Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I know I'm opening a can of worms by saying this, but I find it difficult to take Holy Scripture literally in scientific matters. Take for example this passage from Genesis 1, 14:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

On first glance, this sounds like a description of Sun and Moon in the poetic style of Genesis by a terrestrial observer. As we now know, the Moon is only reflecting light and isn't a light source per se, so how can this passage be taken literally? The same problem applies to all the other arguments regarding flat Earth, the Earth dome, Geocentrism and so on.

1. We use the Douay-Rheims around here, son.
I haven't memorized all of Scripture, but certain phrases I know pretty well. Not saying it changes the sense of what you quoted, but I can tell it's not Douay-Rheims and that IS a problem.

2. You're saying that you don't take Scripture literally, even though all Scripture is required to be interpreted that way (unless you're a Modernist). Some passages have a figurative meaning as well, but that doesn't overwrite the literal meaning. You know how everyone (even smart people) LOVE the word "literally" since the mid 2010's? Just sprinkle "literally" throughout the Scripture text, and that's how you're supposed to interpret it.

3. Last, but certainly not least, you cite "the moon only reflecting light" as an example of Scripture ERRING -- even though that is part of the modern, Freemasonic, NASA cosmology and NOT part of Flat Earth. I'm no Flat Earth expert (I'm just starting to look into it, thanks to recent threads on CathInfo) but I've already learned that FE teaches that the moon is some kind of disc producing its own light.

If you ask me, that's a point for Flat Earth right there. Scripture can't err. Any cosmology which tends to erode confidence and faith in the Scriptures (Word of God) has to be from the devil.

Some say "who cares? It doesn't matter!" but right here you're proving just how much it DOES matter. Someone believing in Flat Earth would (according to you) be much more comfortable with Scripture on this specific point.

Which will help you save your soul: having tons of doubts about God, religion, and Scripture -- or the opposite?

4. "As we now know" - be careful with that. Official consensus, I mean. Do you REALLY know it? Have you measured it? Or are you taking NASA, the government, or other authorities on faith? Keep in mind: almost everything believed by a mainstream "normie" in 2021 is false. People think throwing a surgical mask over their face prevents disease in any way, or helps more than it hurts! They think a few ragheads with box cutters and amateur pilots precision-flew 2 jet planes into skyscrapers and caused them to collapse into their own footprint at freefall speed. They think we have vaccines to thank for longer lifespans and certain diseases being wiped out (short version: no, it was improvements in hygiene and sanitation). They think we went to the Moon several times in the 70's -- haven't been back since -- and just happened to "lose" ALL the evidence for the trip, as well as the technology to get there. Don't make me laugh!

The entire post from Lad to which you are here responding does exactly what you are telling him to do.  I may not agree with you on this issue, but I find it very difficult to believe you are so unfathomably stupid that you cannot even see what is plain to ALL -- Lad already showed Dubay was into FE way before 2015. 

Following the release of the film's trailer, narrator Kate Mulgrew said that she was misinformed about the purpose of the docuмentary and that Sungenis' involvement, which would have been a dealbreaker had she been hitherto aware, was not disclosed to her.^[3][4][9] Max Tegmark explained that DeLano "cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology docuмentary, without mentioning anything about their hidden agenda."^[10] George Ellis corroborated. "I was interviewed for it but they did not disclose this agenda, which of course is nonsense. I don't think it's worth responding to -- it just gives them publicity. To ignore is the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that silly agenda."^[10]

As for the coming movie The Principle (www.the principlemovie.com) which has been over two years in the making it would be good to add the following.

I never understood the Mulgrew thing.  She narrated almost the entire thing, so she had to know the content of the film.

Probably the sin of human respect, she most likely felt embarrassment and shame narrating something that supports Creation.

What I do know is that the Moon is upside down in Australia. That doesn't work in a FE model.

What I do know is that the Moon is upside down in Australia. That doesn't work in a FE model. You can also closely observe the Moon even with amateur telescopes. Also yes, I'm trusting authorities when it makes sense to do so. Man-made objects have been confirmed to be on its surface by multiple sources. We have loads of footage from the Moon surface taken by unmanned probes. It's a solid celestial body.