What do FEers, BOD deniers, and dogmatic anti-sedevacantists have in common?
What do FEers, BOD deniers, and dogmatic anti-sedevacantists have in common?A) they are extremely stupid
Before I reveal why I see a common thread with these three positions, I like to see what other forum members believe the connection to be.
Common sense.:laugh2: Priceless!
What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach.Typical liberal response. Lay blame using the tactics you employ.
In a word...PRIDE.
Now, please explain how I employ the same tactics....Saying that we interpret scripture our own way. Nothing could be further from the truth. I post quotes from Fathers, Doctors, Popes, saints and ancients like Moses, Enoch, Cosmas, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Robert Bellarmine, Bishop Severian of Gabala, Methodius and scripture. Blaming flat earthers for the fact that scripture and the Fathers agree on flat geocentric earth is like blaming the Pope for being Catholic. Ridiculous.
1) I don’t believe that the Church has ever raised to the level of dogma that the Earth is a globe."Major est Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas." "Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind." --St. Augustine, Commentary on the Book of Genesis
2) I don’t consider those who believe in a FE to be outside the Church because of #1, however I do consider then extremely gullible people.
3) I do believe in the geocentric model, but I don’t believe that one is a heretic if he doubts or denies it.
4) I question your interpretation of what the authorities you cite wrote, so please cite them.
5) Even if it is unquestionably true that a few of them believed in a FE, the vast majority disagrees.
I don’t believe that the Church has ever raised to the level of dogma that the Earth is a globe..
What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach.
In a word...PRIDE.
Nah. FE is not even a theological opinion, but a scientific one, so it's really outside the scope of Popes, theologians, Doctors, etc..
None of these Catholic authorities have ever taught that the earth is a sphere..
.
Flat-earthism is an UNscientific opinion. There is no evidence for it.
.
My point is that it's a question of science and not theology. Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction..
Sedevacantists like Recusant refuse to see the contradiction of claiming, on the one hand, that the consensus of theologians is effectively infallible and a proximate rule of faith while, on the other hand, asserting that the consensus of all the Church's bishops teaching the Universal Church in Ecuмenical Council failed. So theologians can't be wrong while the entire Ecclesia Docens, the world's bishops, can teach heresy and defect en masse. Anti-BoD sedevacantists also claim that heretical ecclesiology is the chief of Vatican II's errors while at the same time holding the same ecclesiology themselves in their obsessive neurotic attack against Father Feeney, the only man who REALLY saw what was happening in the Church. Sedevacantists champion the cause of the Heresiarch Cushing over the faithful Traditional Father Feeney..
They are all hated by Recusant Sede.(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQi-DsLLCd0dWijR8O-EPNf9mUNUGE2NBP43f2dR5rFXX202xnu)
"mir aoykh zenen deyn kheytfal kin, kinder fun di tayvl"A) they are extremely stupid
B) they are unpleasant to be around and lack most social graces
C) they are "mouth breathers"
D) all of the above
What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach.
In a word...PRIDE.
1) I don’t believe that the Church has ever raised to the level of dogma that the Earth is a globe.
2) I don’t consider those who believe in a FE to be outside the Church because of #1, however I do consider then extremely gullible people.
3) I do believe in the geocentric model, but I don’t believe that one is a heretic if he doubts or denies it.
4) I question your interpretation of what the authorities you cite wrote, so please cite them.
5) Even if it is unquestionably true that a few of them believed in a FE, the vast majority disagrees.
.Anyone with two eyes can see earth is flat and stationary. The sun, moon and stars revolve around us and there is no curve. Yet God in His wisdom chose to tell us in scripture the form of the earth, which is expounded on by ancient Catholic authors and saints none of whom describe or defend a spherical heliocentric earth, but who condemn it.
Flat-earthism is an UNscientific opinion. There is no evidence for it.
.
And flat-earthers refuse to make deliberate, controlled observations of reality.
.
They all worship their false-god-golden-calf pipe dream, which is nonsense.
..
Why should Catholic authorities teach that the earth is a sphere?
.
Anyone with two eyes and a thinking mind can know that's true -- we don't need the Church for that.
.
The Church is here to teach on consequential matters of faith, not what we can observe with our eyes and reason with simple logic.
.
My point is that it's a question of science and not theology. Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction.The Church teaches that She proscribes science.
.Evolution depends on and is based on heliocentric spherical earth. Without pagan Helicoentric theory the Big Bang, evolution, and global warming are destroyed.
Pope Leo XIII had a lot of challenges in his day. Somehow he managed to survive the storm. His was the age when Darwin's worldly success was running rampant, and apparently it was simply not the time for the Pope to make definitive pronouncements on that score. He would have been a good one to do it. That could have saved us a lot of problems. Perhaps it was not God's will that the question be settled so soon. Because evolution isn't "scientific" either.
.
It's really disappointing to see Catholics getting physical reality and our understanding of it mixed up with theology and morality.
.
I agree with you here. The point I was making in the OP is that the FEers believe that it is dogmatic that the Earth is flat when in fact that not only science but most Church authorities believed the Earth to be a globe.This is laughable. Most Church authorities believed earth to be a globe? Prove it. Then show one teaching from one Catholic authority of the past that earth is a globe.
You may want to proofread and check your grammar before you decide to attack the intelligence of others.
ps. I am not defending RS
Happenby verses St. Basil. Hmmm....This is an opinion of St. Basil, not a teaching, and he doesn't say that earth is a globe. Perhaps St. Basil was unaware that many saints have presented literal interpretations of scripture, (including St. Jerome who was born a dozen or so years after Basil) based on the great cosmographer Moses, in clear and concise teachings, the geocentric and flat form of the earth. Several came after Basil who was born in 330.
Basil, Hexaemeron: “Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.”
I don't care about the shape of the Earth. I am in awe of God's creation no matter what it looks like or how He created it. I was pointing out the arrogance of the dogmatic Flatists; you sarcastically called him smart and a genius, yet you couldn't even proofread your own post. It was comically ironic.The reason I care about the shape of the earth is because God tells us everything about it in scripture. In other words, there is a need to know about our physical foundations. And people are trying to deny what God says is true to the point that they've re-created the earth against the descriptions of the saints and of scripture. Knowing that the prevailing view of the world is a pagan creation at odds with tradition and scripture should incite everyone to defend the Church, the Saints, and God's Word.
No contradiction in the least. The Council “failed” due to the lack of a pope. The whole ED did not defect as there were some who did not attend, some that did not sign the docs, some who were confused with what they were signing, and still others that were innocent in not realizing what they were actually signing.
Except that theologians hold that the entire Church cannot defect by accepting a false pope. Just because one or two did not attend and a couple didn't sign does not mean that the body of the Church's bishops as a whole did not fail. In any case, this can happen, according to you, but it's not possible that theologians could embrace a false opinion. Well, this did happen. For over 700 years every theologian held to St. Augustine's erroneous view regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism ... until this was overturned by the Church. This effective infallibility of theologians nonsense (I call it Cekadism) has led to a lot of errors among sedevacantists ... and has led to the contradiction of condemning V2 ecclesiology while at the same time promoting the same ecclesiology. As a result, sedevacantists don't even come close to understanding the true theological problem of Vatican II.Oh sedes, you do indeed say that the majority of the Church defected from itself at VII, while you simultaneously claim theologians cannot embrace a false opinion. Your contradiction has every effect in promoting ridiculous notion that the Church is no longer the Church, that your interpretations of theologians hold supremacy over scripture, canons, even Christ's teachings, and that you unbridled and dis unified self proclaimed 'popes' are the total sum of the true Church today. Wrong. The Council of Constantinople already declared a sentence of excommunication on you for refusing to submit to your authorities. You have as much to say about the Church as a Protestant. Zip.
1. No He doesn't and Saint Basil and Saint Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that.1Where do St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that? What are the quotes?
2. No there isn't. You cannot prove that our faith is dependent upon the knowledge of every specific aspect of the ins and outs of God's Creation; we must only believe that He created it and orders everything well.
3. To say this is to be ignorant of the use of allegory in Scripture.
4. This is just flat out not true. There is no proof that the Globe view of creation is at odds with anything necessary to our faith.
You are right about this, Seven.No, he's not right. Geocentrism has already been determined as truth in the great body of work of the Saints. They are in agreement in their teachings, based on scripture, if not in their personal opinions. Also, in the Galileo Affair, Copernicanism (heliocentrism accepted today) was condemned by Pope Alexander VIII, as well as by the great St. Robert Bellarmine, and subsequently put in the Index of books by two other Popes. As such, Catholics are not free to believe the Copernican Doctrine or Heliocentrism which is defined in part by spherical earth.
1. Already gave those quotes in the last two pagesYour quotes do not prove any saint taught heliocentrism or globe earth, nor that they condemned flat earth.
2. Yes it is, what's your point. The shape of the Earth is not part of revealed truth.
3. I agree. The problem is that the "literal sense" means the "sense" in which the Author intended it. It does not necessarily mean what the reader understands the translation of the original text to be. If this were the case, there would be no point of a Church to teach us what it means and Scripture would appear to contradict itself in many areas. Also, this has nothing to do with Geocentrism. Geocentrism could work with a spherical Earth as well a flat one because God is omnipotent.
4. And...?I know your beliefs in regards to BOD so don't go there. You know as well as I do that a Saint's opinion as to what's de fide is not infallible, so this argument doesn't work. This is especially true since we have a later Pope saying that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe and that it shouldn't diminish our amazement at God's Creation.
Who claims that the entire Church can defect?? Not I. For your information, it wasn’t just one or two who did not attend or sign the docuмents, it was many. As a matter of fact, My bishop and the neighboring diocesan bishop attended only one session! Even if some bishops did in fact sign the docuмents, it seems evident to me, that that is not enough proof to proclaim that they were manifest heretics. So are you willing to retract the false statement you just made about me?
Who claims that the entire Church can defect?? Not I. For your information, it wasn’t just one or two who did not attend or sign the docuмents, it was many. As a matter of fact, My bishop and the neighboring diocesan bishop attended only one session! Even if some bishops did in fact sign the docuмents, it seems evident to me, that that is not enough proof to proclaim that they were manifest heretics. So are you willing to retract the false statement you just made about me?
I like how you erroneously attribute to me things that I’ve never claimed. You have a very bad habit of this. Just to make it perfectly clear, I certainly don’t agree with Father Cekada on all things. Also, I’ve never heard him claim that theologians are infallible. Do you have any quotes to support this?
You stated this on other threads, now I’m calling you on it. Please spell out EXACTLY what was the “erroneous view” concerning the state of unbaptised infants held by St. Augustine that “every theologian held” for over 700 years. You claim that there was no other opinions, correct?
There are still three alive that were appointed under Pope Pius XII and there are still many that were appointed under John XXIII. I do not concede that those appointed under doubtful popes can’t be lawful successors of the Apostles. This is due to common error. As a matter of fact, I think it possible that even some appointed under Paul VI may be eligible.
What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach..
In a word...PRIDE.
Sedevacantists like Recusant refuse to see the contradiction of claiming, on the one hand, that the consensus of theologians is effectively infallible and a proximate rule of faith while, on the other hand, asserting that the consensus of all the Church's bishops teaching the Universal Church in Ecuмenical Council failed. So theologians can't be wrong while the entire Ecclesia Docens, the world's bishops, can teach heresy and defect en masse. Anti-BoD sedevacantists also claim that heretical ecclesiology is the chief of Vatican II's errors while at the same time holding the same ecclesiology themselves in their obsessive neurotic attack against Father Feeney, the only man who REALLY saw what was happening in the Church. Sedevacantists champion the cause of the Heresiarch Cushing over the faithful Traditional Father Feeney.Sedevacantists seem to have an Ecclesia Docens by Desire!
Either you are having a hard time following our conversation or you are deliberately being deceitful. This is what was said: You-"The reason I care about the shape of the earth is because God tells us everything about it in scripture." Me: "No He doesn't and Saint Basil and Saint Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that."
This turned into you falsely stating above, that I claim Saints condemned flat Earth. This is not true at all. Since you are incapable of following along or intentionally lying, here are the parts of the quotes I was talking about.
Nice job at sidestepping the teachings of some very prominent Fathers.Why do you assume every saint is a master of every subject in scripture? Your false sense of horror is too humorous.
Your second sentence has got to be the most astonishing thing I've seen from a flat earther. Scripture was not their forte? I can't believe the gall you have. To state that your interpretation on Scripture vastly exceeds the knowledge of two of the most prominent ancient Fathers of the Church is truly mind-blowing.
I have other quotes from early Fathers about their belief in a Globe Earth by the way. You have no interest in upsetting your warped view though.
You seem to be stuck on the notion that it was either taught or condemned. I don't believe it was either. The quotes from St. Augustine and St. Basil prove this. It was not part of the faith and was a waste of time to pursue knowledge of it. This is a pretty bold teaching if not true.In the first example, St. Gregory is speaking to one person. We all agree some saints bought the sphere earth.
I did not say I have quotes of some of the Fathers who TAUGHT globe earth. I said they believed in globe earth and it's obvious they were not concerned with it as a matter of faith. Also, the only Church Father that specifically condemned globe earth was Lacantius. My quotes are here in the Library section under the title "Church fathers did not condemn globe earth".
St. Gregory of Nyssa speaking to St. Macrina, Sister of St. Basil: "I say, there is an absolute necessity that, whatever may happen to each one of the atoms on the upper side of the earth, the same will happen on the opposite side, seeing that one single substance encompasses its entire bulk. As, when the sun shines above the earth, the shadow is spread over its lower part, because its spherical shape makes it impossible for it to be clasped all round at one and the same time by the rays, and necessarily, on whatever side the sun's rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness; so, by this analogy, we have reason to be certain that, whatever in our hemisphere is observed to befall the atoms, the same will befall them in that other."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor: “And how the Earth and sea their place should keep; And when the seasons, in their circling course, winter and summer, spring and autumn, each should come, according to well ordered plan; out of a confused heap who didst create this ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass.”
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man: "For just as those skilled in astronomy tell us that the whole universe is full of light, and that darkness is made to cast its shadow by the interposition of the body formed by the earth; and that this darkness is shut off from the rays of the sun, in the shape of a cone, according to the figure of the sphere-shaped body, and behind it; while the sun, exceeding the earth by a size many times as great as its own, enfolding it round about on all sides with its rays, unites at the limit of the cone the concurrent streams of light"
I don't think you could be any more deceitful or you are not even reading what I'm saying. I AM NOT SAYING THEY TAUGHT IT. I AM SAYING THAT SOME BELIEVED IT. This destroys the notion that flat earth was unanimously taught or believed by the Ancient Church, let alone the medieval one, and that Scripture is clear about it. I think you scandalize the unlearned and make a mockery of Catholic Teaching when you teach flat earth is something even quasi-necessary for salvation. This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with religion.
There is not even a single verse in Scripture that literally says the shape of the Earth is flat. You have nothing. If you want to debate the flat earth, fine. Leave Scripture and the Fathers out of it because flat earth has nothing to do with our Faith.
First, with Stubborn, I argued using Catholic Teaching for a long time. He explicitly, in the past, has said that he refuses to read Catholic Teaching when debating about Sedevacantism. This gets old after a while because he does nothing but spout nonsense and make stuff up. This is why I started arguing with him in this way. It's the only thing that he responds to. When Catholic Teaching is brought up, he shuts down and refuses to hear.
Second, With happenby, she and others like her, claim that this FE is part of the Catholic Faith and treat others who disagree with it as heretics. There is no proof whatsoever of this being Catholic Teaching.
Third, Even though I said she is deceitful, I tried to be fair and said maybe it's because she isn't reading what I'm writing.
So thank you Meg, for your concern, but there is a reason for the things I write.
I don't think you could be any more deceitful or you are not even reading what I'm saying. I AM NOT SAYING THEY TAUGHT IT. I AM SAYING THAT SOME BELIEVED IT. This destroys the notion that flat earth was unanimously taught or believed by the Ancient Church, let alone the medieval one, and that Scripture is clear about it. I think you scandalize the unlearned and make a mockery of Catholic Teaching when you teach flat earth is something even quasi-necessary for salvation. This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with religion.Oh, well you're a step behind. We all knew some believed it. Scripture describes a flat earth. Saints elaborated on it. I will not leave it out of the discussion.
There is not even a single verse in Scripture that literally says the shape of the Earth is flat. You have nothing. If you want to debate the flat earth, fine. Leave Scripture and the Fathers out of it because flat earth has nothing to do with our Faith.
First, with Stubborn, I argued using Catholic Teaching for a long time. He explicitly, in the past, has said that he refuses to read Catholic Teaching when debating about Sedevacantism. This gets old after a while because he does nothing but spout nonsense and make stuff up. This is why I started arguing with him in this way. It's the only thing that he responds to. When Catholic Teaching is brought up, he shuts down and refuses to hear.You are only proving you are not versed in what the saints teach about flat earth and geocentrism and are hardened against them and the model.
Second, With happenby, she and others like her, claim that this FE is part of the Catholic Faith and treat others who disagree with it as heretics. There is no proof whatsoever of this being Catholic Teaching.
Third, Even though I said she is deceitful, I tried to be fair and said maybe it's because she isn't reading what I'm writing.
So thank you Meg, for your concern, but there is a reason for the things I write.
Really? When he says that it is anathema to say the Pope is not the Pope, he isn't making things up? Why was St. Vincent not condemned when he followed an antipope in opposition to the Pope.I have not misrepresented anything. You misunderstood. We know a few saints believed in round earth and I said so in the same statement I first responded with.
When he says that a heretic is in the Catholic Church, he isn't making things up? There are numerous teaching that say that heretics and those who disbelieve in Church Teaching are not in the Catholic Church.Happenby has misstated my argument twice and hasn't apologized for it. This lends itself towards dishonesty. If not, well I said maybe she didn't read what I wrote. As for her seeing the arguments before, that's not true because she was unaware of the quotes I provided. Then she had to come up with very weak arguments to try to refute or explain away the Catholic Saint quotes I provided that don't go along with her viewpoint.
On top of that, it's not Catholic to put a virtual anathema on those who don't believe a teaching as infallible because it hasn't been taught at all, just because you feel strongly about the issue.
Really? When he says that it is anathema to say the Pope is not the Pope, he isn't making things up? Why was St. Vincent not condemned when he followed an antipope in opposition to the Pope.Scripture, truth and the saints are at stake. It matters.
When he says that a heretic is in the Catholic Church, he isn't making things up? There are numerous teaching that say that heretics and those who disbelieve in Church Teaching are not in the Catholic Church.Happenby has misstated my argument twice and hasn't apologized for it. This lends itself towards dishonesty. If not, well I said maybe she didn't read what I wrote. As for her seeing the arguments before, that's not true because she was unaware of the quotes I provided. Then she had to come up with very weak arguments to try to refute or explain away the Catholic Saint quotes I provided that don't go along with her viewpoint.
On top of that, it's not Catholic to put a virtual anathema on those who don't believe a teaching as infallible because it hasn't been taught at all, just because you feel strongly about the issue.
You present the FE like the Church always believed it and it's some sort of Dogma. I showed you two explicit quotes from very prominent Fathers which say that this issue is not a religious one and actually is harmful to waste time pursuing it. You disregard that and say that these two prominent Sainted Fathers had no idea how to interpret Moses.FE is an aspect of Geocentrism which perfectly matches the literal description of earth in scripture. As such, it is revealed truth, although since buried by false narratives and erroneous science at odds with God and his Truth. While the lie is also ancient, the fullness of how it has progressed is only now beginning to reveal itself. If you study any doctrine, you'll find that at times, the scriptural passage a doctrine is based on seems obscure and is not always obvious. The Fathers of the Church brought most to light in a more profound way as time passed. That pagan science reigns today proves there is no question people are under false delusions that earth is spinning and rotating as many Catholics have recently discovered. The problem remains that the sphere was resurrected by Copernicus hundreds of years ago and the evil powers have held sway over the minds of men to the exclusion of Church condemnation of Copernicanism. People will tell you the Church was wrong. That is impossible. And if the Church is right about Copernicanism, it necessarily means all of it. Especially knowing now that so many saints elaborated on Geocentric flat earth already.
None of this is provable since there is no Church Teaching to back it up.Scripture and the saints back it up while pagans deny it. Pagans replaced it with their own model despite the Church's official condemnation. And heliocentrism is the model that denies the creator, enables enslavement to false evolutionary science, relativity and modernism. That is enough, even if there are no other "official" statements. We don't need more official to know. No one was really free to deny Mary was conceived immaculate before the 1800s.
So you keep saying. And then all we get from you are retarded images such as this one, the verses wich it refers to implying NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the shape of the Earth:
(http://testingtheglobe.com/images/EnclosedEarth.jpg)
How do "waters above" imply a flat Earth? Please define the concept of "above" in a manner that doesn't presuppose a flat Earth.
Analagously, how does "wtaers below" imply a flat Earth?
How does a firmament imply a flat Earth?
How does ח֣וּג (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm) in Isaiah 40:22 imply a flat Earth?
How does בְּגֹ֥וא (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1459.htm)in Daniel 4:10 imply a flat Earth?
How do a moving Sun and Moon imply a flat Earth?
How does the immovability of the Earth imply it is flat?
How do "foundations" imply a flat Earth? Please no circular arguments.
I'm not interested in "how the flat earth works". I want logical deductions proving that the quoted verses are impossibilities unless the Earth is flat. Put up or shut up, woman.
(https://i.imgur.com/0v8atCX.jpg)
Quod erat demonstradnum. This shoes that quoted verses are all compatible with a spherical model. ח֣וּג (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm) just means "vault", like "vaults of the Heavens", implyign nothing about flatness, and בְּגֹ֥וא (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1459.htm)in means "midst", and again a tree appearing in the midst of the world implies nothing about flatness, but if you want to insist, a spherical Earth HAS a center.
Go on Meg. Show us how the verse cannot fit the model.
Question: how can Heaven be infinite if it is infinitely limited in the direction of the Earth?
By the way, where do the foundations of the Earth in the flat model end? Since everything falls "down", where "down" is a direction peperdicular to and towards the flat plane of the Earth, and the Earth needs foundations in order not to fall itself, what about the foundations?
If they end, what do they sit upon, and how are these upheld? Are they infinite, or rest upon somethign infinite, again, how is that which is infinite upheld? After all, it's perfectly reasonable to consider an infinite body to be in motion, so what stops the foundations, finite or infinite, from moving, given that everythign material must move in a downward direction unless upheld by something that in its turns needs to be immovable?