My ‘Twiti-bate’ with a semi-Atheist!

I had a mini ‘twiti-bate’ with an atheist who tried to show off with me by taking on my response to one of Sri Ravi Shankar’s tweets (Remember, the use of words r vry ltd in a tweet).

908_twitter - Copy.jpg 908_twitter.jpg

(Pic Source:
@SriSriSpeaks: Sustainable growth is assured if ecology is protected. We need to find ways to maintain harmony in environment while progressing in science.
@AbrahamJos73: science mostly is man’s greed 4 knowledge & desire to overcome God-ordained limitations. Such negativity’ll nevr hlp enviromnt

@chandreskar1: not greed friend, curiosity, and you are limited if you believe in religious nonsense. I prefer freedom to Dogma
@AbrahamJos73: study of science is limited. u want freedm frm responsiblty. being answerable to a higr authorty is not dogma

@chandreskar1: nothing? Religion is static, fiction. Science progresses, and is the only way to understand the Universe.
@AbrahamJos73: Religion is stable. Science is unstable and unreliable. What is true today is wrong tomorrow…!!
@AbrahamJos73: I cud count your autobiography as fiction too! How would i know what you say about yourself is true…?!! 

@chandreskar1: So would you agree with Parents who pray for their critically ill child and deny it medical treatment?
@AbrahamJos73: medicinal plants are also creations of God meant to be used for healing purpose. But Death is beyond science..

@chandreskar1: Religion is stable because it is Dogma, All fiction is stable. Science is right until improved upon.
@AbrahamJos73: whn u say fiction is stable, do u mean facts r unstable. “right till improved”? What right is that??!!

@chandreskar1: i wouldn’t make supernatural claims. If I said I could walk on water, I would need to back it up with evidence.
@AbrahamJos73: not every fact is evidenced. many criminals are set free because of lack of evidence.
@AbrahamJos73: that is exactly where science is handicapped. it cannot accept what it cannot see or touch. Its heavly limited
@AbrahamJos73: u wud knw d kind of ‘solid’ evidence science has put forth 2 prove hw everything came in2 existence witout God

@chandreskar1: you didn’t answer my question?!? And medicine saves lives!! you cannot be that deluded as to deny it?
@AbrahamJos73: ancient ppl possessed knowledge that baffles today’s scientists – it was God-given. Scientists 2day wont axpt

@chandreskar1: knowledge that couldn’t cure Smallpox, Measles. Malaria, Yellow fever, Influenza. Chicken Pox, infections form cuts bad teeth?
@AbrahamJos73: u have no idea what ancient medicines could do…
@AbrahamJos73: i am talking of knowledge they had that baffles scientists today. dont bypass the point. the source of thought is a mystry..

~~~~~ and that was The End ~~~~~ 😀 


Taking Down Richard Dawkins – Part 2

JUST A SMALL QUERY MR RICHARD DAWKINS…  if you believe in what you say you BELIEVE, then you wouldnt be offended if i were to call you a “son of a monkey”, would you??!! Well, for now let me reserve my right to call you so. But I hope you wont mind if i burden your feeble brain with slightly heavier thoughts…

You say that it is “spectacularly stupid” to expect monkeys to evolve into humans “overnight”. Really, Richard? Did they expect such a change “overnight”?? What idiots…!! Dont they know that humans evolved from monkeys only few multi-million years ago and it is grossly unfair to expect any change whatsoever within such a short time, when it will take atleast another multi-million years for any change to even start!!!!! Just ignore them, O Thou Great Descendant of a Monkey, for they know not what they say!

But then, you later go on to admit that lizards physically evolved to their new environment by growing jaw skins and stomach pads, etc. within DECADES!! If that is true Mr Richard, then wouldnt it be fair for me to expect similar evolutionary changes to happen in similar time frames on other beings as well, especially on monkeys, because that theory actually puts to question my human ancestry?!! I hope Your Majesty will not shove me with citations of cross-breeding ‘evolution’ caused by human intervention and try and convince me that that was how monkeys evolved into humans multi-million years ago! We are talking about natural evolution, right?

You evolutionists claim that Giraffes got their long necks because of evolutionary changes that happened to them over multi-million years, so as to enable them to eat the tender leaves on tall trees, but you are so “spectacularly stupid” not to ask yourselves why the ‘evolution’ would force such an uncomfortable physical change on them when they were already able to survive multi-million years without the long neck!!!!!!!!

Help me out here Mr Retard Dawkins. How do you think it all started? Could your Highness enlighten us on what prompted God (Ooops! Sorry, “nature”. Right?) to force the neck of the Giraffe to stretch so long? More importantly, what would have been the factor that motivated “nature” to force a few monkeys from Africa to evolve into humans????!!!!!!! (I think that the Christian hangover of an Atheist is evident in the fact that he too is convinced that the entire human race with all its diversity, evolved in one place in the middle east, from one species of monkeys that suddenly started to change)!!!

Like, did the ‘Giraffe lift its head one day and see the tender leaves on top and started desiring for a long neck and then suddenly one day things started changing?? Or did all the monkeys come together and decide one day that they were fed up with the whole monkey business, as it was unfair to expect them to remain monkeys for ever and so they wanted to upgrade into humans and then one day, without their knowledge, their body started to change?? (Fortunately, they also decided that not all of them would evolve so that the tender biological balance that came about as a result of this massive explosion of dust and rock particles, would not be disturbed)!!!!

If it were so, then wouldnt that mean that since men over the ages wanted to fly like an eagle and swim like a fish someone somewhere should have already developed some fins and wings within the past few centuries atleast (remember, the lizards took only decades!!)????

How come when your ancestors evolved into humans that most of them lost their Kinetic abilities (remember, those abilities are a result of their DNAs than their physic)?!! You mean, the DNA also changed? Completely or partly?? How come then that some humans like you still have monkey-like brains, while certain others have monkey like kinetic abilities?? Why is knowledge evolving differently in different people groups? Is it climatic influence or DNA changes that cause it?? Dont tell me that you believe that someone up there is controlling what evolves into what and when and how much, etc!!!!! Remember, you are an atheist…!!!

You asked, “Why would they (cave-dwelling ancient people) have any wisdom about the origin of the world…?” You use that hypothetical afterthought to build up a fake ‘scientific’ premise, on which you base your conclusion that ancient wisdom wasnt as advanced, and then you use that conclusion as another proof for evolution??!!!!! How clever!!!

Has your Holiness ever seen this concept toy called “Transformers”? It is designed to be able to transform itself into totally different shapes with fluid efficiency, and without compromising on the quality of its functioning! I hope you wouldnt have any hesitation to agree that its designer had to use far greater intellectual powers than the one who makes an ordinary toy. If so, what should the ability of a living being, to adapt according to its circumstances, reveal about its designer? How far fetched and desperate should one be to point to THAT ability and try and prove that there was no designer in the first place???!!!!!! (Cant you atleast think before coming out with some excuses?)!!

I know you would be mentally exhausted and distraught by now, Mr Richard. So i wont torture you more. But can your Highness do us Sons of Men a favour? Please dust your buts and visit some ancient construction sites around the world that your forefathers or their forefathers couldnt even dream of building. Take a moment to just be amazed… Then force your brain to think (Please! Just once)! Forget the massiveness of those construction materials, think about the complex mathematics and engineering that went into their designing and production… just stand and think! How could they measure so precisely without tools?? Just look at the ancient sculpts and cave paintings in which flying objects are depicted much before your monkey science took over modern minds.

How dumbos like you even get yourselves to be heard only goes to show how evolution from monkeys may not have fully happened inside many heads – the guest, the host and the “sons of monkeys” who gleefully clap at what they dont understand, included!!!!!!!

Taking down Richard Dawkins – Part 1

(My response to Richard’s attempts to prove he is wise):

You should be a total idiot not to see the folly in the basis of Mr Richard’s beliefs!!

1) Just few seconds into his starting statement (1:00) he says that “the world IS explained fully by science..”, and he corrects himself immediately by saying “WILL be explained fully by science”!!!!! Ha, ha, ha….. Well, Richard does not seem to know much about most religious beliefs, because even they admit that now they do not know everything about their beliefs, but WILL know when they reach eternity or attain nirvana. Remember, the more science researches things, the more they keep changing their conclusions and they are never going to reach a point where they can conclusively say that they now know everything and that there is no need for any further research or study!!!

2) Immediately after, he says that “there is no evidence for any kind of supernatural being of any kind…”!!!! I dont know if he is aware of the fact that science is now fully open to accepting the possibility of life outside this earth. They have been denying this only so that the theory of evolution is not destroyed by the proof of existence of these human-like beings from outside. More importantly, when he says that there is no evidence to believe in a supernatural being, he is passively agreeing that if such an evidence is provided, then he will accept it. Well, people believed that the earth was flat and then someone came with supposed proof that it is a globe and everyone accepted it, didnt they?!

When he is in a position to think normally, someone should make him understand (and i have told this before) that non-availability of proof for something is not a proof to the contrary. Just because you dont have proof for the existence of God does not mean that you can conclusively claim there is no God!!! You should admit that you cannot conclusively verify the existence of God because you do not have necessary proof for it. And, to be fair, you should also accept that just like you have faith that science WILL one day explain everything to you, the faith of the religious, on God, would also be explained fully – one day!!


Dr Ravi Zacharias wrote – “A worldview basically offers answers to four necessary questions: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. In turn, these answers must be correspondingly true on particular questions and, as a whole, all the answers put together must be coherent.

Taking it a step further, the three tests for truth must be applied to any worldview: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance. When submitted to these tests, the Christian message is utterly unique and meets the demand for truth.”



“Nothing can impose better on the people than verbiage. The least they understand, the more they admire”. – Saint Gregory 540-604 AD.


Dear Sir, when you say “all the answers put together must be coherent” you allude that Christians have all the answers, and they are all coherent. How can you give such an impression when every Bible teacher agrees that there are many questions for which they currently do not have the answers, but would receive them only in eternity, till which time the status-quo of (blind) faith on generally accepted answers is demanded to be maintained?!! How can you say that, when Christians run away from questions that shake the basis of their faith and punish those who ask such questions?? (I am a humble victim of such punishment, Your Honour)!


Even otherwise, what is the basis of your belief that what you believe is unique? The heavily edited religious texts you have received from vested interests who were eager to impose on the world their newly acquired worldview, but whose practices do not form a part of your present belief system which you claim is superior to theirs’ based on those very texts??!!!

THE UNBELIEVABLE PROOF OF YOUR SHAMELESS SMUGNESS is in the fact that you so smartly point to those heavily edited books of the Bible and claim a higher coherent ground!!!!!! How could you have defended your claim, had the teaching of ‘praying for the dead’, found in the deleted books of Apocrypha, been a part of your “Holy Bible”? How could you defend your claims of Jesus, as God, if the Testaments that mention about his disturbed childhood were part of your present set of books? Wouldn’t the inclusion of those books strike at the very base of your claim for “coherence” in your answer about Meaning and Destiny?? Just analyse your defence for the non-inclusion of those books. Don’t you say that they were rejected because they contradicted with the remaining books? Well, who then decided on finality and acceptability of the “remaining books” that you now pledge your allegiance to? On what criteria was that decision based, and on what authority was it made, that other books are rejected on its basis??!!!

WHAT CHRISTIANS DO NOT REALISE IS THAT BY SUCH DEFENSE THEY SEEM TO ACCEPT THAT MAJORITY IS THE PROOF FOR CORRECTNESS AND DIVINITY. They seem to say that if majority of manuscripts agree with each other, then what it conveys should be right!!! What if 9 out of 10 writers deliberately wrote falsehood and God actually had conveyed the ‘Truth’ through that one writer who was rejected???!!!

Christians insist on “Divine Inspiration” of the original writings of the religious texts THEY HAVE CHOSEN FOR THEMSELVES, inspite of the fact that the “Holy Bible” they hold on to now is the result of planned instances of human interventions in accepting many books that were rejected earlier as heresy, and rejecting many books that were accepted earlier as ‘divine’, thus rendering the very text that claims ‘divinity’ for itself, as highly questionable!! So when a Christian claims that his beliefs are “Utterly Unique” because of its “Logical Coherence”, it not only sounds as silly as a small kid trying to prove to other kids that his dad is the greatest, based on the convenient facts he has managed to collaborate, but it also proves that a Christian is smug enough to shove verbiage on to the ignorant, to cover up the ‘lies’ in his ‘ultimate truth’!!!

There are hundreds of different answers for Origin, Meaning and Destiny, and almost all of them are based on beliefs that are derived from religious texts, legends or myths. (Just like how the creation story of Genesis was a legend for more than 2000 years before it was written down as part of a religious text!), and each of these “answers” are considered true and valid by those who hold on to them. When there aren’t sufficient proofs to substantiate existing claims, BLIND FAITH is brought in to compensate!! Questioning it becomes a “sin” in itself (Its like getting arrested for cracking a joke on an elected representative of a Secular, Democratic country)! With each trying hard to justify its flaws to establish themselves as the better option, how can one find a universally acceptable answer for Meaning and Destiny??

This urge for a universally acceptable ‘answer’ is the need of a Monotheistic belief system. Because, the logic is that, if there is only one God, there should only be one Way. But, a polytheistic belief system is tolerant to non-coherence because, their belief system is like the Linux open software. You can develop it in different ways. And as long as it lets you function efficiently, its fine! Hence, their focus is only to live as well as possible in this life and move on to the next by pleasing one or the other of the Gods that possess different powers, without bothering much about what others think or do. Since they are taught to focus on their Present, answers about Origin and Destiny are not considered imperative for their task at hand. Life, for them, endlessly continues in different forms and stages until it finally merges with God – a concept (the final part thereof) that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:28. This reality, for them, will not alter because of contradictions or in-coherence in their religious texts because their beliefs are not purely based on them.

Just like meaning of life, definitions of morality also changes with the accepted worldview. According to Christian teachings, polygamy is a sin called “adultery”. There can only be one husband for one wife and any other relationship would be sinful, because it was instituted thus, only to reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church.  But when asked how the holy men of God of old were able to marry many wives, Christians say in defence that it is not considered a sin because it was an accepted morality in the prevailing culture. With that logic, God will have to accept homosexuality as sinless (which the Christians consider as sin, based on some misinterpretations) when practised in a “culture” that accepts it as a norm!! Wouldn’t it then mean that morality and sin can be decided based on existing cultural norms and not on a set godly standard??!

WHEN Logic is based on acquired knowledge, IT is relative. For example, according to modern science, its illogical to believe in God. But for many educated religious people, it makes complete sense without any tangible evidence. The functions of Homeopathy or Rekhi are completely illogical for an English medical practitioner, but are completely logical for those who have mastered it. Hence, the basis on which you have arrived on your “logical” conclusions, based on which you try and derive a consistency for what you believe, may not be acceptable to a person who has acquired a different worldview.

Swapan Dasgupta, a senior journalist and Rajya Sabha MP, during a debate said, “Hinduism has a certain lack of certitude; a celebration of ‘greyness’… (an acceptance) that everything cannot be in black and white”. While the Monotheistic teachings like that of the Christians, portray a “do-or-die”, “doomsday” scenario, hence their desperateness to get it all right before the ‘final call’. SO MUCH SO THAT a Christian has ‘strait-jacketed’ God into his accepted doctrines and would rather dethrone him from ‘godship’, if he tries to impart anything apart, than compromise on their dogma!!! But why should the Christian “do-or-die” worldview DICTATE “answers” to those who, based on what they are taught, believe in an endless cycle of good and bad, birth and rebirth???

Experiential Relevance” is no different. Many non-Christians confidently share instances of how their Gods miraculously answered their prayers. But you, as a Christian who believes in One God, would say that it was your God who helped them, right? You would even say the same when a Muslim, who also believes in One God, claims that his God answered him, because there exists no other God but yours, right?? And yet, at the same time, you wouldn’t accept that they are calling on the same God in different names, because you believe that they are calling on “other gods”, right?!!

No religious person on earth holds on to a belief knowing it is wrong. Those that are confused and dissatisfied, end up searching for more or accepting other beliefs. If Christians claim that people from other religions have converted to Christianity, they should also not forget that there many who have converted to other religions from Christianity, too. So number of conversions cannot make any particular religion the ultimate truth on earth.

Empirical Evidence is a vast open field! Sikhs believe that their founder Guru Nanak disappeared while bathing in a river and appeared after three days as a totally different person. You as a person who believes in the uniqueness of Jesus’ death and resurrection are certainly not going to accept that as an empirical evidence for an eternal truth, right? Hindus believe that Krishna actually lived in Mathura. You wouldnt accept that “empirical evidence’ as truth, would you?!! Ancient Hindu texts mention ‘flying objects’, ‘laser fires’, ‘atomic destructions’, etc, which modern science learnt just few centuries ago. You wouldn’t accept those as an evidence for the credibility of those texts, would you? Because you believe what you believe is “unique”, purely based on what is written in your Texts… right?!

What audacity do Christian scholars have to refer to other beliefs as “myths” and their own as “facts” when they hardly have any unique physical evidences to provide? Try and contrast Your ‘evidences’ with those that Hindus now produce, to prove what they believe is right and try and understand how one is called a myth and the other a fact. (It is just that Hindus were not pro-evangelical through the ages, hence they were passive with their apologetics. They never felt the need to defend or IMPOSE their faith for any reason).

If you analyse you would realise that HOW you believe what you believe is not very different from how others believe what they believe. You claim what you believe is right because you believe that those who wrote them down for you were righteous and hence right. But that is how everyone believes what they believe!!!! They believe that their religious texts were written by godly people, under godly guidance and were handed down to them over generations to be believed and accepted as true! They would not need any greater proof than the fact that it was thus believed by their forefathers who interacted with those men!!

Christians are no saints when it comes to defending their flaws. As is said, “We are good Judges of others and good Lawyers for ourselves”! The same logic which a Christian scholar uses to prove divine inspiration of John the disciple to write the book of Revelations, is somehow used to reject similar claims of divine inspiration of Prophet Mohammed to write the Quran, as mere drug-induced hallucinations. If the rumour about Prophet Mohammed’s addiction is right, then we should also believe in the rumours that Jesus was a pot-smoking hippie, wandering the town with weird teachings. Jesus himself agreed that people called him a drunkard (was that smoke without any fire?)! Now how can one prove the other wrong when the knowledge on which such logic is derived is based on the acceptance of the reliability of the respective religious texts, in pure faith??!!

The only advantage Christians had over others was that they had initial access to mass printing, which they used smartly to promote their beliefs as unique. Otherwise, what unique “historical evidence” do they claim to have to prove that Jesus was real? Isnt their most important piece of physical evidence two open tombs vying to be considered as “the one”, with neither of them holding any proof whatsoever to link Jesus directly to them, but mere hearsay?? Arent there serious doubts about the true existence of the one place – Nazareth – that Jesus’ name was always associated with?

The proofs for the historicity of Jesus, inspite of how strong they are, can NEVER prove his divinity – it can only be alluded to and hence be accepted in faith! I am sorry, but the addition of real dates AND original names of people and places does not necessarily prove the truthfulness of any story.

Dear brother, You can do scholarly justice only if you stop studying other beliefs to criticise them and start criticising your beliefs as if you are totally against it. But then your eyes will open and you will realise that there is nothing much that separates you from other ‘believers’!

So please stop fooling vulnerable people with false claims and proofs!!! But if you are adamant about the uniqueness of what you believe and you are getting wealth and fame by preaching it, then don’t bother rocking your boat! SAIL ON; FOOL ON!! :-/

Mr Abraham Jos Maliyekal.

Modern Science is a Religion!

“Modern Science is a Religion that has its roots in Greek Mythology; Camouflaged as anti-religious, only to entrap the blind and the gullible” – Abraham Jos.


leonardo da vinci.png

The FALL or The WALL?? !!!



Ice Wall.jpg



If ‘Laugh Out Loud’ is what you do when you hear “FLAT EARTH”, then a BLIND BELIEVER of “Science” is what you are!!!

Just imagine this: the same scientists who make you believe that massive amounts of water can hold itself up below a globe earth with the help of some mysterious energy called “Gravity”, makes you wonder in disbelief how water would not fall off of a flat earth!!!! Just ask any kid what is easier to believe, THAT A FLAT DISC COULD HOLD WATER ON IT OR A ROUND BALL COULD HOLD WATER UNDER IT (that mysterious ‘ENERGY’ notwithstanding)??????!!!!!!!!!

The difference between a “true” scientist and a pretentious one is that, when a true scientist is presented with a claim contrary to his existing conclusions, he would consider it seriously and research it sincerely, because a true scientist knows that there is a whole lot out there that he really does not know!  But a pretentious ‘scientist’ will immediately pounce on you, abuse you verbally and attack you personally, trying to belittle you in the hope that your message is also belittled in the process, without realizing that he is actually showcasing the same insecurities showcased by a blind follower of religion!

I need to keep repeating this: “LACK OF PROOF FOR SOMETHING IS NOT A PROOF IN ITSELF FOR ANYTHING”! So when a ‘scientist’ tells you “Its not scientifically proved”, it does not mean “it is not true” (though that is what he expects you to conclude). It only means that it has not been researched or studied by poor Scientists, yet!! So unless you want to continue as a blind follower of science, open your eyes and start using your brains!


THE SPHERICAL EARTH (Data source: Wikipedia):

“The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given.

Though the earliest written mention of a spherical Earth comes from ancient Greek sources, there is no account of how the sphericity of the Earth was discovered.  A plausible explanation is that it was “the experience of travellers that suggested such an explanation for the variation in the observable altitude and the change in the area of circumpolar stars. A practical demonstration of Earth’s sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano‘s expedition’s circumnavigation (1519−1522).

Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity. Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea. Plato (427–347 BC) also taught his students that Earth was a sphere though he offered no justifications. “My conviction is that the Earth is a round body in the centre of the heavens, and therefore has no need of air or of any similar force to be a support”, he wrote.

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato’s prize student and “the mind of the school”. Aristotle observed “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions”. Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too ‘believed’ Earth was a sphere “of no great size”.  It was Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer from Hellenistic Libya (276–194 BC), who estimated Earth‘s circumference around 240 BC.

From its Greek origins, the idea of a spherical earth, along with much of Greek astronomical thought, slowly spread across the globe and ultimately became the adopted view in all major astronomical traditions. In the West, the idea came to the Romans through the lengthy process of cross-fertilization with Hellenistic civilization”.



1) The launch of the first human-made object to orbit Earth was by the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957, and the first claim to Moon landing was by the American Apollo 11 mission on 20 July 1969!

2) The earliest known working telescopes appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. Galileo used one of these in 1609. The Ritchey-Chretien variant of Cassegrain reflector was invented around 1910, and widely adopted only after 1950; many modern telescopes including the Hubble Space Telescope use this design.  (I don’t need to mention here that you cannot see the shape of earth with a telescope on the earth)!!!

Compare these with the fact that the earliest mention of a spherical Earth dates back to the 6th century BC, and the first attempts to ‘scientifically’ prove Earth’s sphericity were made way back in 1519−1522!

How can any attempt to establish the shape of the earth, before someone or something could actually fly out of the earth’s atmosphere, far enough to turn around and see the whole earth, be asserted as a “scientific fact” when it is very clearly nothing more than an assumption??!!! Where is the “science” behind such assumptions??? What ‘holier’ ground do these ‘globe-al’ scientists claim to have to enforce their blind beliefs on others as irrefutable “fact”??!!



The Heliocentric belief of the Solar System was NOT based on any ‘scientific’ evidences, in the first place, but was purported by the Greeks who worshiped the sun god HELIO and wanted to make people accept the Sun as the center of it all, with everything else just revolving around it! This belief was embraced by the Romans and propagated through their Empire and later integrated into their official religion, Christianity, and taught around the world through their educational institutes!

I really do not know why they suggested that the earth was a globe… Maybe they were obsessed with balls (its just my assumption, not a scientific claim)!!



In the book of Job 38:11-14, it is written that the dayspring is caused to know its place so it can take hold of the ends of the earth and that the ends of the earth, is turned as clay to the seal! The Hebrew word “chotham” used there for “seal” means “signature seal” or “signet” used by kings or authorities.


Pic 1 – A Signet Seal (Courtesy:

In the book of Isaiah 40:22 it says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”. The Hebrew word used here for “circle” is “chûg” and means “a circle, circuit, compassive”. This is not the same word used to refer a globe or a ball. In chapter 22:18 of the same book it is written, “He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball”. The Hebrew word for “ball” here is “dûr” and means “a circle, ball or pile: –  turn, round about”.


Pic 2 – A Flat Earth model (Courtesy:


Yours Flat

Abraham Jos


A very good explanation of the FLAT EARTH by ERIC DUBEY (1:37hrs Video):


Another useful site: