We can't just ignore all of the things we've learned in Parts 4, 5,6 and 7 and say it's all just "figures of speech." We must finally reckon with these texts. Because while some may say this sort of thing is "divisive," what are you going to do when someone asks you about it? Just tote the company line fed to us by Luciferian, occult organizations like NASA, which was founded by Nazis and Freemasons? Or will you be able to provide a "ready defense" from the Scriptures for why you believe what you believe? These are the questions I've been asking myself - hence my dilemma. Because I say I trust the Scriptures as my source for truth, but when I consulted them for a ready defense of the globe, I found just the opposite. The Bible, in no uncertain terms is a "Flat Earth Book" from Genesis to Revelation. We can try and tap dance around that all day long, but the fact remains: The Bible in no way, shape or form supports a spinning, heliocentric globe. Ball means ball and circle means circle. The authors of Scripture knew the difference... and they chose the latter.
Why is this subject important?
Of course, all that I have written here on this site begs the question of why? Assuming for the sake of argument that the Flat Earth is true, why would someone want to trick us? If we really are on an enclosed, stationary, flat-ish, circular shaped earth, why fool everyone into thinking we're on a spinning, heliocentric globe, freely floating in the vastness of space? What is the purpose? Isn't all of this just a big waste of time? I address motive here. See also:
I do not see this as a waste of time. I actually (now) see this as a critically important topic to be RE-searching and studying. Consider this: As stated already, the Bible clearly shows a flat-ish, enclosed, stationary earth model, wherein all of the "luminaries" are under a dome, with the earth being the primary focus of everything in the cosmos.
Even in the standard globe model, science calls this "primary focus" idea the Anthropic Principle. So either way, we are center stage and everything appears to be specifically designed for our benefit. The slightest deviation in nearly anything in the cosmos would make life as we know it impossible.
Whereas, brushing the Anthropic Principle off as mere coincidence and chance, the result of beneficial mutation and natural selection giving us this "illusion," in the Godless Big Bang thesis that NASA and monkey man scientists want us to believe in, we are taught that we're just a mutant on a spec of dust - a "pale blue dot" - in a small solar system orbiting a less than impressive star in an arm of an average, though still massively huge galaxy, floating in a vast space containing countless others of varying sizes and shapes. In short, we are insignificant, though fortunate mutations of random chance.
Of course, on the flip-side of that argument, the Creationist may contend that the vast diversity of this massive Universe makes us even more significant as they quote the Psalmist:
Psalm 8:
3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
To the Creationist who subscribes to the standard model, the idea that YHWH would take notice of this tiny spec in such a vast Creation makes us all the more important. I get that. I've argued the same myself. However, the vastness of the standard model can certainly imply that YHWH may have His eye on countless other "earths" out there too. If so, are we really that "special" or just different? A parent who has many kids loves them all, each perhaps in different ways, for different reasons, but loves them just the same. Yet, if we are all there is (in the realms outside of the spiritual realm of God Himself and those who reside with Him in that place), then we truly are the "apple of His eye" as a unique and singular, special Creation in the physical realm. We are an "only child" in that sense - and very loved and cherished as such.
Now, imagine why Lucifer would not want us to know this. Imagine why he might want to trick us into thinking there are "others" out there. Imagine why he might want us to believe in the idea of Panspermia (to the point of pushing the notion that Ancient Aliens are the ones who seeded our world with the ingredients for Darwinian-style life to evolve). Imagine how easy his job would then be to get us to take our eyes off of our Creator and place them on other alternatives for our origins.
Further, what if he can get us to doubt our Bible? If the Bible can be demonstrated to be untrue and thus unworthy of our trust in it, imagine how easily he could deceive us, built upon 500+ years worth of deceptive indoctrination. If he is indeed "the father of lies," then this would certainly have to be his masterpiece! But the problem with telling a lie is you have to invent more lies to cover the lies you've told. In order to do that in this scenario, you'd need to have lots and lots of money so that you could keep producing more and more material to support the lie. Well, what do you know? We just so happen to have TRILLIONS of unaccounted for money out there being used for something. This makes as much sense as anything else - if not more so. Unlimited money can provide unlimited "evidence" to support an ever expanding lie, designed to take our eyes off of the one true Creator and place them on any number of alternatives.
Just look at how much money and effort has gone into pushing the lie that we evolved from chimps for crying out loud! When you consider how much has gone into convincing us about the age of the earth and the nature of life as defined by evolution, is it such as stretch to imagine "they" may also be putting a lot of time, money and effort into getting us to believe in a certain paradigm concerning the shape of our world and its place in the cosmos? Think about it. Charles Lyell got us to question the Biblical timeline of a six day Creation. Charles Darwin convinced us that we were not created in the image and likeness of YHWH, but rather that we evolved out of slime, going from "goo to you by way of the zoo" (as Kent Hovind would say). And now, NASA and others like them are trying to convince us that we are on a spinning ball, orbiting around a sun... and they have more money to play with than anyone before them ever did!
As much as I have tried to put this subject down and not do anything more with it, something keeps popping up - almost daily - to drag me back into it again. For instance, today (10/27/15), someone posted this pic on my wall:
Just thinking out loud here... on a ball, in addition to scaling problems, would not the very distant high mountain peaks have to be arching away from each other toward the left and right instead of appearing straight up and down? Seems to me this is a very good test. Distant mountains, sitting on a ball, would show all sorts of visual perspective issues, from scale to angle problems. Yet, anytime I've ever seen a distant mountain range, it always looks like the mountain peaks are appropriately scaled and in a straight line, going out as far as the eye can see.
The fact that the horizon never drops below eye-level is also problematic for believers in the globe. The higher up you go, the more you should have to drop your line of sight downward in order to see the horizon, but this is never the case - even at altitudes above 160 miles!
Oh but putting NASA, the government and military issues aside, people want to point back to Greek philosophers and mathematicians from the second century BC as "evidence" that the ancients "knew the Earth was spherical," but I have already shown that Eratosthenes' little stick and obelisk experiment, for example, proved nothing except how to calculate the curvature of a ball that has sticks in it. That's some creative math skills for sure, but a moving sun over a stationary flat world would account for the exact same shadows he observed:
All that said, there are still some convincing arguments for the globe, which have caused a few to wonder and ask me on Facebook why YHWH would then make us think we are on a ball if we're really on a cicle. I would argue, He didn't! He is telling us over and over again that we are not on a globe, but rather that we are on an enclosed, circular plain, under a dome, upon which He is sitting, lovingly looking down on us. He's not the one deceiving us in this scenario. Lucifer and his monkey man scientists and other cronies are. As for those other seemingly convincing arguments, it may just be that we haven't thought outside the box (or ball as the case may be) enough to realize there may be other ways of looking at those things. I don't know. Much of that stuff is above my IQ (123) and beyond my skill sets to figure out. But for the sake of learning, I think it is important to keep an open mind and test by experiment (as a Zetetic explorer), rather than by theory.
Lessons From The Truman Show:
While considering all of the above, I recently watched The Truman Show again. I wrote the following as a Facebook Note on April 21st, which was very early on in my investigations concerning all of this, but I've embellished and revised my original note a bit for the purpose of this blog. While this is hardly a real test of anything of significance, I did find the embedded themes of this movie quite interesting as it pertains to our exploration of this particular topic of "testing the globe."
OK. So, as many of you are now (painfully) aware, I've been looking into this whole issue of the globe vs the enclosed, flat earth model. Among other things, I must say, it is giving the terms "globalism" and "globalist agenda" a whole new meaning for me. LOL!
Anyway, I recently watched the movie, The Truman (read "true man") Show again. WOW! Did it take on a whole lot of new meaning for me. Let's just ASSUME for a minute that the enclosed model is true. If you can start with that premise, while this movie is totally written from Satan's point of view, it is quite eye-opening.
Why do I say that it is from Satan's point of view? Because Act 1 of the movie ends when a "light" falls from the sky labeled, "Sirius." Too much to go into on that, but it is a representation of Lucifer (light bearer) falling as Sirius, which is a star in Canis Major. The number "9" is depicted on the label of the light, which is also quite telling. That's another story too, but for some cool stuff concerning the number 9 as it may relate to the "circle of the earth" check this video out:
Posted to Facebook by David Wolfe on Sunday, April 19, 2015
Suffice it to say, the film makers new EXACTLY what they were depicting with that "Sirius Canis #9" scene. And speaking of falling stars...
The movie was made by Paramount Pictures. Something recently occurred to me as I watched their animated logo. It starts off with 22 stars falling from heaven to encircle a mountain like a dome. That's interesting in and of itself. However, when you consider there are 22 "archons" named in the book of Enoch as the leaders of the fallen angels who landed on Mt. Hermon in the days of Jared, it becomes all the more intriguing.
1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' 4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' 5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens.
- 1 Enoch 6
Here we have 19 names given in Enoch chapter 6. But later we are introduced to two more major players in the story: Azazel (20), who taught the art of war and Kasdeja (21), who taught "the smiting of spirits" and the art of abortion - all of which were presumably under the direction of Lucifer (22). Perhaps also of interest concerning these and the #9 can be found in Enoch Chapter 8, where we find 9 specific entities teaching men things (note also there were 9 muses of Greek mythology, who were thought to be the inspiration of the arts and sciences).
1 And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals〈of the earth〉 and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. 2. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .
At the very beginning of the movie, just after the Paramount Pictures logo, we are introduced to CHRISToff, who is the man who created Truman's domed world and who has made a "reality" television show about his life, growing up in this controlled environment. It is also interesting to note that Truman and his dome world is observed by Chirstoff from his station in the moon - the film-makers likely basing this idea off of the following Scripture (depending on which translation you read):
Job 26:9 (KJV) He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.
Job 26:9 (ESV) He covers the face of the full moon and spreads over it his cloud.
Job 26:9 (ISV) He has enclosed the face of the full moon and spread his clouds over it.
The name of the creator of this dome world is a bit obvious, but what about some of the other characters in the movie? I believe the people watching the show are a representation of the angels and the "great cloud of witnesses" looking down on us. The woman Truman never gets to be with is a representation of Satan.
What I find particularly interesting about her character, is how and when she is introduced. Her name when we first see her in the film is "Lauren Garland." According to BehindtheName.com, the name Lauren is the feminine version of Laurence, which is from the Roman cognomen Laurentius, deriving from Latin laurus or "laurel." Thus, with her last name as Garland, she represents a garland of laurels - or in other words, the crown often worn by gods, kings and caesars. You will also note that a stylized laurel of garland surrounds the Azimuthal Equidistant map of the UN logo. Probably just a coincidence.
We first see "Lauren" (Satan) wearing a red skirt under a tree holding an open book in her lap. Just another coincidence? Maybe. Let's continue. She has her eye on Truman, who is elevated on a platform in the north.
We know from the Scriptures that Lucifer had his eye on the north:
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
- Isaiah 14:12-14
Chistoff has been controlling Truman's life so far. Lauren-Satan wants to set him free from Christoff, which in a sense would make her "like the most high" in that if she could free him from Christoff's influence, then Truman would be under hers. So, we see her sitting under a tree, with her eye on the north...
Truman's best friend, Marlon is standing beside him, playing a trumpet over him. Marlon in French means "little falcon." The falcon was associated with the Egyptian god Horus, who was thought to be the reincarnation or earthly representation of Osiris, the king of the gods. The name Horus also stems from an ancient Egyptian word, which in its simple form was the preposition "above." Hence, we see Marlon-Horus possibly depicting a "son of god" type of character standing above Truman here. Throughout the film, we know that Marlon has a direct line with Christoff, so together, the two are ultimately in charge of watching over Truman.
Note: On Marlon's sleeves, we see the word "NORTH" and behind them is a circular representation of their world (town) and framed dead center between them are the words "Go! Fight!" Lauren is looking in their direction and her motive throughout the film is to fight against Christoff in order to see the "True Man" set free of his influence.
As a side note, also of interest, is the scene where Truman is looking in the mirror. He draws an astronaut helmet around his head with soap. Then he draws a flag and states "This is TRUEmania" referencing also the name Burbank. Implication? The moon landing was shot in Burbank. LOL! I thought that was a nice touch - because they're basically calling NASA a fraud. Thus, a further implication as it pertains to this thesis may be that anything else shown to us by NASA is a lie too.
OK. Back to the woman. When Truman first gets to talk with Lauren-Sylvia, we see her as the classic "woman in red." Strategically placed on the right side of her sweater, she has a pin that says, "How's it going to end?"
And that's the big question posed throughout the film as we see Lauren-Sylvia going against the Christoff character, who is the "creator" of the dome world in which Truman lives.
Now, watch Christoff in this movie. He clearly loves (though tests) Truman, watching every detail of his life from his mother's womb even. Thousands of cameras track his every move, thus Truman is in a confined though carefully cared for environment. People in Christoff's studio are even wearing shirts that say "LOVE HIM. PROTECT HIM."
Yet, at the end of the movie, at least on the surface, it seems Christoff is being very mean to put Truman through the storm, until you realize he never lets it go too far (not giving more than Truman can handle) and he is only doing this to get Truman to "turn back" from a destiny, which can only hurt him.
Pay close attention to the significance of the numbers on his sailboat: "139" and how it is depicted during the storm. Then, go read Psalm 139. The writers really did their homework on this one. It was a BRILLIANT scene in light of this piece of Scripture. Although, I really do have to wonder what perspective the writers/film makers had, because if they took enough time to look this up and make a point of including it on the sailboat that gave Truman his free will AND the warning to try and get him to turn back (repent), it may be that they pulled a fast one on the audience. I don't know. What has the appearance of a "good ending" leading us all to cheer for Truman, means the joke is on us if we missed the "signs" given all along the way. Consider...
Psalm 139: 1 O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
2 You know my sitting down and my rising up;You understand my thought afar off.
3 You comprehend my path and my lying down,And are acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word on my tongue,But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.
5 You have hedged me behind and before,And laid Your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;It is high, I cannot attain it.
7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,And Your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,”Even the night shall be light about me;
12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,But the night shines as the day;The darkness and the light are both alike to You.
That last line is quite interesting too, because Truman goes missing at night. So, Christoff actually commands the sun to come up way early, thus causing the "night to shine as day" in that scene.
13 For You formed my inward parts;You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;Marvelous are Your works,And that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You,When I was made in secret,And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.And in Your book they all were written,The days fashioned for me,When as yet there were none of them.
17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;When I awake, I am still with You.
19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
20 For they speak against You wickedly;Your enemies take Your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;I count them my enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,And lead me in the way everlasting.
The end of the movie shows Truman turning his back on the "way everlasting" choosing instead the darkness. So, the movie actually has a sad ending not a good one. Remember the question posed by Lauren-Sylvia's button? "How's it going to end?" Well, sadly, in the end, Truman chooses to step out of that loving and protected environment into what is literally depicted as "outer darkness" outside the dome.
Overall, it is great movie, but with a wrong conclusion concerning Truman choosing to leave the careful love and protection of CHRISToff in favor of stepping out of the brightly lit realm into a door of total blackness, turning his back on his "creator." Of course in a real world scenario, it makes sense that we would want to see Truman set free from his captivity, but that's the real trick of the movie, isn't it? Especially if it is true that we are in an enclosed world ourselves. The movie generates sympathy for the Devil and his perspective, while attempting to paint YHWH as the bad guy, keeping us all locked up in a cage of sorts. YET, the "creator" is never really depicted that way in the movie. In fact, the film makers actually go out of their way to show just how much Christoff really does love and care for Truman. This is brilliant thought-provoking film making at its best in my opinion. BOTH sides of the story are fairly well presented, with the "true man" caught in the middle, but when you realize you are cheering for the wrong conclusion, it really gives you pause to think.
Lucifer is constantly trying to get us to see things his way and to draw our love and attention away from YHWH. The spinning globe may be his masterpiece deception, designed to get us to do just that.
Again, I am only bringing this stuff up, because as I've said, I am on a quest for truth. And I need the Bible to be my source for that truth. Right now, the Bible, Enoch and the literature of many ancient cultures, who were far more advanced than we are today, are all conflicting with my own beliefs. Therefore, even though my time is going to be much more limited in the days ahead, I am going to continue to dig (to whatever degree I am able), in order to "test all things" as we should.
Sadly though, there are many who insist on being the "thought police," attempting to control or stifle this discussion. Such people are only contributing to the many problems plaguing the Christian Church today and they are limiting a real chance for all of us to learn something. When you go off on people who are only asking questions and trying to discover answers for themselves, you make it nearly impossible for anyone - in or out of the Church - to approach you with legitimate questions that deserve answers - and preferably answers from the Scriptures. That is not a good thing. I for one am glad this subject is on the table for discussion. I just wish the discussion could be a lot more civil than it has been.
Regardless, I'm staying on the quest for truth, as I hope you will too.
What I find particularly interesting about her character, is how and when she is introduced. Her name when we first see her in the film is "Lauren Garland." 
