Editing Openai/68212884-5940-8007-ae13-ab8952298d9e (section)

=== User: Yes, scientific astronomy is much older than NASA and mathematics also anyway. ===
Yes, scientific astronomy is much older than NASA and mathematics also anyway. Now, because you know my message is about the New Revelation - in these books we find countless clear indications not only that the earth, planets and suns are round, but incredible descriptions of the enormous cosmos - The Great Man of Creation (the books of reference are GGJ, The Earth and Moon, Natural Sun, Spiritual Sun, Saturn, Secrets of Life, Secrets of Creation, Sunsets to Sunrises, Robert Blum, The Household of God, The Fly... in fact kind of all of them. Here we find also clear, detailed description of natural and spiritual earth as a living and creative being, as all the other celestial bodies, though like yourself, not endowed with self conscience. Here we have all this huge amount of knowledge that is in agreement with the pure sciences (though we should consider here, in matters of astronomy, that when the Lord speaks about 'moons' he doesn't refer exactly to what we call 'satellites', but to 'children' derived from mother planet, with which they remain in a perpetual electromagnetic and spiritual exchange - therefore an apparent partial disagreement with science). The people supporting the flat earth, same as the most indoctrinated scientists, do not want to know anything about a living earth and about a deeper explanation of the processes of life, including the apparent material evolution.
I am sad that you have been able to recognise that NR is from Jesus once I showed you the overwhelming self-sacrificial love of God for all His children and  for all His creation, while many good people, cannot be touched by such fundamental testimony, but instead would give their lives for man-made theories. I would like you to tell me how does the NR appears from a scientific perspective, in matters of creation, evolution and cosmos and if there is any other spiritual teaching that can be equal or better than it, from this scientific perspective. I think you would be much more capable than me, to give a rational and comprehensive answer to this challenge. Thank you in advance.