Maybe someone will send them my review.

Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succuмbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.)  

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days. A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succuмbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.)  

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days. A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succuмbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.)  

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days. A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

The first time I was at a Fr. Robinson sermon, he started with the words, "Let's get real."

Really!

But as the Bible says, ' There is nothing new under the sun.'  A six day creation might now be a dogma if St Augustine had read your [GlasG4e] post. Did you know it was he who poured doubt on the six day creation based on the idea that you could not have light for day and night before the sun was created.