Indeed. However these studies do have detailed methodologies, and are based on technology that have many more papers which analyse their use e.g. space telescopes. In contrast I'm not seeing nearly as strong evidence on the other side for why "aetheric" planets are a more likely reasoning.
You are looking for empirical evidence in a realm that is completely different than the Rockefeller-funded modern empirical train of thought. The ancient civilizations had ways for measuring aether, among other forces of nature that we do not. Most of this knowledge is lost. Though I believe it is coming back into the human consciousness through God's will, for those who seek it.
The very fact that people are unfamiliar with aether in this day and age, is proof that the cabal has control over more knowledge than many people let on.
The photographs from many of these telescopes and space cameras are also very strange, and show strange phenomena when examined under photographic manipulation.
"Plasma moon and fake NASA photos"
Your kabbalist numerology doesn't work when you use real units of measurement like metres and kilometres as are used in the first world countries though, do they?
What kind of argument is this? It is not "my" kabbalist numerology, it is simply kabbalist numerology, as practiced by jews and worshipers of the devil. To answer your question, when you convert 66,616 mph to km/h it yields 107,000. You can't make that argument with radians and degrees however. So it is still 66.6 on its offset. Most first world countries may use meters and kilometers, but the USA and its gigantic money-laundering "outer space" agency NASA do not. They use satanic numbers on purpose, which only adds to the deception.
Just wanted to point out that this picture is full of lies. There is no mention of firmament in Genesis 1, unless you have a fake translation.
I don't claim that this particular artist's rendition is the absolute true depiction, but it is a clever image with the verses in their analogous physical places.
The claim that only a fake translation of the Bible contains the word "firmament" is inaccurate. The term "firmament" is found in several legitimate and widely accepted English translations of the Bible, including some of the most historically significant versions. The Young's Literal Translation completely cuts out the Latin Vulgate. The Wycliffe Bible, the first ever translated into English in the 14th century, continues an uninterrupted translational journey from the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. Funny you would use that version to disprove the use of firmament, without mentioning anything about Robert Young or his choice of words.
Let's get etymological, in the Masoretic text, we have the following:
Genesis 1:6-8 (Masoretic Text):
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃
וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִ֣יעַ׀ ׀ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁר֙ מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֔יעַ וַיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לָרָקִיעַ֙ שָׁמַ֔יִם וַיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שֵׁנִֽי׃
Transliteration:
Vayomer Elohim, yehi
raqia betokh hamayim, viyehi mavdil bein mayim lama'im.
Vayya'as Elohim et-ha'
raqia, vayyavdel bein hamayim asher mitachat la
raqia, uvein hamayim asher me'al laraqia; vayehi-ken.
Vayikra Elohim la'raqia shamayim, vayehi-erev vayehi-voker, yom sheini.
This passage describes the creation of the firmament (
raqia) created by God in the midst of the waters and the separation between the waters below the firmament and the waters above the firmament.
Next we have the earliest compendium of Biblical books, the Septuagint, and the same passage:
Genesis 1:6-8 (Septuagint):Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός, Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος, καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος.Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεός τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος ὃ ἦν ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος· καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτω.Καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ Θεός τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν· καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.
Transliteration:Kai eipen ho Theos, Genēthētō
stereōma en mesō tou hydatos, kai estō diachōrizon ana meson hydatos kai hydatos.Kai epoiēsen ho Theos to
stereōma, kai diechōrisen ana meson tou hydatos ho ēn hypokatō tou stereōmatos, kai ana meson tou hydatos ho ēn epanō tou stereōmatos; kai egeneto houtō.Kai ekalesen ho Theos to
stereōma ouranon; kai egeneto hespera kai egeneto prōi, hēmera deutera.
This Greek passage corresponds to the Septuagint version of the creation account, describing the creation of the "stereōma" (στερέωμα), which parallels the Hebrew term "raqia" and is translated into English as "firmament".
The term "firmament" comes from Latin and Old French roots, meaning "firm" or "stable." In the context of the King James Version (KJV) and some older English translations, "firmament" has been used to represent the Hebrew word "raqia." It can evoke the idea of a solid or firm structure, sometimes understood as a solid dome or vault.
Genesis 1:6-8 (Latin Vulgate):
6 Et ait Deus fiat
firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis7 Et fecit Deus
firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub
firmamento ab his quae erant super
firmamentum et factum est ita8 Et vocavit Deus
firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus
Direct English translation:
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
In this translation, "
firmamentum" is used to convey the idea of a solid boundary or dome that separates the waters above from the waters below. This reflects the interpretation of the Hebrew "raqia" as a firm and solid structure in the sky. The Latin Vulgate was a translation of the Bible into Latin by Saint Jerome in the late 4th century, and it became a widely used version in the Western Christian tradition.
Here is the relevant passage from the Wycliffe Bible:
Genesis 1:6-8 (Wycliffe Bible):
"6 And God said, The firmament be made in the midst of (the) waters, and part (the) waters from (the) waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and parted the waters that were under the firmament, from the waters that were on the firmament [from these that were above the firmament]; and it was done so.
8 And God called the firmament, (the) heaven(s). And the eventide and the morrowtide was made, the second day."
Here is the relevant passage from the King James Version:
Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV):
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters... And God called the firmament Heaven."
The NKJV maintains the term "firmament" in the Genesis narrative:
Genesis 1:6-8 (NKJV):
"Then God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'... And God called the firmament Heaven."
The American Standard Version (ASV), an early 20th-century translation, uses the term "firmament":
Genesis 1:6-8 (ASV):
"And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'... And God called the firmament Heaven."
The Douay-Rheims, a Catholic translation, includes the term "firmament":
Genesis 1:6-8 (DRB):
"And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters... And God called the firmament, Heaven."
And for you Orthodox Christians who use the Russian Synodal Translation:
Genesis 1:6-8 (Synodal Translation):
6. И сказал Бог: да будет твердь посреди воды, и да отделяет воду от воды!
И сотворил Бог твердь, и отделил воду, которая под твердью, от воды, которая над твердью; и стало так.
И нарек Бог твердь небом. И был вечер, и было утро, второй день.
Transliteration:
6: I skazal Bog: da budet
tverd' posredi vody, i da otdelyaet vodu ot vody!
7: I sotvoril Bog
tverd', i otdelil vodu, kotoraya pod tverd'yu, ot vody, kotoraya nad tverd'yu; i stalo tak.
8: I narek Bog
tverd' nebom. I byl vecher, i bylo utro, vtoroy den'.
This passage describes the creation of the firmament (твердь) and the separation of the waters above and below it. The term "твердь" (tverd') corresponds to the concept of the firmament in this translation.
So, are all of these official, historical, and legitimate versions of the Bible fake translations because they all mention the firmament in Genesis 1? The term "firmament" has theological significance. It aligns with historical interpretations of the biblical cosmology, where the firmament serves as a crucial element in the separation of the waters. I think I will take the original Genesis written 15 centuries prior to Christ's birth continued into the 18 and a half centuries after His death with the clearly-defined concept of the firmament rather than a late 19th-century "literal" translation which clearly departs from this.
Robert Young's "Literal" translation that was written in the late 19th century clearly departed from this historically and linguistically transparent definition. It is know for it's "literalism" which results in more cumbersome and less idiomatic English expressions. These are all "interpretive" choices made by the translator. Robert Young preferred to use this term expanse and it clearly is misleading people. He chose a very poor word to substitute firmament for. "Expanse" deals with an openness of space, not defining solidity, or even implying separation, which is clearly what God did in the creation of the Earth by separating the waters below from the waters above.
In Hebrew, when the biblical text refers to the sky or heavens in a more general sense without emphasizing separation, the term "שָׁמַיִם" (shamayim) is often used. This term is commonly translated as "heavens" or "sky." or "expanse" which is not the same as firmament.
The Greek term that is often translated to convey the idea of "expanse" or "space" is "ουρανός" (ouranos). This term is commonly translated as "heaven" or "sky" or "expanse" in English. While "ουρανός" (ouranos) is not a direct equivalent to the Hebrew term "רָקִֽיעַ" (raqia) used in the Old Testament, it is a Greek term used to refer to the celestial or atmospheric realm, with a clearly different connotation. No translation is completely free from interpretation. The original biblical texts were written in specific historical contexts. A literal translation could never fully capture the idioms, metaphors, or historical nuances present in the original writings.
The older the text, the more authentic it is. These scrolls are still in preservation to this day, and they do not describe what these 16th century heretics and hermetic mystics believed in that has taken the world and academia hostage since.
So let's examine most of these passages in scripture to see which one the picture is lying about. Here are the verses from the first ever English translation of the Bible, that are either at odds, in contradiction to, or not describing the heliocentric spherical globe model given to us by these frauds of the Renaissance:
Joshua 10:12-13 (Sun standing still):
"Then Joshua spake to the Lord, in the day in which he betook Amorites in the sight of the sons of Israel; and Joshua said before the people, Sun, be thou not moved against Gibeon, and the moon, against the valley of Ajalon."
Joshua commands the sun to stand still, enforcing a geocentric perspective. If the heliocentric model were correct, the Earth should not be able to command the sun to stop moving.
Psalm 104:5 (Earth established):
"Which hast sfounded the earth on his stableness; it shall not be bowed into the world of world (Who hast set the earth on its foundations; yea, it shall never be moved, or shaken.)
"It will never move," this directly contrasts Earth's motion in a heliocentric system.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 (Sun Rising and Setting):
"The sun riesth [up], and goeth down, and turneth again to his place (and returneth to its place); and there it riseth again,"
This passage suggests the sun in motion over the earth, not the opposite.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (Earth Unmoved):
"All earth be moved from his face, for he hath founded the world unmoveable. (All the earth tremble before him; for he hath made the world immovable.)"
Another reinforcement of the immovable earth which contradicts the heliocentric model.
Job 38:4-7 (Foundations of the Earth):
"Where were thou, when I set the foundaments of the earth? (when I made the foundations of the earth?) show thou to me, if thou hast understanding.
Who setted [the] measure(ment)s thereof, if thou knowest? Either who stretched forth a line thereupon?
Upon what thing be the foundaments thereof made (stead)fast? either who sent down the cornerstone thereof,
when the morrow stars praised me together, and all the songs of God sang joyfully?"
The foundations of the earth and the morning stars singing together, this supports a stationary Earth at the center of the cosmos.
Psalm 19:4-6 (Sun's Circuit):
"The sound of them went out into all (the) earth; and the words of them into the ends of the world. In the sun he hath set his tabernacle (in the sky he hath pitched a tent for the sun);
and he as a spouse coming forth of his chamber. He fully joyed, as a giant, to run his way; (and the sun is like a spouse coming forth from his bed-chamber. It rejoiced, like a strong man, who runneth his race).
His going out was from [the] highest heaven. And his going again was to the highest thereof; and none there is that hideth himself from his heat. (it went out from the heights of the heavens, and that is also to where it returned. And there is nothing that can hide from its heat/And nothing is hidden from its heat.)"
The sun having a circuit is inconsistent with the heliocentric model. It describes the glory of God reflected in the created order. The majority of unbelieving scholars do not interpret these passages as providing a detailed cosmological model. Instead, they understand them as expressions of the poetic and metaphorical language used in ancient texts rather than words that convey spiritual and theological truths.
Isaiah 40:21-22 (Circle of the Earth):
"Whether ye know not? whether ye heard not? whether it was not told to you from the beginning? whether ye understood not (from) the foundaments of [the] earth?
Which sitteth on the compass of [the] earth, and the dwellers thereof be as locusts; which stretcheth forth heavens as nought, and spreadeth abroad those as a tabernacle to dwell (in). (It is he who sitteth above, or over, the roundness of the earth, and its inhabitants be like grasshoppers; it is he who stretcheth forth the heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them abroad like a tent to live in.)"
The term circle also is linguistically different than sphere in both Hebrew and Greek, and geometrically in our English understanding it is as well. The mid-realm of the tripartite cosmology (Heaven - Earth - Hell) was always depicted as a circular disc and not a spheroid.
Job 26:7-11 (Earth Suspended):
"7 The which God stretcheth forth the north upon (a) void thing, and he hangeth the earth upon nought.
8 And he bindeth waters in their clouds, that those break not out (al)together downward. (And he bindeth up the waters in the clouds, so that they do not burst open.)
9 He holdeth the cheer of his seat, and spreadeth abroad thereon his cloud. (He spreadeth his cloud upon the surface of his throne.)
10 He hath (en)compassed a term, or an end, to (the) waters, till that light and darkness be ended. (He hath surrounded the waters with a border, where light and darkness meet.)
11 The pillars of heaven tremble, and dread at his will. (The pillars of heaven tremble, and fear his will.)"
The earth hanging upon nothing certainly is not consistent with a heliocentric model.
Revelation 7:1 (Four Corners of the Earth):
"After these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding [the] four winds of the earth, that they blew not on the earth [that they blow not on the earth], neither on the sea, neither on any tree."
The mention of four corners as an indication of an earth that doesn't fit the heliocentric model.
Daniel 4:10-11 (Tree visible to the ends of the Earth):
"10 This is the vision of mine head in my bed. I saw, and lo! a tree was in the midst of (the) earth, and the highness thereof was full great. (This is the vision that I had in my head on my bed. I saw, and lo! a tree was in the midst of the earth, and its height was very great.)
11 And the tree was great and strong, and the height thereof touched heaven (and its height touched the heavens, or the sky), and the beholding thereof was unto the ends of all (the) earth."
How could a tree be visible to all the earth on the heliocentric globe spheroid model?
1 Samuel 2:8 (Earth's foundations are the Lord's priority):
"He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. For the foundations of the earth are the Lord's; on them he has set the world."
This describes a static, immovable Earth.
Likewise the rest of your post is full of errors. I would encourage you to slow down on your thinking, be more rigorous of your assumptions, and to check your sources.
Please consider what I have posted in good faith to generate discussion, not dismissal without even briefly getting into it! Which parts of my post are in error that you are are referring to, the documentaries? This apotheosis mindset that carried down from Lucifer through all the "enlightened" minds of the millenniums into the present day? I wasn't bashing Aristotle, I was simply connecting how these men took his work in "Politics" literally to encapsulate ruling over the masses with as much of a lie to keep their minds forever closed off with minute models and concepts. I'm certain that those sources have not been getting their funding by the Rothschilds or any other usual suspects.
The historical bigger picture is not full of errors. The heliocentric spherical globe model, in summation, is the result of a 16th century mystical clique and their succession of teachings circle-jerking each other to gain favors between the altercating Catholic Church and the budding Protestant movements.
It seems the arguments are at an impasse, in the minds of the heliocentric-believing cosmologists, I offer solutions that go beyond the measurement of scientific tools, and though I cannot give them the proof they seek in their mind to see heliocentrism as a lie, I have shown all the other lies that surround it. What people accuse flat earthers of doing is exactly what they are doing to die on this hill of heliocentrism, it has become a case of people twisting the Bible to fit the heliocentric model with these later "English" bastardizations of the Word, instead of attempting to honorably extract the depiction of the nature of the earth and the cosmos from the scripture themselves.
Here is a philosophical tidbit from our own human perspective. How can the constraints of fallen flesh and original sin be confined to one species on one spherical planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe, where jewish abstract scientists and other atheistically-minded speculators theorize many universes exist to then further remove an all-powerful and all-knowing all-loving God out of the picture of this special and unique creation? You cannot have universal insignificance juxtaposed with Adamic priority and Christian redemption in the same reality. Concession to this heliocentric model in its absoluteness with all of its other theoretical components constitutes a breach in truth-seeking, therefore I must argue against it to the best of my discernment.
To submit something new for discussion is also the concepts that were starting to emerge in the 1950s but were shut down with the mass spellcraft of NASA's "space program".
The sky is a giant clock, it is a watch that tells people God's intentions. It always has, and it should be this way, but this was lost a long time ago.
Luke 21:
25: "And tokens shall be in the sun, and the moon, and in the stars; and in the earth overlaying of folks, for confusion of the sound of the sea and of floods [for confusion of sound of the sea and waves];"
Even this scientist was sure that collective theories about the moon being cosmic plasma, and not a piece of rock, were going to be proven true, but he was silenced:
"Professor Robert Foster - The Moon is Plasma"
"
Concepts of science based on Aristotelian logic have a certain purpose but is defined by a statement as "a spade is a spade or a fine chisel is a fine chisel" but these concepts are inadequate for complete understanding of the real nature of the world.
The moon is not a piece of rock, but it is plasma, plasma phenomena, cosmic plasma, and this fact will eventually be confirmed. The result will be profound and decisive, because it will give proof that a complete reinvestigation of the laws of nature will be necessary, because if the moon is a plasma, no man will ever land on it, the self-landing attempts will all fail. That means that the mass of the moon is less, far less than currently assumed, it's in a different state of energy, and it has far less mass. That means there is no more explanation for the tides. If it is proven that the moon is plasma then all gravitational theories are out, and the new concepts of the cosmos and its laws has to be evolved.
"
The moon not being a giant rock the quarter the size of earth, as they tell us, would certainly cause issues with gravity. Gravity is nothing but a theory. If gravity were real, the amount of gravity required to hold me down to earth and prevent me from floating into space, would crush a baby, would ground a butterfly into dust. Instead of gravity, we should be discussing density and buoyancy, and static electric aether.
"Buoyancy and Density: Not Gravity"
Here is an earlier book from 1873 called "The Romance of Astronomy" where it is also conceptualized that the moon is a mirror of the earth:
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/eratosthenes_photo-5c8d7bcc46e0fb00016ee0b8.jpg)
