Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Jun. 3, 2025
Update	: Jun. 3, 2025
Parts	: 01

Synopsis:




As I explain in my article entitled "Other Planets and the Flat Earth Theory", Flat Earth Theory adherents not only embrace the view that the Earth is flat like a pancake with a high perimeter wall made of ice, but they also believe -- based on their understanding of certain Scriptures -- that the Earth is covered by a glass dome which they refer to as the firmament. From what I have read, while Flat Earthers do not typically agree on a specific, standardized height for this theorized dome, some figures which are commonly cited in Flat Earth Theory circles include 3,000 to 4,000 miles -- or 4,800 to 6,400 kilometers -- above the Earth's surface at its apex.

Please note that this height estimate is usually based on their interpretation of the supposed height of the Sun and Moon in their Flat Earth model, which they often claim are likewise about 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and positioned beneath -- or inside -- the dome. However, this latter point does not appear to be agreed upon by all Flat Earth Theory proponents. I base this on the fact that I've seen some drawings where the Sun and the Moon are actually placed OUTSIDE of the alleged glass dome.

Personally, I don't understand their position, being as they also claim that there is water above the so-called dome. But the main point to consider here is that these numbers aren't based on any scientific evidence. It is personal conjecture at best and merely pseudoscientific interpretations of their observations. To be clear, the concept of a physical dome is NOT supported by any empirical data, and as I point out in the aforementioned article, the notion of such a glass dome contradicts extensive evidence from astronomy, physics, and space exploration. Of course, Flat Earth Theory adherents reject the plethora of available scientific evidence, and in fact view it as being totally bogus. In my view, their denial is the epitome of absurdity and willful ignorance.

While Flat Earth Theory proponents unwisely accuse the global scientific community, and national governments worldwide of being engaged in a nefarious conspiracy to conceal the truth from the rest of us commoners regarding the "true" shape of the Earth, and while they vehemently reject any scientific evidence which is presented to them, I find it quite ironic -- and hypocritical -- that at the same time, these people will occasionally produce a photograph which in their minds, shows the Sun dipping below the top of the cloud layers, or supposedly even a photo with clouds behind the Sun, as if to prove that our Sun is local, and not 93,000,000 miles away.

In other words, while they reject all of the solid, valid, verifiable scientific evidence which is presented to them, nevertheless, for some odd reason, they expect us to accept their one solo, questionable photo as strong evidence for their beliefs. Well, as I have told a number of such Flat Earth Theory supporters, please provide us with a single, high quality, top-down photo -- not one of their drawings -- which clearly shows the entirety of the Flat Earth with the ice wall around its complete perimeter, underneath a glass dome. I suspect that I will continue to wait for a very long time for such evidence to be produced by any of them.

My friends, my point is this: If they are going to hold those of us who embrace a globe model of the Earth to such a high standard, then shouldn't they be held to an equally high standard with regard to their evidence? As they say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Of course, I already know how they will choose to respond to my challenge, because they know that they cannot, and will never be able, to produce any such photographic evidence, because it simply does not exist. How can it when Earth is not flat, nor underneath some imaginary glass dome?

As I said, Flat Earth Theory adherents base their belief in a glass dome covering the Earth on certain verses which are found in the Bible. More specifically, they base it on the Hebrew word "raqiya" which is translated in the verses below as "firmament":

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth . . . And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day . . . And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good . . . And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."


Now regarding the ancient Hebrew word "raqiya", the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Aramaic English Lexicon defines it in the following manner:

----- Begin Quote -----

07549 raqiya raw-kee- ah

AV-firmament 17; 17

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
   1a) expanse (flat as base, support)
   1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
      1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
‭
----- End Quote -----

As you can plainly see, the above definition does seem to support the idea that the firmament could possibly represent something solid. In fact, the ancient Hebrews believed that there was water both on the Earth, as well as above it, and that the upper layer of water was supported by the firmament. Now if you stop and think about it, given their very limited knowledge thousands of years ago, it may have been difficult for them to grasp how water -- meaning rainfall -- could be held in the sky, unless there was something solid to keep it there and to support it.

Think about this for a moment. Imagine that you are a Hebrew who lived 4,500 years ago, or even 2,000 years ago during the time of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff looking down at the ocean. The water appears blue to you, even though it is not really blue. We recognize today that the blue range of the visible light spectrum simply consists of the longest wavelengths, and that they can penetrate deeper beneath the water, thus giving the ocean a blue appearance.

So pretending again that you are this Hebrew who lived a long time ago, after looking down at the blue ocean below you, you gaze up at the sky which is likewise a beautiful blue. After that, you consider the rain which falls from the sky. So then you think to yourself, "The ocean is blue, the sky is blue, and all this rain is falling from the sky." Thus, you arrive at the seemingly logical conclusion that all that blue above your head must likewise be water, just like in the ocean below you.

But there is a problem. How in the world is all of that water being held up there? That is when in your simplistic way of thinking, you arrive at the conclusion that there must be a clear, crystalline structure which is holding the water up there. Because it is clear like glass, you can see the water on the other side of it. And that is when the Hebrew idea of the "raqiya" being a solid structure -- as opposed to being an open expanse in the sky -- may have come into existence.

Furthermore, I believe that this is why the ancient Hebrews came to believe that when it rained, it was because God was opening doors or gates in that imaginary crystalline dome, to let water fall to the Earth. In the verses below, the word "doors" is in fact derived from the Hebrew word "deleth", which means door or gate:

"Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven, And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven."


The belief that the Earth is covered by a dome wasn't limited to the Hebrews who lived four thousand years ago. Recently, as I was working on my series entitled "Vespasian, Titus and the Fall of Jerusalem", I discovered that in his work called "The Wars of the Jews", First Century Jewish general and historian Flavius Josephus also described the dome as being crystalline in nature. At least that is the way the word is translated in the English version of his work.

Of course, today, with our more expanded knowledge concerning meteorology, and the rather natural processes of evaporation, condensation and cloud formation, it is much easier for us to understand how heavy rain remains in the sky -- in the form of clouds and water vapor -- without the need for some kind of solid, glass dome to support it. The ancient Hebrews did not possess this knowledge when the Book of Genesis was written. Let me also add that if you read "Other Planets and the Flat Earth Theory", you will come to discover that Genesis offers a very different way to understand what the firmament was and is.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that the Flat Earth Theory adherents are right, and that the Earth is really covered by a glass or crystalline dome. My friends, the minute that we do that, we run into a number of serious problems. Let me point out the easiest and most obvious one first. If we accept the claim that the Earth is covered by a glass dome, the apex of which is 3,000 to 4,000 miles above the surface of the earth, how in the world are meteors and asteroids able to penetrate it, so that they either burn up in the Earth's atmosphere, or even crash to the Earth?

That is strike one against the Flat Earth being covered by a dome. Or do Flat Earthers believe that all of those meteors and asteroids are floating around inside the dome, and then for some explicable reason decide to come crashing down? It will be interesting to see how they address this issue. But there are even more serious issues once we accept the idea of a solid, glass dome covering the Earth. To begin with, if we accept the concept of such a closed system, one inevitable problem is that the atmosphere would eventually overheat due to the heat from the Sun, from trapped gases, from that heat which produced by human activities, and from flora and fauna.

Stop and really think about this, my friends. Consider the very serious ramifications of having a solid, impenetrable dome over our heads. There would obviously be a greenhouse effect far more intense than what we now experience. Heat from the Sun would be able to enter, but less of it would be able to escape. Of course, this is assuming that the Sun is located OUTSIDE of the dome. If it is already on the inside, then the result would be even worse. But regardless of where it is located, the inevitable conclusion is that over time, this would cause a runaway temperature rise, similar to what has been theorized for the planet Venus. I wonder how many humans live on Venus. Sarcasm intended.

It is a scientific fact -- which many of my readers will no doubt already know -- that in a real-world greenhouse -- this applies to the Earth's own atmosphere as well -- that trapping greenhouse gases will obviously and most definitely increase planetary temperatures. That being the case, a glass dome over the Earth would significantly accelerate this process, because there would be no radiative heat loss into Outer Space. So we would essentially be in a kind of pressure cooker.

Now the next question we need to ask ourselves is how long it would it take before this process would result in life on our planet becoming impossible. This question requires more of a multifaceted answer. It depends on a number of variables such as solar radiation, reflectivity, insulation by the dome, etc. However, it is possible to make a rough comparison. As I said, without any level of radiative heat loss into Outer Space, we already know that the Earth's average temperature would rise dramatically.

If all greenhouse gases were trapped with no outlet whatsoever due to the presence of an impenetrable and theorized dome, the Earth could reach uninhabitable temperatures in decades to a few centuries at best, depending on the actual properties of said dome. Now if a major volcanic eruption or a nuclear war was to occur, it could change global temperature within months to years. It is a matter of historical record that temperature rise from the Industrial Revolution -- from about 1760 to 1840 -- to our current time has increased the planetary average temperatures by about 1.2° Centigrade. That is roughly a two hundred and fifty year period. Furthermore, this temperature increase is just from an increase in carbon dioxide levels.

Now if we add in a sealed dome such as we've been discussing, the process would accelerate significantly. And again, this is especially true if no infrared radiation can escape into Outer Space. So we can safely estimate that it would only require a few hundred years -- or possibly less -- before temperatures would become unsustainable for complex life such as our own.

Thus far, we've only discussed the problem with rising global temperatures. But that would not be the only challenge facing us if the Earth was truly covered by a glass dome. We have not even examined the availability of breathable air. If said dome is airtight, impenetrable and does not allow for gas exchange, we would still be dead meat sooner or later, even if global temperatures did not dramatically rise. Why is this?

Well, as we all know, oxygen is consumed by human beings, by animals, by combustion, and by the process of natural decay. One obvious byproduct of this process is the production of carbon dioxide gas. Not just a little bit of it, my friends, but a whole lot of it. If no new oxygen is produced -- such as via photosynthesis or by artificial means -- and no waste gases are removed from the atmosphere, not only would oxygen levels decline, but carbon dioxide levels would majorly rise. Now even if plants exist under our theoretical dome as they do now, their ability to rebalance the oxygen/carbon dioxide ratio would be limited as pollution levels, and the global population level, remain unchecked and continue to rise. So as I said, sooner or later we would be dead meat.

I just mentioned pollution levels. That is the next factor which we need to consider. If a theoretical and impenetrable glass dome truly exists, which would prevent the escape of harmful gases from our atmosphere, sooner or later, it is inevitable that our planet would become so overly polluted that no one and nothing would be able to survive here. Even now, I have been to certain large cities where the pollution is so bad, that it makes your eyes constantly burn, and one doesn't dare to travel to the city center without wearing a face mask. That is just how bad it is.

So again, if the Earth was truly covered under a glass dome like Flat Earth Theory proponents mistakenly believe, then all pollution -- such as industrial emissions, the exhaust from vehicles, methane gas, etc. -- would remain trapped in our atmosphere with nowhere to go. Without such atmospheric circulation reaching to Outer Space -- which is what happens in the real world -- we'd eventually find ourselves existing in an increasingly toxic bubble. A poisonous snow globe. In particular, particulates and chemical pollutants would soon accumulate, especially in the troposphere, which occupies the lower six to nine miles of the Earth's atmosphere.

So the final question we need to ask ourselves is how long it would take to actually pollute the Earth's atmosphere to the point where no life could possibly survive on our planet. We have both historical precedents as well as certain pollution studies which can assist us in answering this final question. For example, the Great Smog of London that occurred in 1952 killed thousands of people in a matter of only a few days. Without air circulation or gaseous escape into Outer Space, it seems that large urban centers could become unlivable in as little time as years, to perhaps decades at best.

Concerning the global or planetary atmosphere, it might take one hundred to three hundred years to become fatally toxic to all life on Earth. It depends on different factors, including the particular emissions, the rate of population growth, and whether or not the dome has any type of ventilation. So with all things considered, assuming that global industrialization continues at its current levels, the entire Earth might have two hundred to four hundred years before it is lights out for everything and everybody.

So now we come to the big and final question. Based on all of these various factors, we can see that a theoretically domed Earth might be able to survive for a few hundred years at best, and certainly less than half a millennium. And therein is the proof that we seek. You see, Flat Earthers believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible. That is why, in contradiction to modern science, they are convinced that the age of the Earth is only around six thousand years old. But that creates a problem. If science demonstrates that we can only survive for hundreds of years under a domed Earth, how is it then that we've been here for some six thousand years from a Biblical perspective?

Do I really need to spell it out for you? Okay. There is no dome over the Earth, and the planet operates exactly as God intended for it to operate, with both excess heat and gases escaping into Outer Space. That is why we are still here. I am convinced that our Heavenly Father and His Son created a well-balanced, well-regulated ecosystem for us Earthlings. He did NOT place humanity in some kind of imaginary snow globe where we'd eventually die due to our own pollution or due to a dangerous rise in temperature. They knew exactly what they were doing. They knew precisely what our bodies needed. They knew the temperature that we required to live on our planet. They knew what balance of gases we required. They had it all figured out from the beginning. This is what I believe. How about you?

With these thoughts, I will bring this article to a close. It is my hope that you've found it informative and enlightening, and I pray that it has been a blessing in your life as well. If you have an account with Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or with any other social network, I would really appreciate if you'd take the time to click or tap on the corresponding link that is found on this page. Thanks so much, and may God bless you abundantly!

For additional information and further study, you may want to refer to the list of reading resources below which were either mentioned in this article, or which contain topics which are related to this article. All of these articles are likewise located on the BBB Bible web server. To read these articles, simply click or tap on any link you see below.

Admiral Richard E. Byrd and the Hollow Earth Theory
Alien Intervention, Raelians, Pyramids and Nazca Geoglyphs
Alien Life, Extrasolar Planets And Universal Atonement
Apophis: Will It Hit the Earth?
Billy Meier and the Pleiadian UFO Encounter
Comet Elenin, Hercolubus, Nibiru, and Planet X
Comet Hale-Bopp, Chernobyl and Deathstar Wormwood
Heaven's Gate, Suicide and Other Death Cults
Heaven's Gate: A Subliminal Message Concealed in Their Logo?
Keeping Things in Proper Perspective: ET, Where Are You?
Nature of the Alien: ETs, Demons or a Government Plot?
Other Planets and the Flat Earth Theory
The Case for or Against Flat Earth Adherents
The Nibiru, Planet X, Wormwood Controversy
Under the Cloud: UFOs and the Holy Bible

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.