of the -globe.” Was it from a mere “fortuitous concourse of atoms?” Or was the operation directed by some intelligent mind, or cause? And if the latter, then by whose mind was matter directed, and who guided the inert mass, and stamped upon it His design? It appears to me that science, in rejecting the Creation recorded in the Bible, has got into a dense fog, where the wildest speculations prevail and nothing certain can be known.
I deny the possibility of inert matter setting up any automatic force.
The trend of Professor Wallace’s argument is seen in the opening of chap. 6, where he says: “Darwin solved the origin of organic species from other species, and thus enabled us to understand how the whole of the existing forms of life have been developed out of pre-existing forms.” And he goes on to say that “astronomers hope to be able to solve the problem of the evolution of suns from some earlier stellar types.” He adheres to the postulated predication that there is evolution everywhere, and that man has been evolved from lower types: but the author of the book holds himself back, and will not go so far as Darwin dlid in defining the question of the origin of life. There are two sets of facts, parallel and related, yet at the same time distinct. They are the physical facts of organic chemistry (which is the chemistry of carbon compounds) and the physical facts of organized beings. There is no known reason why we may not make sugar, starch, or albumen from their elements; but that would bring us 110 nearer to the production of a living starch-cell or the living germ of an egg. What science knows of matter and force gives us no trace of reason to suppose that its “professors” will ever produce a living organism unless another order of existence is added to them the psychical: life, mind, will.
Life comes from life only; therefore, spontaneous generation, i.e., “abiogenesis,” is a leap into illogical darkness. Where life appears there must be a life-giver and that brings us to the Eternal self-existent Life-Giver whom we know as God. The Lord God-Jehovah, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Mr. Wallace says, “there may be, and probably are, other universes, perhaps other kinds of matter, and subject to other laws, perhaps more like our conceptions of the ether, perhaps wholly non-material, and what we can only: conceive as spiritual.” Five assumptions in five lines. “Perhaps” and “may be.”
The author of the work under notice has shown no faith in the God of the Bible as the Creator, and in Jesus Christ as his Redeemer. But he has shown his belief in Spiritualism, which I understand he expounded and openly defended over twenty years ago.
In some respects, Dr Wallace and Mr Bruce Wallace are of the same calibre in regard to spiritualism: and neither of them will definitely assert his belief in one self-existent Eternal Being, the Creator of all, by whose creative World all things came into existence; because both their minds are darkened by the false idea of evolution, and the evils of spiritualism: so I am informed. But Dr Wallace seems to have ceased making any open confession, he simply leaves us to suppose he inclines to the belief of man having a spiritual side to his organization, by quoting a few lines by Tennyson and Shakespeare here and there. And he flavours his writings with spicy lines such as: “What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In action like an angel!”
This may be all very beautiful; and no doubt to the mind of Tennyson the concept conveyed in the teaching of the inherent Immortality of Man, apart from Christ, was a traditional one. But in any case, the Bible and the God of the Bible are entirely left out, and ignored by the author of Man’s Place in the Universe.
According to Dr A. Wallace the faith which professors of modern science have hitherto placed in Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation is somewhat slacking down, and its power of attraction is fading away. This is evident from Prof. Wallace’s statements as follows. He says:
“One of the greatest difficulties with regard to the vast system of stars around us is the question of its permanence and stability…., But our mathematical astronomers can find no indications of such stability of the stellar universe as a whole, if subject to the law of gravitation alone. In reply to some questions on this point, my friend, Professor George Darwin writes as follows: ‘A symmetrical annual system of bodies might revolve in a circle with or without a central body. Such a system would be stable. If the bodies are of unequal masses and not symmetrically disposed, the break-up of the system would probably be more rapid than in the ideal case of symmetry. Mr. E.T. Whittaker (Secretary to the Royal Astronomical Society), to whom Professor Darwin sent my Questions, writes: I doubt w principal phenomena of the stellar universe are consequences of the law of gravitation at all.’”
Then after quoting Professor Newcomb’s calculation as to the
“Effect of gravitation in a universe of 100 million stars, each live times the mass of our sun, and spread over a sphere which it would take light 30,000 years to cross:”
with which he is not in harmony, he also states that:
“It is questionable whether the effect, which we call ‘gravitation,’ given by Isaac Newton, is the cause of results in connection with the principal phenomena of the stellar universe.
“I have been working myself at spiral nebula,” says Prof. Wallace, “and have got a first approximation to an explanation that it is electro dynamical and not gravitational.”
Accepting two different mathematician’s opinions the writer says that:
“We need not limit ourselves to the laws of gravitation as having determined the present form of the stellar universe; and this is the more important because we may thus escape from a conclusion which many astronomers seem to think inevitable, viz., that the observed proper motions of the stars cannot be explained by gravitative forces of the system itself.”
Therefore, the idea of gravitation (which truly belongs to the regions of metaphysics, existing only in imagination and not in fact) is falling into discredit, and one might almost say into disrepute. Professor Wallace’s book sheds ignore than one ray of hope that the light of reason is dawning upon the minds of some of the science-makers, the evidence of which appears in one of his quotations from Professor Huxley: — “that the results you get out of the mathematical mill depends entirely on what you put into it.”
True! If you put in, you’ll get out. And my advice in seeking after truth is this: if you don’t possess a real standard unit to start your mill, don’t forge one! It won’t pay in the long run, because although the faith some have in the Bible may be very weak in comparison to that which they have placed in this world’s “wisdom” yet honesty will ever be found “the best policy.” But earnest Christians who are real truth-seekers and truth-lovers will never relax their faith in the Bible, when they have proved it to be true, because they “know whom they have believed” in too real a sense ever possibly to be shaken by any mere man-made system, however cunningly it may be constructed.
Prof. Wallace has ingeniously endeavoured to make the various portions of the globular hypothesis dovetail into each other, and thus present a glossed surface of apparent consistency; that is, in the eyes of some, but not of all. Because personally I can perceive no true gloss of beauty. But nevertheless, the most carefully polished fallacy can only present external and transient attractions, even to those whose minds have been grossly fed upon that which will not stand the searching test of the Word of the Living God. Moreover, the most cleverly framed Scripture-contradicting myths present no “face value” to the keen truth-seeker. No mere superficial glitter can hide from his penetrating gaze unsoundness which lies beneath. And in spite of adroit burnishing performed with rare agates carefully prepared for the purpose by the author of all lies, still he who rests in the lord of the Lord knows assuredly that only “The foundation of God standeth sure,” and everything built on other foundation however apparently smooth may be its surface must eventually come to nought, and fall to rise no more!
Prof. Wallace has taken the globe theory for his basis; therefore, his primary assumptions remain unproved, and, at the risk of offending the great upholders of “The New Astronomy;” I will endure to mention some things which refuse to “fall into line” with ordinary common-sense deductions.
Take, for example, the theory about the origin of the moon, and the formation of the ocean beds, Professor Darwin who appears to be Dr Wallace’s oracle originated the former notion, which is that the earth, at some remote date, (being still in a practically fluid condition.) was spinning round at a rate variously estimated at from 2 to 4 hours per turn; it bulged out in the equatorial regions; and matters reached a critical climax when the centrifugal force overcame the gravitational and cohesive powers of the rotating ellipsoid. Two or more pieces were torn out of its flanks, and ultimately coalesced forming the moon.
What a strange conception! The pieces are said to have kept at first in close proximity to the earth’s surface, though gradually, the loosened masses were pushed outwards, further and further away from the earth. Here Dr Wallace has placed himself on the horns of a mechanical dilemma seeing that if the mass that was ultimately to make up to moon detached itself in separate pieces from the fast revolving earth (through excess of centrifugal force) the various pieces must according to the Law of Mechanics have been flung outwards at a tangent normal to the radius drawn to the point of separation; though if the earth were in a more or less fluid condition as these professors maintain the separation would not necessarily be an abrupt one. That makes it more difficult for one to imagine how the separation of a fluid mass can be affected in separate portions.
Without carrying this point as far as I should fairly be entitled to do, I will simply ask if this is a fact whether anything (apart from intelligence) could cause these portions to be exactly balanced, and exactly on opposite sides? If they were not so balanced, and on exactly opposite sides, with such a high speed of rotation they would throw the main body, just as a fast-running and ill-balanced pulley can shake a mill wall to pieces. The earth would not travel along its orbit in a smooth line, but would describe a subsidiary small orbit round the common centre of gravity formed by its own mass, and that of the detached portions, independent of the rotation on its axis (though how a globe, rushing through space, can rotate on its axis is inconceivable). If the union of the various fragments took place suddenly, and while still in close proximity to the earth, the throwing effect I have referred to would be intensified.
But I again state that, apart from agreeing with Dr Wallace that the stars are not other inhabited worlds, and that the whole universe is so constructed as to be adapted to man’s organism and necessities, I look upon “The New Astronomy,” from its foundation as a pagan delusion and God denying theory.
I note that Prof. Wallace state the mass of the moon to be one-fiftieth of that of the earth; but Sir Robert Ball, in Earth’s Beginning, put it at one-eightieth. Who is correct, Sir Robert Ball, or Dr Alfred Russell Wallace?
I am not interested to know which moon-theory the learned doctor espouses for I take the Bible and my own God-giver senses alone as my guide in the matter; but it seems right to expose these fallacies in detail, wearying though it may be.
Among other things, Dr Wallace makes out, in conjunction with Mr Ormond Fisher, that the pieces which detached themselves from the earth, to form the moon, left pits, which served subsequently to become the basins of the seas. He always says that these ocean beds are placed in almost complete symmetry with regard to the equator. This is not so. He further says (on p. 275), that “the highest mountains in every part of the globe very often exhibit on their loftiest summits stratified rocks, which contain marine organisms, and were, therefore, originally laid down beneath the sea.” If this be so, what about the “moon-prepared ocean bed?”
Dr Wallace tells us (on p. 234) that, it has been shown by means of the spectroscope, that double stars of short period do originate from a single star (as the moon originated from the earth); “but in these cases it seems probable that the parent star is in the gaseous state,” and thus we are told new stars are made from old ones “while we wait”! So, say these modern science satellites!
Under the heading, “The sun a typical star,” readers are treated to a short discourse upon “sun-spots,” and that the body of the sun is gaseous; but what we commonly term the sun is really the bright spherical nucleus of a nebulous body. “This” semi-liquid gloving surface is termed the photosphere, since from it are given out the light and heat which reach the earth.” Immediately above this surface is the “reversing layer, consisting of dense metallic vapours, only a few hundred miles thick(!). Above the reversing layer comes the chromosphere surrounding the sun to a depth of about 4,000 miles. The chromosphere and its quiescent prominences appear to be truly gaseous, consisting of hydrogen, helium, and coronium, while eruptive prom. evidence show the presence of metallic vapours, especially calcium…… Beyond the red chromosphere and prominences is the marvellous white glory of the corona which extends to an enormous distance round the sun.” Immensity in size and speed seems to be the acme of the astronomer’s imagination.
Dr Wallace states that the stars are suns, and on p. 143, referring to the age of the sun, says: “enormous epochs during which our sun has supported life upon this earth must have been incomparably less than its whole existence as a light giver that the life of most stars must be counted by hundreds, or perhaps by thousands of millions of years.” (Of course, this includes the earth, from which the moon was shot off!)
Now whether Dr Wallace is correct regarding the nature of the sun’s component parts, I will refrain from expressing my opinion, further than to say that to some extent at least I doubt its accuracy. But I know that he is wrong regarding the age of the sun and stars; because in his statements he has contradicted the Scriptures, wherein we read that God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day of Creation week–and the stars also (see Gen. i.)
Regarding motion, the author of this book says: “How these motions originated and are regulated we do not know, but there they are;” and, speaking of the motions of the stars, he says: “although they appear to move in straight lines, they may really be moving in curved orbits.”
True Zetetics love facts and seek them, but nothing is a fact which is contrary to the Creator’s Word. Yet alas! even as evil men denied and killed the Prince of Life, so do many now deny, and seek to slay the Word of Truth.
One of Prof. Wallace’s primary contentions is, that the earth is the only inhabited world. This, as I have already stated, on Bible lines we endorse; but, apart from Holy Writ, we think it impossible to come to such a conclusion from the professor’s standpoint; because as he describes the principles and physical conditions of all human life, and its basis, to consist of the elements of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon, it does not follow God could not create life upon a physical basis entirely different from ours, and completely beyond our conception.
.
______
Retype with the help of a donation from a faithful Reader.
The pamphlet referred to above is evidently written in defence of modern science.
After quoting the names of its founders, which include Newton, Herschel, Professor Adams, Clerk, Maxwell, Boyle, Wallace, Darwin, Sir James Simpson, Prof. Adam Sedgwick, Young, Joule, and Faraday, the writer makes an apology at the bottom of the page as a footnote for not including those of Huxley and Tyndall,
However, he regards Faraday, Young, and Joule as physicists to be superior to Tyndall: and Darwin as a biologist preferable to Huxley. And the “conclusion” of the whole matter may be comprehended by critics for the truth when they consider the writer’s summing up, viz: that “all points to one conclusion, that the functions of science (i.e., so-called “science”) and Christianity are to purify each other!
I can only express my regret when I see such words as these in print; and the only charitable excuse for the one who penned them—impossible as it may seem—is that he must be ignorant of many of the tenets of both the Bible and modern science, otherwise he could hardly make such a statement.
But the worship of human intellect must cease. The exaltation of the human intellect is one of Satan’s most seductive idols, but the time has arrived when it must fall. And the redeemed will be delivered from its snare.
Mr. Manley quotes the following words (which are the words of some individual) quoted by Bishop Butler in his Analogy of Religion: “Christianity is not so much as a subject of enquiry……but it is now discovered to be fiction.”
Mr. M. then endeavours to prove therefrom, that because infidelity existed in 1736, “before a word of modern science had been written,” therefore it is not a cause for the present prevailing infidelity.
In upholding his position, the writer, after saying, “I do not think the state of Christianity so black to-day,” asks this question: “If science is the cause of unbelief at the close of the nineteenth century, what was its cause at the commencement of the eighteenth?” But there is no argument here. It is about equal to the contention that as before a certain disease was known in a particular country where people had suffered and died, therefore it was proven that since it (i.e., the new disease) appeared, it could neither be the cause of injury nor death.
The one line of argument is as sensible as the other. It must be apparent that before a thing exists it cannot affect anything. Therefore, before modern science existed it could not have caused infidelity. But now that IT DOES EXIST it is not the only cause for unbelief in the Word of God, and the teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ; nevertheless, it is an additional and powerful cause, and its evil influence operates upon two classes, viz.: those who understand something about its tenets, and those who know nothing about them, but accept the conclusions of those that do.
Apart from the lines of Truth no man can form satisfactory judgment on anything. The majority of people understand little about modern science, nor do they trouble Truth is the to
Knowledge understands the truth of the Bible. Therefore, they do not know where to set the dividing line between true science, and that which is described in Holy Writ as “science falsely so-called.” Only: the measuring rod of truth, prayerfully sought after and sought out, can rightly divide these two.
Very many professing Christians go on in a sort of “follow-the-leader” style, never dreaming that they are professing to have faith in two systems which contradict each other, and which if understood could not be held together in a reasonable mind. How can a man believe a thing he does not understand? It is impossible. If a man believes in another man’s teaching without understanding it, or proving it to be true, his faith is centred in the reliability of another man’s conclusions, but not in a thing which he does not understand.
No! Modern Scripture-contradicting science is not the only cause for infidelity, but it is an additional and a powerful cause, and it appears to me that its interpolation is the policy of Satan, and his evil instruments, who, although invisible are only so in substance but not in force of evil, influence and rule. And thus, Satan has retarded the progress and salvation of men, by shaking their faith in God’s Word, and in the Creator’s own account of His Creation as set forth therein.
The distance of Mars at opposition than 13 1/2 millions of miles, then how is it that the nearer stars are not seen to shift their apparent places when viewed from opposite sides of this enormous orbit?”
Of course, the usual assumptions were made to overcome this difficulty; namely, that the stars we look at are such an immense distance from us. But as the writer of the book under consideration adds: “This seemed wholly incredible even to the great observer Tycho Brahe, and hence the Copernican theory was not so generally accepted as it otherwise would have been.”
It is instructive to notice that the sun’s distance was then supposed to be 13 1/2 millions of miles, whereas we read: “it is now pretty well fixed at about 92,780,000”! This is rather a large difference of opinion, or measurement (?) for an “exact science.” But it is noticeable that however many mistaken guesses the astronomer’s intake, their teachings are always supposed to be “scientific”!
In this case even their mistakes must be “scientific” also, that is, they are “scientific mistakes”! We notice, further, that Mr. Wallace bases all his speculations on the theory of Evolution or development: and this theory of development or Evolution is based on the globular theory; the former explanation being the expansion, as it were, of the latter. This theory of Evolution contradicts the very first chapter of Genesis, as also the Fourth Commandment, in which the Creator tells us that he made the World in six literal days like the Sabbath or Seventh Day. But science, of course, knows of no beginning, as is confessed on p. 134 of Mr. Wallace’s book. He says:
“It cannot be too often repeated that no explanation; no theory; can ever take us to the beginning of things, but only one or two steps at a time into the slim past, which may enable us to comprehend, however imperfectly, the processes by which the work or the universe it is, has been developed out of some earlier and simpler condition.”
So, it appears after all those scientists know nothing of the beginning of the world. Thus, we see why those who reject the inspired account of Creation, as given in the Word of God, have not only nothing better to offer us in its place; but positively have to confess that they do not know, and cannot reasonably speculate as to how the world or the universe first began. Then why do they reject or ignore the inspired account? Simply because that account is diametrically opposed to their vain imaginations; and in admitting that account, they would have to admit an all-powerful personal and all wise Creator. However, there is one conclusion to which Professor Wallace comes, with which Zetetics will readily agree in fact it is his main contention, namely, that this is the only habitable world, as far as can be known to science. This is quite contrary to popular astronomical conclusions.
Something, therefore, is gained for the truth. But alas! the truth in this case is marred, becavse in maintaining his argument the Professor often illogically assumes that the earth is only “another planet.” I will quote some other of his conclusions:
(1) “That the stellar universe forms one connected whole; and its extent determinable.”
(2) “That the solar system is situated in the plane of the Milky Way, and not far removed from the centre of that plane. The earth is therefore nearly in the centre of the stellar universe.”
(3) “That this universe consists throughout of the same kinds of matter, and is subjected to the same physical and chemical laws.”
(4) “That no other planet in the stellar system than our earth is in. habited or habitable.”
(5) “That the probabilities are almost as great against any other sun (!) possessing inhabited planets.”
(6) “That the nearly central position of our (!) sun is probably a prominent one, and has been especially favourable, perhaps absolutely essential to life development upon the earth.”
Thus, we obtain the writer’s conclusions in the foregoing six propositions; in the last of which I again notice it is “life development” or Evolution, as against Creation.
Star Reflections in the Biblical Model
Some twenty five years of investigating claims that the Earth rotates on an axis and orbits the Sun, and that the universe began evolving 15 billion years ago and is 15 billion light years thick, have left me without the slightest doubt:
a) That The Earth Is Not Moving;
b) That the Bible’s repeated declarations that it is the Sun that moves and not the Earth [See: Sixty-seven References – Gram-Semant] are absolutely accurate;
c) That the Big Bang Model ruling today’s cosmology is handcuffed to the Copernican Heliocentricity Model;
d) That both of these Models are built solely on contra-scientific assumptions held together by occult mathematics
e) That those deceptive and vulnerable assumptions now under gird the entirety of modern man’s “knowledge”. [See: Knowledge Impact]
f) That both the Heliocentricity and the Big Bang Models represent the fulfillment of a “creation scenario” of Kabbalic Judaism masquerading as “science”;
g) That the purpose of this hidden religious agenda has been to destroy the “creation scenario” of the Bible and thereby destroy the credibility of the rest of the Bible right on through Jesus and the New Testament to Heaven….
h) That the time for all who love truth over deception to give this issue their most careful and prayerful attention is now. This is especially true for all Christians who realize that their religion stands or falls on the the restoration of the absolute credibility of the Bible. This Biblical non-moving Earth issue alone can force that restoration and expose all the lies now connected with evolution-based false science (I Tim. 6:20, 21).
——-
The Scriptural portrait of the size and structure of the universe that will be presented in this series of discourses involves many heretofore neglected Bible passages…and exposures of unfounded claims from the science community. As will be seen, these two factors combine to downsize the universe way beyond “dramatically”. Indeed, this scriptural portrait downsizes the universe to a thickness that is absolutely unthinkable to all of our minds which have become so thoroughly indoctrinated into Kabbalist Kosmology’s Big Bang Model. That Model–with its billions of galaxies, trillions time trillions of stars in a 15 billion light year thick universe…swarming with evolving extraterrestrial life and still expanding at tremendous speed–is what we are bombarded with relentlessly in all media outlets. It is always called “science” and never called “religion”, and we believe it and trust it.
In contrast to all those claims and the world’s acceptance of them, it will be demonstrated in this Series that the Bible’s description of the universe is backed by well-understood optically observed facts. Those facts and those Scriptures combine to shrink the size of the universe from the 15 billion light year thickness mantra of the Kabbala-derived Big Bang Paradigm to a radius of less than one light day.
We have already seen that not only is the Moving Earth Model constructed entirely of assumptions, but so also is all of modern cosmology that is built upon that Model. [See: Assumptions] More, we have seen that the Big Bang Paradigm now in firm control of modern cosmology is the fulfillment of an anti-Bible “creation scenario” taken from a “holy book” of the religion of Pharisaic Judaism. We have seen, in short, a religion disguised as “science” that has established a “creation scenario” which is well on the road to destroying Bible credibility and with it Christianity, the real enemy of Talmud/ Kabbala rooted Judaism.
The only real obstacle to exposing this duplicity is the current computer-programmed Virtual Reality Technology [See: Virtual Reality Fraud] upholding the Big Bang Expanding Universe Model. The speed required in that Model for getting the stars around the Earth every night is the only thing preventing a revolt against this mountain of deception masquerading as “science”…and forcing a return to the Biblical Model.
This new optically supported Biblical Model presented in the series of essays beginning here has the capability of removing that obstacle. See why this is so….
***The Size & Structure of the Universe According To the Bible***
The current cosmological fantasies of billions of galaxies extending out billions of light year distances from the Earth can be replaced with a model of the universe that has the happy capacity to satisfy both Geocentric Bible Scriptures and non-theoretical science.
With minimal commentary, let’s begin with some of the neglected size and structure mandates that the Biblical Model of the Universe authorizes. Then, once these are understood, we can bring in more evidence in Parts II thru VII. Taken together, this evidence will end any substantive reason for denying the Scriptural Model and will present a clear choice to all who hear of it.
Aside from anti-Copernican and anti-evolution information stressed throughout this web page, a great part of everything any of us need to know about the Biblical Model of the Universe can be found on its first page. Accordingly, before going on to less familiar and rarely considered verses, let’s make a very careful study of the word meanings found in Genesis I–particularly verses 1, 2, 6-10, 14-18,& 20–which describe the structure of the Universe…and see what they tell us:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the EARTH. NOTE: In Strong’s Concordance the Hebrew for HEAVEN (#8064) is: “lofty, high, exalted”, and EARTH (#776) is: “firm land, ground…”.
Genesis I:2 And the EARTH was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the DEEP. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the WATERS. NOTE: DEEP (#8415): an abyss (as a surging mass of water), deep…sea….WATERS (#4325): “water”….
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a FIRMAMENT in the MIDST of the WATERS, and let it [the firmament] DIVIDE the WATERS from the WATERS. NOTE: FIRMAMENT: #7549 (7554) – “an expanse…apparently the visible arch of the sky.” Also #7554 – to expand…to overlay…stretch. MIDST: #8432 – “middle – between – half”. DIVIDE: #914 – “separate”. Comment: So, the Firmament, i.e., the expanse we call the visible arch of the sky, is located in the middle, between “the waters” and separates “the waters….”
Genesis 1:7 And God made the Firmament, and Divided [separated] the Waters [covering earth, v.2] which were UNDER the Firmament from the Waters which were ABOVE the Firmament: and it was so. NOTE: UNDER #8478: “below…underneath…beneath….” ABOVE #5921: “above…over…” Can mean “against”…(“yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect”) [i.e., the Firmament can be “against”, but only on the bottom side of those Waters.] Comment: Again, we notice three distinct entities, namely: 1) the “Waters” on the earth (v.2) which are specifically located UNDER the Firmament; 2) the “Firmament” itself which is the expansive visible arch of the sky, and; 3) the “Waters” which are ABOVE the expansive arch of the sky, i.e., ABOVE the Firmament.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the Firmament HEAVEN…. Comment: Heaven is located in the Firmament, i.e., Heaven IS the Firmament; the Firmament IS Heaven. HEAVEN (#8064)–as noted in verse one–means “lofty, high, exalted”. Scripturally, the two words are interchangeable as far as designated location in the structure of the universe goes. (Psalm 150:1: “Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the firmament [expanse] of His power.”)
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the Waters under the Heaven [firmament] be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear:
and it was so. Comment: This verse confirms that the Waters UNDER the Heaven/Firmament is a reference to the water that covered the EARTH totally, and which was then “gathered” (#6960 – “bind together – collect”) so that the land appeared.
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the Waters called He seas; and God saw that it was good. Comment: Another affirmation that the Waters under Heaven (the firmament) is a reference to the Waters on the Earth. [Verses 11, 12, 13 speak of the creation of grass, herbs, fruit, trees…and the emphasis on the seeds and everything “after its kind” (an unbroken botanical–and biological–law, nullifying evolutionism…)].
Genesis 1:14 And God said: Let there be LIGHTS [#3974 – luminous bodies] in the Firmament of Heaven to Divide the day from the night, and let them [the lights] be for signs and seasons and for days and years. NOTE: LIGHTS: #3974: “luminous bodies”…. Comment: So, these luminous bodies (lights) are set inside of and restricted to the Firmament where there is Water both beneath and above. These lights serve specific purposes, all for mankind alone.
Genesis 1:15 And let them [the luminous bodies] be for lights IN the Firmament of the Heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Comment: Confirms the location and purpose of the “lights”, viz., they are IN the Firmament/Heaven, and they are there purposefully to give light upon the earth.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day [the sun], and the lesser light to rule the night [the moon]: He made the STARS also. Comment: Three sources of Light are created and situated in the Firmament, namely, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.
Genesis 1:17 And God set them [all three sources of light] IN the Firmament of Heaven to give light upon the Earth. Comment: Lest there be any doubt, we again see that these three sources of Light (sun, moon, stars) are specifically located IN the Firmament/Heavens and have the specific purpose of giving “light upon the Earth”.
*****
A short time ago I published a pamphlet under the above title, with a diagram on page 17, which also appeared in The Earth for October and November, 1903, Nos. 39 & 40, p. 275. The diagram was a representation of the globe with the equator as a straight line, and the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn also were shown as straight lines at a distance of 23 degrees from the equator; the lines produced beyond and outside the globe were to show the sun’s relative position when in the tropics, and also to show that when in these positions the direct rays of the sun cannot reach the two poles. Readers should refer to that diagram, and compare it with the diagrams which follow.
Two or three correspondents have been pleased to criticise the diagram above referred to, as not exactly representing the globular theory. So it is necessary to write this article, and to give a few further thoughts upon this subject.
Many of our readers have, perhaps, never realized how very difficult it would be to represent the globular theory exactly. It would be impossible for us to do so. The astronomers themselves never do so. High-class works on geography and map projection generally have the same defect. Why therefore should I be required to give what is not found, either in works on astronomy or in recognized standard atlases? However, I gave some approach to the theory; something which I think fairly represents the theory, while at the same time comparing that theory with some known facts. I cannot yield to the globular theory, nor accept all its wild hypotheses.
Now it has been thought by the correspondents above referred to, that I ought not to have made the lines in my diagram, representing the tropics of Capricorn, Cancer, and the equator, parallel straight lines, nor have produced the line say representing the tropic of Cancer to A (see diagram referred to). And it was thought that the diagram in Celestial Phenomena does not give the sun in its true position on the globular theory.
It has been said that the sun should be placed on a line drawn from the centre of the globe through the end of the line representing the tropic of Cancer as at E, and beyond in the following diagram I. This diagram I shall refer to later on.
Even then we shall find this would not be in exact accord. ance with the globular theory, as I will show later on. But it is thought that the line should be produced from centre E through E1, and beyond, so that the observer at E1 Would see the sun vertical at noon. And vertical to a globularist means that an imaginary line should pass from the centre of the earth into “space,” through the point where the observer is said to stand.
This then fairly represents the globularist’s objection, with which I shall proceed to deal. But I have some remarks to make first, under heading of my new diagram I.
MAP PROJECTION,
DIAGRAM I
The above diagram represents the general projection given with the Map of the world, that is with one so-called hemisphere. The equator C E M is given as a straight line; the tropic of Cancer—H I E1—as a curved line, curving towards the North; and R Ri as another curved line—the Arctic Circle—also curving towards and around the North “Pole”—A. South of the equator we have the line I1 I1, as the tropic of Capricorn, curved inwards towards the South, that is in a direction opposite to the northern tropic; and Jastly, the curved line—L, L1—round the so-called South “Pole.” And we have been taught to receive this account of globular projection without any questioning. But let us examine it a little.
First let us ask what determines the points H and El for the tropic of Cancer?
It will I suppose be replied that they are 23 degrees from the points C and Mon the equator, measured along the curve towards the North Pole. Then if the point E1 be 23 degrees from the equator, measure along the curved line M E1 A will the point (1) also be the same number of degrees from the point E taken as being on the equator? If not, why not? If it be the same, then we have the fact cropping out, that on all maps of the world the degrees measured along a straight meridian from E to A are not as large as those measured along the curved meridian M E1 A. And if each degree measures, as we are told it does, 60 geographical miles, then the distance in such miles from M to A, along the curve, would be 5,400 geographical miles; while froin E to A the line would be only about 3,436 such miles, for anyone can see that the distance from E to A is considerably less than the distance along M E1 to A.
So that all our maps of the world are out of the truth, with respect to the size of countries measured from the equator, either towards the North or towards the South, even on the globular assumption. And the scale of miles is also wrong in this direction, as given with such maps. Also as the meridians recede from the centre to either side the scale is always altering until we reach the outside circle. But if we were to take E11 as the true scale for the 23 degrees, then hell would represent the tropic of Cancer: that is the upper curve of the two. And the same may be said of the lower curves¾I1 I1 and i2 i1. Which of these represents the true tropic? I leave readers to take their choice.
But notice what a difference it would make to the sun’s position North. In one case the globularist would contend that the sun should be seen along the line E E1, somewhere in the direction of E11; and in the other case somewhere along the line E e1, or about e11.
Readers may take their choice; for both positions are founded on globular assumptions! And both tropics, whichever we take North and South, are untrue to the lines of perspective. In the North, the Arctic Circle R R1 would shoot off northwards into space; and in the South the Antarctic Circle, L L1, would also shoot off into space in an opposite direction. But I will leave for the present globular map projection, and ask my readers to notice diagram II.
“PARALLELS OF LATITUDE.”
DIAGRAM II
We now have briefly to consider diagram II., which is based on a more natural projection.
If the spectator be supposed to be in such a position that he can see the Arctic Circle as a curve, and not a straight line, then the other great circles should be shown in a similar position as regards their curvature. In other words, the tropic of Cancer—H E1—should curvate towards the North; the equator—C E M—should do the same; the tropic of Capricorn—I I1—should also curve in the same general direction; and the Antarctic Circle—L L1—the same; all of them traversing the earth in the saine general direction as the rest of the parallels of latitude.
These circles are known as “parallels of latitude,” and therefore they should all be PARALLEL! But this would expose the position of geographers and astronomers in making the parallels north of the equator curvate in one direction, while the so-called “parallels” south curvate in another and opposite direction! I fear there is more trickery about the globe and its delineations than inost of our readers arc yet aware!
Let us now notice the relative position of the sun in the tropics. We will draw a line from E as the centre of the supposed globe, and pass it through E1, towards the sun at E11, for the tropic of Cancer. Similarly we will draw a straight line from E through I1 towards T, for the position of the sun when in the tropic of Capricorn. How does that. suit our opponents?
If someone should suggest that the diagram of the globe should be tilted, and that the “axis” ¾A B¾ should be inclined 23 degrees from the vertical, all they need do is to tilt the paper just so much¾or as much more as they like! It is more convenient for printing as we have placed it.
But we should like to know why the globe should be so tilted; and whether it is deemed more proper to tilt the “axis” 23 degrees to the right, or to the left? Perhaps some astronomer might be able to enlighten us on this point, and give us reasons for his hypothesis. But I must pass on: these two diagrams are merely preliminary to what I have to say in connection with diagram III.
DIAGRAM III
TRUE PARALLELS OF LATITUDE
If we want one general view of the so-called “globe,” with the Equator as a straight line, we must make all the lines denoting latitude, both north and south, parallel to the equator. I have so placed the leading parallels of latitude in diagram III. The central line C E M represents the equator; H E1 the tropic of Cancer; and R R1 the Arctic Circle. South of the equator I I1 would represent the tropic of Capricorn; and L L1 the Antarctic Circle. The line A B would represent the supposed “axis” of the globe, as it passes through the centre of the earth at E.
In a former article and diagram the sun was placed on a continuation of the equatorial line as at S, so that a spectator at M would see the sun on the 21st of March, directly over his head in the direction of S. But when the sun arrives at the tropic of Cancer, in the northern midsummer, it is said to be 23 degrees north of the equator. In other words, the same spectator at M, on the equator, would see the sun at S1 23 degrees from his former vertical position at M S.
Therefore, to place the midsummer sun there corresponds with fact; but it does not correspond with the astronomic: 1 theory, so the objector says that the midsummer sun should be placed in the line E E1 E11.
That is the 23 degrees, they say, should be measured from the centre of the globe! Yet no one in this world ever saw the sun from that position; so that I am required to sacrifice fact to fancy; and instead of putting the sun at S1, where it is actually seen in summer, I am asked to place it at E11, as though it were seen from the centre of the earth!
To please the objector I will place the sun there for arguments’ sake, and then let us notice what follows. When the sun is at E11, the spectator on the equator, at M, would see it at some angle nearer to 40 degrees from the vertical than 23 degrees. This angle would be greater or less great ac. cording to the various distances at which the sun might be placed, but it would never come down to the required 23 degrees. Besides Zetetics have on several occasions given proof that the sun is not at such a great distance from the earth. But we have placed it as far off as it was in the former diagrains, and no objection has been raised to the distance of the sun from the earth, but only to the angular position given.
Now, as a matter of fact, a spectator at the equator sees the sun at 23 degrees from the vertical; therefore, the sun’s position at E11 is not its true position. This may be seen by making at SMS an angle of 23 degrees; and afterwards drawing a line from M to E11, making, with S M, an angle nearly twice as great!
Again, if the sun be placed at E11, and we draw a line parallel to the equator across the so-called “globe,” it would about coincide with the line R R1, and so the tropic of Cancer would be super-imposed on the Arctic Circle! Would this suit our globular friends?
But why should the objector stop at E11? Why not go on to E111? In this case we should have the tropic of Cancer, if represented at all, outside the globe, a long way north of the North Pole itself—say at T T1! If we must take the globular theory for our standard, we should find it impossible to properly represent it on paper. We should have to continue the line from the centre of the globe, at E through E1, on to E2, on to E8, on and on for 92 millions of miles ! This would be the globular theory with a vengeance.
But who could represent it? And yet some have objection because I have not been true to the theory in every detail. It is impossible to be true to it. The astronomers them. selves are never true to it; nor are the geographers and those who bring out map projections. Some of the diagrams in the best astronomical works outrageously misrepresent their own theories, and the reader is thus deceived. I could give instances, but it would make my article too long, and require too many diagrams.
What I have already shown ought to be sufficient. But I will point out another fact. If tbe sun were a million times larger than the globe, the globe would be a mere mote in comparison to the sun, and it would be impossible for one half of it to be darkness at any time; the rays from one side of the sun would overlap or go beyond the north pole on the one hand, and the rays from the other side of the sun would overlap or go beyond the so-called south pole! Try reader for yourself. Make your diagram of the globe on a sheet of paper, and take the whole size of one wall of your chamber for the sun; then draw your lines accordingly, that is if you can.
This tremendous exaggeration of the sun’s size is a mere theory of the astronomers, and is bound up with the whole hypothetical system. To make its reputed size at all harmonize with the theory, the astronomers have to push the sun away from the earth 92 millions of miles, or inore, to inake it look small enough! This tremendous distance and size is the basis of their theory about sun spots. “Spots,” indeed!
It is a gross misnomer, too, for the astronomers to cal! them sunspots, when they teach that they are thousands of miles wide. Holes so large, that as one of these scientists declares “the earth could easiiy drop in.” This same astronoiner¾Mr. Garrett P. Serviss¾who has been writing to The American (New York), is reported to have said:
“If people had telescope eves, so that they could see at a glance things hidden from all but the astronomers, they would leave the most exciting occupation of life, and stand gazing with awe¾if not with fear¾ at strange sights in the sun.”
Yes, they want us to look with “telescope eyes” at these things, and not with the eyes which God has given us. If we were to look at a tiny insect with a telescope eye, or rather with a microscopic eye, we could IMAGINE it bigger than an elephant; but the little thing would not alter its actual size, would it?
It is this “telescope eye” which makes astronomers see in the sun “an immense globe of blazing gas,” swaying the earth and the distant planets “as restlessly as the ocean sways a floating chip”! The spots break out “on the distorted face of the solar giant like black soot.” “Their centres are yawning holes, many thousand miles in depth”! That is to the “telescope eye” which magnifies depth as well as length and breadth.
Is it not wonderful? If we only had been created with “telescope eyes.” But I think that the Creator of the world has done better for us, and given us natural eyes, wherewith we may see things in their natural proportions. ..And yet a weekly paper, of Jan. 14th, 1904, which professes to honour the Creator, and advocates the Seventh Day Sabbath as the memorial of Creation, publishes the above absurd sentence as “a sign of the times,” and publishes it with signs of prophecy.
Doubtless such teachings are a sign of the times in which we live; when men, and even professed Christians, are departing from the old paths which were founded upon faith in the Divine inspiration of the Bible. If the Bible be inspired,—and we believe it is—how can Christians consistently believe such extravagant astronomical theories, in the face of the first chapter of Genesis, the second and fourth Commandments, and the many references to the order of Creation which are interspersed in the Word of God. But I must draw this article to a close.
What I have tried to show is, that the globular theory is not consistent with known facts. And I have shown this especially in the last diagram by placing the sun where objectors have thus put it. And even there we have shown that this agrees neither with astronomical theories nor with Zetetic facts. In short it is impossible to represent the globular system of the universe on paper at all, for its assumptions are so extravagant and outrageous that even the astronomers themselves cannot represent them in their own books. And what is more, it seems evident that they dare not make the attempt, lest their diagrams strike their readers as suspicious and preposterous.
STRANGE “PROOFS” OF GLOBULARITY
In Past and Future, for Feb., 1904, Mr. Dimbleby attacks what he is pleased to call “the flat earth theory.” He says:
“The distance between Holy Head, in North Wales, and Kingston Harbour, just below Dublin, is 60 miles, but because, when a steamer is half-way between these two places, the lighthouse of Holy Head could be seen through a telescope, Lady Blount says that the earth cannot be globular, insomuch as the top of the lighthouse should be almost 600 feet below the level of the horizon. But distances of 30 miles are seen in other places when a good elevation is secured. For example a person standing on the highest land of Jersey, in the Channel Islands, a height of 30%) feet, can see the Cathedral at Containes, in France, which is 30 miles distant.”
Now if Mr. Dimbleby had seriously set his mind upon showing that our position was untruc, he should have shown that such long sights as the above could be seen on a globular earth. That is, he ought to have attempted to show that the amount of curvature on such a globe as “our earth” is said to be is compatible with the above facts. But he conveniently ignores such a reasonable proceeding, and practically says, that because in other places besides the Irish Channel, distances of 30 miles can be seen, therefore the earth must be a globe!
This is a curious way or “proving” globularity, but it is quite according to the Dimbleby style of argument. He simply asserts that “hen a stearner is halfway between Dublin and Holyhead it is on the brow of an arc, formed by the globular earth”!
But we give the readers of Past and Future credit for better perception than is implied in such a dictum; especially as Mr. Dimbleby further adds that the “telescope enlarges the perspective arc of the laws of vision.” Yet this writer rails at the “pretentions of science,” for not admitting “the truth of Biblical Chronology;” and speaks of the “rigmarole of fictitious systems on time.”
We think he should look to his own house. He refuses to believe the Bible doctrine that the earth is placed on “foundations, so that it cannot be moved.” In fact hc teaches the opposite, and says that the “earth” travels through all the heavenly signs of the Zodiac! And contends that this is taught in the holy Scriptures; and he tries to make them fit in with the idea that the earth is a whirling globe, flying through space like a shooting star. This is shown in the concluding paragraph of the above quotation, which reads as follows: “the first chapter of Genesis contradicts the flat earth theory, otherwise how could the earth arrive at the autumnal equinox, which is more north than the equator, on the fourth day?”
I simply repeat the question Mr. Dimbleby raises, and I ask him to answer it himself; “How could the earth arrive at the autumnal equinox” at all?
How, in fact, can the earth “arrive” at any place, much less the place of the autumnal equinox, when as the Bible declares, “it cannot be moved”? Mr. Dimbleby not only contradicts Bible teaching respecting the immovability of the earth, but he fails to write in a clear and sensible manner. For instance, he asks “how could the earth arrive at the autumnal equinox, which is more north than the equator, on the fourth day?” That is, the autumnal equinox, according to this authority, is more north than the equator, on the fourth day! How the earth ever could arrive at the equator passes our comprehension, much more its postulated arrival at the autumnal equinox, either on the fourth day, or any other day. But Mr. Dimbleby tries to make his readers believe that the first chapter of Genesis is responsible for such unreasonable and extravagant statements.
It is the sun, according to the Bible and our senses, which arrives at the autumnal equinox, and that orb was created on the fourth day of Creation week; but to talk of the earth “arriving” there, is not only subversive of all Bible teaching, but is contrary to all sound reason, history, and experience. Yet this writer professes that he accepts and supports Bible inspiration and science!
To be consistent men ought to give up either the Bible or that science, falsely so-called, which is in opposition to it. But, alas! many minds are crippled by the spirit of inconsistency: and the absence of a true logical faculty is strangely prevalent in all classes of minds. We canna account for this sad affliction.
But strangely charged with mystery are many things to which we are closely surrounded is a truism that may at time strike us with deep force; this is the experience of the writer, who has been led to exclaim:
Ah! strange life’s conditions,
And strange men’s reliance,
In “priestly” physicians
And nebular science;
And strange Truth and Knowledge,
In church, chapel, and college,
Are oft found with error
And evil things mixed!
But, nevertheless, let us ever endeavour to remember that “all things work together for good, to them that love God.”
Christian Flat Earth Ministry 