This page contains some random thoughts, potentially related to the Flat Earth Controversy. If you are not familiar with that material, please watch the following videos first:
PART 3: A Time of Great Change... And The Death of God
In Part 1 of this series, I began to draw together a few strings concerning some key players in a timeline of events, which I believe illustrates a gearing up for Apollo. As I covered in my Mythology and the Coming Great Deception videos as well as in my book, Babylon Rising: And The First Shall Be Last, Nimrod became known by many names after the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel. The two names that really seemed to take and hold firm even into our modern age are Osiris and Apollo. From the first century times of the New Testament to the modern era, both are still highly regarded by certain segments of the world's elite, particularly through Secret Societies. Once your eyes are open to this, you will see a real undercurrent within certain movements and organizations, all pushing toward his return to the land of the living. In Part 2 of this series, I took a look at the ancient motives, which may be driving what likely could be at least a part of the Great Deception, which was promised by Yeshua to come upon us in these Last Days. In this blog, my goal will be to start with Nimrod and work my way forward through the late 19th Century and the start of the 20th Century where we'll see a new attempt by man to kill God and bring about the reemergence of Nimrod. So here, we go...
Nimrod was born in 1908AM. He became king of the world in 1948AM. These are two very interesting dates in the 20th Century as well. In Part 2 of this series, we learned about the real intent of the Tower of Babel. It was to wage war with YHWH, God Almighty. After "reaching into heaven" through this tower construct, the plan was to assault Heaven and take over. The plan was thwarted by the confusion of the languages. This was a brilliant plan by YHWH. What ever pre-Flood knowledge, which may have been retained in Noah and his three sons, was instantly cut down - significantly.
Because "nothing which they have imagined to do would be restrained from them," YHWH limited their imagination and ability to be so united in evil by separating not only by language, but also by accumulated knowledge. Now, instead of having many united with combined wisdom and understanding, there were many dispersed with fragments of knowledge and understanding and no one could communicate with the others. This caused a separation of proximity to occur. Man began to spread out across the earth, assembling into language groups, which would later develop into nations and ultimately what we would call "races."
I must pause here and say that I really hate the whole notion of different "races" of people. There is only one race: the human race. Whatever our outward appearances may be and how they may have slight variations in shape, size and color, inside we are all the same. But how did these variations accumulate and manifest? Selective breeding within controlled conditions.
Skin color is only the result of an increase or decrease in the body's production of melanin, which is YHWH's way of protecting our skin from the harmful radiation of the sun. He cares so much about this that He even placed specific types of plants, fruits and vegetables in the equatorial regions, which actually cause the body to produce more melanin. Thus, those who ended up migrating into those regions began to become darker skinned. In the regions further away from the equator, people don't need as much melanin, so they retained lighter skin. Simple as that.
I say "retained lighter skin" because it is my belief that prior to the Flood, there was a very different atmosphere than what we have today. Many Creationist scholars believe that there would have been a lot less harmful radiation from the sun reaching this earth prior to the Flood. If true, then our bodies would not have produced as much melanin, which means our skin would not have been dark. Adam's name means "red" so it seems likely that man may have originally had sort of a lighter skin with a pinkish-red hue. If true, then the "red man" may be the closest to what Adam and his much later descendants, Noah and his sons may have looked like. From the three sons of Noah, the variations of skin color would have therefore developed based on where their descendants settled, and how much melanin production would have been needed in those regions.
As for variations in body types and facial features, I believe the Tower of Babel likely accounts for this as well. Anytime you have a controlled breeding environment, you can accentuate dominant characteristics. We have over 350 varieties of dog, which all came from basically one wolf-like source due to careful and selective breeding. Now we have such variation in size and shape as this:
The ancient Hebrew texts say there were about 600,000 people at the time of the Tower of Babel, which got separated into 70 different language/people breeding groups. Within those groups, it is easy to imagine how YHWH could have separated them by similar facial/body features when He confounded the languages. Over time, certain traits would have thus manifested more in some groups than in others and been retained by specific language groups as defining characteristics. Now we have a wide variety of shapes, colors and sizes in humans, just as we do in dogs, which should all be embraced and appreciated not persecuted and rejected.
Side note: Many subscribe to the notion that Shem is the father of Middle Easterners and Asians, Japheth is the father of Europeans and Ham is the father of Africans. This is largely due to charts like this, depicting the Genesis 10 "Table of Nations":
While it is true that, by in large, these are the areas where the descendants of Noah's three sons settled, we can not draw such defining lines. First of all, by the time we get to the Tower of Babel, if the Jasher account is true, there were some 600,000 men living at the time. That's not counting the women. According to Genesis 11, they were all gathered together into one place (the plains of Shinar) and were thus thoroughly intermingling with one another - for more than 300 years since the Flood. So, if you have the mistaken idea that Shem was Asian/Middle Eastern in appearance and Japheth was white and Ham was black, you need to rethink that idea. Where have you ever heard of one man producing three different colored children of differing facial structures? No. The three sons all favored their parents. Besides, by the time you get to the Tower of Babel, the cousins of this family would all be quite mixed by this time anyway. So, you can't isolate one people group per son, even if they were vastly different in appearance.
Furthermore, while many want to assign all people of African descent to Ham, we must note that his children were the most prolific and widespread. His son Canaan settled the Levant, right in the middle of where Shem's children eventually settled. Ham's son Phut settled north Africa and Cush settled in east Africa. But Ham's grandson Caphtor, son of Mizraim (who settled in Egypt) settled the island of Crete. His children later settled both Greece as well as the Levant. Thus, it would seem that at least a fair amount of Europeans trace back to Ham too.
Over time, as men began to learn the other languages, intermingling clearly happened once again. So, I completely reject the idea of categorizing "races" by the three sons of Noah, who would have all looked the same as their father, who himself would have looked the same as the first man, Adam. Therefore, as already discussed above, the differences in size, shape and color did not originate with three sons from the same father, somehow all looking totally different from one another. No. Rather, the differences came much later, over time as the result of controlled breeding due to the selective population centers, which resulted from the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel.
I felt the need to address this topic up front because it is so easy for us to become prejudice against certain people groups. This should not be the case. Inside, we are all exactly the same, no matter what visual differences there may be on the outside. Yet, the governments of the world love to get us to vilify one another. To make the white man or the black man or the red man or the yellow man the enemy. It breeds an "us vs them" mentality. But the Apostle Paul said,
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not againstfleshandblood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Today the U.S. government has got us thinking the Russians are evil. The Chinese are evil. The Arabs are evil, etc.. Sure, there are always bad people in every people group. We live in a fallen world. But having been a missionary in over a dozen countries - many of them Communist, former Communist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim countries - I can tell you that the average person is just like you and me. No matter where you go on this earth, people just want to love and be loved, live in peace and care for one another. Simple as that. It is the governments of the world, many of which are controlled by Luciferian elites (who are all related to each other), that are the ones trying to get us to hate and kill each other. We need to redirect our thoughts to the real enemy who is trying to destroy us through perhaps the oldest and most basic tactic of war: divide and conquer. Remember, we are in a SEED War here.
Genesis 3:15 (GWT) I will make you and the woman hostile toward each other. I will make your descendants and her descendant hostile toward each other. He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel.
If indeed the Flat Earth Controversy is justified, I believe we can see some interesting patterns emerging from the original motive of Satan and his best Chess piece, Nimrod in the early to mid 1900s AM (after Creation), coming full circle and developing in the early to mid 1900s AD. Summarizing these early developments, I will refer back to my earlier research, which led to the creation of The Nimrod-Abraham Timeline chart (above). Please refer to the Timeline Highlights list I pulled from that chart, which is pictured to the right.
Now, based on my research, I lean toward 1993 AM as the time of the Tower of Babel incident. Dr. Ken Johnson says 1988 AM (in his edition of the book of Jasher). Regardless, when looking at how the post-Flood timeline lays out in years since the creation of the first Adam, I cannot help but wonder if there may be parallels to the years since the Second Adam (i.e. comparing the events of AM with the events of AD). If indeed there are (and will be) parallels lining up, then 2018 and 2025 may prove to be very interesting years. But I'm getting way ahead of myself.
Nimrod was born in 1908 AM. By 1948 AM, he had been made king of the world. His first order of business was to build a tower, in order to "reach into Heaven," kill God and set himself up as ruler of all. Keep this in mind because although I wish to focus on events of the 20th Century, there are a number of things I must point out, which took place beforehand, setting the stage for what would follow. These things involved the quest for Antarctica.
While I certainly understand man's need for adventure into the unknown in search of answers and "new frontiers," the more I look into this subject, it appears that Antarctica had been an obsession for quite some time. But prior to the advances of the mid-20th century, few actually made it there. It wasn't until we were able to build better ships and the equipment needed to cut through the ice that such a trip was even possible. But why the big push for this "end of the earth" anyway? Could it be that man was after more than mere adventure and the discovery of new land? What if they were actually testing an ancient theory? What if they were trying to access Heaven through the ground floor door instead of the sky dome windows? What if the ultimate goal was to once again "reach into heaven" and... kill God? Sounds crazy? Let's see...
Prior to the 20th Century AD, there were a number of expeditions to Antarctica worthy of note:
Pre-19th century:
7th century — Ui-te-Rangiora claimed to have sighted southern ice fields.
1772–1775 — James Cook – sails HMS Resolution crossing Antarctic Circle in January 1773 and December 1773. On 30 January 1774 he reaches 71° 10′ S, his Farthest South, coming within about 75 miles of the Antarctic mainland without seeing it.
At this point, several people got close, but they still had not seen the mainland yet. Looking into the Cook expedition proved interesting though. Here are some intriguing quotes I recently found thanks to a Facebook friend pointing them out to me:
As for the Southern latitudes being larger than the North, they most certainly are and have shown to be so time and again. In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
The earth is (allegedly) only 25,000 miles in circumference. Looking at a typical globe, Antarctica is about the same size as Australia. Yet, if the above article citation is true, why did it take Cook 60,000 miles to circumnavigate Antarctica? By the way, this is the "massive glacier wall" the article referred to -it is the coastline of Antarctica:
In the Flat Earther model, it forms the outer barrier, which would of course prevent anyone from "falling off the edge of the world."
Antarctic expeditions really ramped up in 19th and 20th centuries, aided of course by advancements in technology and ship building. Prior to these expeditions however, it should be noted that there was a man named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who in the early 1800s had begun to toss out the Biblical model of Creation, wherein Genesis tells us how the earth, sun, moon and stars were created and how man was formed of the dust of the earth in the image and likeness of YHWH. Lamarck's work called all of that concept into question.
In the modern era, Lamarck is widely remembered for a theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, called soft inheritance, Lamarckism or use/disuse theory.[6] However, his idea of soft inheritance was, perhaps, a reflection of the wisdom of the time accepted by many natural historians. Lamarck's contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution,[7] in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.[8] Scientists have debated whether advances in the field of transgenerational epigenetics mean that Lamarck was to an extent correct, or not.[9]
Religious views
In his book Philosophie Zoologique, Lamarck referred to God as the "sublime author of nature". Lamarck's religious views are examined in the book Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution (1901) by Alpheus Packard. According to Packard from Lamarck's writings he may be regarded as a deist.[30]
The philosopher of biologyMichael Ruse described Lamarck "as believing in God as an unmoved mover, creator of the world and its laws, who refuses to intervene miraculously in his creation."[31] Biographer James Moore described Lamarck as a "thoroughgoing deist".[32]
The historian Jacques Roger has written "Lamarck was a materialist to the extent that he did not consider it necessary to have recourse to any spiritual principle... his deism remained vague, and his idea of creation did not prevent him from believing everything in nature, including the highest forms of life, was but the result of natural processes."[33]
Like most of our so-called American Founding Fathers, Lamarck was also deist, who questioned, or flat out disagreed with any notion of the miraculous. Throughout the late 1700s and into the 1800s this appears to have been the norm among the academic and political elite. Such thought combined with positions of power and authority over the minds of men formed the foundation of ideas, which would ultimately aim to overthrow anything based on the testimony of the Scriptures. It is in this climate that men began to test and doubt everything concerning the Biblical descriptions of Creation. On the surface, that would seem to be a very good thing to do. We are, after all, told by the Scriptures themselves to "test all things." So, perhaps that is what led to the obsession concerning exploration of Antarctica? As men began to come up with new theories for our origins and accept new ideas concerning the nature and shape of our world, they would have to go south. It would be the only way (prior to space travel) for man to see if there was a south pole on our alleged globe or a southern boarder to the Biblically defined enclosed Earth. For Evolution to be true, this would have to be false:
Considering the Scriptures (and numerous other ancient writings from other cultures), the question they would have to ask is, "Are we really in the above, enclosed model of Creation, just as the ancient texts say, or are we actually on a globe, where there is there is allegedly a "south pole" as put forward by the ideas of men like Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton?" Thus, the quest to find out begins.
Each of the following expeditions in the 19th Century provided exciting tales of exploration and the overcoming and failures that come from such adventures. Many of the names of Antarctica's various features come from the expeditions listed below.
1821 — George Powell, a British sealer, and Nathaniel B. Palmer, an American sealer, discover the South Orkney Islands. Powell annexes them for the British.
It is in this time period that a man named Charles Lyell rises to fame for calling the Biblical timeline of Creation into question with the publication of his book, Principles of Geology.
Sir Charles Lyell, 1st Baronet, FRS (14 November 1797 – 22 February 1875) was a British lawyer and the foremost geologist of his day. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology, which popularized James Hutton's concepts of uniformitarianism—the idea that the Earth was shaped by the same processes still in operation today. Principles of Geology also challenged theories popularized by Georges Cuvier, which were the most accepted and circulated ideas about geology in England at the time.[1]
Lyell was one of the first to believe that the world is older than 300 million years, on the basis of its geological anomalies. He was a close friend of Charles Darwin, and contributed significantly to Darwin's thinking on the processes involved in evolution. He helped to arrange the simultaneous publication in 1858 of papers by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace on natural selection, despite his personal religious qualms about the theory. He later published evidence from geology of the time man had existed on Earth.
* * *
Lyell first received a copy of one of Lamarck's books from Mantell in 1827, when he was on circuit. He thanked Mantell in a letter which includes this enthusiastic passage:
"I devoured Lamark... his theories delighted me... I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!... That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed..."[21]
In the second volume of the first edition of Principles Lyell explicitly rejected the mechanism of Lamark on the transmutation of species, and was doubtful whether species were mutable.[22]However, privately, in letters, he was more open to the possibility of evolution:
"If I had stated... the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects".[23]
This letter makes it clear that his equivocation on evolution was, at least at first, a deliberate tactic. As a result of his letters and, no doubt, personal conversations, Huxley and Haeckel were convinced that, at the time he wrote Principles, he believed new species had arisen by natural methods. Both Whewell and Sedgwick wrote worried letters to him about this.[24]
Later, Darwin became a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first scientists to support On the Origin of Species, though he did not subscribe to all its contents. Lyell was also a friend of Darwin's closest colleagues, Hookerand Huxley, but unlike them he struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on. He had particular difficulty in believing in natural selection as the main motive force in evolution.[25][26][27]
Lyell and Hooker were instrumental in arranging the peaceful co-publication of the theory of natural selection by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858: each had arrived at the theory independently. Lyell's data on stratigraphy were important because Darwin thought that populations of an organism changed slowly, requiring "geologic time".
Although Lyell did not publicly accept evolution (descent with modification) at the time of writing the Principles,[28] after the Darwin–Wallace papers and the Origin Lyell wrote in his notebook:
3 May 1860: "Mr. Darwin has written a work which will constitute an era in geology & natural history to show that... the descendants of common parents may become in the course of ages so unlike each other as to be entitled to rank as a distinct species, from each other or from some of their progenitors".[29]
Lyell's acceptance of natural selection, Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution, was equivocal, and came in the tenth edition of Principles.[4][30]The Antiquity of Man (published in early February 1863, just before Huxley's Man's place in nature) drew these comments from Darwin to Huxley:
"I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell's excessive caution" and "The book is a mere 'digest' ".[31]
Quite strong remarks: no doubt Darwin resented Lyell's repeated suggestion that he owed a lot to Lamarck, whom he (Darwin) had always specifically rejected. Darwin's daughter Henrietta (Etty) wrote to her father: "Is it fair that Lyell always calls your theory a modification of Lamarck's?" [32][33]
In other respects Antiquity was a success. It sold well, and it "shattered the tacit agreement that mankind should be the sole preserve of theologians and historians".[34] But when Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man and beast could be bridged, Darwin wrote "Oh!" in the margin of his copy.[15]
So, Lyell was influenced by the likes of Lamarck and Hutton. And Darwin was influenced by Lyell and others who were, at the time, putting forth similar theories and ideas concerning essentially a Godless Creation.
Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[13] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[14] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[15] Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[7] In 1871 he examinedhuman evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[16]
Darwin became internationally famous, and his pre-eminence as a scientist was honoured by burial in Westminster Abbey.[17] Darwin has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.[18]
Sadly his influence has caused the influence of the real hero of history, Yeshua (Jesus Christ), to have been diminished greatly.
Darwin's agnosticism came about as the result of no longer trusting in the Bible, which he had once believed.
By his return he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid.[169] In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with his wife Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.[87] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[170] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralyzing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[135] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin was reluctant to give up the idea of God as an ultimate lawgiver. He was increasingly troubled by the problem of evil.[171][172]
Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Brodie Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[173] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[168] He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[174][175] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[87][174]
The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[176]
Darwin died in 1882. That same year, a German philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead."
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann[bold emphasis mine]
Wikipedia provides some interesting insight into this particular subject concerning the alleged death of God:
Explication
The phrase "God is dead" does not mean that Nietzsche believed in an actual God who first existed and then died in a literal sense. Rather, it conveys his view that the Christian God is no longer a credible source of absolute moral principles. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis that the death of God represents for existing moral assumptions: "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."[3] This is why in "The Madman", a passage which primarily addresses nontheists (especially atheists), the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.
The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it.The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universalmoral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is that for which Nietzsche worked to find a solution by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the "will to power" that he described as "the essence of reality."
Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic.
Misunderstandings of the death of God
When first being introduced to Nietzsche, a person can infer the “death of God” as literal. To Nietzsche, the concept of God only exists in the minds of his followers; therefore, the believers would ultimately be accountable for his life and death. Holub goes on to state that “God has been the victim of murder, and we, as human beings, are the murderers” (36).
Another purpose of Nietzsche’s death of God is to “unmask the hypocrisies and illusion of outworn value systems” (Pfeffer 18). People do not fully comprehend that they killed God through their hypocrisy and lack of morality. Due to hypocrisy “God has lost whatever function he once had because of the actions taken by those who believe in him” (Welshon 40). A god is merely a mirrored reflection of its people and the “Christian God is so ridiculous a God that even were he to have existed, he would have no right to exist” (Welshon 39). Religious people start going against their beliefs and start coinciding with the beliefs of mainstream society. “[Moral thinking] is debased and poisoned by the influence of society’s weakest and most ignoble elements, the herd” (Welshon 16).
Humanity depreciates traditional ethics and beliefs and this leads to another misunderstanding of the death of God. During the era of Nietzsche, traditional beliefs within Christianity became almost nonexistent due to the vast expansion of education and the rise of modern science. “Belief in God is no longer possible due to such nineteenth-century factors as the dominance of the historical-critical method of reading Scripture, the rise of incredulity toward anything miraculous ... and the idea that God is the creation of wish projection (Benson 31). Nietzsche believed that man was useless without a God and “no longer possesses ideals and absolute goals toward which to strive. He has lost all direction and purpose” (Pfeffer 76). Nietzsche believes that in order to overcome our current state of depreciated values that a “strong classic pessimism” like that of the Greeks is “needed to overcome the dilemmas and anxieties of modern man” (Pfeffer 65).
“Either we died because of our religion or our religion dies because of us” (Pfeffer 73). This quote summarizes what Nietzsche was trying to say in his concept of the death of God- that the God of Christianity has died off because of its people and their beliefs. Far too often do people translate the death of God into a literal sense, do not take responsibility for the death of God, and depreciate the value of traditional Christian beliefs - all leading to the misunderstandings of Nietzsche’s philosophy of God’s death. Now in a world where God is dead we can only hope that technology and science does not take control and “be treated as the new religion, serving as a basis for retaining the same damaging psychological habit that the Christian religion developed” (Magnus 36).
Meanwhile, at a time when the Holy Spirit inspired truths of Scripture were being tossed out in favor of the wild imaginations of flawed "men of science" who began to think of themselves as evolved apes, which themselves were the product of countless mutations, resulting from the adaptation of things evolved from some sort of primordial ooze, which suddenly came to life having been spawned out of a lifeless slime pit millions/billions of years prior, the expeditions to Antarctica continued...
1872–1876 — HMS Challenger under Capt. George S. Nares, becomes the first steamship to cross the Antarctic Circle; reopens the study of oceanography in the region after a 30-year gap.[5]
While Antarctica expeditions were beginning to become more and more prevalent (possibly in an effort to prove this up-and-coming new Godless paradigm of evolution over millions/billions of years), a remnant of Godly men rose up in opposition - namely, Dr. Samuel B. Rowbotham, William Carpenter and David Wardlaw Scott. It may really be worth it for you to take the time to read their books. You can read them as free PDFs here:
It was while I was doing my research into some of the early, turn of the 20th Century literature that I stumbled upon the last one in the list above first: Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet, Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact by David Wardlaw Scott. It really is a gem of a book, which resulted in me having to buy the other two books, because the author frequently referenced them in this work. Again, you can read the whole thing on-line as an e-book in a variety of formats here: https://archive.org/details/cu31924031764594. For now, I wish to just post chapter 1 for your considereation, because it describes early problems some scholars were having with the "modern science" of the day and why this discussion is so important during our day as well:
SECTION 1
A FEW WORDS ABOUT GRAVITATION
I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton's great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added—I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject.
Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows — Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water; besides, as the Scriptures plainly tell us — 2 Pet. iii. 5, the water is not contained in the Earth, but the Earth in the water. Again, the man who whirls the pail around his head, takes very good care to hold it straight in an even circuit, for, if he did not, the water would immediately be spilt. But you teach us that the Earth goes upside down and downside up, so that the people in Australia, being on the other side of the so-called Globe, have their feet exactly opposite to ours, for which reason they are named Antipodes. We are not like flies which, by the peculiar conformation of their feet, can crawl on a ball, but we are human beings, who require a plane surface on which to walk; and how could we be fastened to the Earth whirling, according to your theory, around the Sun, at the rate of eighteen miles per second? The famed law of Gravitation will not avail, though we are told that we have fifteen pounds of atmosphere pressing on every square inch of our bodies, but this does not appear to be particularly logical, for there are many athletes who can leap nearly their own height, and run a mile race in less than five minutes, which they could not possibly do were they thus handicapped. Sir, your assertion respecting the revolution of the world round the sun, as illustrated by the pail of water, is utterly worthless, and will never convince any thinking man; it is, as the late Mr. Carpenter said of another astronomical theory, " an outrage upon human understanding and credulity."
Sir Robert Ball, the Astronomer Royal for Ireland, says, speaking of Gravitation :—
"In the case of the sun, and of the planetary system generally, the mass of the central body enormously exceeds that of any of his planets. The sun, for example, is 1047 times as heavy as Jupiter—the heaviest of the planets ; while, if the luminary were subdivided into a million equal pieces, the mass of each one of them would be greater than the mass of the earth. It, therefore, follows that the centre of gravity of the sun and of the earth lies close to the sun's centre.
"The universal law asserts that every body attracts every other body, and therefore there is attraction not alone between planet and sun, but also between planet and planet. Jupiter is not only attracted by the sun, and retaliates by attracting the sun, but Jupiter also attracts the earth, and is in turn attracted by the earth. In like manner there is a mutual attraction between every pair of planets, the intensity of which is measured by the product of the masses of the two planets, divided by the square of the distance apart."
- The Cause of the Glacial Age" page 62; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Parliament House, Charing Cross Road, London.
So with regard to celestial things, and so, we suppose, with regard to terrestrial matters also; by this wonderful law of Gravitation, the man attracts the woman, and the woman attracts the man, the elephant attracts the flea, and the flea attracts the elephant, the cat attracts the mouse, and the mouse attracts the cat, and so on ad infinitum. Calculation, by the square of the distance, might, perhaps, to some appear plausible, were there only a few particular objects concerned, but, when there are countless millions of things, both celestial and terrestrial, all struggling at the same time tO' attract each other, such a law, from the inextricable confusion which it would necessarily create, would not only be an absurdity but an impossibility. Sir Isaac Newton himself does not even attempt to give one proof of the truth of Gravitation ; with him it is only supposition from beginning to end. Thus he says —
"But the reason of these properties of gravity I could never hitherto deduce from phenomena ; and am unwilling to frame hypotheses about them; for whatever is not deduced from phenomena ought to be called an hypothesis, and no sort of hypotheses are allowable in experimental philosophy wherein propositions are deduced from phenomena, and not made general by deduction."
The famous laws of Kepler, once considered to be so helpful in establishing the theory of Gravitation, are now found to have been only erroneous suppositions, as Professor W. B. Carpenter writes in the October, 1880, No. of the " Modem Review," from which I quote the following extract —
"He 'took as his guide another assumption no less erroneous, viz., that the masses of these planets increased with their distances from the Sun. In order to make this last fit with the facts, he was drawn to assume a relation of their respective densities, which we now know to be utterly untrue ; for, as he himself says, ' unless we assume this proposition of the densities, the law of the periodic time will not answer.' Thus, says his Biographer,' three out of the four suppositions made by Kepler to explain the beautiful law he had detected, are now undisputably known to be false, what he considered to be the proof of it being only a mode of false reasoning by which any required result might be deduced from any given principle.'"
Et iu, Brute! the Newtonian Caesar may now exclaim, as he falls by the dagger of his old friend Kepler.
Gravitation is a big word, derived from the Latin adjective gravis, heavy, and heavy, indeed, has been the trouble which it has caused to Modern Astronomers by its not acting in obedience to the laws made for it by their Delphic Oracle Sir Isaac Newton. It was at first introduced to the public as a mere hypothesis, but, by degrees, became to be considered as a law, though it paid as little attention to the law propounded for it by Newton, as a Red Republican does to that of his country; for the small Moon refused to circle round the great Sun, nor would even a splint of wood be attracted by an iron mountain. The truth is that Gravitation, Attraction, Cohesion are only scientific names invented to cover men's ignorance of God's works in nature, pretending to explain facts, when, in reality, they explain nothing at all. Far wiser would it have been to have at once confessed that it is only by the Fiat of God that the substances of things are kept together, for it is He alone that upholdeth all things by the word of His power — Heb. i. 3. "He hath made the Earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and by His understanding hath He stretched out the Heavens " — Jer. x. 12. And that Omnipotent God, who binds things together now, will, in His own time, effect their separation, for " the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the things that are therein shall be burned up "— 2 Pet. iii. 10.
Speaking of Newton's law of Gravitation, Sir Richard Phillips said in his " A Million of Facts,"
"It is waste of time to break a butterfly on a wheel, but, as Astronomy and all science is beset with fancies about attraction and repulsion, it is necessary to eradicate them."
Mr. Breach of Southsea remarks —
"Newton's supposed law of Gravitation was lost in the Moon. Newton found that the Moon's perigee ought to require r8 years to perform its revolution in the heavens, while observation showed that the revolution was performed in one-half of this period. He exhausted all his skill and power to overcome the difficulty, but died, leaving the problem unsolved. His successor Clairant also finally abandoned the law of Gravitation as being incapable of explanation."
- "Twenty reasons against Newtonianism, anij Twenty Geographical Proofs that the Earth Is an extended Plane " ; S. Phillips, 3 Great Southsea Street, Southsea.
In his article " Nature and Law," which appeared in the " Modern Review " of October, 1890, Professor
W. B. Carpenter writes as follows —
" We have no proof, and, in the nature of things, can never get one, of the assumption of the attractive force exerted by the Earth, or by any other bodies of the Solar system, upon other bodies at a distance. Newton himself strongly felt that the impossibility of rationally accounting for action at a distance through an intervening vacuum, was the weak point of his system. All that we can be said to know is that which we learn from our own experience. Now, in regard to the Sun's attraction for the Earth and Planets, we have no certain experience at all. Unless we could be transported to his surface, we have no means of experimentally comparing Solar gravity with Terrestrial gravity, and, if we could ascertain this, we should be no nearer the determination of his attraction for bodies at a distance. The doctrine of Universal Gravitation, then, is A PURE ASSUMPTION."
If Gravitation in the vast body of our Astronomers' Sun were a reality, why does it not attract, or even, as it might be expected to do, absorb such a light body as a Comet, when it comes so near it, instead of letting its long gossamer tail depart unscathed? Miss Gibeme, in writing of Comets, remarks —
"They obey the attraction of the Sun, yet he appears to have the singular power of driving the Comet's Tail away from himself. For however rapidly the Comet may be rushing round the Sun, and however long the tail may be, it is almost always found to stream in an opposite direction from the Sun."
- " Sun, Moon, and Stars," p. 73 ; Seeley & Co., Limited, 38 Great Russell Street, London.
Miss Giberne's remarks, if not explanatory, are at least curious, for they suppose the Sun to have the singular power of first attracting and then repelling the hapless Comet, a peculiar mode of Gravitation not permitted to our poor Earth, which, it is said, could draw down Sir Isaac's apple from the tree, but had no power to send it back to its stalk again. The truth is no Astronomer on Earth, nor anybody else, knows one single fact respecting Gravitation, which is an unknown and an unknowable quantity, and the sooner it is committed to the grave of oblivion, the more scope will be given for the advancement of true science.
Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple—because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society. He draped his idol with the tawdry tinsel of false science, knowing well how to beguile the thoughtless multitude, for, with a little alteration of Byron's famous lines, it is still true that
"Mortals, like moths, are often caught by glare. And folly wins success where Seraphs might despair."
Gravitation is a clever illustration of the art of hocus-pocus—heads I win, tails you lose ; Newton won his fame, and the people lost their senses.
SECTION 2
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG MODERN ASTRONOMERS
Judging from the manner in which such able champions of Zetetic truth as Rowbotham, Hampden, and Carpenter, who have passed away, have been treated, as also some strong advocates for it who are still alive, I have no great expectation that anything which I may say will have much effect on Astronomers themselves. They may rather be expected to exclaim, in a somewhat similar strain as a certain noble Lord with respect to
the "old Nobility"—
"Let Scripture, Reason, Fact, and Learning die, But spare us Newton's grand Astronomy."
Many books have been written on Modem Astronomy, but I am afraid that most of them are planned more as tales of sensational fiction than as handbooks of useful instruction, and require to be read not only with one but with many grains of salt. I have been informed, on good authority, that some of our Astronomers do already know the Plane truth, and surely it behoves such no longer to hide their light under a bushel, but to let it shine before men, so that others may be benefited and that God may be glorified thereby. If, however, they are still determined to conceal their knowledge, they must just be left severely alone. We may hope that some others will come to the front, who will brush away the cobwebs of theory, and build upon the granite of truth. A splendid opportunity is now before such so much-needed men, who might enrich the world with volumes of real value respecting the Heavens, and the Earth, based upon the lines of Scripture, Reason, and Fact.
The system of the Universe, as taught by Modern Astronomers, being founded entirely on theory, for the truth of which they are unable to advance one single real proof, they have entrenched themselves in a conspiracy of silence, and decline to answer any objections which may be made to their hypotheses. Such a method of defense appears to me to be neither wise nor effectual, for Truth is great, and must ultimately prevail. It rather resembles the tactics of the ostrich, which, in order to elude his pursuers, hides his head in the sand, thus leaving the greater part of his body exposed to view. Lord Beaconsfield wisely said—
"A subject or system that will not bear discussion is doomed."
Both Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an "exact science," yea, according to them, "the most exact of all the sciences." Yet one Astronomer Royal for England once said, speaking of the motion of the whole Solar system — "The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if any one can help me out of it." What a very sad position for an "exact science" to be in is this! Nothing certain but the uncertain—nothing known but the unknown. Their calculations on celestial things are so preposterous and vague that "no fella" can understand them; just look at the following tit-bits of Modern Astronomic Science —
The Sun's distance from the Earth is reckoned to be about 92,000,000 miles. The Sun is larger than the Earth 1,240,000 times. 58,000 Suns would be required to equal the cubic contents of the Star Vega.
Struve tells us that light from Stars of the ninth magnitude, traveling with the velocity of 12,000,000 miles per minute, would require to travel space for 586 years before reaching this world of ours!
The late Mr. Proctor said—" I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years.
The weight of the Earth, according to the same authority, is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons!
And so on ad nauseam.
Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too' lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild.
"True 'tis a pity—pity 'tis 'tis true"
What a sad illustration is given by the above statements as to the utter worthlessness of Modem Astronomy in the closing days of this boastful Nineteenth Century! Copernicus wrote—"It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came. . . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
If such was the conviction of Copernicus, the reviver of the old Pagan system of Pythagoras, and of Newton, its chief expounder, what right have Modem Astronomers to assert that a theory, which was given only as a possibility, is a fact, especially when they differ so much among themselves even as regards the very first elements of the problem—the distance of the Sun from the Earth? Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23 1/2 degrees.Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects —
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
- Carpenter's " One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe," No. 98; John Williams, 54 Bourne-street, Netherfield, Notts.
How contrary are all these fancied motions to the plain teaching of the Scriptures, that the Earth "is founded upon the seas, and established upon the floods"' —Psa. xxiv. 2. Yea that God's own hand " hath laid the foundations of the Earth "—Isa. xlviii. 13.
Pythagoras of Samos, a heathen philosopher, who lived, it is thought, about 500 years B.C., is the first who taught that the Sun is the stationary centre of the Universe, and that the Earth revolved around it as one of its satellites. But his opinion did not make much headway. In the second century A.D., Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, a man reported among the Greeks to be of vast learning and wisdom, restored the ancient. Cosmogony, that the Earth is in the centre of the Universe, is immovable, and that the Sun, Moon, and Stars revolved around it, as instruments to give it light. This system generally prevailed till the time of Nicolaus Copernicus, who was born at Thorn in Prussia, in the year 1472. He studied philosophy and medicine at Cvacova, and afterwards became Professor of Mathematics at Rome. After some years he returned to his native country, and began to investigate the various systems of Astronomy. He preferred that of Pythagoras, and, after more than twenty years' study, he gave his scheme of the Universe to the world. It was then condemned as being so heretical, that he was imprisoned by Pope Urban VIII., and only released when he made a recantation of his opinions. He died in 1543, but his system was followed by Galileo and other able men, and the introduction of the telescope greatly helped on the cause. At last, in 1642, Isaac Newton was born, the son of Mr. John Newton, a gentleman of small independent means, at Colesworth, near Grantham, Lincolnshire. At an early age he showed signs of uncommon genius, and in due time went to Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1669, when only 27 years of age, he was chosen Professor of Mathematics in the University there, and in 1687 he published his " Principia," confirming and improving the system of Copernicus, somewhat after the manner in which the cook in a boarding-school dishes up what the boys call a " resurrection pie," the chief ingredient being the same as it was previously, but with some spice scientifically added tO' suit the taste of the more fastidious palate of the day. This work brought him into great repute as an astronomer, and afterwards led to his being made Master of the Mint and Knighted.
As years rolled on so did Sir Isaac's fame, and, as Harry Hotspur bewitched the world with his horsemanship, so has this much-lauded philosopher beguiled the multitude with his Astronomy. But error is error still, and cannot last for ever, and many, who since his day have honestly examined his system, have been compelled to reject it, as being utterly unworthy of belief, and I trust that many more may do so, when they begin to think for themselves. A sadder instance of the perversion of splendid talents I do not know than the case of Sir Isaac Newton. He spent a long life in teaching a false system of Astronomy, unsupported by any fact in nature, and in direct contradiction to the plain statements of the Bible, that priceless mine not only of all true religion, but of all sound philosophy. May his sad example serve as a warning to others.
Pythagoras, Copernicus, and Sir Isaac Newton considered the Sun to be stationary, and, in that idea, for many years other Astronomers followed suit, but
"A change came o'er the spirit of the dream,"
and they now say that IT DOES MOVE, not, indeed, round the world, but towards a point in the constellation " Hercules," though some imagine it to be journeying towards Alcyone in the Pleiades. In proof of this most serious change of opinion, which wholly alters the base of their system, and which, had they been honest, should, on the discovery, have been at once publicly acknowledged, I beg to give the following extract from pp. 280, 281 of " Sun, Moon, and Stars " (Seeley & Co., Limited, 38 Great Russell Street, London) by Miss Agnes Giberne, a very enthusiastic writer on Astronomical subjects, with a laudatory Preface by the Rev. C. Pritchard, M.A., F.R.S., &c., Savilian Professor of Astronomy, in the University of Oxford.
"The rate of its (the Sun's) speed is not very certain, but it is generally believed to be one hundred and fifty millions of miles each year. Possibly he moves in reality much faster.
"When I speak of the Sun's movements, it must of course be understood that the earth and planets all move with him, much as a great steamer in the sea might drag in her wake a number of little boats. From one of the little boats you could judge of the steamer's motion quite as well as if you were on the steamer itself. Astronomers can only judge of the Sun's motion by watching the seeming drift of stars to the right or left of him; and the watching can be as well accomplished from earth as from the Sun himself.
"After all, this mode of judging is and must be very uncertain. Among the millions of stars visible we only know the real distance of ten or twelve, and every star has its own real motion which has to be separated from the apparent change of position caused by the Sun's advance.
" It seems now pretty clear that the Sun's course is directed towards a certain point in the Constellation Hercules. If the Sun's path were straight he might be expected by and by, after long ages, to enter that constellation. But, if orbits of suns, like orbits of planets, are ellipses, he will curve away sideways long before he reaches Hercules."
Miss Giberne also remarks that a German Astronomer believes that the Sun and the stars in The Milky Way are traveling to Alcyone, the chief star in the Pleiades, but wisely adds— " Much stronger proof will be required before the idea can be accepted."
Now let me seriously ask—How can any thoughtful man give the slightest credence to a system which holds such absurd and contradictory hypotheses as Modem Astronomers tell us to believe? What confidence can we place in those who deliberately reject, not only the direct evidence of their senses, as shown by their talk about "apparent motions," the reality of which they refuse to admit, but also the plain testimony of the Scriptures, and "have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm "—i Tim. i. 6, 7. One might almost as soon credit the godless aberrations of the Evolutionist, who derives man from a monad, afterwards passing through various gradations, not one of which has ever yet been discovered, and which are said to occupy millions of years, till he obtains the hairy form of a chimpanzee, and then, after still further developments, comes to the state of a real man, fitted as the survival of the fittest, to become the honoured President of the Royal Society. . Oh how true is the divine Word—" The world by wisdom knows not God '" —I Cor. i. 21. " He taketh the wise in their own craftiness''—and again—" He knoweth the thoughts' of the wise that they are vain."— 1 Cor, iii. 19, 20.
SECTION 3
TESTIMONY OF SOME ABLE MEN AGAINST THE COPERNICAN THEORY
It is not surprising that able men, who have studied the subject of Modern Astronomy, have rejected with contempt the theory of the Earth being a revolving Planet. Let me cite a few instances from well-known names. Tycho Brahe, the distinguished Danish Astronomer, who flourished soon after Copernicus, writes as follows —
"The heavy mass of earth, so little fit for motion in every respect, could not be displaced in the manner they propose, and moved in three different ways like the Celestial bodies, without.a shock to the known principle of physics, even if they could set;aside the express testimony of Scripture."
The great Lord Bacon, the profoundest thinker of his age, was completely opposed to the Copernican system of Astronomy, as may be seen in several passages of his " Novum Organum,'' from one of which I quote the following—
" In like manner, let the motion inquired into be that other Motion of Rotation, so celebrated among Astronomers, resisting and opposed to the diurnal motion, viz., from west to east, which the old Astronomers attributed to the planets, and also to the starry heavens, but Copernicus and his followers to the Earth ; and let it be asked whether any such motion be found in Nature, or whether it be not rather a theory fabricated and assumed for the convenience and abbreviation of calculation, and to favour that beautiful project of explaining the heavenly bodies by perfect circles. . . . And most certain it is, if we may reason like plain men, for a while (dismissing the fictions of Astronomers and the schools, whose fashion it is unreasonably to do violence to the senses, and to prefer what is most obscure), that this motion does appear to the senses as we have described it ; and we once caused it to be represented by a sort of machine composed of iron wire."
- " Essays, Civil and Moral, Advancement of Learning, Novum Organun," &c.,p. 351 edition 189s, Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., London.
In his " Confession of Faith," Lord Bacon also says —
"I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and gave unto them constant and perpetual laws, which we call 'Laws of Nature,' but which mean nothing but God's laws of Creation.''
The Rev. John Wesley, in various parts of his Journal, expresses his disbelief in the Copernican or Newtonian theory of the Universe. For brevity I quote only one passage —
"The more I consider them the more I doubt all systems of Astronomy ; I doubt whether we can with certainty know either the distances or the magnitude of any star in the firmament, else why do Astronomers so immensely differ with regard to the distance of the Sun from the Earth? some affirming it to be only (three and others ninety millions of miles'."
- Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol ii., p. 392; Mason, London
I shall just add the vigorous testimony of Gothe —
"It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton's school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince."
- " Proceedings of the Royal Institution," vol. ix., part iii., p. 353
In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy.
" In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony,and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics."
I could easily cite other good authorities to similar effect, but I think enough have been already given, to show that the absurdities of Modem Astronomy have not been palmed upon the world without a strong protest from thoughtful minds, and I sincerely trust that the following pages may prove useful to some honest thinkers, not only in exposing the fallacies of this chimerical science, but in showing the true position of the world, as proved by facts in nature, and as unfolded in the Word of God. That Word is the only true exponent which we possess for opening up to us the Wisdom and the Power of God, as displayed in the works of nature, as well as in the still higher revelation of His divine purposes of grace, in bringing at last the whole creation into complete harmony with Himself.
It gives me real pleasure to subjoin, from January,1893, No. of " The ,Earth (not a Globe) Review," the following extract, written by the late Dr. Woodhouse, formerly Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge —
"When we consider what the advocates of the Earth's stationary and central position can account for, and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately to their own thinking as we can ours, in addition to which they have the evidence of their SENSES and Scripture and facts in their favour, which we have not; it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system. . . However perfect our theory may appear in our own estimation, and however simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypotheses may seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here compelled to admit the astounding truth, if our premises be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of Astronomy does not contain one proof of its own accuracy."
SECTION 4
QUOTATIONS SHOWING SOME OF THE ATHEISTICAL RESULTS OF MODERN ASTRONOMY
How sinful and foolish is it for any one to reject the unerring Word of God for the unproved and unprovable hypotheses of men! I do not think I should close this chapter without a few words of serious but loving warning to professing Christians, in the hope that they at least may be kept' from the snares of Modem Astronomy, Evolutionism, Spiritualism, Ritualism, Demagogism, and other evils of the day, arising chiefly
from the cancerous infidelity which is eating out the very heart of true religion, preparatory to the revelation of "the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, who. opposeth and exalteth himself above all this called God,., or that, is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitting in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God " — 2 Thess. ii. 3,4.
There are many ministers of the Gospel,, some, of, whom I personally know, who teach. things contrary to Bible truth, but I refrain from giving names, trusting that they may yet repent. Indeed the mass of society is being leavened with the virus of dishonesty and infidelity, not only in this country, but throughout the world. The old landmarks are being rapidly removed; the very Deluge is repudiated by many. Our civilization is only a veneer. I have been informed that there are conventicles for the express worship of Satan both in London and Paris. Demonology and Witchcraft, of course under other names, are rampant. Men think themselves very clever, but are duped on every hand. What Isaiah said of Israel may be applied to this corrupt and vainglorious age — " The whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrifying sores '' — Isa. i. 5, 6. To show that I am using no exaggerated language, I beg to quote a few specimens out of the many which might be given.
"The common notion had been that the Earth was flat, and heaven a little way above the clouds, and the place of the dead — the wicked dead, if not all the dead — somewhere underneath. These were ancient ideas, and the fact that we find them in the Bible is one proof that the Bible is an ancient book." - A "Severend" of Cardiff
"If Moses can be shown to be caught redhanded, in ignorance and error; what shall we think of the Christ who quoted and referred to him as an authority?" - Present Day Atheist
"If it shall turn out that Joshua was superior to La Place, that Moses knew more about geology than Humboldt, that Job as a scientist was superior to Kepler, that Isaiah knew more than Copernicus, then I will admit that infidelity must become speechless for ever." - IngersolPs Tilt with Talmage
"We date from the First of January, 1601. This era is called the Era of Man (E. M.) to distinguish it from the theological epoch that preceded it. In that epoch the Earth was supposed to be flat, the Sun was its attendant light, revolving about it. Above was Heaven, where God ruled supreme over all potentates and powers ; below was the kingdom of the dead, hell. So taught the Bible. Then came the new Astronomy. It demonstrated that the Earth is a globe revolving about the Sun, that there is no ' up and down ' in space. Vanished the old Heaven, vanished the old Hell ; the Earth became the home of man. And when the modern Cosmogony came, the Bible and the Church, as infallible oracles, had to go, for they had taught that regarding the universe which was shown to be untrue in every particular." - Lucifer, Dec. z^rd, E. M. z8f ( i88f).
"We are trembling on the eve of a discovery, which may revolutionize the whole thought of the world. The almost universal opinion of scientific men is that the Planet Mars is inhabited by beings like or superior to ourselves. Already they have discovered canals cut in its face in geometrical form, which can only be the work of reasoning creatures. They have some snowfields, and it only requires a telescope, a little stronger than those already in existence, to reveal the mystery as to whether sentient beings exist in that planet. If it be found that this is the case, the whole Christian religion will crumble to pieces. The story of the Creation has already become an old wife's tale. Hell is never mentioned in any well-informed society of clergymen, the Devil has become a myth. If Mars is inhabited the irresistible deduction will be that all the other planets are inhabited. This will put an end to the fable prompted by the vanity of humanity, that the Son of God came on earth and suffered for creatures who are the lineal descendants of monkeys. It is not to be supposed that the Hebrew carpenter went about as a kind of theosophical missionaiy to all the planets of the Solar system re-incarnate, and suffered for sins of various pigmies or giants as the case may be who may dwell there. The Astronomers would do well to make haste to reveal to us the magnificent secret which the world impatiently awaits." - Reynolds' Newspaper, 14th August, i8gs.
"There are always enough faddists in this world to afford an unfailing source of amusement. Have we not the Theosophists, and the Zetetic Society? The latter body claim to have discovered that the earth is a motionless and circular plane, over which the sun and moon and stars revolve at moderate distances above it. It would be unnecessary to take notice of this preposterous theory except to lament that any person of intelligence should waste his time upon so gross an absurdity. The capability of the members of .this Society for scientific demon, stration may be guessed, when I say that they take their science from the Bible. Now the Old Testament is full of the most elementary scientific inaccuracies. Modern science has proved over and over again that the writers of the Old Testament knew nothing about the physical condition of the earth, and certainly nothing of heaven, which indeed is not mentioned."- Reynolds' Newspaper, i^th May, 1896.
"To speak in plain terms, as far as Science is concerned, the IDEA OF A PRESENT GoD IS INCONCEIVABLE, as are also all the attributes which religion recognizes in such a being." -The late Mr. R. A. Proctor, in " Our Place in the Infinities," f. 3.
"While, however, the idea of Government by a God is not excluded by general consent from the dominion of science, the notion of Government by Law has taken its place, not only in popular thought, but in the minds of many who claim the right to lead it, and it is the validity of this which I have now to call in question. . . . Philosophy finding no God in Nature, nor SEEING THE NEED OF ANY.
"The advanced Philosophy of the piesent times goes still iarther, asserting that there is no room for God in Nature."
- Professor W. B. Carpenter, in "Modern Review^' for October, 1880
Even in Churches onoe reputed for their orthodoxy, false science has had a most withering effect. Thus the last Moderator of The Free Church of Scotland lately said —
"The fact remains that a restless, uneasy, uncertain feeling in regard to religious truth is abroad. . . The whole trouble has arisen from the mistaken assumption that the opening chapter of Genesis was meant to be an authoritative account of the method and order of creative work; it is not prose, but poetry, the great Creation Hymn.''
A Professor in the same Church remarks in his " Studies of Theology "—
"Even the myth in which the beginnings of human life are represented. . . The plain truth — and we have no reason to hide it — is, we do not know the beginnings of man's life, of his history, of his sin; we do not know them historically on historical evidence, and we should be content to let them remain in the dark, till science throws what light it can upon them."
Quotations such as the above require no' comment, as they speak for themselves, and show to what a debased state of infidelity many persons have been already brought, attributable in a great measure to the false teaching of Modem Astronomy. They have forsaken God, " the fountain of living waters, and have hewn out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" — Jer. ii. 12. Gutta cavat lapidem non vi $ed spepe cadendo.
How true is this saying which I learned sixty-seven years ago at the Edinboirgh Academy — a drop hollows a stone not by force but by often falling. So is it with regard to Modem Astronomy. Children are taught in their geography books, when too young to apprehend aright the meaning of such things, that the world is a great globe revolving around the Sun, and the story is repeated continuously, year by year, till they reach maturity, at which time they generally become so absorbed in other matters as to be indifferent as to whether the teaching be true or not, and, as they hear of nobody contradicting it, they presume that it must be the correct thing, if not to believe at least to receive it as a fact. They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called " years of discretion," they would at once have rejected. This astronomic method of instilling error into young minds, recalls to my remembrance Pope's apt lines respecting vice —
"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen ; But, grown at length familiar with its face.
We first abhor — then pity — then embrace."
The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared, as has, alas ! only too sadly been shown in the results developed by Modern Astronomy and Sacerdotal Ritualism. These delusions are paving the way for the full-blown infidelity of the last days, when the great nations of the Earth will be gathered against Jehovah and His Anodnted — Psa. it. 2 — and will be
swept away, "like chaff of the summer threshing-floor"
— Dan. it. 3$.
Clearly the Rev. John Dove, a learned and esteemed minister at Glasgow, saw this, when, indignant at the falsities of Copemican Astronomy, he wrote his " Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony,'' about 150 years ago. He faithfully remarked as follows —
"Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy (the Copemican) still among us? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the unlearned, but among our Church dignitaries, our classical scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance and unbelief.
" What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer, but it is easy to determine what will be from what has already taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, and people from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, confusion, and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or severing from or perverting the doctrines or history contained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture and ruin, and always will! And if their successors continue their resistance, as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to deluge the kingdom with Atheism, destroying all social virtue, and turning it into a field of blood."
It is my object in writing this book tO' warn people in these dangerous times, and to expose the absurdities of Modem Astronomy, for, if these are made apparent, "surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird " — Pro. i. 17. I am afraid it is more than probable that many of my Readers may have already been more or less entangled in its meshes, but I earnestly hope that now, by thinldng for themselves, they may make a resolute effort to be free, so that they may be enabled to say — :
" Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowler; the snare is broken and we are escaped" — Psa. cxxiv. 7.
It is widely taught to us today, that the issue of the shape and nature of our world and its place and movement within the cosmos was settled 500 years ago. I have even made such statements myself - prior to actually investigating the validity of that notion. But I'm finding - especially after reading the above - that this simply is not true. Yes, there were men like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton who really believed in and promoted the idea of a spinning, heliocentric globe model. But their ideas were certainly not widely accepted even in their own days. While some in various academic circles did agree, others did not. And the average person, not privy to the debate either remained clueless, having never spent any real time thinking about these issues, or they firmly held to the age-old notion of a stationary, flat Earth, set on pillars, under a dome just as the Scriptures and indeed numerous other ancient, secular and religious texts said. Now we have the testimony of Rowbotham, Carpenter and Scott, which clearly shows that the "new astronomy" being forced on the public was still not widely accepted, even at the close of the 19th Century - except within the confines of atheistic circles and the halls of secular "science," which promoted and indoctrinated students into believing in it.
Keep in mind, at this point in history, no one had been able to prove these theories by actually standing on an alleged South Pole or by going up into space - or even in a high altitude balloon or airplane for that matter - to show that anything the so-called "scientists" and "astronomers" were saying was true. Therefore, it all had to be taken on faith. Thus, a new religion of secular, cosmological atheism was forming. I say it had to be taken on faith because no one could possibly have ever observed any alleged curvature of the earth. All they could do was observe ships going out to sea, disappearing hull first into a horizon that never drops below eye-level. These issues were dealt with by Carpenter in point numbers 30-32 in his book, 100 Proofs That The Earth Is Not A Globe:
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
31. If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large as it is said to be - twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing which I have called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand on the seashore we may see the ships, as they approach us, absolutely "coming up," and that, as we are able to see the highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower parts are "behind the earth's curve." Now since if this were the case - that is, if the lower parts of these ships were behind a "hill of water" - the size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all round it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due to another and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that at Earth is not a globe.
32. It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and, instead of there being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of the, Earth's rotundity, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
In this series, I've shown that the alleged curvature is not even detectable at 120,000 feet when people send up weather balloons with cameras not fitted with a fish-eye lens. And since no one prior to the mid-20th Century could have ever achieved such height, much less visually document it if they did, the whole idea of the earth as a spinning globe could only have been based purely on conjecture and theory. And as we are now seeing, those theories were being contested, even well into the start of the 20th Century. So, at least as far as I can tell, it really is historically inaccurate at best and downright dishonest at worst to suggest that we've all known that the earth was a spinning, heliocentric globe for the past 500 years. It's barely been a hundred years that any large quantity of the human population has believed in this model.
Meanwhile, as Godly men were taking a stand for the truth of Scripture at the turn of the 20th Century, the late 1890s also ushered in a uniquely dark figure named Aleister Crowley. Born in 1875 to devout Christian (Plymouth Brethren) parents, his own mother referred to him as "the Beast," a title he would later fully embrace. He attended Trinity College, Cambridge for 3 years, beginning in 1895, where he would lead a very sexually promiscuous lifestyle, even engaging in sex with prostitutes and homosexual activity, all while fostering an increasing interest in esoteric occult practices.
In August 1898, Crowley was in Zermatt, Switzerland, where he met the chemist Julian L. Baker, and the two began discussing their common interest in alchemy.[31] Back in London, Baker introduced Crowley to George Cecil Jones, a member of the occult society known as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which had been founded in 1888.[32] Crowley was initiated into the Outer Order of the Golden Dawn on 18 November 1898 by the group's leader, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers. The ceremony took place at the Isis-Urania Temple in London's Mark Masons Hall, where Crowley accepted his motto and magical name of "Frater Perdurabo", a Latin term meaning "Brother I shall endure to the end".[33] Biographers Richard Spence and Tobias Churton have suggested that Crowley joined the Order under the command of the British secret services to monitor the activities of Mathers, who was known to be a Carlist.[34]
Crowley moved from the Hotel Cecil to his own luxury flat at 67–69 Chancery Lane. He soon invited a senior Golden Dawn member, Allan Bennett, to live with him as his personal magical tutor. Bennett taught Crowley more about ceremonial magic and the ritual use of drugs, and together they performed the rituals of the Goetia,[35] until Bennett left for South Asia to study Buddhism.[36] In November 1899, Crowley purchased Boleskine House in Foyers on the shore of Loch Ness in Scotland. He developed a love of Scottish culture, describing himself as the "Laird of Boleskine" and took to wearing traditional highland dress, even during visits to London.[37] He continued writing poetry, publishing Jezebel and Other Tragic Poems, Tales of Archais, Songs of the Spirit, Appeal to the American Republic, and Jephthah in 1898–99; most gained mixed reviews, and the latter was a critical success.[38]
Crowley soon progressed through the grades of the Golden Dawn, and was ready to enter the inner Second Order.[39] He was unpopular in the group; his bisexuality and libertine lifestyle had gained him a bad reputation, and he developed feuds with members like W.B. Yeats.[40] When the London Golden Dawn refused to initiate Crowley into the Second Order, he visited Mathers in Paris, who personally upgraded him.[41]
* * *
In 1900, Crowley travelled to Mexico via the United States, settling in Mexico City and taking a local woman as his mistress. Developing a love of the country, he continued experimenting with ceremonial magic, working with John Dee's Enochian invocations. He later claimed to have been initiated into Freemasonry while in the city, and spending time writing, he wrote a play based on Richard Wagner's Tannhäuser as well as a series of poems, published as Oracles (1905).
* * *
Briefly stopping at Japan and Hong Kong, Crowley reached Ceylon, where he met with Allan Bennett, who was there studying Shaivism. The pair spent some time in Kandy before Bennett decided to become a Buddhist monk in the Theravada tradition, travelling to Burma to do so.[48] Crowley decided to tour India, devoting himself to the Hindu practice of raja yoga, from which he claimed to have achieved the spiritual state of dhyana. He spent much of this time studying at the Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madura, and also wrote poetry which was published as The Sword of Song (1904). He contracted malaria, and had to recuperate from the disease in Calcutta and Rangoon.[49]
* * *
In February 1904, Crowley and Rose arrived in Cairo. Claiming to be a prince and princess, they rented an apartment in which Crowley set up a temple room and began invoking ancient Egyptian deities, also studying Arabic and Islamic mysticism.[54] According to Crowley's later account, Rose regularly became delirious and informed him "they are waiting for you". On 18 March, she explained that "they" were the god Horus, and on 20 March proclaimed that "the Equinox of the Gods has come." She led him to a nearby museum, where she showed him a seventh-century BCE mortuary stele known as the Stele of Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu (Crowley later termed it the "Stele of Revealing"); Crowley was astounded, for the exhibit's number was 666, the number of the beast in Christian belief.[55]
According to later claims, on 8 April Crowley heard a disembodied voice claiming to be coming from Aiwass, an entity who was the messenger of Horus, or Hoor-Paar-Kraat. Crowley said that he wrote down everything the voice told him over the course of the next three days, and titled it Liber AL vel Legis or The Book of the Law.[56] The book proclaimed that humanity was entering a new Aeon, and that Crowley would serve as its prophet. It stated that a supreme moral law was to be introduced in this Aeon, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", and that people should learn to live in tune with their "True Will". This book, and the philosophy that it espoused, became the cornerstone of Crowley's religion, Thelema.[57] Crowley was unsure what to do with The Book of the Law, and often came to resent it. He ignored the instructions that it commanded him to perform, which included taking the Stele of Revealing from the museum, fortifying his own island, and translating the book into all the world's languages. Instead he sent typescripts of the work to several occultists he knew, and then "put aside the book with relief".[58]
By this time, God is dying out in the hearts and minds of 'intelligent men" and a new age of occultism and self idolization begins to emerge as the 19th Century comes to a close. Perhaps it is also worth noting here that the idea of a spinning globe, orbiting an average sun in an average solar system, whirling about inside a spinning galaxy among billions of galaxies breeds a concept of no boundaries. Evolution also fosters the notion of no higher authority and thus a Crowlian "do as thou wilt" mentality is the natural result - since after all, we are just the fortunate by-product of cosmic accidents and random mutations. There are therefore no boundaries, no rules, no moral laws. There is only "survival of the fittest" in this paradigm. And the fittest eventually begin to think of themselves as gods. See how this works?
But again, let me remind you that by the turn of the 20th Century, many of the ideas of "modern science" were being criticized and challenged by at least a few Godly voices crying in the wilderness of rapidly growing Atheism. Still, with the bogus theories of evolution and the extreme age of the earth now gaining much popularity, thus getting people to turn away from YHWH and the truth of His Word, we began to find ourselves in a "new age" - one that was marked by great leaps in human invention and exploration into "new frontiers," each causing us to feel smarter and smarter, resulting in an attitude of extreme hubris, thus eventually (in the 1960s) leading to a Time Magazine cover asking the question, "Is God dead?"
In 1961, Gianni Vahanian's The Death of God was published. Vahanian argued that modern secular culture had lost all sense of the sacred, lacking any sacramental meaning, no transcendental purpose or sense of providence. He concluded that for the modern mind "God is dead". In Vahanian's vision a transformed post-Christian and post-modern culture was needed to create a renewed experience of deity.
As we saw in Part 2 of this series, the death of God was of course the original goal of Nimrod at the Tower of Babel: Build a monument to human achievement, ascend into Heaven and kill God. As we entered the 20th Century it was not long before we finally came full circle and arrived at our first not-so-subtle direct connection to Nimrod in the age...
Naturally, as you might expect, the 1907-1909 Antarctic expedition really caught my attention. Again, according to my research, Nimrod was born in 1908AM (year since Creation). According to Genesis 11, his goal was to build a tower (go up) to "reach into heaven." Then in 1907-1909 "The Nimrod Expedition" headed south, to the place where, according to the Flat Earth model our earth meets with the foundation of heaven! Is that just a coincidence? Could they have been trying to "reach into heaven" also? This time by going to the edge of the firmament enclosure (dome)? Who knows? Frankly, I have not seen anything in the character of Shackleton, which would lead me to believe that was his goal. From what I have read and seen, he strikes me as simply an adventurer. Still, the name of the ship and the destination have me quite intrigued. I mean, come on! Really? The timing is way too coincidental if you ask me.
In the next blog, we will continue with the Antarctic exploration timeline, which leads us into the age of the Apollo space program...
COMING UP NEXT: Part 4 - The Beast Goes South (coming soon)
If you have been blessed by these materials and would like to contribute toward our ministry,
please feel free to use the PayPal button below:
Please note, we are NOT a 501c3, which means our message is not regulated by the government,
nor are we able to give you a tax deductible receipt for any contributions.
If you enjoyed this blog, please be sure to "Like" and share it with others, by using the buttons below:
If indeed the Flat Earth Controversy is justified, I believe we can see some interesting patterns emerging from the original motive of Satan and his best Chess piece, Nimrod in the early to mid 1900s AM (after Creation), coming full circle and developing in the early to mid 1900s AD. Summarizing these early developments, I will refer back to my earlier research, which led to the creation of The Nimrod-Abraham Timeline chart (above). Please refer to the Timeline Highlights list I pulled from that chart, which is pictured to the right.
In the modern era, Lamarck is widely remembered for a theory of 
It is in this time period that a man named Charles Lyell rises to fame for calling the Biblical timeline of Creation into question with the publication of his book, 
Charles Robert Darwin, 
Meanwhile, as Godly men were taking a stand for the truth of Scripture at the turn of the 20th Century, the late 1890s also ushered in a uniquely dark figure named Aleister Crowley. Born in 1875 to devout Christian (Plymouth Brethren) parents, his own mother referred to him as "the Beast," a title he would later fully embrace. He attended Trinity College, Cambridge for 3 years, beginning in 1895, where he would lead a very sexually promiscuous lifestyle, even engaging in sex with prostitutes and homosexual activity, all while fostering an increasing interest in esoteric occult practices. 
But again, let me remind you that by the turn of the 20th Century, many of the ideas of "modern science" were being criticized and challenged by at least a few Godly voices crying in the wilderness of rapidly growing Atheism. Still, with the bogus theories of evolution and the extreme age of the earth now gaining much popularity, thus getting people to turn away from YHWH and the truth of His Word, we began to find ourselves in a "new age" - one that was marked by great leaps in human invention and exploration into "new frontiers," each causing us to feel smarter and smarter, resulting in an attitude of extreme hubris, thus eventually (in the 1960s) leading to a Time Magazine cover asking the question, "Is God dead?"