I have a question...

Go down

I have a question...

Post by Flat on Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:13 pm

I've heard it said that everyone on earth sees the sun rise "directly east" during the equinoxes. The trouble is, I've heard conflicting interpretations of exactly what "directly east" means. Some say it means that everyone sees the sun at the equator - others have said that it means everyone sees the sun "directly east" according to whatever latitude they're standing on. In other words, someone standing near the arctic circle would see the sun rise in the northeast, whereas someone in the southern hemisphere would see it rise in the southeast.

The reason I'm asking is because I've heard the Roundies use the latter explanation to justify their idiotic position that the sun MUST be 93 million miles away - for, as they explain, this great distance is why everyone sees the sun "directly east" relative to their location.

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:51 am

There is one person covering this very topic
I found out about his YouTube channel here. His name is Jason Laufenburg and his you tube channel is Awake Souls.
He covers how this is impossible on the current flat earth map of the earth which is a circle.
I suggest you go thru his channel and watch some of his videos. They are all very long but will give you some insight.
He is proposing we are in a simulation. He has created thru blender a new map of the earth by unzipping the globe.
Once you are sure of the flat earth you realize it is impossible to have the same rise and set angles yet we all do.
It is really a fascinating moment when you realize this. The simulation theory explains this but not many have investigated it yet.
He has closed down his channel but all the old you times are still up to view. Good luck and please tell me what you think of them.

Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:48 pm

Thank you very much for the info (I've actually been sold on the Flat and Squared model for just over a year now, but had to stop my research on account of work). I've gone through a lot of Jason's videos today and am sold on his sincerity. So thank you again.
I should mention that my recent question arose on account of the "simulated Sun" explanation. I "accidentally" saw a video about a month or two ago (supposedly taken down since then) which delved into this explanation, and I wanted to check its accuracy. Fortunately, he has videos that prove the simulation - that is, which prove that the sun's position in the sky is relative to the observer. This is what I was looking for, though I'm going to watch some more videos of his on this subject. So thank you again...

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:19 am

Yes I too have noted his sincerity
He is all in on this topic and as a carpenter
He is doing some great modeling on
sketch up.
He does answer emails at
awakesouls@gmail.com

Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by FlatEarthFanatic on Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:59 pm

Welcome to the forum flat!

If the earth is a flat circle or flat rectangle, it doesn't make too much of a difference in terms of the angles of the sun compared to the round earth. I don't see how the roundies can think this proves their model.

If the earth is a rectangle then this would conform with the book of Enoch, in which case it is shaped like a tabernacle. The dome would be above this, and then Heaven.

FlatEarthFanatic

Posts : 148
Join date : 2016-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:28 pm

I have been following Enoch too
and the tabernacle as a model for the earth
The star trails now made available by the
P900 camera are revealing 4 different movements
Of the stars. Stars rise east set west
Counter north and clock in the south
Fascinating since its different that what
we have been told.



Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:27 pm

Is anyone watching time and date dot com?
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/ireland/dublin
If you are living in the northern hemisphere you should be observing the sun rise and set south of east and west each day
Until the Spring Equinox. Which is March 20. On March 20 everywhere in the world, the sun will rise 90 degrees east and set 270 degrees west. This is amazing! If you are living in the Southern Hemisphere you should see the opposite now, the sun should rise and set north of east and west, but at the Spring Equinox we should all have the same rise and set angles. This is an easy observable experiment that everyone with a compass can do.

Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:18 am

FlatEarthFanatic wrote:Welcome to the forum flat!

If the earth is a flat circle or flat rectangle, it doesn't make too much of a difference in terms of the angles of the sun compared to the round earth. I don't see how the roundies can think this proves their model.

If the earth is a rectangle then this would conform with the book of Enoch, in which case it is shaped like a tabernacle. The dome would be above this, and then Heaven.

Hello FlatEarthFanatic,

Perhaps it's not so much that they believe it proves their model - as it is they think it absolutely DISPROVES the standard AE Flat Earth model. The reason being, according to the standard AE model, there's no conceivable way to explain how each individual person can see the sun rise 90 degrees east of their own specific location. The model doesn't work in reality. Ergo, the Roundies believe they've won. In their minds, the only possible explanation is that the sun is so incredibly far away that it appears 90 degrees directly east to everyone on earth.

This is where the "Sun Simulation" theory comes in. It is the ONLY explanation (so far) from the Flat Earth community that answers this question. And it can be easily proven, as Jason shows in his video.

And you're right, it doesn't matter whether the earth is actually circular or square in terms of the sun's angles - but, as you mentioned, the square earth model conforms to the writings of Enoch (as well as Holy Scripture - Is. 11:12, Apoc. 7:1, and Apoc. 20:8, etc.).

And I'm glad you brought up Enoch. Incidentally, did you know that Christ Himself referred to the Book of Enoch as Scripture? Not too many people seem to be aware of this, but it's true. He referred to it as "Scripture". I'll preface this by mentioning the fact that the Book of Enoch was never declared "non-Canonical" by the Council of Nicea - much less was it ever condemned. It was simply put on the shelf. We're not exactly sure of the reasons behind the decision. Perhaps it was politically motivated? We know that at the time, Constantine was forcing the Julian Calendar on the Roman Empire, and the 364-day Enochean Calendar conflicted with Julian's 365-day calendar. Ergo, the Council's decision may have been a simple effort to placate the Emperor (and who could blame them, seeing as Constantine had just recently stopped the centuries-long persecution of Christians throughout the realm). Who knows for sure? The point is, the Book of Enoch was never condemned by the Church. It was simply put on the shelf.

So where did Christ call it Scripture? The answer is in chapter 22 of Matthew's Gospel. Here, Christ is questioned by the Sadducees about the woman who marries seven men, all of whom die. You know the story. Anyway, Christ tells the Sadducees that they err because they know neither the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Well, it just so happens that the ONLY place in "Scripture" where this question is answered is in the Book of Enoch. In chapter 15 of his book, Enoch is standing before the throne of God asking for mercy on behalf of the Fallen Angels who fornicated with earthly women. If you recall, God instructs him to remind the Fallen Angels that because men are mortal, and therefore subject to death, they are given wives so as to perpetuate the human race - whereas the Angels are immortal, and therefore in no need of marriage. The point being, as far as the Sadducees' question is concerned, those who die are forevermore "immortal", and therefore in no need of marriage. They have become (to use Christ's words) "like the Angels in Heaven". And so we see here that Christ refers to the Book of Enoch as "Scripture". And we know it must be Enoch's book because it's the ONLY place in all of Holy Writ where this particular question is answered.

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:21 am

Thank you Beyondflatearth for bringing up the time and date website.
This is the "proof" I was talking about in my last post

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by FlatEarthFanatic on Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:03 pm

Hi flat,
While it is not impossible for fallen angels to fornicate with women,
because they could take on bodies, it would seem unlikely that they could successfully mate with them. This would involve new strains in the human race which do not descend from Adam.

Can you put up a video showing in the most scientific way possible how the sun rises at exactly 90 degrees east everywhere?

When you say sun simulation, do you mean that the sun is put there by the NWO?

FlatEarthFanatic

Posts : 148
Join date : 2016-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:21 pm

FlatEarthFanatic wrote:Hi flat,
While it is not impossible for fallen angels to fornicate with women,  
because they could take on bodies, it would seem unlikely that they could successfully mate with them. This would involve new strains in the human race which do not descend from Adam.

Can you put up a video showing in the most scientific way possible how the sun rises at exactly 90 degrees east everywhere?

When you say sun simulation, do you mean that the sun is put there by the NWO?

The fact of the Fallen Angels mating with women and producing offspring is found in chapter 6 of Genesis. This is a well-known and accepted fact. Certainly you're aware of this? The offspring were called the "Nephilim". They weren't human, but half-human and half angelic. Ergo, they did not have souls but only spirits. Enoch explains this in his book. When these Nephilim died, those same spirits became evil spirits that were reserved by God for testing the human race - particularly near the end of the world. The same are called "Demons" today, as opposed to "Devils" which are the actual Fallen Angels themselves. So yes, this mating of Angels with human women would produce a new strain of "human" on earth - and this, according to Genesis, is one of the primary reasons why God destroyed the world in Noah's Flood. The earth, and the human race, had been completely corrupted by them.

As for the video of the sunrise, the time and date website mentioned above by "Beyondflatearth" is a website wherein this information can be found. All you have to do is plug in the city, along with the month and year you're looking for, and it tells you exactly when, and at what latitude, the sun will rise in that location. You'll be looking for the time of the Spring and Fall equinoxes - which are in March (around the 20th) and September (around the 22nd or so).

As for the question regarding the word "Simulation" - I'm not talking about the NWO "simulation" of the sun which some websites mention, but a simulation which God effects for each and everyone individually on earth. Again, every individual on earth sees "A SUN", but that sun which he sees is specific to his location on earth. This is proven by the fact that it is seen in countless DIFFERENT locations at THE SAME TIME throughout the world. This is impossible unless the sun is a simulation tailored to each individual person (unless, of course, you want to accept the 93 million-miles-away explanation). Nor should this Sun Simulation Theory seem outlandish to us. We have no qualms about accepting the belief that God created the entire world, along with the sun, moon, stars, and even reality itself, just for us little worms. How much more to believe that He also creates a specific "reality" for each individual? This is not that big of a stretch. In fact, it may just be His way of showing each individual how truly important he is in God's eyes...

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:24 pm

I'm sorry, but I have to add that I'm truly amazed the existence of the half-breed giants (or Nephilim) was a stumbling block for you. Certainly you've heard the story of David and Goliath? The Sons of Anak? Og, the King of Bashan? The Egyptian who nearly killed King David? What of the testimony of the spies who traversed the land of Canaan and came back with news of giants so enormous that they made the spies look like grasshoppers? All true. In fact, the ensuing fear of the faithless Israelites was the whole reason why God kept them in the desert for 40 years! Yes, the giants are real. And the Book of Enoch is Scripture - according to the Son of God. This is a Catholic site, isn't it?

I realize I've strayed a little from the Flat Earth topic, but it is important to realize the authority of the Book of Enoch. Let's not forget, the Patriarch tells us in the very beginning of his book that's it was written SPECIFICALLY for those who will be living toward the end of the world - that's you and me. No small mystery then that the book has gained such popularity only in these final days (a further confirmation of its authenticity). No, this book is not to be taken lightly. Not only was it referred to as "Scripture" by the Son of God, but it's an indispensable source of Flat Earth information. Take, for example, it's treatment of the source of rain: Scientists tell us that rain exists in the clouds - held aloft by powerful swirling updrafts of wind. Right. When is the last time you heard of a plane smashing into a wall of water in the clouds? No, Enoch tells us the rain exists in reserves in Eden, and is released by the Angels when the water is agitated. And this is just one example of the intriguing beauty of reality we're being deprived of by today's "scientific" community. Again, this book is an indispensable source of Flat Earth information, and should not be taken lightly.

All this to say, far from a side issue, the Book of Enoch should be the source book for the Flat Earth enthusiasts.

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by FlatEarthFanatic on Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:23 pm

It seems that the Fathers of the Church were quite divided on the issue of the whether the angels bred with men.
If there were many who believed in it then it would seem you could too.

http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1607-nephilim-genesis-64-patristic-commentary-requested/

still have to verify these quotes.

FlatEarthFanatic

Posts : 148
Join date : 2016-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:25 am

FlatEarthFanatic wrote:It seems that the Fathers of the Church were quite divided on the issue of the whether the angels bred with men.
If there were many who believed in it then it would seem you could too.

http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1607-nephilim-genesis-64-patristic-commentary-requested/

still have to verify these quotes.

I've read through the link you posted. I appreciate your candor in regard to this subject. And I understand how bizarre it sounds to uphold the "Angel" interpretation; but we must remember that we're dealing here with Holy Scripture, the inspired Word of God - not commentaries. One cannot toss away the universally recognized translation of Holy Writ, and its supporting Scriptural texts, for commentaries that are not only full of gaping theological holes, but which clearly reject even simple, common sense.

Have a read over the following treatment of this subject. It's written by a Protestant, but his points are solid and perfectly reasonable. I've added writings from other authors as well within the text:

Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring (known as the Nephilim) with human women." So it was also understood by the Early Church Fathers. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Eusebius, and Ambrose all accepted the angel interpretation, as did first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, and his contemporary, Philo of Alexandria. The Church Fathers said “the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children who are called giants” (Vol. 8, pp. 85 and 273 of "The Ante-Nicene Fathers"). These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.

However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)

Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be," it becomes essential to understand what these days included.

Origin of the Sethite View

The Sethite theory, the view that the "Sons of God" were the godly line of Seth was first introduced in the latter part of the fourth century by Julius Afracanius, a contemporary of Origen. Apparently, during this time, the "angel" interpretation was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. Celsus and Julian the Apostate, for example, used this traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. In response to these attacks, Julius Africanius resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. He wrote, "What is meant ... in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, Pg. 131). Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine finally embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages.

Eusebius, the great church historian (4th century) took exception to the Sethite theory, and declared his position in the dispute by saying, "The original position of the church is correct" (Jude - The Acts of the Apostates, Pg. 38 - S.M. Coder). The popularity of the Sethite theory has perpetuated itself, and is today the most common view among Bible students. However, many of these students are having doubts as to the correctness of their conclusions in this matter, and a re-study of the problem has led a large number to adopt the position which the early church held.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah." Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.") The Hebrew phrase translated into English as "the Sons of God" is B'nai Ha'Elohim, or "Sons of Elohim". It is a phrase which is used in the Old Testament EXCLUSIVELY to refer to Angels. Nowhere does it ever refer to anything else.The Hebrew phrase only occurs in Gen. 6:2 and 4; and in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; and Job 38:7 where Angels are clearly meant:
"Now there was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6)
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord ... (Job 2:1)
The Septuagint renders the term "Sons of God," found in Job 1:6 and 2:1, as "angels of God."

Many, in an effort to avoid the force of this argument have equated texts from the New Testament which refer to regenerate persons as "Sons of God," with the Old Testament expression. In order to do this sound rules of exegesis are violated, and men must be introduced into Job 38:7, where "all the sons of God shouted for joy" at the primordial creation of the earth, when as yet, men did not exist. No, the "Sons of God" of Job 38:7 is clearly a reference to Angels.

Nowhere in the Old Testament Scripture is this phrase, "Sons of God" used to refer to "believers". It was always understood to refer to Angels. This is precisely how it was understood by the ancient rabbinical sources; the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ; and by the earliest Church Fathers.

The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation also strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God." The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God. Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God, and in every respect equal to the angels. The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.

The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

2. The Daughters of Cain

The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." (Genesis 6:1,2)

It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God, it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate - nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later. Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. First century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, says of the Sethites, "In process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their fathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them nor had any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness" (ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, Pg. 2). All the Sethites, with the exception of one family perished in the flood. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight people were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."

The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.

If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

5. The Unnatural Offspring

The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Moreover, we are left scratching our head as to what God refers to when He makes a clear distinction between the "seed" of the serpent and the "seed" of the woman. What is this mysterious "seed" of the serpent? Are we talking about baby snakes? Not likely. First of all, according to Michael S. Heiser, (PhD, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages, University of Wisconsin-Madison), the Hebrew term translated in the Genesis account of the The Fall as "Serpent" can also be translated as "Shining one" - as in an Angel (in the Book of Enoch, his name is Gaderel). This translation obviously makes more sense than a literal snake. At any rate, we know the tempter of Eve wasn't a human being, for there were no other humans alive then - and we know that God places enmity between its "seed" and that of the woman's "seed". So again, what is this mysterious "seed" of the serpent/shining one?

Moreover, the theory fails to take into account that NOWHERE in history is it evidenced that intermarriage of any people, or culture, ever produced a “giant”. Procreation by parents of differing religious views does not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "immoral monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! Keep in mind, the Israelites were frequently guilty of intermarrying with the surrounding pagan cultures, yet never once was there any mention of these unlawful unions producing "giants" - or anything other than purely natural offspring.

Nor did God ever destroy, or threaten to destroy, a race or culture simply because of “intermarriages" - much less would He have destroyed the entire world because of the resulting offspring. Remember, it was this unnatural procreation between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men", and the resulting abnormal creatures, that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only males; no "women of renown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)

In the end, this Sethite argument is not convincing. It is pure exegesis, and is reading into the text what is obviously not there.


6. New Testament Confirmations

"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus in the Greek], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." (2 Peter 2:4-5)

Notice here that St. Peter is not referring to the Fallen Angels in general, for Lucifer and many more of his minions are hardly chained, but free to roam the world (as roaring lions) until the end. No. St. Peter is referring SPECIFICALLY to those Angels who sinned prior to the Flood of Noah. This is why the Greek translators used the word "Tartarus" here - the only place in all of Scripture where this term is used. As Enoch clearly writes in his book, the particular Fallen Angels who fornicated with earthly women were cast into Tartarus where they were to be reserved in darkness until the great day of judgement. And so, St. Peter's comments establish a clear connection between the Angels who fell prior to Flood, and the Fallen Angels who fornicated with earthly women in Enoch's writings.

The Epistle of Jude also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1:6-7)
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.)

The Twentieth Century New Testament (189 , taken from the Greek of Wescott and Hort, of which Philip Schaff said, it is "The purest Greek") reads in verses 6 & 7 of Jude, "And that even those angels that failed to keep their own station and left their proper home have been kept by Him for black darkness. They are like Sodom and Gomorrah and the towns near them, which, as the angels did, gave themselves up to fornication, and went in search of beings of a different nature, and now stand out as a warning, undergoing as they are, punishment by enduring fire."

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavens.

7. Post-Flood Implications

The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..." The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.


In Summary

If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.

For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final.

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:56 pm

Like the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water..."

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:08 pm

Flat earth Fanatic
The simulation that I am learning about is not NWO but what physicists are proposing. Quantum physics is pointing to a simulation
Not because they want to but what their research is pointing to.
The only flat earther I know of that is discussing a simulation is Jason Lautenbug of Awake Souls and has demonstrated
On his videos thru computer graphics how it is impossible for the sun and moon to circle the flat earth based on what we observe and time and date rise and set angles. March 20 will be the Spring Equinox and EVERYWHERE all over the earth the sun
Will rise 90 degrees east and set 270 degrees west. This needs an explanation. It will happen again in the Fall.
The field of quantum physics have opened up a can of worms for aethiest forcing them to take a serious look at the immaterial
World. Physics was in the past about the material world until quantum came along. Some are looking into the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas. The simulation theory at first sounds fake but really
In Latin means "like". Like unto God Since as Catholics we believe this life is a test, why not. All life has a genetic code, why not the celestial
Bodies be programmed The scriptures have prophecized technology. There is a macro that we see every day sun and moon and then a micro that is rendered to each
Individually. The sun and moon appear to move with you when you observe them. Light is behaving differently to physicist in the field of quantum when they observe them. The fields of quantum physics and philosophy need Catholics to assist their marriage. Theology is very much apart of
Physics and physics is saying we are in a simulation. The subject in my opinion needs more study. We run our own programs
Daily based on free will. We turn the switch on or off, everything centered around binary code. Good vs Evil, light vs dark, move vs not move. Everything is being watched and recorded. God in His perfections is the Programer and in control.
His simulation is not fake but real Computers run on binary code. Enoch's portals do play a role in all of this

Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:23 pm

Flat earth Fanatic
The simulation that I am learning about is not NWO but what physicists are proposing. Quantum physics is pointing to a simulation
Not because they want to but what their research is pointing to.
The only flat earther I know of that is discussing a simulation is Jason Lautenbug of Awake Souls and has demonstrated
On his videos thru computer graphics how it is impossible for the sun and moon to circle the flat earth based on what we observe and time and date rise and set angles. March 20 will be the Spring Equinox and EVERYWHERE all over the earth the sun
Will rise 90 degrees east and set 270 degrees west. This needs an explanation. It will happen again in the Fall.
The field of quantum physics have opened up a can of worms for aethiest forcing them to take a serious look at the immaterial
World. Physics was in the past about the material world until quantum came along. Some are looking into the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas. The simulation theory at first sounds fake but really


In Latin means "like". Like unto God Since as Catholics we believe this life is a test, why not. All life has a genetic code, why not the celestial
Bodies be programmed The scriptures have prophecized technology. There is a macro that we see every day sun and moon and then a micro that is rendered to each
Individually. The sun and moon appear to move with you when you observe them. Light is behaving differently to physicist in the field of quantum when they observe them. The fields of quantum physics and philosophy need Catholics to assist their marriage. Theology is very much apart of
Physics and physics is saying we are in a simulation. The subject in my opinion needs more study. We run our own programs
Daily based on free will. We turn the switch on or off, everything centered around binary code. Good vs Evil, light vs dark, move vs not move. Everything is being watched and recorded. God in His perfections is the Programer and in control.
His simulation is not fake but real Computers run on binary code. Enoch's portals do play a role in all of this

Here are some interesting articles, there are many more

https://bccatholic.ca/content/biblical-theology-needs-quantum-metaphysics

http://www.innerexplorations.com/catchmeta/acom.htm

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2010.10820012



Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:15 pm

Beyond Flat Earth,
Thank you for expanding on the simulation theory. And you're absolutely right in saying that the standard AE Flat Earth model is impossible - based upon the sun's rise and set angles alone. The sun I see rise in the sky here in Arizona is not the same sun that Joe Blow sees rise in Fairbanks, Alaska. This is a demonstrable fact. The sun is a simulation, there's no getting around it. I'm sure most people have noticed this phenomenon when viewing the sunrise or sunset reflections from a boat on a large lake, or the ocean. No matter how far north or south one goes in the boat, the sun's reflection follows at the same exact angle. And straight as an arrow.

Regarding the physicist's "reality is a simulation" theory, I would really like to hear just how far they're going to take this. What will their conclusion be? Not that it really matters. What matters is the doors of truth they're opening up for the rest of us - as there's no disparity between the Bible and true science.

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by moosy on Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:34 pm

If enochs portals are true, then we are talking about something supernatural. It is not something, probably, that we can probe with natural scientific exploration.

As an aside, have you heard about the NWO patenting a sun simulator?

moosy

Posts : 12
Join date : 2017-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:18 pm

moosy wrote:If enochs portals are true, then we are talking about something supernatural. It is not something, probably, that we can probe with natural scientific exploration.

As an aside, have you heard about the NWO patenting a sun simulator?


You're right. Science can only go so far in attempting to explain the world around us. The mere fact that the earth is flat means that there are components of our reality that are relegated to the sphere of the supernatural - and these are clearly beyond the scope of scientific exploration. We can see, for example, that the sun is a simulation. This can be proven with very simple experiments. But to explain the phenomenon further might be beyond the capabilities of science.

And yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the sun simulator patented by the NWO, although this is not what I'm referring to when I mention the real simulated sun. I've learned that the NWO simulator has been around since the 1960's. As to its purpose, I don't know. I DO know that the "latest scientific advances" we hear about in the news are actually decades behind the true advances. Ergo, the NWO simulator might very well be built for purposes beyond our knowledge. Incidentally, I've heard that its light could be utilized in a new "groundbreaking" type of internet service called LI FI - which is supposed to be 100 times faster than WI FI. Apparently, it uses LED light instead of wires as a carrier of internet signals. Who knows? They're also covering the moon with a holographic projection. Who knows what those clowns are really up to...

And regarding the portals that Enoch writes about, it's important to realize that the things described by him are present in Eden - the place where he was writing from. This is clearly evident in his book. I'm in the process of writing a piece about the land of Eden, which I'll post as soon as it's finished. The idea is that Eden is an integral part of our world, yet is a completely separate dimension. As such, it exists concurrent with our physical world, and even affects it on a daily basis. As Enoch mentions, it's from the land of Eden that our weather systems originate. This is where cold, frost, wind, dew, hail, rain, etc. come from. Eden is also, I believe, where the true physical sun exists. Here in our visible realm, we merely see a reflection (of sorts) of that true physical sun in Eden. And the same holds true for the moon and stars, which move relative to the sun we see here in our visible world - which necessarily means they are also simulations/reflections. In other words, the sun, moon, and stars that God created back in Genesis do actually exist - but in the land of Eden. Here in our visible realm, we merely see their reflection. This is the "simulated sun" which I refer to.

(On a sidenote, remember that God never destroyed Eden, he merely placed Cherubim at the entrance to guard it).

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by FlatEarthFanatic on Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:14 pm

What are your grounds for saying that Eden is a separate dimension?

Why can't the issue with the angles of the sun be explained by Enochs portals and just that? Rather than the idea that we are in a simulation.

FlatEarthFanatic

Posts : 148
Join date : 2016-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Flat on Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:08 pm

FlatEarthFanatic wrote:What are your grounds for saying that Eden is a separate dimension?

Why can't the issue with the angles of the sun be explained by Enochs portals and just that?  Rather than the idea that we are in a simulation.

In regard to the question of Eden being a separate dimension, it's evident that the land Enoch traveled, and subsequently wrote about, is not a part of our known, visible world. This is plainly seen in his descriptions of the land itself - the vegetation, the creatures, and the topography. And yet at the same time, this strange land plays an integral role in the day to day functioning of our world, as Enoch explains. In other words, it exists somewhere on our earth, and even effects it integrally, yet no one knows where it is...

So where was he writing from? The Book of Ecclesiasticus says that he was taken to "Paradise" (Eccl, 44:16). Now we know this "Paradise" wasn't Heaven, proper, because no one could possibly have been admitted to Heaven prior to the coming of Christ. So where was it? In the Old Testament, the term "Paradise" always referred to The Garden of Eden ("Garden of God" in the Hebrew).

The Septuagint uses the word "paradeisos" to describe the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 and 3 - as well as in Ezekiel 28:13, where Eden is translated as the "Paradise of God". Again in Ezekiel 36:35, the Garden of Eden is referred to as "Paradise":
"So they will say, 'This land that was desolate has become like the garden (LXX, "paradeisos") of Eden . . . ."

Isaiah also speaks of Eden as the "Paradise of God":
"For the LORD will comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places; He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden (LXX, "paradeisos") of the LORD." (Is. 51:3)

All this to say, it's clear that the Old Testament writers referred to the Garden of Eden as "Paradise" - the same "paradise" where the Book of Ecclesiasticus says Enoch was taken. In his book, Enoch writes:
"Before these things happened Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of the people knew by what he was hidden and where he was. And his dwelling place as well as his activities were with the Watchers and the holy ones; and so were his days." (Enoch 12:1-2)
He's hidden, and no one knows by what? And no one knows where? His dwelling was with the Angels? Where is that? Isn't it peculiar that to this day, no one knows where the Garden of Eden is located? Not even a clue? How is it possible no one knows where Eden is? Enoch describes it as an immense place - stretching from one end of earth to the other in all directions - and yet no one knows where it is? And yet it effects our visible world intimately? What are we to conclude?

Now one may argue that Eden exists somewhere beyond Antarctica, or somewhere that the NWO is not telling us about, but this cannot possibly explain its intimate daily involvement with our visible world. How does the rain, wind, hail, frost and dew get from beyond Antarctica to our location instantaneously? And all over the world? It doesn't make any sense at all. The only reasonable conclusion is that Eden exists concurrent with our visible world, and yet is in some other dimension. Scripture, logic, and good old common sense seem to point in this direction.

As to your second question,  "Why can't the issue with the angles of the sun be explained by Enoch's portals and just that?  Rather than the idea that we are in a simulation?" First of all, I never said that we lived in a simulation. Physicists are saying this. I don't necessarily disagree with them - I just don't know enough about the subject to comment on it. Albeit, the subject is a completely separate issue from the Sun Simulation/reflection theory.

As for the "portals" - from what I understand, these are similar to windows in the domed firmament where the sun, moon and stars exit the field of vision (in the western sky), and return again in the eastern sky. I'm not sure how you would propose these play a role in the angles of the sun. I'm not doubting you, I just don't quite see the connection. Mind you, I'm not absolutely convinced of anything right now in regard to the Sun Simulation theory - except for the demonstrable fact that the standard FE map cannot explain how everyone on earth sees the sun rise at a 90 degree angle during the equinoxes. This is impossible. Nor can any known law of nature explain how it's possible that everyone sees a different sun depending upon their location on earth. This is unexplainable by our existing laws. That's all I know for sure. And so I readily admit you may be right about the portals playing a role in the explanation - I just don't quite understand your meaning.

Flat

Posts : 28
Join date : 2018-01-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:32 pm

Has anyone read EarthMovers?
The author wishes to remain anonymous
And it is not published. Currently you can
read it on Cathinfo. The author presents how
science over the ages was able to "move the
Earth" off it's foundations and away from God
It is a compelling read and contains valuable
Information including how the church did a
Galileo u turn after the 1616 and 1633
Condemnation. I am surprised though at
The authors preference to a geocentric spherical
Earth. Genesis clearly says there are no
antipodes and how could the Heavens
Be below down under? Anyway the book
Is worth reading

Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Beyondflatearth on Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:24 am

Has Anyone watched this new YouTube called Concave Earth?
It was done in Brazil after 7 years of research in collaboration with
Multiple international scientists.

http://tinyurl.com/y8ed32vg

Blessed Good Friday and Holy Tridium

Beyondflatearth

Posts : 20
Join date : 2017-09-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: I have a question...

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum