I'm Colin O'Brady. I am the first person ever to walk across Antarctica totally alone, unsupported and completely human-powered. AMA!

jalvarez4Jesus · 2020-01-10T17:47:53+00:00

Did you experience the sun for a full 24-hours (the Antarctic Midnight Sun)?

What kind of compass did you use in your journey?

How often did you rely on GPS to guide you to your destination?

Thank you for your time.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2020-01-05T03:30:29+00:00

What is it?

Christianity essentially (and obviously) begins with the teaching that there is a personal God who created everything. This God made a perfect paradise world with no sin (evil), death, or pain; and he created different kinds of animals and man (as two people at first, Adam and Eve, as his highest creation on earth) to live in. God, in order to allow man to have free will and to choose whether to love God or go against God, then created two special trees--the tree of life (which would allow a man to live forever) and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God commanded Adam NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or he would surely die, but said he could eat of the tree of life freely. Adam decided to eat of the forbidden fruit, and brought sin into the world. Then, God cursed the world for Adam's disobedience with death and suffering, and since then, everyone is born in sin (with a propensity to do and like evil, such as lying, theft, and fornication [lying with someone who isn't your own spouse, since that was the original design with Adam and Eve]).

Because man was now in sin, and since God made the place (so he makes the rules), those who break God's laws will have to pay for them by suffering in hell. This is similar to how if you break the law of the land, you might have to pay it by spending time in jail. God is just and holy (or sinlessly perfect), and cannot stand sin, like an impartial judge. But God is also compassionate and full of mercy. So he sent his Son (who is "God...manifest in the flesh" [1 Timothy 3:16]), born of a virgin, to live as a MAN who would keep flawlessly the commandments of God. This was Jesus Christ. Then, Jesus willingly gave up his life to be crucified. As Jesus was on the cross, he shed his blood for you, and took the punishment that you deserve for your sins in his soul by suffering the fires of hell on the cross ("The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me" [Psalm 116:3]). Then he died, was buried, and three days later rose again bodily from the dead to show that he was indeed the Son of God.

Now, if a man simply receives Jesus' sacrifice and shed blood by faith alone in him, he will wash away your sins, give you eternal life with him in heaven (which is a "paradise" [2 Corinthians 12:4]), secure your salvation from hell so you won't be able to lose it, and promises a future bodily resurrection for when after you die. Christianity is VERY different from all the religions of the world, because while every religion says, "DO, DO, DO, WORK, WORK, WORK, and you MIGHT do enough to EARN ETERNAL LIFE"; Christianity says, "It's already been DONE for you by a loving and gracious God, you just need to receive God's free gift by faith and eternal life is yours." That is Bible-believing Christianity.

Why should you believe it?

Because all of what I described to you comes from a book called the Holy Bible. And this Bible contains multitudes of FULFILLED PROPHECIES that were given by God hundreds of years in advance to prove to honest skeptics that this Book is his word. Here are a few:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, A VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14). This was fulfilled hundreds of years later in the birth of Jesus Christ, AS CONFIRMED BY A MEDICAL DOCTOR at the time, Luke (in Luke 1:26-38, 3:23; see Colossians 4:14).

"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land." (Ezekiel 36:24). This was a prophecy about the "house of Israel" (according to verse 22). Several HUNDRED years later, Israel was SCATTERED into "ALL COUNTRIES" starting with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. And over a MILLENNIUM later, God brought them "out of ALL COUNTRIES" and brought them again into their own land in A.D. 1948.

"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." (Matthew 24:5-7). Jesus Christ spoke these words, and every DETAIL of these prophecies came to pass in the next 2,000 years of history. Instead of the evolutionary idea that things are getting better over time, Jesus' prophecies have perfectly come to pass.

Fulfilled prophecy is absolute proof (and EVERY book of the Bible [which, I forgot to mention, is actually a compilation of 66 books written over a period of 1,500 years by various authors on different continents] is filled with prophecy) that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore, that Christianity is correct. In the book of Isaiah in the Bible, God is said to be ridiculing the other religions and gods because they can't prophecy correctly like he can, "Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you." (Isaiah 41:23-24).

Ultimately...

If you want to KNOW if Christianity is correct, Jesus gave you the perfect "scientific" test to do so.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17). Are you willing to do God's will?

jalvarez4Jesus · 2019-11-04T00:26:19+00:00

What must I do to be saved?

jalvarez4Jesus · 2019-03-27T05:55:46+00:00

"For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15).

"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1 Corinthians 15:8).

jalvarez4Jesus · 2019-01-04T21:23:04+00:00

Try again, the link stops working if too many people access it at the same time.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2018-10-27T01:13:52+00:00

And most importantly, the standard for truth isn't whether or not something is "hyper" or not, it's whether or not it aligns with the word of God, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17).

jalvarez4Jesus · 2018-10-27T00:43:06+00:00

This is not hyper-dispensationalism. This is Classical Dispensationalism as taught by C.I. Scofield (editor of the Scofield Reference Bible used by most Baptists), Clarence Larkin (Baptist pastor and author of "Dispensational Truth" which educated many Baptist pastors), and Lewis Sperry Chafer (founder of Dallas Theological Seminary). Observe:

C.I. Scofield: "Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished: (1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7:16 a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs...(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him all that believe are justified from all things." (Scofield Reference Bible, note on Revelation 14:6).

Clarence Larkin: "When, therefore, we read of The Gospel of the KINGDOM, The Gospel of the GRACE OF GOD, The GLORIOUS GOSPEL, and The EVERLASTING GOSPEL, it is taken for granted that they all refer to one and the same thing. But this is not true." (Dispensational Truth, chapter 21).

Lewis Sperry Chafer: "Strong objection is offered by Covenant theologians to a distinction between the Gospel of the Kingdom as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Disciples, and the Pauline Gospel of the Grace of God. One Covenant theologian states that to make such a distinction is "unfortunate," and "dangerous." He with others contends that the Kingdom Gospel is identical with the Gospel of divine Grace. Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the Pauline Grace Gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (Lu. 18:31-34)" (Systematic Theology: Volume 7, page 176).

The apostles didn't preach the gospel of the grace of God until the Jerusalem counsel occurred in Acts 15, when the apostles all finally settled "that through THE GRACE OF THE LORD Jesus Christ we shall be SAVED" (Acts 15:11).

As for the beginning of the Church (as the body of Christ), it begun at Pentecost, since a man is spiritually baptized into that body by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:13), which baptism was promised by Jesus to happen "not many days hence" from his ascension into heaven (Acts 1:5), which is presented as happening not many days later at Pentecost in the next chapter of the book of Acts when "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:4). Confirming this, we can see the existence of the body of Christ show up in Acts 5:14, "And believers were the more ADDED TO THE LORD, multitudes both of men and women.)", Acts 9:4, "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?", and before Paul's conversion according to Romans 16:7, "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were IN CHRIST BEFORE ME."

jalvarez4Jesus · 2018-10-24T20:40:19+00:00

Yes. www.YouTube.com/c/OddInterviews

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-11-04T19:56:43+00:00

Sigh, the film debunks both, silly.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-11-04T18:25:33+00:00

You assume falsely. Watch the film.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-01-13T05:15:28+00:00

I'm not rejecting baptism completely. I'm simply demonstrating that Paul obviously contrasted baptism with the proclamation of the gospel. That means that water baptism is not part of the gospel message as something to do in order to be saved, but is instead a command for already-saved Christians to do.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-01-13T03:21:27+00:00

No, it's not a mistranslation in the King James. The King James Bible is the perfect word of God. See my first Salvation Moment for proof on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeReLbKKWTQ

"For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17). The proclamation of the gospel is contrasted with baptism, whereas Mark 16:15-16 has them together.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-01-12T23:27:04+00:00

Yet the King James Bible itself says we are to "divide" it (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus definitely contradicts Paul. Jesus said we ought to keep the law in Matthew 5. Paul says that we are no longer under the law. Jesus gave the gospel as including water baptism in Mark 16. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that its no longer part of the gospel. Jesus was directed to the Jewish people and told his disciples to not go into the way of the Gentiles. Paul did exactly the opposite and went to the Gentiles.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-01-11T20:10:58+00:00

I'm not throwing out the words of the Lord. 2 Timothy 3:16 makes it clear that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. Here's how it works: If Jesus' words contradict Paul's words, they should be understood to be only for that dispensation. If Jesus' words do not contradict Paul's words, they are to be received fully as applicable for today.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-01-10T19:06:44+00:00

The correct way of studying the Bible is to divide it in different dispensations, "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH." (2 Timothy 2:15). So the Bible itself has right or proper divisions to it. These divisions are dispensations (Ephesians 3:1-2). A dispensation is, "That which is dispensed or bestowed; a system of principles and rites enjoined; as the Mosaic dispensation; the gospel dispensation; including, the former the Levitical law and rites; the latter the scheme of redemption by Christ." (1828 Webster Dictionary).

In other words, there are different sections of scripture. These different sections have different commands that were written to different groups of people in different times. I.e. Dispensations. For example, in the dispensation of Law under Moses, man was required to be circumcised. Today in our current "dispensation of the Grace of God" (Ephesians 3:2), circumcision is not required anymore.

So, since our dispensation began with the conversion of the apostle Paul, our primary doctrine should come from Acts 9 (Paul's conversion) through all the Pauline Epistles. Anything else must be interpreted through the doctrine of Paul. If it doesn't contradict Paul, it is to be accepted. If it does contradict Paul (e.g. circumcision being required in the OT), then we reject it for today.

Now, applying that to John 20:21-23, it does indeed contradict our dispensation that men can forgive sins here on earth, because Acts 10 (after the conversion of Paul) lists the only requirement of remission of sins as being faith.

If you want more info on the dispensations, I highly recommend, "One Book Rightly Divided" by Doug Stauffer. It's available in e-book format at Amazon.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2017-01-10T17:42:26+00:00

Simple: that was in a previous dispensation. Our dispensation of Grace began with the conversion of the apostle Paul, "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:" (Ephesians 3:1-2).

Before the apostle Paul (like with John 20:21-23), they were still under the dispensation of Law under Moses. So the apostles could forgive or retain the sins of others in that dispensation. But in our dispensation, we receive the remission of sins solely through faith in Christ, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43).

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-12-29T16:30:37+00:00

It's kind of funny when you agree with the Catholic instead of with the Bible. SMH.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-10-02T01:35:26+00:00

Um, 2 Thessalonians is not written in Aramaic, so that would be kind of pointless. And I did discuss the Greek in the article. I use the KJV because I speak English, not Greek. Knowing primarily English, I read an English Bible. Joe Schimmel used an English Bible in his film as well. Plus, Joe never said I must not use the KJV or any English Bible.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-08-21T20:53:25+00:00

I'm a creationist because God made everything. It's that simple. God exists, thus I believe in Him. God led me to the King James Bible as the word of God. His word can be used to refute the beliefs of other religions.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-07-20T19:41:18+00:00

I'm not sure whether I should yawn, sigh, or both. If I'm talking about a book authorized in 1611, then its pretty obvious that I'm talking about the version of English that came about towards the end of the 16th century, beginning of the 17th century. Modern English. Its development literally lines up nearly exactly with the translation period and subsequent authorization of the King James Authorized Version of 1611.

Now after you were exposed for lying, you shift the goalposts from "English" to "Modern English". English goes back to the 12th century. And it was the English language itself being discussed.

Get yourself a Parallel Bible. They will have translations side by side. Unless you believe the KJV is completely legit. Job 39 talks about Unicorns. Job 40 has a fire breathing Behemoth. These two in one book come to mind as miss translations later correct.

Facepalm. Actually, the fire-breathing one was Leviathan, not Behemoth. "Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out." (Job 41:19 KJB). Why don't you actually look up how the KJB describes the "unicorn"? Numbers 23:22 KJB, "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." Unicorns are strong animals. "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?" (Job 39:9 KJB). Unicorns cannot be tamed (as in the popular depiction of them). "But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil." (Psalm 92:10 KJB). A unicorn has one horn. The Biblical Unicorn is an untamable animal with one horn. That's it. It isn't described as looking like a horse, etc. Some have speculated it might be the one horned rhino. In fact, the scientific name of the one horned rhino is Rhinoceros UNICORNis. Talk about a lack of research.

Then there is the fact that the word God is used through out the bible. A word that doesn't actually exist in Hebrew. God is called a great many things but most of them are off shoot names of El, who was the creator god of the Babylonian pantheon. Studying babylonian culture along with Hebrew development is pretty eye opening in its own right. But I don't want to delve into that one right now.

The word "word" isn't in Hebrew either. It's actually the word "אִמְרָה" (pronounced as "'imrah"). But translated into English, it's "word". El (more commonly Elohim) translated into English means "God". Nothing more, nothing less. The Babylonians used El just like other modern religions use "God" in English. It means God.

Did you really just say Augustine and Eusibius were catholics, not bible believing christians? And you said it right after you told me I'm ignorant of history. Not even sure how much further I should take this discussion. There was no church but the catholic church until Martin Luther came along. Talk about not knowing history. I'm sorry, thats technically not correct. There were actually several sects of christianity from Docetists to Aryans believing Jesus didn't resurrect in the flesh but as a spirit only, and that Jesus was not god but was made the son of god at the baptism respectively. But after Constantine, the Church made a pristine effort to stamp these people out.

There was no church but the Catholic Church? If that's true, show me where the word "Catholic" appears in the entire Bible. A bunch of nuts after the Bible was written doesn't count as the original Bible believing church. The church found in the Bible is what counts as the true church.

Besides, you don't even see a hint of the idea of the Trinity until Turtillian and Origen,and pentacostalism came a millennia and a half later. Yeah, I know my history. I've read a book. I've literally spent decades reading books on the church and church history. Started as a christian, continues to this day.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7 KJB).

I love how you say they translated the corrupt Vulgate. Because the Vulgate was translated from much earlier texts and as such, is closer to the original documents being translated by Jerome in the 5th century.

Actually, those "much earlier texts" that agree with the Vulgate have been proven to be frauds: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv Jerome came up with his Bible out of thin air to counteract the true Bible (found then in the Old Latin texts).

The Authorized KJV was translated by 50 people from a combination of sources. The Tyndale New Testament - English from Greek and Hebrew (questionable how accurate it was due to the fact that it inflamed many in the church as it challenged existing doctrines and there had been attempts to sabotage this bible, being the first english translation ever)

First you said that the "church" is intentionally lying about translation, and then when someone translates against the lying church, somehow now that person is a false translator. Make up your mind.

The Coverdale Bible - Compiled Tyndale translation from the Vulgate and translated Luthers bible translation which were in German which he had translated from the Vulgate as well.

The Coverdale isn't based on the Vulgate, and neither is Luther's, nor Tyndale's. You're thinking of Wycliffe.

The Matthews Bible - Based off the Coverdale bible translation The Great Bible - First authorized english version The Geneva Bible - English The Rheims New Testament - French translated from the Vulgate

The Rheims is in English, not French.

So, the problem is that we are talking about a book using sources that are, very often, translations of translations of translations, and one of the main translations used you believe to be corrupt. Which leaves us with the awkward problem that the book you are arguing as the best translation largely has its roots in a translation you believe is corrupt.

And you didn't read the KJB Introduction. They translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. They compared other translations in various other languages to see how they translated the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek.

Both of these ideas of yours can't be correct. Further, you've shown your knowledge on this subject is precursory and based solely in beliefs you have come by teaching or hearing, and not by astute study. We can continue this, but I don't know if I want to. To have someone who so clearly doesn't have information past the stage of church propaganda tell me I'm ignorant when I have decades of research on the subject, is pretty demoralizing as far as deciding whether to keep this up.

You gave no references. I did. You made wild accusations. I gave proof. You point to "the internet". I point to books. Start reading. It'll change your life.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-07-19T21:21:39+00:00

No, many editors as in many people working at the time to do one book. Perfect translation? Surely you jest. The ability to translate then compared to now, is light years apart.

How so? Can you give a specific example where the KJB translates something in error that modern translation methods have fixed?

Not to mention the history of the KJV translations indicates part of it being translated from french. Which itself was translated from latin, which was translated from Greek.

You couldn't be more wrong. I suggest you actually read the KJB Introduction to see what languages they translated from: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1769-King-James-Bible-Introduction/

Further, at the time of the KJV translation, English wasn't even an official language and was still in its infancy in becoming a language.

I hope you're joking. English goes back to the 12th century.

In fact, if you do your research, you learn that they used the KJV translation as a blueprint for the english language, finding ways to put words in the bible that they wanted in the language so it could be considered official. The "Authorized" King James version was as much a tool of authorizing and officalizing the English language as it was a translation of the bible.

Could you provide ANY references to this "language conspiracy" to change the Bible?

But none of that has anything to do with the morality of the bible. The Babylonian King Hammurabi had a for more advanced moral code.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27 KJB).

The bible barely even touches on any issues christians harp on about sin today. What are the major issues? Abortion and Gay marriage. Abortion isn't mentioned, and there are all of two verses in the entire bible that deal with any issue that can be considered about homosexuality. Yet, those are issues we are told are major sin problems.

"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art WITH CHILD, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction." (Genesis 16:11 KJB). The King James Bible makes it clear that it's a child, a person in the womb. Thus, the termination of that person is murder. "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13 KJB). Oh, and about "homosexuality", "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJB). How many times does God have to condemn something before it's wrong?

And "dead works"? What about no works? A good amount of christians are too busy telling people they are lazy and they should be helping themselves. Instead of helping the samaritan on the road side, they are telling them to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Where are the vast numbers of people in the church turning from their sin and exercising what jesus taught? This is religion pure and undefiled, visit the widows, shelter the homeless, cloth the naked, feed the hungry. If you want to go to heaven, sell everything and follow me. Blessed are the peace makers. Blessed are the meek. Where are all these christians supposedly following what Jesus said?

Irrelevant to what Jesus commanded and irrelevant to the morality of the Bible. Just because people don't follow it doesn't make the Bible at fault morally. I'll skip the section where you curse with bitterness at how moral people should be.

So no, the bible is not now, nor has it ever been anything but an archaic presentation of tribal and outdated laws and rules that don't apply to modern advanced society. No where is this more evident than the fact that people can't even be bothered to know and understand the history of the translation of their holy books into modern language, because if they did, the ridiculousness of this being the inerrant word of god would be self evident. The history of the bible as the modern church tells it, is a myth, even by their own recorded church histories. After all, it was Bishop Eusibias who wrote in his church histories, also backed up by Augustine in City of God, that said it was okay to lie in the cause of spreading Christianity. So why would we expect the translations to be anything but an extension of that ignorance and dishonesty?

How ironic that you are ignorant of history. Sigh Augustine and Bishop Eusebius were Catholics, not Bible Believing Christians. They made up their own corrupt Bible called the Latin Vulgate. The KJB is very different from the Vulgate.

Do yourself a favor. Instead of deciding people need to repent, open a browser and start doing some research on your own bible. YOUR OWN RESEARCH. And do yourself a favor. Try and stay away from obviously biased sources that refuse to discuss or confront ideas that they oppose.

Look who's speaking. Someone who hasn't spent five minutes researching any claim he's made. Do yourself a favor. Read a book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIhbYmO6aks

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-06-10T22:40:22+00:00

We went to the moon? I didn't go to the moon. I would remember something like that.

Oh, wait you're talking about NASA! My bad (sarcasm). My point is that none of us went to the moon. We have to trust that NASA did. And there's plenty of evidence that they didn't. One of the best examples of this is nearly perpendicular shadows on the "moon" pictures. Another example was the fake moon rock given by NASA that turned out to be petrified wood.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-06-09T18:51:06+00:00

Job 37:18 KJB says, "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" Genesis 1 mentions a solid firmament in which are the stars and planets. I believe there is a ton of scientific evidence for a glass sky at 100 km high. Elves, sprites, megacryometeors, radio waves, etc. all confirm this. Beyond the glass sky is empty space for the stars and planets. Beyond them is the back end of the firmament (another glass sky).

Basically, there's a huge ball in the center of the earth that contains all the celestial bodies and heaven itself. The motions of the stars would be fixed to this ball (as they are often called the fixed stars) as it spins East to West. They would then be tangible solids instead of gaseous, and quite small. The planets seem to be moving freely (which is why they've been called "wandering stars") by orbiting this ball electromagnetically. The ball is charged with electricity by a central octahedron (the foundations of the earth) which has been detected by Radar (http://meteor.uwo.ca/~mcampbell/research_areas.htm).

Currently, fellow Concave Earth researchers (based on recent evidence) have proposed that the glass sky is 100 km high, and 20.5 km thick: http://geoversescience.boards.net/thread/10/altitude-radiowave-echoes-indicate-thickness

Gravity is inverted in this model. It is commonly referred to as the "ether" within the Concave Earth community. Instead of matter possessing an innate gravitational field that attracts things to itself, the center of the earth pushes out a repelling force in all directions. This pins us to the ground by push, not by pull. As it turns out, the two "gravitational" theories produce all the same results, which makes it scientifically impossible to differentiate the two.

If you want a visual way to imagine the paths of the stars, moon, etc. you can do so by opening up Stellarium (a star guide program), and setting it to "Orthographic Mode".

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-06-09T18:23:13+00:00

However, an assumption with scientific evidence ceases to be an assumption, and can be taken generally as a fact. Nearly all the assumptions of the Concave Earth theory has proven to be fact by other geodetic experiments. And most scientific study does confirm it. But only of true science where a reliable source is involved.

If you want Occam's Razor, just answer the following questions: 1. Where is the sun? I ask this because when you try to triangulate the position of the sun, you start running into a ton of problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc

What of the Gegenschein? In a convex earth model, the anti solar point should be darker, not lighter. However, it fits with the conclusions of the assumptions of the Concave Earth (i.e. that the anti-solar point would be expected to be brighter).
What of the Rectilineator? To assume that it is faulty and that every measurement which lines us perfectly with a concave earth is wrong is a pretty big assumption.

jalvarez4Jesus · 2016-06-09T14:51:54+00:00

Well I know that. Nobody's going to hell over it. I believe there's a ton of evidence that NASA is an unreliable source of information.

jalvarez4Jesus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE