This website exposes the flat earth deception and proves that the earth is globe shaped.
This page shows proves that the moon proves the globe earth, not the flat earth.
Question for flat earthers: What is the scientific explanation for how the moon appears much larger sometimes, during what’s called a supermoon?
Question for flat earthers: What is the scientific explanation for how the same side of the moon is visible to people in the northern and southern hemispheres, but simple geometry shows that is not possible?
Please comment on the bottom of this page with your answer. Thank you!
This video tests that moonlight has a cooling effect and ultimately the claim that the Moon does not reflect sunlight.
.
Flat earthers push aside proofs that the flat earth model doesn’t work, by claiming that the moon illuminates itself.
UPDATE: During the past few weeks ago after the new moon, I observed the moon every night to see where it was at in the sky in relationship to the setting sun. The first day the crescent moon was seen in the West, near the sun at sunset. And every evening since then, then moon was located about 12 degrees East of where it was the previous night.
On the 7th day it was a 1/2 moon that was located directly above, at 90 degrees to the Earth. And then on the 14th day after the new moon, it was a full moon rising in the east, 180 degrees across of the setting sun.
The relationship is obvious! As the moons orbit causes it to move further East away from the Sun, we see more of the side of the moon that is illuminated; creating the transition from crescent moon to full moon. This is an absolute proof that the Sun illuminates the moon!
This video from a professional pilot proves that the moon is not rotating above the flat earth.
Lunar eclipses prove that the Earth is not flat!
Flat earthers proclaim that the moon is self-illuminated.
They have to say this, because their flat earth theory is exposed as false, if the sun does illuminate the moon.
They have to excuse a myriad of things, to make their flat earth theory seem to work.
But we can see the truth with our own eyes!
Flat earthers cite Genesis 1:15-18, to proclaim that Scripture says that the moon is a light, just like the sun.
But Scripture does not say that! The Hebrew word for ‘light’ simply points to a luminous body. It does not say that it provides its own illumination.
The Hebrew word for light is ma’owr from 215; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:—bright, light.
215 ‘owr = a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):—X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.
Websters 1818 Dictionary, which is based on the King James Bible, defines luminary as:
1. Any body that gives light, but chiefly one of the celestial orbs. The sun is the principal luminary in our system. the stars are inferior luminaries.
Hal Hilton provided this proof about the full moon appearing upside down to people in South America, which is not possible on the flat earth.
When standing and viewing the full moon from Alberta Canada, the well defined and unique *face* of the moon itself is easily seen and configured.
If the earth is a globe, one would expect to see the same full moon with the same EXACT unique features…however, it would be viewed, when standing upright in Santiago Chile with those same features upside down.
And that is PRECISELY what is easily observed! Here are two, fully verified, full moon photographs from two separate locations. One from Alberta Canada with the Alberta Legislature Building as a reference source, which is 53 degrees North of the Equator.
And one from Santiago Chile with the fully unique Virgin of the Assumption statue located at the Cathedral Church of the Virgin of the Assumption which is 33 degrees South of the Equator.
If the FE model, as promoted with a moon rotation motion over the equator of the FE, the person seeing the moon from Alberta Canada would see one side of the moon…and another person seeing that same moon from Santiago Chile would see the BACK SIDE of the moon…not the 180 degree view of the same side of the moon as seen from Canada.
The flat earth model cannot illuminate the night moon, while not illuminating the sky.
The flat earth sun and moon are said to be 3,000 miles above the earth, so the suns rays would strike the moon on a horizontal plane.
This is no way for the sun’s rays to illuminate the moon, while not illuminating the sky around it.
90 minutes after the full moon rises on the eastern horizon, the whole sky is dark, because the sun is more than 18 degrees around the globe earth.
The sun’s rays no longer strike any part of the overhead sky, but its rays continue to strike the moon, as they both continue around their circuit.
The flat earth model sun cannot illuminate the bottom side of the crescent moon.
A total lunar eclipse is not possible on the flat earth model.
The path of the Sun and Moon prove that the flat earth theory is invalid.
The full moon does not work on the flat earth model.
It’s not just the full moon that doesn’t work, but that’s the clearest example.
On the evening that the full moon is rising on the east horizon, the sun is setting on the west horizon. Throughout the night the sun and moon will continue moving west, and the sun (which is ahead of the moon) will illuminate the side of the moon that is facing it.
The problem on the flat earth model is that from our perspective as the moon transits the sky, the side of the moon that is fully illuminated by the sun moves away from us.
There is no way to see a full moon all evening on the flat earth model, because when the moon sets in the west, the sun is ahead of it illuminating the side that is hidden from us
This is really simple to understand. We’ll use a full moon over the continent of Australia as an example.
On October 16, 2016 the full moon rose at 7:13 pm, and it set at 6:57 am on October 17. So the moon would be visible over Australia during that time, as it tracks across the sky.
Keep in mind how the moon supposedly travels around the flat earth, in a large circle overhead.
First of all, the only way to see the fully illuminated moon rise East of Australia is to have the Sun directly opposite of it in the West. It can’t be across the Earth or at any other angle, as that would not let Australians see the fully illuminated side.
3 hours after moonrise, it should still be on the East side of the sky, but on the flat earth model it would already be on the West side of Australia.
6 hours after it rose, it should be directly overhead, but instead on the flat earth map, it’s 1/4 of the way around the earth, and not visible from Australia.
Even if it was visible, since the Sun is ahead of it, then the fully illuminated side of the moon would no longer be facing Australia.
9 hours after it rose in the East it should be in the Western part of the Australian sky; but on the flat earth it is approaching Africa, where Australians cannot see it.
12 hours after it rose in the East it should be setting in the West; but on the flat earth it is on the opposite side of the earth, where Australians cannot see it.
So the concept of the flat earth moon rotating above in a circle seems neat, but simple logic shows that it does not work in the real world.
Some flat-earthers proclaim that the moon is self-illuminated, but they cannot explain how it illuminates the different phases, such as the crescent moon.
This video explains the simplicity of the sun-moon-earth relationship, which gives us the different phases of the moon.
Some flat-earthers proclaim that the moon is not real, but the Scriptures disagree.
He made the moon for appointed times; The sun knows its going down. Psalm 104:19
One of the oldest proofs of the Earth’s shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece.
When a full moon occurs in the plane of Earth’s orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth’s shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.
Astrophotographer Jerry Lodriguss captures the phases of a total lunar eclipse are seen here in a composite image. full http://www.astropix.com/HTML/Planetary/Lunar_Eclipse_20041027.HTM
The appearance of the crescent moon and the celestial bodies in the skies, is opposite for people in the northern and southern hemispheres. That would not be possible on a flat earth.
They believe that NASA is faking every image of earth, is to pretend that they are the only source of images of the earth. That means that every weatherperson showing storms or hurricanes, with a view from satellite which shows the globe earth, is all faked.
Time-lapse photos of the moon during a lunar partial eclipse, clearly showing the circular shadow produced by the ball-shaped earth.
Goofy flat earth explanations about the Moon:
Flat earthers proclaim that the moon isn’t globe-shaped, but a flat disc.
One can prove that the moon is globe-shaped, as the craters on the moon are all circular. But around the edge, the craters appear elliptical, which proves that the surface is curving.
.
They claim that it’s impossible for people in Australia and Florida to see the moon at the same time on the globe earth. But the opposite is true. They claim that the Sun only illuminates one part of the flat earth, so it can be dark on the other side. The same would be true of the moon, which would not be seen all around the flat earth.
Australia and Florida are not completely opposite each other on the globe, so if the moon is high above them somewhere in between them, both locations would be able to see it, and their orientation would be opposite, as you can see on this photo.
This image implies that a simultaneous moon sightings are not possible on a globe, but the irony is that it would not be possible on the flat earth either.
They claim that the Sun only illuminates one part of the flat earth, so it can be dark on the other side. The same would be true of the moon, which would not be seen all around the flat earth. Are we supposed to believe that people in Australia and South America, which are on opposites sides of the supposed flat earth, are able to see the moon at the same time?
All that said, where is the proof that people in all of those cities actually saw the moon at the same time?
Flat earthers say that the moon is transparent, that you can see through the non-illuminated part of the moon.
This is just goofy. Trusting your eyes about something that is so distant, is a formula for being deceived.
Flat earthers say that the moon is a flat disk.
The curve that is created from the illumination of the sun proves that it is in fact a ball.
Its simple to prove the moon produces its own light.
Take two thermometers, put one in the direct full moon light and the other in the shade of the moonlight.
Leave for half hour. The thermometer in the direct moonlight is colder than the thermometer in the shade. The moon produces its own cold light.
If it was a reflection of the Sun, the opposite would be true.
Also, the moon is semi-bioleminscent. During the day, you can see blue behind the moon
so it cannot be in space. Furthermore, you can see blue through the moon so it cannot be solid.
The Bible is the Book of truth and explains all of this and its easily tested
Tom, please explain how moonlight creates colder temperatures? What spectrum of waves causes that?
As for the reflection of the sun causing heat, that’s not necessarily true. When you’re in the sunlight, the infrared spectrum is what causes the heat. But who is to say that the moon reflects the infrared spectrum of the sun’s light? It may only reflect the visible spectrum, not the infrared spectrum.
The reason for the warmer temperatures in places that are out of the moonlight is radiative cooling. The area that’s not in the moonlight is being blocked by a barrier, which may prevent a breeze from blowing into the area, and the barrier itself can prevent heat from radiating out, so the temperature is slightly warmer.
Here’s a way to prove it out. Make your measurements on a full moon night, and mark the places that you measured. Calm nights are preferred so that the wind doesn’t play a factor in cooling either spot. Note the temperature differential. Then two weeks later, when the moon is a mere crescent, or there’s no illuminated moon in the sky, take measurements in the same places. You’ll see that there’s still a temperature difference between the two places because it’s not based on moonlight, but rather to radiative cooling.
That said, it’s obvious that the sun illuminates the moon, as you can see shadows in the craters of the moon, which prove an external light source. And those shadows align with the position of the sun. Simple as that! http://flatearthdeception.com/
Hi David what happened to my previous comment, which was huge and took a long time to write, explaining why the cool moonlight thing isn’t true and many other questions? Was the original comment that asked the questions deleted and thus my reply to it deleted too?
I ask because my two remaining comments on this site make me appear to simply mock peoples beliefs with no basis that shows my knowledge of the subject. The original comment I made answering the big questions firmly estblished my credentials that my other comments could stand on.
Hi Father Cool. All of your comments are still posted, none have been deleted. Some of them are on the Flat Earth Deceptions home page. Some of them are on the Astronomy Proves The Flat Earth Deception page.
The comments are listed seven at a time, so you may need to click on the “← PREVIOUS COMMENTS” link to see other comments on that page.
Hi David, I have done that and still cannot see my comments.
I’m not sure what to tell you. I use WordPress and the Jetpack plug-in. I’m not sure why they’re not showing up, as I have not removed them.
Can you see the large one I did answering several questions that were posed at the time David? Thats the one I cant see.
Here’s the longest comment that you posted.
Hi Kerry,
I am a graduate in engineering and astronomy so will attempt (I say attempt because flat earth believers tend to simply not believe anything that is told to them if it disagrees with their perception regardless of evidence, however I will of course give you the benefit of the doubt). You have also of course included the bible in your question which signifies a regious leaning toward the way your perception works. This in itself is not an issue, however the bible is simply an interpretation of your gods words made by people from a time where the universe was much less understood and humanity as a whole was much less developed as a species in its understanding. As a text its guidence is somewhat valid, as a description of how the fundamentals of the universe works I would probably leave it firmly on the shelf.
So to answer your questions.
1. We are told by the lying agencies that the moon reflects the suns light. However, moonlight behaves in a way that seems to contradict this theory. The temperature of moon light is cooler than the temperature of moonlight “shade”
How is this possible when sunlight creates the exact opposite effect?
A: The moon does reflect the sunlight, this can be seen by the moons phases. When the moon appears lit from the side that is the side which faces the sun. Hold a golf ball up against a light in a darkened room. You will see the exact effect we see on the moons surface on your ball.
The ‘cold moonlight’ is actually a false observation. For starters the moon light is only a tiny fraction of the light emitted by the sun. The sun radiates out light in a full 360 degree sphere. The earth in daylight catches a tiny fraction of this light and also the heat radiation from the sun on its surface. At night we face away from the sun and are sheilded by the rest of the planet from the suns heat radiation and light.
The moon, depending on its position relative to us and the sun, will reflect a certain amount of the light back towards us and also absorb a certain amount of it into its surface. None of this reflected light will provide any heat to the earth, its just neither of a high enough volume or the right radiation.
At night we are in shade from the sun by the rest of the planet as mentioned above. We are kept warm by the residual heat left in the surface of the earth, however this is constantly cooling through heat radiation into the atmposphere and ultimately out into space, luckily daylight follows and warms us back up before we all die. However, this heat radiation is whats important.
At night when the moon is shining the heat is happily radiating away from everything on the earths surface, gradually getting cooler. The moons light has no effect on this. How do we keep ourselves warm? We add clothes or blankets or a shelter or whatever. The point is we put ourselves under cover. It slows the rate at which we lose heat and thus we stay warmer for longer.
Now consider our situation, if we laid out in the moonlight we would radiate heat out to the atmosphere and gradually cool down, now Charlie our friend is laid under our shelter, in the shade from the moonlight, he stays warmer as he can’t radiate heat quite so fast due to the shelter. Therefore if we stick a thermometer on our skin, Charlie would appear warmer than us so you might think that the moonlight is cooling us down but not not Charlie. Not true. It actually has no effect whatsoever. Its the rate of our heat being radiated away due to how sheltered we are that makes the difference.
2. If one places meat in sunlight, the meat becomes dry and preserved from rotting. However, if one places meat in moonlight, it will.spoil.
A: Sunlight is composed of part light radiation and part heat radiation. The heat dried out the meat thus curing it. Moonlight a tiny reflected portion of the sunlight and is thousands of times weaker with no heat radiation. It stands to reason that it will not dry the meat and thus it will rot like raw meat.
3. How is it possible that we often see the sun and moon in the daytime sky at the same time? This could not occur on a globular earth.
A: Perfectly possible. I don’t really understand why you think that it can’t be possible. The moon doesn’t have to be on the opposite side of the planet to reflect the suns light. There is plenty of sky during for the moon and sun to be in where the moon is not directly between us and the sun. I am assuming that you think that because both the sun and moon are the on the same side of the planet then the light can’t reflect off of the moon and onto us. That is of course nonsense it will reflect light to us at just about every angle hence the moons phases.
4. Scientism tells us that earth spins at spprox 1000mph on its axis, that it orbits the sun at approx 66,600mph and that it is carried with the sun through the galaxy at roughly 500,000mph. The whole galaxy is then hurtling at close to the speed of light away from the source of the “big bang”. Yet we dont feel a thing. How is this possible?
A: As a starter you state ‘Scientism’ as though it is a religion. Please keep religions out of this. You can still hold a divine faith and be a scientist.
Anyway to the question, the earth doesn’t spin at 1000mph on its axis. This is a common misunderstanding by flat earth believers. The surface of the earth turns at an angular velocity, this is the nature of a sphere turning on an axis. The relative surface speed is dependent on where you are on the surface. At the equator the surface ‘moves’ at 1000mph yes but at the a position nearer to the poles it approaches 0mph, in effect if you stoof there you would be rotating on the spot, the important speed we need to address is the angular velocity which is always 1 revolution/24 hours or 0.00069 RPM. Seems much slower when you do the maths right? Not exactly whizzing around like a spinning top!
The earth orbiting the sun is moving at a seemingly fast speed, it has to cover over 584 million miles in a year, the sun does orbit the galactic center taking millions of years to do a single orbit and the galaxy is fair sprinting away from the big bang (not at the speed of light though, the galaxies are moving but the expansion of distance between them and the big bang is due to the expansion of spacetime as a whole butvwe digress). Despite all this, speed is relative. You cant just say moving at 60000mph unless you are measuring it against the position and speed of something else, this is also why we don’t feel anything odd about our trip through the universe.
Say you were driving a car at 50mph and someone was driving beside you at 50mph. You are both driving 50mph right? Wrong. We are driving at 50mph relative to the surface of the earth. Relative to each other you are both driving at 0mph. Now lets put the two cars on a massive ship in the middle of the sea. Both cars drive at 50mph. Are they going 50mph? Well only to the surface of the ship. To the earths surface you would need to work out how fast the ship was moving relative to the earth and the direction it was travelling and add, subtract or factor in those vectors into the cars speed. Now lets assume we don’t know the ships speed. We would have to ignore the earth altogether and judge our speed based on the ships surface so we are going 50mph in that case. Now lets remove the earth and the ship and we are flying two space cars at 50mph in space. How fast are we really going? We don’t know, we only have the other car to judge our speed from so actually we are stationary. The point being speed is onlybever relative to other things that we can measure from. The same hold true with ‘feeling’the motion. We only ever feel a change in motion, think of being in a lift/elevator. We feel it start and stop but the journey in the middle feels pretty still apart from the vibration in the mechanism. The point is we feel only get a sensation when accelerating and slowing down. The planets a stars are on constant paths so never afford us the feeling of any changes in direction or velocity.
5. We are told that the sun is 93million miles away and the moon 438,000 miles away and that they are vastly different in size. However we are assured that despite the massive difference in distance and size, the fact that they appear to us to be exactly the same size is merely an astronomically huge coincidence. How do you explaim this ?
A: As much as you like to believe that everything has to be designed by something greater than the very wonder thatvis the universe, coincindence does exist. More often than you’d think.
The size and thus masses of the moon and earth determines the moons orbit position and thus the size it appears to us. The size and masses of the sun and earth determine the distance at which the earth orbits the sun and hence the suns perceived size to us. They are what they are. The fact that they are what they are makes no real difference. If the earth was a bit bigger it would have a slightly different orbit and conditions on earth would be a tad different as a result, if the moon was bigger it would also be on a differnet orbit but so long as they weren’t so significant as to put the earth out of the goldilocks zone. I’m sure that life would have still been ok. There is often a misconception in people, and this is due to our very nature to think of ourselves as seperate from the universe, which of course is poppycock, and that is that the earth etc ‘must have been designed for us as its just the right to support us against all the odds. What we seem to not realise is that its not the world that is just right for us, its us thats just right for the world and that has taken millions of years of eveolution to get right.
6. The satanic rulers of this world do everything in opposition of Our Father, turning everything on its head in mockery of Him. In this way, their lies about the universe/creation and plane(t) all completely contradict the bible descriptiom of how He created earth and the rest. Bible states that He created the heavens and the earth first and that the sun, moon and stars were created afterward. The big bang theory states the complete opposite.
The bible says that the stars are for signs and seasons it does not say they are distant suns, and He contradicts that actually by stating that He divided the waters above from the waters below by creating a firmament, which the sun, moon and stars are inside of. If you look at the stars through a p900 you will see that they are not terra firma, but appear very much like light versions of the patterns we observe when we place iron filings on a vibrating plate… a different intricate pattern is formed dependent upon the frequency of the sounds used to vibrate the plate.
A: Without wishing to offend your religion. What is written in the bible about the creation of the universe is not true. The evidence of all of the things that you have mentioned above is extensive, they cannot be simply said to be wrong because the the bible says something different. The bible was written by many scribes over centuries, who weren’t god, who did not directly speak to god himself in a time where the cosmos was not even a dream in their head. The bible for whatever it is worth cannot and should not be accredited with the accolade of a factual reference book on the physics of the universe. Science should not be looked at at anti-religion. Its a seperate thing entirely, its an impartial investigation into how everthing works and nothing more. It doesn’t need to be.
7. If space is a vacuum as per their information, how does a rocket achieve thrust in space?
Thrust is not generated by pushing against something else it is due to the effects of Newtons third law which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So if for instance you throw a stone at a wall the wall provides an equal and opposite reaction to the stone which stops the stone from carrying on. Likewise of a ball is resting on a table the table itself is contantly providing an upward force on the ball to stop it crashing through the table. It may seem odd to you as the table is standing there just like it always has but its true. The difference is that there is a ball on it. The ball pushes down slightly so the molecules in the table move slightly under the pressure and come to rest in a more tense state providing the force against the ball.
Now consider and explosion in a field. The fireball and shrapnel go in every direction (except downwards because of the ground) because it can. Now lets put that explosion in a tube with one end closed and a cannonball at the other. What happens? The cannonball flies out right? Yes but also the cannon flies the other way. Why is that? Is it because the cannonball is being stopped by the air and the pressure in the explosion behind the ball is resisting the air and so pushes the cannon the other way. You might think so but in the grand scheme of things the air pressure is pretty low compared to the force at which the cannonball is being ejected. Now consider the situation if we had no cannonball at all the cannon would still move, not with as much force but that is due tk the expelled mass not the resistance of the air.
Lets for a second consider our initial explosion shrapnel and explosive mass was sent off in all directions right so the net movement of the centre of the explosion was zero because the mass was sent off evenly in all directions focing the reaction force toward the centre of the explosion. Now lets consider it inside a tube sealed at one end. Now all of the mass is forced to go out of the open end, the centre of the explosion is just against the sealed wall of the tube. Why is it forced out of the open end? Because the tube wall provides an equal and opposite reaction force to mass in the explosion. If the tube was bolted to the ground then the ground would absorb that force in its molecules amd dissipate it as vibration amd heat. What if we were sat in space with nothing to absorb that explosion? Well the tube would have to fly off in the opposite direction to the ejection mass. Now lets change the explosion into an explosion that last a long time like the volatile burning of rocket fuel. Now the centre of the explosion is moving along with the tube as the ejection mass is fired out of the open end. The tube has no other choice than to keep accerating away from the explosion as there is nothing at all including air to absorb any of the energy from the tube.
As you can see, no need for air for rocket thrust to occur. In fact it works better without the air resistance slowing the rocket down as the speed increases.
I hope that this clears up some of your concerns. It does seem that a lot of issues regarding this stuff is through conflict woth the bible. All I would say is take from the bible what is need to make you a better person and have an open mind about the rest.
Regards
FC
Thanks David. I cant find this anywhere when I look. Did this get any replies that need addressing?
No, I did not see any replies.
Hello,
Can you please further explain how the sun can be under the moon so as to achieve the bottom crescent or bowl Also. Why are the phases not reverse?
I mean in ur site.
I enjoyed it, thank you
D
Hello David 🙂 When does the crescent appear on the bottom of the moon? During winter, when the sun’s path is over the Tropic of Capricorn. The moon’s path doesn’t move south, so this creates different angles between the sun and moon. As the sun’s path moves north, the angle to the moon changes, and the illumination of the crescent moon changes.
I’m not sure what you mean by “why are the phases not reverse” Why would they need to be reversed?
David
You state:
“They believe that NASA is faking every image of earth, is to pretend that they are the only source of images of the earth. That means that every weatherperson showing storms or hurricanes, with a view from satellite which shows the globe earth, is all faked.”
you do know who NOAA is don’t you?
I understand that NOAA is connected to NASA. Did you know that there’s many other countries who have satellites for weather forecasting, who are not related to NOAA/NASA?
It’s ironic that flat earthers dismiss every picture of the globe earth; but they have no pictures of the flat earth, the flat earth dome, or the edge of the flat earth. 😛
Is the lack of proof connected to the fact that tax payers throughout the centuries have not contributed to getting any of these images?
When you says ‘lack of proof’ are you referring to the lack of images of the flat earth and the dome?
Look at all these Butthurt flattards! Hahaha! Even most Christians know that earth isn’t flat.
DrProfessor, why can’t the moon’s light be reflected light? I believe the passage (depending on translation) is that the moon “gives” her own light. Isn’t is just as possible that the move gives the light it first receives from the sun? I am not seeing how Scripture clearly suggests that the moon is self-illuminated.
The moon has its own light according to the Bible. Also, according to the Bible there is only one sun and one moon.
“God made two great lights–the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” Genesis 1:16
The Hebrew word for ‘light’ simply points to a luminous body. It does not say that it provides its own illumination.
The Hebrew word for light is ma’owr from 215; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:—bright, light.
215 ‘owr = a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):—X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.
You literally just took scripture out of context. You don’t even realize
Kris, where does the book of Enoch say there are more than one sun and moon? I couldn’t find it. That book is one of visions and/or dreams which REQUIRES interpretation. It is impossible and illogical to try to read all Scripture literally. Some verses require a figurative interpretation.
T.J.
The book of Enoch was written in the 2nd century B.C., by several different authors, so it’s obviously not from the esteemed Enoch of Scripture, so I don’t trust it.
And as you said T.J., it requires a lot of interpretation, and flat earthers have proven that they take things out of context in regard to Bible verses.
They say the tree in Daniel 4 was a giant tree on the flat earth, when Daniel clearly tells us that was not a literal tree, but it symbolically represented king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who reigned over the kingdoms of the earth. http://flatearthdeception.com/biblical-proofs-of-the-globe-earth/