History of Cosmology: Flat Earth to Geocentrism to Heliocentrism

All the ancient cosmologies depicted a flat earth with a firmament of some kind and were very similar in nature. There is an extremely important reason for this, and try to follow this complicated line of reasoning: The reason why the ancients thought the earth was flat, is because that is what we see and experience. That is an extremely important point and try not to let it escape your attention. The History of Cosmology confirms that the evidence of the senses of mankind dictate that we are existing on a plane interface, not a spinning ball.



[William Fairfield Warren, The Earliest Cosmologies]

Dr. J.L.E. Dreyer states in his History Of The Planetary Systems From Thales To Kepler (Cambridge University Press, 1906), 3-4,

“Among the Egyptians equally primitive notions prevailed. They imagined the whole universe to be like a large box, nearly rectangular in form, the greatest extent being in the direction from north to south, the direction in which their own country extended. The earth formed the bottom of this box, being a narrow, oblong, and slightly concave floor with Egypt in its centre. The sky stretched over it like an iron ceiling, flat according to some, vaulted according to others; its earthward face was sprinkled with lamps hung from cords or more generally supposed to be carried by deities, extinguished  or unperceived by day but visible to us at night. This ceiling was at first supposed to be supported by four columns, but afterwards these were superseded by four lofty mountain peaks rising at the four cardinal points and connected by a continuous chain of mountains.”

Chaldea and Babylon


[Maspero, The Dawn of Civilization, 543]

Famous French Egyptologist Maspero explains the Chaldean Cosmology in his The Dawn of Civilization 542-543,

“the world was a kind of enclosed chamber balanced on the bosom of the eternal waters. The earth which forms the lower part of it, or floor, is something like an overturned boat in appearance, and hollow underneath…the earth rises gradually…like a great mountain, of which the snow region, where the Euphrates finds its source, approximately marks the summit.”



The ancient Greek cosmology is explained by Homer and Hesiod.

“Professor of Classics (Emeritus) Mark W. Edwards in his The Iliad. A commentary (1991, p.231) has noted of Homer’s usage of the flat earth disc in the Iliad: “Okeanos…surrounds the pictures on the shield and he surrounds the flat disc of the earth on which men and women work out their lives”. Quoted in The shield of Achilles and the poetics of ekphrasis, Andrew Sprague Becker, Rowman & Littlefield, 1995, p.148”


The Noahic Cosmology in William Warren’s The Earliest Cosmologies


The above image is a popular construction of the Biblical Flat Earth cosmology however I do have a slight problem with it concerning Sheol and its relation to the doctrine of the Soul which I reject. You can read about this on my blog page: THE SOUL AND THE SERPENT SEED DOCTRINES REFUTED. I will have a booklet out on this soon but for now the blog page will suffice. I agree with Warren’s construction below save to accommodate a heavenly sanctuary and the pool structure for the waters above the firmament.


“In the first place, it is plain that a rift through the solid earth of the Babylonians would as effectually carry engulfed men into the underworld as would a somewhat shorter rift through the upper half of the hollow disklike earth presented us by Whitehouse and Schiaparelli.

In the second place, if Sheol was really believed to be an enormous cavern in the bowels of the earth, reached in Korah’s case by an extemporized entrance, where was the ordinary and normal entrance for Korah’s countrymen in general? Barbarians have been known to point out cave-mouths supposed by them to lead to an underworld, but no biblical writer has a hint respecting any such earth-piercing path divinely provided for all ghosts descending to Sheol. Granting the existence of such a path, where was its upper end, its entrance gate? In the territory of which tribe was the uncanny rift, the rendezvous of all the newly dead? If it was beyond the bounds of the Holy Land, to what unhallowed heathen land were the pious and unpious ghosts of Israel compelled to journey in search of the tunnelmouth through which they could hope to reach their long home and be gathered to their fathers? Such questions need no answer; they belong to a world utterly foreign to Hebrew thought.

Possibly someone will deny the need of any such tunnel in the case of ghosts, and claim that according to Hebrew belief the disembodied spirit in the moment of its disembodiment received power to penetrate the soil and the unrifted rock overarching the Sheol cavity. But this is to go quite beyond the evidence. Nowhere do the biblical writers claim or imply that solid material barriers impose no limitations upon the free movements of a disembodied human spirit. Furthermore, in case the soil and every part of the solid earth were as freely traversable by disembodied human spirits as the present supposition implies, the need of any cavern for the assembled and assembling spirits in the heart of the earth would be quite done away. Matter-filled space would be as available as any other.

In the third place, the most ancient known pictures of a human soul after separation from the body represent it as winged, and birdlike. Illustrations in Egyptian art are numberless. Babylonian texts imply the same representation. In perfect accord with this idea are the words found in the psalm traditionally considered the oldest and most impressive in the Bible, the ninetieth, wherein we read that our fleeting life is soon cut off, but as soon as it is cut off “we fly away.” Verily, wings were a strange equipment for penetrating the geologic strata beneath our feet!

Finally, if we may trust the exegesis of the apostle Paul, his countrymen, like the Babylonians, considered a passage across the ocean the same thing as a descent to the deep abodes of the dead. A comparison of Deut. 30. 11-13, with Rom. 10. 6-8, shows that he interprets the one transit as the perfect equivalent of the other.

Passing now from negative considerations to the question, What view of the universe was held by the writers of the Old and New Testament? six points of fundamental import should be noted:

First. Inasmuch as the Hebrews were younger kinsmen of the East Semites and their tribal territories in Canaan long under earlier Babylonian influence, and inasmuch as their earliest calendrical terms and adjustments, such as the names of the months, the beginning of the year, etc., were of Euphratean origin, there is a strong antecedent probability that their astronomic and cosmologic ideas also were directly or indirectly derived from the Babylonians (or from the ancestors of both peoples[Exactly my point. They got it from Noah. -DS]), and corresponded to the Euphratean.

Second. The Hebrew use of a plural term for the heavens, sometimes intensified to “the heaven of heavens,” precisely corresponds with the immemorial Babylonian usage, and implies in the thought of the Hebrew writers a plurality of heavens. Professor Salmond, after a recent reexamination of the whole question, wrote: “In view of the evidence, the most reasonable conclusion is that the conception of the heavens which pervades the Old Testament and the New (not excepting the Pauline writings, though Saint Paul mentions only the third heaven and Paradise) is that of a series of seven heavens.”

Third. The biblical references to the “four corners 0f the earth,” and cognate expressions, imply a conception of the earth corresponding in this particular to the BabyIonian as above interpreted. Even the “New Earth” in the Apocalypse is in the form of a foursquare terraced city, whose length and breadth and height are equal (Rev. 21. 16).

Fourth. The Old and New Testament passages that contrast the depth of Sheol or Hades with the height of the heavens, and those which speak of “The Kingdom of the Heavens,” or of Christ as having “passed through the heavens,” or of him as being “made higher than the heavens”—not to speak of others—acquire a new interest and a new pertinency the moment they are interpreted in harmony with the cosmological views first discoverable among the ancient Babylonians, but later—with only trifling modifications—current in the teachings of all the historically known Hellenic astronomers.

Fifth. The already noticed equation of an over-sea voyage (Deut. 30. 11-13) and a descensus ad inferos (Rom. 10. 6-8) is no slight indication that in Hebrew thought the relation of the upper to the under world was precisely the same as in the Babylonian. So in Job 38. 16, 17, the uninterrupted passage of the poet’s thought from “the recesses of the sea” to the “gates of death” may well be another indication of this habitual association of the two realms—just as in Homeric thought the realm of Aides ever borders upon that of Poseidon.

Sixth. Philo of Alexandria, the most distinguished contemporary of Jesus among Jewish teachers (born B.C. 20), regarded the universe as made up of the seven concentric planetary spheres, together with the all-including eighth sphere, and the central earth around which all revolved.

On the whole, then, there are excellent reasons for believing that the universe of the Old and New Testament writers, like that of the earliest traceable Semites, was not of the “dish-and-cover” pattern, but rather of the old upright-axled and poly-uranian type. Professor Salmond goes so far as to say, “The evidence is all in favor of the affirmative”—that is, in favor of the opinion that the conception of a series of heavens is found in the Scriptures. Then he adds: “But the evidence which bears out the existence of the idea of a plurality of heavens also favors the idea of a sevenfold series of heavens.” A study of the apocryphal literature only reinforces the evidence. Take for an example the Slavonian “Book of the Secrets of Enoch.” Robert Henry Charles, everywhere recognized as the foremost authority on this newly discovered work, remarks: “The detailed account of the seven heavens in this book has served to explain difficulties in Old Testament conceptions of the heavens, and has shown beyond the reach of controversy that the sevenfold division of the heavens was accepted by Saint Paul, and by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and probably in the book of Revelation.” The ancient apocryphal treatise known as The Ascension of Isaiah describes each of the seven heavens with no less particularity.

Passing to authentic Rabbinical literature we find the counterpart to all this; that is to say, a clear recognition of the sevenfold division of the space below the earth. And, as in the Babylonian conception, so also in the Rabbinical, each underworld as one descends is vaster than the last. And as in the Indo-Aryan conception the south-polar demons spend half the year in darkness and half in the blaze of the sun, so in the Rabbinical the occupants of the lowest hell have as torments alternating heat and cold, each six months in duration. This, of course, helps to identify the location of the Rabbinical Inferno as at one of the terrestrial poles. In all descriptions of such regions we are apt to meet with details and amplifications more or less fantastic, and in the present case they are not lacking. The Jalkut Rubeni, for example, gives the following: “The seven abodes of Sheol are very spacious; and in each there are seven rivers of fire and seven rivers of hail. The uppermost abode is sixty times less than the second, and thus the second is sixty times larger than the first, and every abode is sixty times larger than that which precedes it. In each abode are seven thousand caverns, and in each cavern seven thousand clefts, and in each cleft seven thousand scorpions; each scorpion hath seven limbs, and on each limb are one thousand barrels of gall. There are likewise seven rivers of rankest poison, which when a man toucheth he bursteth; and the destroying angels judge him and scourge him every moment, half the year in the fire, and half the year in the hail and snow. And the cold is more intolerable than the fire.”

It hardly need be added that the heavens of Rabbinical tradition were seven and that “in the Rabbinical point of view, the superb throne of King Solomon, with the six steps leading up to it, was a symbol of the highest heaven with the throne of the Eternal above the six inferior heavens (1 Kings 10. 18-20).’” In the Rabbinical descriptions of the heavens and hells one striking feature has often caused remark. The two regions are said to “adjoin or touch each other” (Jewish Encyclopaedia, ix, 517). But if the abode of God is almost infinitely above our earth, and the abode of the lost as far below, how can the two be said to “join”? In this many writers have found only contradiction and absurdity. A glance at our diagram of the Pre-Babylonian Universe removes every difficulty and reveals entire consistency of thought. By showing that the heavens and hells are simply the upper and nether halves of the earth-inclosing spheres of the universe, the diagram gives optical demonstration that each heaven and each corresponding hell must be in mutual contact at every point of their equatorial junction.

Should any reader desire further light upon this particular world-view, he is recommended to turn to the article entitled “Hebrew Visions of Hell and Paradise,” printed in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain, in the volume for the year 1893. Therein the author, M. Gaster, Ph.D., translates for the first time into English a number of ancient texts in some of which Moses is represented as by God’s permission and help making a tour of inspection through the seven heavens, the hells, and Paradise. Wonderful regions are found and beings of incredible dimensions.”[1]


The Sphere Model


The sphere model of the Earth arose from the Greek Philosophers Parmenides and Pythagoras.

Dr. J.L.E. Dreyer states again,

“Notwithstanding the close connection of his philosophical doctrines with those of Xenophanes, Parmenides was able to perceive the spherical form of the earth, and he deserves great credit for having taken this great step forward, which no philosopher outside the Pythagorean school was sufficiently unprejudiced to take till Plato appeared. Theophrastus attributed the discovery to Parmenides and not to Pythagoras [Diog. L. viii. 48 ; comp. ix. 21, where it is said that Parmenides was the first to assert the spherical form.],and the former was therefore probably the first to announce it in writing. He is also said to have been the first to divide the earth into five zones, of which he made the central, torrid and uninhabited one, nearly twice as broad as it was afterwards reckoned to be, extending beyond the circles of the tropics into the temperate zones 3. We cannot doubt that the true figure of the earth was first made clear through the reports of travellers about certain stars becoming circumpolar when the observer proceeded to the north of the Euxine, while a very bright star (Canopus), invisible in Greece, was just visible above the horizon at Rhodes, and rose higher the further the navigator went south.”(Pg. 20)


The Cosmology of the Pythagorean School was not based on any Eastern or Egyptian influence.

“Pythagoras was born at Samos about the year 580, settled at Kroton in the south of Italy about 540 or 530, and died there or at Metapontum somewhere about the year 500 or very soon after. He is said by later writers to have travelled a good deal in the East and to have been indebted for much of his knowledge of science to what he had learned during his travels. The earliest notice of his stay in Egypt occurs in a panegyric on an imaginary Egyptian king by the orator Isokrates more than a hundred years after the death of Pythagoras, but it is a question whether an incidental allusion to his having brought Egyptian wisdom to Greece may be accepted as historical evidence, occurring as it does in a work of fiction. Later on his travels to Egypt and Babylon and his studies there were commonly accepted as historical tarts and are referred to by many writers, a circumstance which is doubt-less connected with the tendency of the Greeks to associate the rise of their own civilisation in every possible way with the older civilisations of the East . But whether Pythagoras may have laid the first foundation of his great proficiency in mathematics in Babylonia or Egypt is a problem that does not concern us here, as we have absolutely no reason to believe that the strange system of the world which was developed within the Pythagorean school has in any way been founded on Eastern ideas. In the course of time important changes appear to have taken place within the school with regard to philosophical and scientific doctrines, but we are very imperfectly informed as to the chronology of these changes. It is therefore very doubtful to whom most of the Pythagorean doctrines are due, whether to the founder of the school or to his successors; but whenever a particular Pythagorean is credited with a doctrine it is reasonable to suppose this to be true, as there was a general inclination later on to attribute as much as possible to Pythagoras himself.

The leading idea of the Pythagorean philosophy is that number is everything, that number not merely represents the relations of the phenomena to each other but is the substance of things, the cause of every phenomenon of nature. Pythagoras and his followers were led to this assumption by perceiving how everything in nature is governed by numerical relations, how the celestial motions are performed with regularity, and how the harmony of musical sounds depends on regular intervals, the numerical valuation of which they were the first to determine. It is not here the place to set forth how combinations of odd and even numbers (the perfect and the imperfect) were supposed to produce everything in the world, but we must not omit to mention that the world was supposed to be ruled by harmony, all the different heavenly revolutions producing different tones, so that each of the planets and the sphere of the fixed stars emitted its own particular musical sound, which our ears are unable to hear because we have heard them from our birth, though it was afterwards asserted that Pythagoras alone of all mortals could hear them. It seemed, as Plato says, “that the ears of man were intended to follow harmonious movements, just as his eyes were intended to detect the motions of the heavenly bodies, these two being sister sciences, as the Pythagoreans declare.” This theory of the harmony of the spheres was elaborated in detail long after the time of Pythagoras, and we shall revert to it when discussing the opinions of the ancients on the distances of the planets. We shall here only remind the reader that Pythagoras was a great mathematician, a fact which is at the root of his philosophical system, and which would doubtless have carried his followers very far in astronomical research, as their school continued while it lasted to be the main seat of mathematical studies, if they had not at an early stage got into a wrong groove.

The Pythagorean school seems to have come to an end in the course of the fourth century, though religious mysteries, which had gradually taken the place of philosophical speculation among its members, continued to exist throughout the Alexandrian period. At the beginning of the first century B.C. Pythagorean doctrines began again to take their place in the realm of thought, and now we find for the first time special opinions as to the construction of the world attributed to Pythagoras himself, in an account by Alexander Polyhistor, quoted by Diogenes Laertius. According to this, Pythagoras taught that the world is formed of the four elements (earth, water, air, fire), that it is endowed with life and intellect, and is of a spherical figure, having in its centre the earth, which is also spherical and inhabited all over, that there are antipodes and that what is below as respects us is above in respect to them. In another place (vm. 48) Diogenes says that, according to Favorinus, Pythagoras was the first to call the heavens Koajxos and the earth round, though Theophrastus attributed this to Parmenides and Zeno to Hesiodus (!)…

There is no reason to doubt that he knew the earth to be a sphere, though the fact that Aristotle’s disciple Theophrastus attributed the discovery of the true figure of the earth to Parmenides seems to show that while the latter (who flourished about 500 B.C. or a little later) taught it openly and as an important part of his views of the world, Pythagoras accepted the spherical figure from the supposed necessity of the earth and the heavens being of the same shape, without devoting special attention to the construction of the world.”[2]

Dreyer maintains that the source of Heliocentrism cannot be Egypt,

“There is, indeed, no proof whatever that the astronomers or priests of ancient Egypt, either during the time of the Pharaohs or later, were aware of the fact that Mercury and Venus travel round the sun. On the contrary, Achilles states distinctly that the Egyptians placed the sun fourth in order, ” which the Greeks call the sixth[Isagoge in Arati Phenom. 17, Petavius, iii. P. 80.] .”[3]

The idea that the earth is not the center of the universe but orbits around a central fire later to be understood as the sun, comes from the Greek Pythagorean Philosophers Philolaus and Aristarchus. Dreyer states,

“Philolaus and his adherents were perhaps influenced by these considerations, and they considered the nature of the earth too gross to make it fit for the exalted position of occupying the centre of the universe. In this commanding position they placed the “central fire,” also described as the hearth of the universe or the watch-tower of Zeus, round which the earth and all the other heavenly bodies moved in circular orbits.[ Arist. De Caelo, II. 8, p. 293b;…Plutarch,  Numa, c. xi.; Stobaeus, Diels, p. 336; Aet. iii. 11, p. 377.]”[4]


Thus, the original Greek Astronomy which dominated until the time of Copernicus was the Geocentric Two Sphere model. The Ancient Greek Astronomy maintained that the universe was composed of two great Spheres. The Earth and a surrounding sphere where the stars were fixed into.



Aristotle proposed a Geocentric model but it was Ptolemy’s model that has most dominated the history of Astronomy.


Ptolemy constructed his model as a Geocentric universe containing a complex web of orbits and epicycles. A common mistake that has so deceived the academic world is that Copernicus’ system was said to be the simpler system because earlier he affirmed only 34 epicycles. Yet his 1543 construction contained 48 epicycles, 8 more than Ptolemy.[5]


The Christian Era


Medieval Theologians attempted to synchronize the Greek Geocentric Two Sphere Model with Scripture, such as the model above presented by the Venerable Bede. Is this an honest description of the firmament mentioned in Genesis 1? No. Gen. 1:7 states, “And Elohim made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.” Here we have the firmament and the heavenly waters relating to a plane interface not a round or spherical interface. Notice the waters are not around the Earth and around the firmament. They are under and above the firmament. This denotes a flat plane interface. The word under here is the Hebrew tachath, Strongs H8478. The Lexicon states,

“The KJV translates Strongs H8478 in the following manner:

insteadunder,foraswithfromflatin the same place.”[6]

Interesting that this word is never translated as around but is actually translated flat on one occurrence! This is devastating because the waters under the firmament in verses 9-10 are said to be on the same level as the land! Yah just called the Seas flat! Much the same can be derived from an examination of the Hebrew word translated above.[7] This is why we read in Gen. 1:2, 29 that the Earth has a face and the waters have a face. That is because they are a plane interface.

Thus, we read in Gen. 1:14-15 that Yah also made the celestial bodies to give light upon the earth, also denoting a plane interface as we read in Ecclesiastes that we are UNDER the Sun. We are not rotating around the Sun according to the Bible. This again denotes a plane interface.

Thus, we now proceed into modern Astronomy.





Copernicus was a 15th-16th century Roman Catholic Doctor of Canon Law. It may shock the reader to know that Copernicus’ model is radically different from the Heliocentric model we know of today. Copernicus’s system was still an enclosed system utilizing the ancient concept of the celestial spheres. Moreover, motion was not relative for the sun is motionless and fixed in the center of the universe, far different from the infinite universe of the modern model.

Tycho Brahe


Copernicus’ model, though vastly influential did not convince the totality of the Astronomical Academia of the 16th century. Quite the contrary, the master of Astronomy in the subsequent Generation, Tycho Brahe, rejected it for his own Geocentric construction. However, in order to do so he made significant concessions to Copernicus and he had to dispose of the very Scriptures he claimed he so profoundly respected.

  1. Brahe gave significant emphasis to the Sun never before given to it in previous Geocentric models, grounding all of the motion of the stars and planets on the Sun.
  2. Brahe abrogated the celestial spheres and thus disposed of the Bible’s teaching on the firmament completely. Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis 1, laid the groundwork for this apostasy and later Liberal and Neo-Orthodox views of Scripture by disposing of the Firmament and attributing it to the clouds.

Brahe’s disciple Johannes Kepler picked up from Brahe’s work and led the West into a full acceptance of the Heliocentric Model of Copernicus. Primary arguments concerned the retrograde motion of Mars and the Moons of Jupiter discovered by Jesuit trained Roman Catholic Galileo.


The biggest problem facing Kepler was the lack of Annual Parallax which remains a damning problem to this very day. I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS MORE FOLKS. You must read Samuel Rowbotham’s Zetetic Astronomy Chapter III on this issue. It is one of the most if not the most important issue in this debate. This argument of no annual parallax is impossible on the Heliocentric model. It is for this reason that many believe Kepler assassinated Brahe to remove his troublesome presence and to gain access to Brahe’s resources after Brahe died of a mysterious sudden illness after attending a banquet in Prague.

Recently, Kepler has been exposed for his relationship with Jesuit Paul Guldin.


The modern era of Astronomy is less interesting a development as the principles of determination have been completely theoretical, Kepler making inductive conclusions from observations of retrograde motion and Sir Isaac Newton making even more inductive conclusions from Kepler’s inductive conclusions in the development of his theory of gravity.  I will devote an entire section to Newton in the coming weeks.

Georges Lemaître


The next big player in the History of Astronomy is Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaitre. This man created the Big Bang Theory and is the single biggest influence on Einstein. In 1933, Lemaitre gave a lecture on his Big Bang Theory at a series of seminars in California. Einstein, who was present in the audience, stood up and said,

“This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe by Helge Kragh (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996), 55

This man, Georges Lemaitre is probably the most influential person in modern western history. His view of the Universe and the nature of our reality is the view of most Western people. Why is it, that this man’s role in our modern world is so rarely touched upon in Schools?

The modern view of Cosmology is not a product of honest investigative truth seeking but is a psychological operation lead by the Jesuit Order pursuant to their Counter-Reformation and their devotion to Joachim of Fiore.

Folks, the role of the Jesuit Order of the Roman Catholic Church in the affairs and development of the modern world cannot be ignored. I believe these people are the most influential and powerful people in the world and are behind all of the primary deceptions and social ills in the modern world.

I have cataloged the primary players and the primary actions enacted by these men in my book  A Timeline of Jesuit Intrigue. My primary thesis is this: These men are devoted to an ancient Catholic Prophecy of a Medieval Monk named Joachim of Fiore. His Three Age Prophecy maintained that there are 3 ages of the world. The Age of the Father, which was the Jewish Theocracy, the age of the Son which was the Traditional Feudal Catholic Civilization and the Age of the Spirit which is the worldview that has been developing now for over 200 years, which is a mystic anarcho-communist worldview birthed in the ancient monasteries of the Buddhists and perfected in the Catholic monasteries but especially the Jesuit Order. This movement is determined to overthrow all traditional religion and traditional hierarchical social structure. In order to pull this off, the Jesuit Order sees to it, that their primary accomplishments to eradicate all the ancient ways of life, are blamed on the Jews as their scapegoat. The above history of Einstein and Lemaitre is a perfect example of what I am proposing. But there is no doubt who has constructed the reality of the modern world and it sure is not the Jews. To summarize:

  1. As has been demonstrated, the Jewish Cosmology taught in the Bible is Flat Earth Geocentrism, while the Heliocentric model has been constructed almost entirely by Catholics and Jesuit Priests, Copernicus himself being a doctor of Canon Law.
  2. Galileo was trained by Jesuits via the curriculum he was under at the University of Pisa which was sourced in the Jesuit Collegio Romano.
  3. Kepler’s Jesuit Coadjutors were Paul Guldin and Christopher Clavius who is responsible for our modern Gregorian Calendar. Clavius also had associations with Galileo. The modern way of telling time, with Jesuit Clavius’ Gregorian Calendar, has nothing to do with the Jewish people. According to the Jewish Calendar it is the year 5777. The New Year begins with Rosh Hashanah which this year was October. A new day begins at sundown, not at midnight. Moreover, one of the curious phenomenon of modern finance is found on your paycheck where the work week begins with Monday and Sunday as the Seventh day, a deliberate and blatant spite of the Jewish Sabbath for the Catholic understanding of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. The modern reality we are living in has nothing to do with Judaism and everything to do with the Jesuit Papacy.
  4. Georges Lemaitre was a Jesuit Priest and has controlled the Cosmological narrative for a hundred years.The end goal of the Jesuit order, a global, internationalist Communism having abolished all traditional disciplinary institutions and hierarchies, having demoralized white Europeans and normalized an unnatural effeminate Marxist victimhood narrative, is rising in full force in the west today.
    This move will force the tens horns of Rev. 17, that is the European nations that broke from the Roman Empire, to retaliate against the Jesuit Papacy and destroy it. The sixth vial of wrath will be poured, the great war of Armageddon will commence and the Roman Church led by the Jesuit Papacy will fall. Then will come the Golden Age of Historicist Post-Millennial Eschatology.


[1] William Warren, The Earliest Cosmologies, 42-52

[2] Dreyer, 35-38

[3] Ibid., 130

[4] Ibid., 41

[5] Ohio State Prof. Richard Pogge states in Astronomy 161: An Introduction to Solar System Astronomy, Lecture 14: The Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus,

“48 epicycles, compared to 40 in the Ptolemaic geocentric system.”


[6] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8478&t=KJV

[7] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5921&t=KJV



One thought on “History of Cosmology: Flat Earth to Geocentrism to Heliocentrism”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s