-
The following is seen at: https://www.facebook.com/theprinciplemovie/videos/899485586889486/ (https://www.facebook.com/theprinciplemovie/videos/899485586889486/)
The Principle (https://www.facebook.com/theprinciplemovie/?hc_ref=ARRs1jftzjgBXo_HGNumPKl1JcpIpzwHuJ9ODeQ5Y3uaUPCfaw62J9G6LiIN_Dk-W0I) was live.
June 20 at 1:00 PM (https://www.facebook.com/theprinciplemovie/videos/899485586889486/) · ·
Replay of the LIVE Broadcast featuring “The Principle” Executive Producer Robert Sungenis, as he debuts his new book “Flat Earth- Flat Wrong”.
Dr. Sungenis’ exhaustive, 736 page treatise on the entire Flat Earth phenomenon is sure to become the gold standard in examining the “movement” in all of its religious, scientific, and cultural aspects.
-
http://www.flatearthflatwrong.com/ is currently a parked domain…
-
The sound does not kick in until about 30 plus seconds into the video. The questioning and sometimes deriding written comments by flat earthers are met by clear straight forward written answers by Sungenis.
(https://www.facebook.com/theprinciplemovie/videos/899485586889486/?comment_id=905247666313278&reply_comment_id=908382395999805&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D)
-
The sound does not kick in until about 30 plus seconds into the video. The questioning and sometimes deriding written comments by flat earthers are met by clear straight forward written answers by Sungenis.
(https://www.facebook.com/theprinciplemovie/videos/899485586889486/?comment_id=905247666313278&reply_comment_id=908382395999805&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D)
Uh, hardly. When the Fathers of the Church were quoted in the comments, they quit answering.
-
.
This time I counted 165 times he says "okay" -- presentation would be improved by not saying that.
.
The sound does not kick in until about 30 plus seconds into the video. The questioning and sometimes deriding written comments by flat earthers are met by clear straight forward written answers by Sungenis.
.
Are you saying the questions are on Facebook?
-
Quote from: klasG4e
The following is seen at:
www.facebook. com/theprinciplemovie/videos/899485586889486/ <---the URL (remove the space before "com")
The Principle was live.
June 20 at 1:00 PM · ·
Replay of the LIVE Broadcast featuring “The Principle” Executive Producer Robert Sungenis, as he debuts his new book “Flat Earth- Flat Wrong”.
Dr. Sungenis’ exhaustive, 736 page treatise on the entire Flat Earth phenomenon is sure to become the gold standard in examining the “movement” in all of its religious, scientific, and cultural aspects.
(end of quote)
.
.
.
I couldn't get the video to play here in its embedded form. I think his using Facebook is a mistake.
If you're having the same problem, copy and paste the URL above into your browser to go to the Facebook page directly.
If you don't have an account and don't want one (like me!) just click "CANCEL" or "NOT NOW" when they urge you.
Then you can watch the video.
But don't try to scroll down because then you'll be harassed again to register or sign in, etc.
-
.
There was this comment on the right side bar on the Facebook page:
.
Responding to Robbie
Rob Skiba · 0:44 The Principle
We've already given HUNDREDS Bob. You've done an amazing job of showing the Earth is STATIONARY according to the Bible and that it is Geocentric. Now, you need to show us ANY Scriptures that CLEARLY states [sic] the Earth is spherical. And sorry, but Isaiah 40:22 doesn't help your case.
.
.
Why do you suppose Rob Skiba (whoever that is) wants Sungenis ("Bob") to provide Scripture quotes that state the earth is spherical?
.
Why does this "Skiba" think that anyone needs to refer to Scripture regarding what we can observe first hand right now?
-
.
Correction:
If you don't have a Facebook account and you don't want one (like me) you might have to do the following to hear the sound track ONLY (but the video doesn't help to watch because it's just Sungenis sitting there waving his hands next to a coffee table with two lamps on it).
When they give you the ad page with "THE PRINCIPLE" in a pop-up window demanding you to "sign in or register" just click the box that says "NOT NOW." Then the video flash player will appear to the left with the "play" arrow in the middle. Click on the arrow AND THEN GO TO ANOTHER TAB IMMEDIATELY in your browser. (You should have another browser already open.)
.
Do Not Peek at the Facebook page. Stay on other tabs and leave the Facebook page alone. If you forget or don't believe me, and you return to the Facebook page to peek at the video or check the minute counter, the video will STOP AND YOU'LL HAVE TO REFRESH THE PAGE AND START OVER at the beginning of the video. This is especially rotten when you're at minute 50 so you have to play that 50 minutes all over again to get back to where you messed up. Facebook is a terrible place.
The voice of Sungenis will begin after about 30 seconds. You won't be able to see what the time stamp is so keep track of the time on your own clock if you want to remember where to find certain sentences later. This is how fun it is to use Facebook if you don''t want to abide bby theiir stupid rules. (My keyboarrd adds extra letters and omits others)
.
You won't bbe able to pause the sound. So pay attention.
.
Facebook is a terrible place.
.
-
.
Correction:
If you don't have a Facebook account and you don't want one (like me) you might have to do the following to hear the sound track ONLY (but the video doesn't help to watch because it's just Sungenis sitting there waving his hands next to a coffee table with two lamps on it).
When they give you the ad page with "THE PRINCIPLE" in a pop-up window demanding you to "sign in or register" just click the box that says "NOT NOW." Then the video flash player will appear to the left with the "play" arrow in the middle. Click on the arrow AND THEN GO TO ANOTHER TAB IMMEDIATELY in your browser. (You should have another browser already open.)
.
Do Not Peek at the Facebook page. Stay on other tabs and leave the Facebook page alone. If you forget or don't believe me, and you return to the Facebook page to peek at the video or check the minute counter, the video will STOP AND YOU'LL HAVE TO REFRESH THE PAGE AND START OVER at the beginning of the video. This is especially rotten when you're at minute 50 so you have to play that 50 minutes all over again to get back to where you messed up. Facebook is a terrible place.
The voice of Sungenis will begin after about 30 seconds. You won't be able to see what the time stamp is so keep track of the time on your own clock if you want to remember where to find certain sentences later. This is how fun it is to use Facebook if you don''t want to abide bby theiir stupid rules. (My keyboarrd adds extra letters and omits others)
.
You won't bbe able to pause the sound. So pay attention.
.
Facebook is a terrible place.
.
Agreed.
Facebook is not the most accessible venue.
Doesn't Sungenis have a YT channel? ?
-
I couldn't get the video to play here in its embedded form. I think his using Facebook is a mistake.
If you're having the same problem, copy and paste the URL above into your browser to go to the Facebook page directly.
Use youtube-dl (https://mrs0m30n3.github.io/youtube-dl-gui/) to download the video and watch it offline. It works much better than watching it in a browser.
-
Hot off the Internet!
The Flat Earth vs Geocentric Model: Dr. Robert Sungenis vs Antonio Subirats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeIg3-SOTwY
-
Where can Flat Earth Flat Wrong be downloaded?
-
The link they gave is not working.
It is suppose to be flatearthflatwrong.com
Don't hold your breath for a serious analysis of flat earth though. It will be mostly lies. It's going to be torn apart.
-
Sungenis is using a soft opening checking opposition to his model. After speaking with him, it is clear that he has no solid evidence earth is a globe, but only remains his opinion. 700 pages of opinion he cannot prove. He knows little to nothing about the Fathers of the Church and their writings on the subject. He insists Scripture must be interpreted literally when it comes to moving earth, but not literally when it comes to earth's shape. He thinks man went to the moon, or, if they didn't, then maybe NASA lied, but NASA doesn't always lie and he uses a lot of data from them. Sadly, every answer he provides directly or through his side-kick Rick Delano, he is unable to deal with the physical or spiritual questions coming at him. I seriously doubt it's even possible for someone who's written two books and produced a movie supporting the globe can ever permit the truth to penetrate long enough to seriously consider the particulars involved. I'm still waiting for answers to questions.
-
Why does this "Skiba" think that anyone needs to refer to Scripture regarding what we can observe first hand right now?
What is it that you can observe first hand?
-
Sungenis is using a soft opening checking opposition to his model. After speaking with him, it is clear that he has no solid evidence earth is a globe, but only remains his opinion. 700 pages of opinion he cannot prove. He knows little to nothing about the Fathers of the Church and their writings on the subject. He insists Scripture must be interpreted literally when it comes to moving earth, but not literally when it comes to earth's shape. He thinks man went to the moon, or, if they didn't, then maybe NASA lied, but NASA doesn't always lie and he uses a lot of data from them. Sadly, every answer he provides directly or through his side-kick Rick Delano, he is unable to deal with the physical or spiritual questions coming at him. I seriously doubt it's even possible for someone who's written two books and produced a movie supporting the globe can ever permit the truth to penetrate long enough to seriously consider the particulars involved. I'm still waiting for answers to questions.
Hope you will let us know what you think of his book after you have actually read it. He stated that he wanted to examine and answer every scientific claim put forth for a flat earth.
Since you and some others on this forum seem to know so much about the flat earth and hold Sungenis in contempt for supposedly knowing so little about it why don't you ask to publicly debate him on the subject rather than merely toss invective at him? Is that asking too much?
You say, "he thinks man went to the moon." Actually, he has many times expressed grave doubts as to whether man has gone to the moon.
Sungenis spent 9 months of hard labor researching and writing his book, Flat Earth, Flat Wrong. I'm sorry you dismiss that good faith effort so casually. Perhaps, you will in good faith read his book and seriously consider what he has put forth in it and then report back to us.
-
Did you not watch the interview?
He's plain in saying he's a hired hand. He was paid to write the book by Hugh Owen.
Owen gave him a 30+ page manuscript and he expanded it to 700+.
Thing is, he doesn't understand the basic flat earth model (which is not complicated at all). He literally cannot articulate it in his own words. This makes right thinking observers such as Happenby question the thoroughness of his research.
Collating information from other writers into a volume and slapping your name on it does not make you knowledgeable.
That said, I'd read it.
-
Did you not watch the interview?
He's plain in saying he's a hired hand. He was paid to write the book by Hugh Owen.
Owen gave him a 30+ page manuscript and he expanded it to 700+.
Thing is, he doesn't understand the basic flat earth model (which is not complicated at all). He literally cannot articulate it in his own words. This makes right thinking observers such as Happenby question the thoroughness of his research.
Collating information from other writers into a volume and slapping your name on it does not make you knowledgeable.
That said, I'd read it.
So someone paid him to write the book -- Hugh Owen, the founder and director of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Do you have a problem with someone like Hugh Owen paying him to write the book? Do you see something nefarious in that? Is not a man worthy of his labors. Some of the greatest intellectual achievements as well as artistic achievements in the history of the world were done as a result of some person or persons commissioning another individual to carry out the work. That doesn't necessarily mean the work is pre-ordained to reach certain conclusions.
Why do you fault him for writing 700+ pages? Would you rather he only wrote 50?, 100?, or 200?
I don't have a problem with people questioning Sungenis' work after they have examined it, but to rush to judgment without examining the work is something of quite a different order.
In any event Smed, I am very happy that you seem to be keeping to some degree an open mind as expressed in your statement, "That said, I'd read it." Please report back!
-
No, I have no problem with him accepting a paid writing assignment.
I have an issue with Owen's REASON for giving him the assignment and Sungenis's agreement with it: Owen seeks to squash the discussion of flat earth. It's very important to him.
Sungenis's partner, Rick DeLano, has a very irrational hatred for flat earthers, which stems from the fact that 3 major flat earth YT channels released FE films just prior to the release of The Principle, and they went viral and it killed his movie. Well, DeLano's bad publicity killed it too, but I digress.
Sungenis likely will not debate a FE Catholic if he's wasting time with clowns like Subirats.
-
Thing is, he doesn't understand the basic flat earth model (which is not complicated at all).
He literally cannot articulate it in his own words.
This makes right thinking observers such as Happenby question the thoroughness of his research.
.
Wrong "thing."
.
Thing is, there isn't any flat-earth model.
.
But go ahead and prove me wrong by articulating it in YOUR own words, since it's "not complicated at all."
-
http://www.flatearthflatwrong.com/ is currently a parked domain…
.
A week later and it's still dormant. Maybe someone else put down some money on it now they have to fight it out.
.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch (https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth)...........
.
It perplexes us to see that belief in a “flat earth” is gaining traction, despite being thoroughly debunked for thousands of years. This idea was almost non-existent until recently, yet this particular branch of pseudoscience is making inroads. It’s notable that the article The Flat Earth Myth (https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth), busting the myth that the church taught a flat earth, written as recently as 2013, did not receive any negative comments from flat-earth believers. Why? Because there were hardly any people back then who believed it! Rather, readers were grateful to see that the church had never taught this nonsense. Several honest atheists have even slammed people from their own side who have pushed a bad pseudo-history that accuses the church of teaching a flat earth.1
.
So, if almost nobody believed it back then, why do some people believe it now? This includes several who commented on an article published earlier this year: Isaiah 40:22 and the shape of the earth (https://creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere). Most of the influence today is coming from a series of online videos that have been shared widely. These were created by charlatans and, sadly, are deceiving many. Even more sadly, some Christians are being caught up in the hype.
.
There are people who believe that the moon landings were faked with the primitive video technology of 1969. Yet they are totally oblivious to the fact that the video technology of 2016 could easily fake a flat earth!
.
It is not our business to warn people about each and every false idea that comes up, but only when the idea directly impinges on a straightforward biblical teaching. Thus, we steer clear of 9-11 cօռspιʀαcιҽs, but directly engage with people who attempt to claim the moon landings were a hoax (https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#moonhoax) on our Arguments Creationists Should Not Use (https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use) page. Why? Because the first, even though it deals directly with physics, is enmeshed in too much conspiratorial gobbledygook. The second, however, gets into how we see the world, how the universe works, how science proceeds, and how we can tell what is true and what is not.
.
Even though we have addressed the Flat Earth Myth multiple times (see Related Articles, below), and even though we have gone into the biblical and scientific arguments against it, people have recently started to ask us about it (or criticize us for our firm global-earth view). Our only conclusion is that the Internet is breeding people who have trouble thinking through important ideas.
.
.
...............And what kind of Internet-brood would that be? Well, the flat-earthdown-syndromers, of course!
.
-
The Protestant author you quoted, Jonathan Sarfati, would like Sungenis because they both agree about a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible on Creation, but not on the literal description of the shape of Creation. Ironic.
However, even Sungenis admits the FACT that the Church Fathers held flat earth, in disagreement woth Sarfati.
-
.
Johnathan Sarfati is a contributing author at Creation Ministries International:
.
.
It perplexes us to see that belief in a “flat earth” is gaining traction, despite being thoroughly debunked for thousands of years. This idea was almost non-existent until recently, yet this particular branch of pseudoscience is making inroads. It’s notable that the article The Flat Earth Myth (https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth), by Johnathan Sarfati, busting the myth that the church taught a flat earth, written as recently as 2013, did not receive any negative comments from flat-earth believers. Why? Because there were hardly any people back then who believed it! Rather, readers were grateful to see that the church had never taught this nonsense. Several honest atheists have even slammed people from their own side who have pushed a bad pseudo-history that accuses the church of teaching a flat earth.1
https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth (https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth)
.
The Flat Earth Myth
by Jonathan Sarfati (https://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati)
What did the early church really teach?
.
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (1934–) thoroughly debunked the flat earth myth over 20 years ago in his definitive study Inventing the Flat Earth.5
.
The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) favourably reviewed this masterpiece:
.
“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”6
.
Russell showed that flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell docuмents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358 ) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
.
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/ AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.7
.
In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.8
.
Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:
.
“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circuмference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”
.
And the leading church theologian and philosopher of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:
'
“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.”9
...
- Almost all the early and medieval church scholars who commented on the earth’s shape explicitly said it was round.
- .
- Medieval European rulers used a golden sphere or orb called the globus cruciger to represent the earth under Christ’s rule.
- .
- Columbus’s opponents never disputed the shape of the earth, but only its size—and they were right!
- .
- The flat earth myth began with a fictional account of Columbus in the 19th century by Washington Irving. Then it was aggressively pushed in influential anti-Christian polemics by Draper and White.
- .
- A final irony: the leading flat-earther today is an evolutionist!
- .
- Select Footnotes:
- 1. Sarfati, J., Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution (https://creation.com/deceive), creation.com/deceive, 24 September 2008.
- .
- 5. Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991.
- .
- 6. Gould, S.J., The Late Birth of a Flat Earth, in: Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, 1st paperback ed., pp. 38–50, New York: Three Rivers Press, NY,1997.
- .
- 7. Henderson, T., World-famous astronomers celebrate the Venerable Bede, The Journal, journallive.co.uk, 13 February 2009.
- .
- 8. The Galileo affair is another anti-Christian myth of ‘religion v. Science’, although it was really science vs. science. See Sarfati, J., Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact (https://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial), Creation 31(3):49–51; creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial.
- .
- 9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 54: The distinction of habits, Article 2, Reply to objection 2.
And almost right at the beginning of the Summa, in First Part, Q 1, article 1: Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?, Reply to Objection 2 Thomas discussed methods of proving something. Here, he referred to the roundness of the earth as an example obvious to all: “Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.”
In the original Latin, Thomas used rotunda for round. And in First Part, Question 67, Thomas made it clear that he knew the shape of the earth, because he also used the word hemisphere (Latin hemisphaerium), meaning half of a sphere: “Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. … Secondly, as to place, for in one hemisphere there was light, in the other darkness. Thirdly, as to time; because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same hemisphere; and this is signified by the words, “He called the light day, and the darkness night.” - .
- Primary source docuмentation is available in my articles, Why does science work at all? (https://creation.com/whyscience) Creation 31(3):12–14, 2009; creation.com/whyscience; and, The biblical roots of modern science (https://creation.com/roots), Creation 32(4):32–36, 2010; creation.com/roots.
- .
- Russell, C.A., “The Conflict of Science and Religion”, in: Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion, p. 15, New York 2000.
- .
- Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011.
- .
- Works of Aristotle I: p. 389.
- .
- [Ed. note: Several atheopaths have attacked both Isaiah and Bede because the earth is not a perfect sphere, although even Bede understood that it has irregularities “similar to a potato” such as mountains and deep-sea trenches. But he realized that this was a tiny deviation from sphericity; that it was reasonable to call the earth a "sphere." Also, long after Bede, it was predicted, then discovered, that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. flattened at the poles. In reality, ‘sphere’ is a very good approximation for the shape of the earth, not an error. Most astronomers today are OK with calling the earth a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’, knowing full well that it’s an approximation. So the same allowance should be made for the Bible. Actually, Sir Isaac Newton (https://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727), a creationist (https://creation.com/newton-was-a-creationist-only-because-there-was-no-alternative), was the one who first predicted oblateness from the earth’s rotation.
Simple arithmetic should demonstrate how vacuous and desperate this objection is. The earth’s equatorial radius 6,378.1 km, while its polar radius 6,356.8 km. The deepest point in the ocean, Challenger Deep, is 10,916 km deep—<0.2% deviation from sphericity. Ever seen a potato, or even a rubber ball, this spherical? Also, the oblateness, given that the difference between polar and equatorial radii is only 21.3 km, is only 0.3% deviation from a sphere.
In most usages, there are degrees of perfection or accuracy. The earth is a perfect sphere down to about 0.3%, which is perfect enough for most people. Scale this down to the size of some playing balls: if a ball were 63.781 mm in one radius and 63.568 mm in a perpendicular radius, one could safely call its shape a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’. It would take a sharp eye indeed to notice that a ~6½-cm ball bulged a bit in the middle, by merely a fifth of a millimetre.]
-
.
Where the editor for the Internet page I copied, above, has said the following:
.
Ed. note: Several atheopaths have attacked both Isaiah and Bede because the earth is not a perfect sphere, although even Bede understood that it has irregularities “similar to a potato” such as mountains and deep-sea trenches. But he realized that this was a tiny deviation from sphericity; that it was reasonable to call the earth a "sphere." Also, long after Bede, it was predicted, then discovered, that the earth is an oblate spheroid, i.e. flattened at the poles. In reality, ‘sphere’ is a very good approximation for the shape of the earth, not an error. Most astronomers today are OK with calling the earth a ‘globe’ or ‘sphere’, knowing full well that it’s an approximation. So the same allowance should be made for the Bible. Actually, Sir Isaac Newton (https://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727), a creationist (https://creation.com/newton-was-a-creationist-only-because-there-was-no-alternative), was the one who first predicted oblateness from the earth’s rotation...
.
...he was beginning to touch on the difference between our modern concept of the earth's sphericity and that of the ancients.
.
With the help of satellites and computers today, we are able to get a far more accurate understanding of the earth's external contours, by which we have endeavored to propose a variety of models in order to simplify our world view. It is a common theme to find ways of simplifying complex reality, and in so doing one ellipsoid model might be chosen while another model is rejected. That doesn't mean the rejected model is "wrong," but that it is merely not as good as another for a particular application. We have come up with several different ellipsoid models over the past 40 years, some of which are more commonly used in particular regions of the earth where other ellipsoid models are selectively ignored. An ellipsoid is a theoretical ideal geometrical deformed sphere which may pass above or below specific surface locations on the earth, whether they be solid land or the surface of bodies of water. Generally speaking, a particular ellipsoid is more useful when it passes ABOVE a given surface area, but not very far above it (such as 5 meters, or 27 meters, but not 100 meters). Given a choice between using an ellipsoid that passes 1 meter below a particular point of interest and another that passes 10 meters above the same point, usually the latter is preferred.
.
There is a lot to say about ellipsoids and each one of them entails mountains of data.............. iow TLDR ...............
.
Bottom line: it's not even a matter of whether the earth is "flat" or spheroid.
It is rather a question of what precisely the shape is of the spheroidial earth.
Is it a spherical shape like this, or is it a slightly different spherical shape like this?
And to the vast majority of causal observers, the differences between them are so minor as to be of no interest. TLDR again.
.
Another abstract model in common usage is the geoid. But there is a huge difference between the geoid and any particular ellipsoid.
.
When one refers to ellipsoid, one must identify WHICH ellipsoid is being used, because there are a variety to select from.
.
But when one refers to the geoid, there is only one of those: The Geoid.
(But for whatever reason, the G is conventionally not upper case: "the geoid.")
.
-
.
Consequently, there is an enormous difference between "flat" earth and spheroidal earth:
.
There is NO "flat" earth model, but there are numerous spheroidal earth models.
.
.
Flat-earthers cannot manage to agree on what they're talking about. It's the Tower of Babel all over again!
.
They have exiled themselves away from discussion because they can't so much as agree with one another.
.
If it were not for the one thing they fight against, they would have little or nothing in common.
.
Many flat-earthers are atheists, most of them are Protestants, a lot are Moslems, and a very few claim to be Catholic.
-
.
It is not our business to warn people about each and every false idea that comes up, but only when the idea directly impinges on a straightforward biblical teaching. Thus, we steer clear of 9-11 cօռspιʀαcιҽs.
What is it with this polite (and sometimes downright rude and even obscene) marginalization and or denigration by traditional Catholics of those who believe it is not only their business, but in some cases their patriotic duty as Christians, to warn people about the monstrously evil 9-11 lie our own government has foisted on the American people and to some extent a lot of other people in the world?
In doing this they often use code words or catch phrases like conspiracy theory since that seems to so often elicit a dumbed down Pavlovian like complimentary response and or a quick termination of the discussion.
One need not get bogged down in all the details of possible 9-11 versions to realize that our government clearly lied to us in a horrible way (I won't get into the separate issue/problem of cognitive dissonance here) and not only that, but that the 9-11 lie fits not unsurprisingly into a long history of horrendous lies foisted on to the American public to bring us into wars and ruinous foreign incursions. The cost of these lies has been trillions of U.S. dollars and tens of thousands of American battlefield deaths and countless more injuries and ruined lives. The cost to the people of other nations has even been much worse.
I can't speak personally for you Neil in regards to whether you yourself should ever talk to people about 9-11. For all I know, you might be in no position to intelligently do so. That said I would certainly hope that you could refrain from begrudging your fellow traditional Catholics their right, if not even their duty in some instances, to try to inform others about the truth of 9-11. After all these years of exposure, I'd venture to say that a self-instructed 15 year old of average intelligence could easily and clearly refute the false narrative (9-11 conspiracy/fantasy) the U.S. Government has pushed on us as a sort of secular dogma.
So, please don't lump in the obscene U.S. government version of 9-11 that has resulted in an almost incalculable horror for much of the American public, not to mention a far more wide spread horror for countless innocent people abroad as just a "false idea that comes up." If you wish to in your words, "steer clear of 9-11" let it be on you, but please don't try to discourage us as civilized human beings, not to mention in many cases patriotic traditional Catholics, from doing so.
-
.
I posted the link to the article I was quoting.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch (https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth)...........
What follows are not my words. But when I use a quote box the stupid platform deletes its contents when someone else quotes my post. So I don't use the rotten quote box very often. Try quoting this post and watch the quote box, above, disappear! Try it! See for yourself!
.
I don't have any problem with calling out the deception of the "official" version (NIST) of what happened on 9-11-2001. Or Pearl Harbor. Or the USS Liberty. Or the Gulf of Tonkin. Or the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building, OK City. Or Waco, TX. On and on. I almost cut that 9-11 part out to prevent confusion but I thought it wouldn't be confusing. I guess I was wrong.
.
-
.
I posted the link to the article I was quoting. What follows are not my words. But when I use a quote box the stupid platform deletes its contents when someone else quotes my post. So I don't use the rotten quote box very often. Try quoting this post and watch the quote box, above, disappear! Try it! See for yourself!
.
I don't have any problem with calling out the deception of the "official" version (NIST) of what happened on 9-11-2001. Or Pearl Harbor. Or the USS Liberty. Or the Gulf of Tonkin. Or the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building, OK City. Or Waco, TX. On and on. I almost cut that 9-11 part out to prevent confusion but I thought it wouldn't be confusing. I guess I was wrong.
.
Thanks for the clarification Neil. Sorry if I caused you any grief. My mistake!
-
Hope you will let us know what you think of his book after you have actually read it. He stated that he wanted to examine and answer every scientific claim put forth for a flat earth.
Since you and some others on this forum seem to know so much about the flat earth and hold Sungenis in contempt for supposedly knowing so little about it why don't you ask to publicly debate him on the subject rather than merely toss invective at him? Is that asking too much?
You say, "he thinks man went to the moon." Actually, he has many times expressed grave doubts as to whether man has gone to the moon.
Sungenis spent 9 months of hard labor researching and writing his book, Flat Earth, Flat Wrong. I'm sorry you dismiss that good faith effort so casually. Perhaps, you will in good faith read his book and seriously consider what he has put forth in it and then report back to us.
I really am not dismissing good faith effort. I listened to Sungenis on his live stream, I've read his articles and watched his videos against flat earth. Seems the book won't have anything different to offer, just more of what he's already saying. I will probably read it at some point and I will report what I see and try to be as fair as possible and give proof for any critiques.
-
Thanks for the clarification Neil. Sorry if I caused you any grief. My mistake!
.
I don't blame you for reacting that way if you thought I had written it.
I should be more careful to show when I'm quoting someone else.
-
I really am not dismissing good faith effort. I listened to Sungenis on his live stream, I've read his articles and watched his videos against flat earth. Seems the book won't have anything different to offer, just more of what he's already saying. I will probably read it at some point and I will report what I see and try to be as fair as possible and give proof for any critiques.
So happy to hear you say that happenby -- that you will probably read the book and that if you do you "will report what I see and try to be as fair as possible and give proof for any critiques." That certainly sounds like good faith on your part!
-
Flat Earth Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical, and Scientific Analysis, the book that promises to be the "gold standard" for full comprehensive flat earth review and critique is now available through its website which has now become active: http://flatearthflatwrong.com/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/). The site provides for viewing ol lengthy excerpts from the book.
-
Flat Earth Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical, and Scientific Analysis, the book that promises to be the "gold standard" for full comprehensive flat earth review and critique is now available through its website which has now become active: http://flatearthflatwrong.com/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/). The site provides for viewing ol lengthy excerpts from the book.
Thanks for posting this KlasG4e
-
I agree with Sungenis's criticism (FEFW p. 259) of Fr. Jaki's Modernist claims that "higher criticism" shows Genesis 1 is "post-exilic" (it is Catholic doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63758/1787)), but degree with Sungenis that Fr. Jaki's criticism of "concordism" ("applying proven scientific facts to the Bible") is incorrect, on the grounds that "Geneis 1's separation of the Light of Gn 1:3 and the sun and stars of Gn 1:14-17 is a scientific 'contradiction'". St. Thomas answers Sungenis's objection (Summa Theologica I q. 70 a. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP070.html#FPQ70A1THEP1) arg. 2):
Objection 2: Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the first day. The luminaries, therefore, should have been made on the first day, not on the fourth.
by saying (ibid. (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP070.html#FPQ70A1THEP1) ad 2):
Reply to Objection 1: In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here; for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinion of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible, the answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance, at first formless, is formed on this day, by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power. As to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day, Chrysostom (Hom. vi in Gen.) explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of idolatry: since the lights are proved not to be gods, by the fact that they were not from the beginning.
-
Looks like Geremia is the first to buy the book!
-
Looks like Geremia is the first to buy the book!
Yes, I was interested in his exegesis, but Sungenis still seems to have some Protestant baggage…
-
But Geremia is probably reading the book to confirm his own prejudices about the globe earth lie.
-
I agree with Sungenis's criticism (FEFW p. 259) of Fr. Jaki's Modernist claims that "higher criticism" shows Genesis 1 is "post-exilic" (it is Catholic doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63758/1787)), but degree with Sungenis that Fr. Jaki's criticism of "concordism" ("applying proven scientific facts to the Bible") is incorrect, on the grounds that "Geneis 1's separation of the Light of Gn 1:3 and the sun and stars of Gn 1:14-17 is a scientific 'contradiction'". St. Thomas answers Sungenis's objection (Summa Theologica I q. 70 a. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP070.html#FPQ70A1THEP1) arg. 2):by saying (ibid. (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP070.html#FPQ70A1THEP1) ad 2):
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas
Objection 2: Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the first day. The luminaries, therefore, should have been made on the first day, not on the fourth.
by saying (ibid. (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP070.html#FPQ70A1THEP1) ad 2):
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas:
Reply to Objection 1: In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here; for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinion of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible, the answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance, at first formless, is formed on this day, by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power. As to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day, Chrysostom (Hom. vi in Gen.) explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of idolatry: since the lights are proved not to be gods, by the fact that they were not from the beginning.
Now this may be out of context with the thread subject, but it came up here so I would like to comment. I have long pondered on the creation of light on the FIRST DAY and the sun on the FOURTH DAY. As I understand it, St Augustine based his instant creation on the fact he could not understand how there could be light on the first three days without the sun.
This order of our world, according to Moses in Genesis I, was like every other system created by God, hierarchic. First created were the heavens and Earth, heaven for His angels and then heavens around the Earth. Next God created light, the material light and ‘the intellectual or angelic light,’ a metaphor for the angels,
‘signifying the angelic nature and mystically the light of their science and grace with which they were endowed at their creation. God created the Earth conjointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation there were left in the interior of that globe spacious and wide cavities, suitable for Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.' --- The Mystical City of God,
Was St Augustine, who could not cope with light before the sun and so separated himself from the six-day creation of the majority of the Fathers, the only Father who did not hold to a six-day creation? The reason I ask this is because it was this separation that allowed the billions of years to be applied to Genesis.
Now St Augustine was not a pope making an official Church dogma. In other words St Augustine was not infallible. Did St Augustine never see lightning at night? Isn't that light without the sun? Did St Augustine never see light coming from a fire without the sun? If St Augustine were to come back today and find a church all lit up with electric bulbs at night, would he think it a miracle? Light is but one electromagnetic effect.
I am a complete believer in an electric universe based on evidence. I believe when God created light on the first day it was an effect of electromagnetism that, like an electric bulb, gave the physical light described in Genesis. St Augustine, and St Thomas would not have understood that God infused His universe with electromagnetism. Pity, because St Augustine is portrayed as the one who blocked the six-day creation and made it impossible for a six-day creation to be held as dogma.
Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is not a 'scientific contradiction.'
-
CORRECTION: I wrote 'is not a scientific contradiction.' Should have been 'is' in context.
Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is a 'scientific contradiction.'
-
I agree that the universe is electric. The sun is not a gas ball, but some form of contained electricity. There are explanations for the light on the first day which was a broader form of light, true light as it were, not yet contained or formed except to be distinguished from darkness. Some consider that the first created light was a luminescence of sorts, later manipulated into use for the sun, but remaining distinct from it. Just as the moon's light is different than the sun and the stars. This first light is not a known thing as stated, just a working theory.
-
CORRECTION: I wrote 'is not a scientific contradiction.' Should have been 'is' in context.
Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is a 'scientific contradiction.'
there might not necessarily be a contradiciton here.
Genisis says that the sun was to "rule the light by day" and the moon by night.
It could be understood to mean that it was there already. The light may be simply control by the moon and sun. Sounds crazy, but we have to be open to it.
-
But Geremia is probably reading the book to confirm his own prejudices about the globe earth lie.
No, I'm only interested in his exegesis.
-
Dr. Robert Sungenis: "In actuality, the Light of the First Day is the original light, but on the Fourth Day the sun and stars were either formed from it or were created separately....the Bible insists that the original Light that was made on the First Day still exists in the universe today. There are other people who believe Evolution is a scientific fact. They believe the universe is at least 13 billions of years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years. some of them also believe Genesis is a sacred record of how the world began, but insist that we are not to take every word of it literally. Hence, although they believe Genesis ! might be read in chronological or a semi-chronological order, they hold that each of the Six Days is actually billions of years long. This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis. The word 'Day' in the original Hebrew refers to a 24 hour period, not millions of years. .....some who hold to the Big Bang theory (which claims that everything in the universe came from a giant explosion some 13 billion years ago) believe that the creation of Light on the First Day refers to an immense primordial explosion which produced light. This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis. The first verse of Genesis insists that the Earth came before the Light, while the Big Bang claims that the Light came before the Earth."
-
Dr. Robert Sungenis: "In actuality, the Light of the First Day is the original light, but on the Fourth Day the sun and stars were either formed from it or were created separately....the Bible insists that the original Light that was made on the First Day still exists in the universe today. There are other people who believe Evolution is a scientific fact. They believe the universe is at least 13 billions of years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years. some of them also believe Genesis is a sacred record of how the world began, but insist that we are not to take every word of it literally. Hence, although they believe Genesis ! might be read in chronological or a semi-chronological order, they hold that each of the Six Days is actually billions of years long. This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis. The word 'Day' in the original Hebrew refers to a 24 hour period, not millions of years. .....some who hold to the Big Bang theory (which claims that everything in the universe came from a giant explosion some 13 billion years ago) believe that the creation of Light on the First Day refers to an immense primordial explosion which produced light. This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis. The first verse of Genesis insists that the Earth came before the Light, while the Big Bang claims that the Light came before the Earth."
A bit long winded...
-
How so?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk
-
Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is a 'scientific contradiction.'
That there can be no light without the sun is wrong even from the standpoint of modern science.
-
.
So now Kent Hovind has 22,000 pages to read:
Flat Earth Flat Wrong
Not By Faith Alone
Not By Scripture Alone
Over 700 pages each. To Protestants, he's going to be known as the 700 club writer.
-
Dr. Robert Sungenis: "In actuality, the Light of the First Day is the original light, but on the Fourth Day the sun and stars were either formed from it or were created separately....the Bible insists that the original Light that was made on the First Day still exists in the universe today. There are other people who believe Evolution is a scientific fact. They believe the universe is at least 13 billions of years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years. some of them also believe Genesis is a sacred record of how the world began, but insist that we are not to take every word of it literally. Hence, although they believe Genesis ! might be read in chronological or a semi-chronological order, they hold that each of the Six Days is actually billions of years long. This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis. The word 'Day' in the original Hebrew refers to a 24 hour period, not millions of years. .....some who hold to the Big Bang theory (which claims that everything in the universe came from a giant explosion some 13 billion years ago) believe that the creation of Light on the First Day refers to an immense primordial explosion which produced light. This is also an incorrect way to read Genesis. The first verse of Genesis insists that the Earth came before the Light, while the Big Bang claims that the Light came before the Earth."
.
This is the beginning of problems for big-bangism.
.
It is impossible to believe the Bible and to also believe in big-bangism.
.
God created the earth on the first day but did not create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day.
Meanwhile, from the first day there was light, the earth had night and day, but there was no sun.
Sun, no, daylight, yes!
There was no sun on the second day, no sun on the third day, but the earth already had fruit-bearing plants, which need daylight.
The earth's plants were bearing fruit (meaning they were created fully mature in one day) but there was not yet any sun.
Not until the fourth day was there sun because that's when the sun was created.
.
None of this makes one bit of sense to the wrong thinking of biological evolution or big-bangism.
.
They've tried to make a joke of it with "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Well, according to Scripture, chickens as well as all other animals, were created mature, chickens laying eggs, and eggs hatching.
The creation of the world from nothing, "ex nihilo," is a dogma of the Faith, and in stark opposition to big-bangism.
.
If you ask big-bang believers about the universe at the time of the so-called big bang, they have a very interesting answer.
This isn't front page news, but it's what they believe.
And it gives us a great clue to how they think and why they have so many problems with how the world began.
They say at the first instant of the big bang, all the KNOWN universe was contained in a point the size of a proton.
Key word, KNOWN. (But they don't use all caps like I do!)
It was the KNOWN universe for the following reason:
All of space-time was contained in that proton-sized speck, they say.
Consequently, OUTSIDE of that speck, whatever there was we cannot KNOW because it was not the KNOWN universe.
That doesn't mean there was nothing outside the speck!
It only means that whatever it was, it cannot be KNOWN.
.
I'd like to pause for a commercial break.
In ancient Greece there was a philosopher who left no writings.
But one of his teachings comes down to us in one pithy doctrine.
He said that there is but one great heresy, and it has three parts.
I. ---- There Is No Truth.
II. --- Even If There Were Truth, The Truth Cannot Be Known.
III. -- Even If The Truth Could Be Known, It Cannot Be Communicated.
In its simplicity, it covers a multitude of false doctrines which all fit neatly inside of it.
Kind of like the primordial speck, so to speak!
And from the Catholic perspective, it is reminiscent of the Blessed Trinity: I. The Father, II. The Son, III. The Holy Ghost
In a backwards sort of way, that is, denial of the Blessed Trinity as the great heresy.
.
Getting back to big-bangism, the unknowable OUTSIDE that first proton-sized speck is the subject of much speculation.
Actually, it has so far spawned the idea of the multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, and who knows what else!
For as the BANG occurred (how or why isn't somehow important) all of space-time EXPANDED at an astonishing rate.
Nobody knows if the speed of expansion exceeded the speed of light; perhaps it did not, or, perhaps it did, somehow.
But in any case, as space-time grew vastly larger, it pushed away at its extremity whatever-it-was that had been OUTSIDE.
As things eventually settled down, the speed of light came to define the limits of the observable universe.
That is, from inside the KNOWN universe, anyone who tries to look to the furthest extent of the universe will be limited.
They will only be able to see as far as the limit set by the KNOWN universe's outer extremity.
For it takes light time to reach us, wherever we are, and if we try to look beyond that extremity, the speed of the light we are looking at means the light has taken as long to reach us as the age of the KNOWN universe, therefore, what lies beyond is UNKNOWABLE.
.
If they were to take this to its logical extreme, they would say, "Even if it could be known, it could not be communicated."
The ancient Greeks effectively had this figured out already.
-
.
After reading the post above, see if the following video has a different meaning in any of its parts:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw8noakRT7w
.
especially starting at minute 2
-
Big Bang and globe earth are part of the evolutionary and revolutionary pagan religion foisted on us by NASA and idiot scientists like Copernicus, Newton, Kepler and Einstein.
-
Big Bang and globe earth are part of the evolutionary and revolutionary pagan religion foisted on us by NASA and idiot scientists like Copernicus, Newton, Kepler and Einstein.
The globe Earth was around a long long time before NASA ever showed up. Even lying NASA like a broken clock can tell the truth twice a day.
-
.
After reading the post above, see if the following video has a different meaning in any of its parts:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw8noakRT7w
.
especially starting at minute 2
It's as if Satan's hoof pops out big time at 9:43 "It is possible that one day nothing will be impossible for us." Stated another way, "It is possible that one day we shall be as gods." (Cf. Genesis 3:5 "....and you shall be as Gods....")
-
It's as if Satan's hoof pops out big time at 9:43 "It is possible that one day nothing will be impossible for us." Stated another way, "It is possible that one day we shall be as gods." (Cf. Genesis 3:5 "....and you shall be as Gods....")
.
There is an awful lot of pride in modern popular cosmology. It's looking more and more like they're all in for a big shock soon.
.
Nobody can smugly presume they're just waking up to long-hidden secrets without setting themselves up for disappointment.
.
Look what happened to Hillary the past Presidential election -- she had her fake glass ceiling reception hall all ready to go.
.
The big secret they're expecting to open up has to do with that unexplored outer rim of the "known universe."
.
There must be some really big money getting a powerful itch to be the first to take a peek at what's back there.
.
I had a personal run-in with this thing about 25 years ago.
.
I was talking to a retired cardiologist in Woodland Hills, who had worked at St. John's Medical Center in Burbank.
.
He wanted me to get a high resolution copy of the original Portuguese newspapers from the day after October 13th, 1917.
.
He wanted to inspect them first hand, and his purpose was to look for inconsistencies.
.
He was sure something had been overlooked, because the sun couldn't have possibly done what they say it did.
.
He showed me his collection of memorabilia from WWII when he was a B52 bomber pilot.
.
He finished medical school after the war, and had a career of about 35 years as a cardiologist.
.
In the process, he revealed to me his theory about miracles in general -- this was a career medical doctor.
.
He said he had witnessed many so-called miracles in his practice, and he was convinced he knew how they happened.
.
He was an atheist, so he "knew" it couldn't be the work of any so-called God, because there is no God, he said.
.
He told me that he believed the day would come when we discover the power of the mind that makes miracles happen.
.
He told me this in sincere confidence, and I have no reason to doubt he really believed it.
.
Sounds a lot like your quote in the video at minute 9:43.
.
His name was Dr. Stone -- he was a Jew. I'm pretty sure he's no longer living, he was about 75 at the time.
-
.
Typo -- should have had St. Joseph's Hospital, Burbank, Calif., not "St. John's" -- that's in Santa Monica. Wrong hospital.
-
For babblers
-
The globe Earth was around a long long time before NASA ever showed up. Even lying NASA like a broken clock can tell the truth twice a day.
This is very true. We also know that pagan lying NASA continues to promote evil lies against the Church and Scripture. A known liar, with the same goals as known liars should never be trusted. NASA needs to prove earth is a spinning ball, that man went to the moon in 69, that lunar vehicles landed on Mars, that the Big Bang is a viable theory, that earth curves commensurate with a 25,000 mile ball, that CGI photos of a spherical earth are legit and that evolution is true science. NASA can do nothing of the kind and continues to promote false notions of creation to suit their evolution godless Big Bang.
-
This is very true. We also know that pagan lying NASA continues to promote evil lies against the Church and Scripture. A known liar, with the same goals as known liars should never be trusted. NASA needs to prove earth is a spinning ball, that man went to the moon in 69, that lunar vehicles landed on Mars, that the Big Bang is a viable theory, that earth curves commensurate with a 25,000 mile ball, that CGI photos of a spherical earth are legit and that evolution is true science. NASA can do nothing of the kind and continues to promote false notions of creation to suit their evolution godless Big Bang.
I received my copy of Sungenis' book Flat Earth -- Flat Wrong. I'm very glad I purchased a copy. It's a fantastic book. He covers a tremendous amount of material in a very competent manner.
One of the really fascinating parts of the book deals with the reasons why a good number of people are so strongly attracted to the Flat Earth position -- why they believe in it so adamantly.
-
Getting the whole story, testing the spirit and knowing the argument from both sides, help to keep a Catholic informed.
https://twostoryworld.wordpress.com/critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth/
Scientists love to obfuscate and blow techno smoke in order to impress the shallow minded. Sungenis repeats this practice in his article against flat earth hoping to look impressive, but he appears to go to extreme lengths in order to defend what he ought not. The critique in the link above shows to what of level of dishonesty Sungenis has fallen in order to protect his movie and book revenue against the onslaught of the awakening against science falsely so-called. Sungenis defends the Church in many ways, but like people often do, he ultimately had a price and sold out.
-
Getting the whole story, testing the spirit and knowing the argument from both sides, help to keep a Catholic informed.
https://twostoryworld.wordpress.com/critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth/
Scientists love to obfuscate and blow techno smoke in order to impress the shallow minded. Sungenis repeats this practice in his article against flat earth hoping to look impressive, but he appears to go to extreme lengths in order to defend what he ought not. The critique in the link above shows to what of level of dishonesty Sungenis has fallen in order to protect his movie and book revenue against the onslaught of the awakening against science falsely so-called. Sungenis defends the Church in many ways, but like people often do, he ultimately had a price and sold out.
Are there any well known proponents of flat earth who have asserted as a matter of public record that they would be willing to debate Sungenis in public? If so who are they and what is their contact information? As far as I know Sungenis is more than willing to debate publicly any reputable proponent of flat earth on the subject of flat earth. Same same for the subject of geocentrism vs. heliocentrism.
As for Sungenis' article that you mention here, I am now bringing up his much greater material, his book. Where can we find any substantial (not just name calling or generalizations) rebuttal to his book which are put forth by reputable proponents of flat earth?
-
ROB SKIBA
-
ROB SKIBA
Please docuмent and provide contact info. Thanks!
-
ROB SKIBA
Still waiting Smed -- where is the docuмentation and contact info?
-
The globe Earth was around a long long time before NASA ever showed up. Even lying NASA like a broken clock can tell the truth twice a day.
Yes, the globe is promoted throughout the centuries by the occult Gnostics and pagans science NASA supports, something repeated constantly throughout these threads. Accepting anything from NASA who may be right a couple of times is like saying Hillary and Obama are acceptable politicians because like broken clocks they might tell the truth twice a day. They simply cannot be trusted.
-
Sungenis and Skiba are planning a debate on flat earth sometime around November or December. Hopefully, Sungenis converts Rob Skiba to the Catholic Faith and Skiba converts Sungenis to flat earth. Both appear to appreciate Scripture, yet Sungenis discards it because he says it isn't clear, even though the Fathers use Scripture to describe and enclosed earth which is bound to heaven. Sungenis continues to use heliocentric measurements from NASA and tired old nonsense from the likes of Einstein, Kepler, Newton and Copernicus, none of which have proven earth is a globe, nor are the light year distances proposed by them provable. Simple geometry bears this out proving the angles of the sun are impossible on a 25,000 mile globe. Sungenis believes the sun, moon and stars travel at ridiculous speeds with no limit because they are in space. He'd have to say that because the 93,000,000 mile distant sun would have to travel billions of miles every 24 hours just to get around the earth from one day to the next. Absolutely ridiculous.
-
He'd have to say that because the 93,000,000 mile distant sun would have to travel billions of miles every 24 hours just to get around the earth from one day to the next. Absolutely ridiculous.
Roughly half a billion (93,000,000 * 2 * 3,14).
What is ridiculus about that? Too fast for your imagination?
-
Sungenis and Skiba are planning a debate on flat earth sometime around November or December. Hopefully, Sungenis converts Rob Skiba to the Catholic Faith and Skiba converts Sungenis to flat earth. Both appear to appreciate Scripture, yet Sungenis discards it because he says it isn't clear, even though the Fathers use Scripture to describe and enclosed earth which is bound to heaven. Sungenis continues to use heliocentric measurements from NASA and tired old nonsense from the likes of Einstein, Kepler, Newton and Copernicus, none of which have proven earth is a globe, nor are the light year distances proposed by them provable. Simple geometry bears this out proving the angles of the sun are impossible on a 25,000 mile globe. Sungenis believes the sun, moon and stars travel at ridiculous speeds with no limit because they are in space. He'd have to say that because the 93,000,000 mile distant sun would have to travel billions of miles every 24 hours just to get around the earth from one day to the next. Absolutely ridiculous.
Well said. It is indeed ridiculous to think that the sun, at a supposed ridiculous distance from the earth, would travel billions of miles per day to supposedly get around the earth. The sun does not leave any kind of trail behind it, that we can see. No evidence that it is traveling at those speeds.
-
The sun does not leave any kind of trail behind it, that we can see. No evidence that it is traveling at those speeds.
Do you expect folks to follow your reasoning or your authority?
-
Do you expect folks to follow your reasoning or your authority?
What authority? I've never claimed authority.
Reasoning, yes. No one has to agree with me though. Or agree with you either.
-
What authority? I've never claimed authority.
Reasoning, yes. No one has to agree with me though. Or agree with you either.
But your reasoning has no base. You would first have to show, that and why the sun would have to leave a trail.
Alas, St. Robert Bellarmine had no problem with a distant sun (measurements at that time indicating a ten times lower distance, still roughly 50 million miles per day). He didn't think that that's ridculous.
-
Roughly half a billion (93,000,000 * 2 * 3,14).
What is ridiculus about that? Too fast for your imagination?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence the sun moves at such extraordinary speeds.
A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence the sun moves at such extraordinary speeds.
A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence
Measurements of the distance to the sun are reported since some centuries before Christ. Men of worldly wisdom have presented their methods and results. Many of them were loyal sons of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Methods and results have been discussed.
What is your contribution to the discussion? What are your reasons to reject the evidence? Why would anyone listen to baseless logic (see entries above) or boring verdicts like "extraordinary claims ... "?
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence the sun moves at such extraordinary speeds.
A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence
One more answer: Flat earth is an extraordinary claim. There is no evidence for a flat earth. Not even a consistent model. Heed your own advice! Don't boast without extraordinary evidence.
And note: You are spilling manure over many church fathers and doctors, over bishops and popes, when defending a flat earth. Are you a housewife?
-
Before flat-earth-pest broke out some few years ago, there was the lie that in medieval times idiot Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire believed that the earth was flat. Before George W. Bush reactivated the term "conspiracy theories" in the context of 911, folks who uttered knowledge about state terrorism, disinformation, propaganda etc. even worse in the "free world" than in the other project of the bankers beyond the iron curtain, were called flat-earth-nuts. Maybe not in the U.S. but in Europe.
Catholics always knew that this was anti-Church slander of the liberal forces of the improperly so-called Enlightenment. R. Sungenis (though stuck with a clown-pope) helpfully details, that it was a weird fabrication of liberal theologians of the 19th century.
It is an absurd situation, to find flat-earthers in a forum supposedly full of traditional Catholics. Is the "resistance" or related groups full of depraved subjects who don't hesitate to offend their own forefather protagonists which fought against the decay and destruction of the Church?
-
Measurements of the distance to the sun are reported since some centuries before Christ. Men of worldly wisdom have presented their methods and results. Many of them were loyal sons of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Methods and results have been discussed.
What is your contribution to the discussion? What are your reasons to reject the evidence? Why would anyone listen to baseless logic (see entries above) or boring verdicts like "extraordinary claims ... "?
Oh, indeed measurements were reported before Christ. And they were nothing like what they say now. The heliocentric scientists in the 15/16th century assigned a value of 3,000,000 miles to the sun, slightly more reasonable than now.
Robert Sungenis is continuously proven wrong about the flat earth, about the history of the Fathers of the Church and about Scripture. So, while you continue digging around, take an actual look at the Fathers and Scripture.
-
One more answer: Flat earth is an extraordinary claim. There is no evidence for a flat earth. Not even a consistent model. Heed your own advice! Don't boast without extraordinary evidence.
And note: You are spilling manure over many church fathers and doctors, over bishops and popes, when defending a flat earth. Are you a housewife?
Flat earth is not an extraordinary claim. The globalist ball and its luciferian history is not just off the charts ridiculous, but a tool to destroy body and soul. Just because its sat in the cat bird seat for a few hundred years doesn't mean its true. There is only evidence for flat earth and no evidence for the globe. This discussion has been going on for a couple years now. You ought to catch up first before making yourself look bad.
-
Oh, indeed measurements were reported before Christ. And they were nothing like what they say now. The heliocentric scientists in the 15/16th century assigned a value of 3,000,000 miles to the sun, slightly more reasonable than now.
Yes roughly only one order of magnitude less than today. In the 17th century Giovanni Domenico Cassini had the distance within roughly -10% of today.
Robert Sungenis is continuously proven wrong about the flat earth, about the history of the Fathers of the Church and about Scripture.
Could you please give me all (or at least some) of your examples (continuously? must be quite a lot) where Robert Sungenis is proven wrong about the history of the Fathers.
So, while you continue digging around, take an actual look at the Fathers and Scripture.
Wholeheartedly sorry to disappoint you, but I already did. Here an example:
In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" of the late St. Augustin we read about the earth having the form of a sphere and being lit such that there is day on one and night on the other side (book 1, chapter 12, section 25).
-
Flat earth is not an extraordinary claim. The globalist ball and its luciferian history is not just off the charts ridiculous, but a tool to destroy body and soul. Just because its sat in the cat bird seat for a few hundred years doesn't mean its true. There is only evidence for flat earth and no evidence for the globe. This discussion has been going on for a couple years now. You ought to catch up first before making yourself look bad.
I have watched the renewal of the flat-earth-movement in recent years (there had been a flat earth society in Britain long before). As far as I can see, it is obviously created to be used as a tool of desinformation to slander all kinds of contemporaries who are waking up to the fact, that democracy as well as communism are a facades, and to many other facts not taught in schools. Democracy has been instituted in the western world by jews/illuminati/masons/... since 1776 and 1789. Communism came later, and is a hierarchical system like the masons and related lodge systems.
Even before the new flat-earth-movement on youtube etc. appeared, at least decades before, anyone defending the true church, inquistion, etc. was slandered with the absurd idea, in "dark medieval times" (i.e. in catholic times, before Weishaupts illuminati arrived)* folks had believed in a flat earth.
So, in my view, you are a "useful idiot" of the foes of the Church. Note: I don't intend to offend you. I just frankly say how things look to me.
*) the "dark medieval times" denote the 1000 years of the catholic Holy Roman Empire in Europe
from Karl der Große crowned in Rome at December 25, A.D. 800
to Kaiser Franz II cease-fire of Steyr against Napolean at December 25, A.D. 1800
-
I have watched the renewal of the flat-earth-movement in recent years (there had been a flat earth society in Britain long before). As far as I can see, it is obviously created to be used as a tool of desinformation to slander all kinds of contemporaries who are waking up to the fact, that democracy as well as communism are a facades, and to many other facts not taught in schools. Democracy has been instituted in the western world by jews/illuminati/masons/... since 1776 and 1789. Communism came later, and is a hierarchical system like the masons and related lodge systems.
Even before the new flat-earth-movement on youtube etc. appeared, at least decades before, anyone defending the true church, inquistion, etc. was slandered with the absurd idea, in "dark medieval times" (i.e. in catholic times, before Weishaupts illuminati arrived)* folks had believed in a flat earth.
So, in my view, you are a "useful idiot" of the foes of the Church. Note: I don't intend to offend you. I just frankly say how things look to me.
*) the "dark medieval times" denote the 1000 years of the catholic Holy Roman Empire in Europe
from Karl der Große crowned in Rome at December 25, A.D. 800
to Kaiser Franz II cease-fire of Steyr against Napolean at December 25, A.D. 1800
Watch the latest video in the newest thread I posted. There is more to know.
-
Yes roughly only one order of magnitude less than today. In the 17th century Giovanni Domenico Cassini had the distance within roughly -10% of today.
Could you please give me all (or at least some) of your examples (continuously? must be quite a lot) where Robert Sungenis is proven wrong about the history of the Fathers.
Wholeheartedly sorry to disappoint you, but I already did. Here an example:
In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" of the late St. Augustin we read about the earth having the form of a sphere and being lit such that there is day on one and night on the other side (book 1, chapter 12, section 25).
Post here what St. Augustine actually said, not just a paraphrased version, please.
Here's where Robert Sungenis is wrong about the Fathers:
Robert Sungenis provides a list of 16 Fathers of the Church that he claims taught earth is a globe. The problem is, the list is provably inaccurate.
On the list is Arnobius. Wiki gives some insight.
“The work of Arnobius appears to have been written when he was a recent convert, for he does not possess a very extensive knowledge of Scripture. He knows nothing of the Old Testament, and only the life of Christ in the New, while he does not quote directly from the Gospels. He was much influenced by Lucretius and had read Plato. His statements concerning Greek and Roman mythology are based respectively on the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria, and on Cornelius Labeo, who belonged to the preceding generation and attempted to restore Neoplatonism.[10]”
Without knowledge of Scripture, any discussion of the shape of the earth by Arnobius would not be authoritative.
Sungenis lists St Athanasius as a globe earther, yet that claim is proven quite a stretch. Wiki places St. Athanasius with flat earthers and we can see its highly questionable that the saint taught earth is a globe. Below is a quote from St. Anthanasius and beyond that is an excerpt from Wiki.
Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)
Diodorus of Tarsus, a leading figure in the School of Antioch and mentor of John Chrysostom, may have argued for a flat Earth; however, Diodorus’ opinion on the matter is known only from a later criticism.[88] Chrysostom, one of the four Great Church Fathers of the Eastern Church and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament.[89] Athanasius the Great, Church Father and Patriarch of Alexandria, expressed a similar view in Against the Heathen.[90]
Regarding Athanasius’ claim that earth is set on the waters (under the firmament) and not in space, we see that Sungenis has a problem because this description is of a flat earth, not a globe. But that St. Athanasius says the earth is “bound fast” also shows that he did not teach that the earth was a ball hanging in space. Scripture says the earth is with a foundation, bound to the firmament at the edges, firmly fixed, and even quotes God saying, “I have bound it (heaven and earth) like a square block of stone”.
Also on Sungenis’ list includes St. Cyril of Jerusalem as having taught the globe. Well, not so much, as we see below.
Wiki
“J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary
Systems’, (1906)” A limited preview is here, and Severian is on p.211-2
A contemporary of Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, lays great stress on the necessity of accepting as real the supercelestial waters 1, while a younger contemporary of Basil, Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, speaks out even more strongly and in more detail in his Six Orations on the Creation of the World,2, in which the cosmical system sketched in the first chapter of Genesis is explained. On the first day God made the heaven, not the one we see, but the one above that, the whole forming a house of two storeys with a roof in the middle and the waters above that.
1 Catechesis, ix., Opera, Oxford, 1703, p. 116.
2 Joh. Chrysostomi Opera, ed. Montfaucon, t. vii. (Paris, 1724), p. 436 sqq. Compare also the extracts given by Kosmas, pp. 320-325.
No glober teaches that there is a body of water above earth or in space.
Further explanation tells us:
The literal interpretation of the Bible was totally
followed by the leaders of the Syrian Church,
who accepted only the cosmogony of the Genesis.
Some contemporaries of Basil, Cyril of
Jerusalem and Severian of Gabala agreed with the
creation of the world according the Genesis.
The heaven is not a sphere, but a tent, a tabernacle,
a vault, or a curtain. The earth is flat and the
sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels
through the northern parts, hidden by a wall.
So, Sungenis’ claims about St. Cyril are definitely a problem as he is known to teach flat earth cosmogony: the firmament as a tent, like a tabernacle, etc. Such descriptions do not describe features of a globe.
Another Saint on Sungenis’ list of Fathers who taught that earth is a globe is St. Clement of Alexandria. Again, Sungenis’ information is inaccurate.
“Other notable Fathers of the Church who taught flat geocentric earth are Theophilus of Antioch in the second century and Clement of Alexandria in the third, based on the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, both taught that spread over the earth was a solid vault, “a firmament,” and they added the passage from Isaiah in which it is declared that the heavens are stretched out “like a curtain,” and again “like a tent to dwell in.”
–A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by Andrew Dickson White
Historian
Another on Sungenis’ list is Eusebius.
While the following statement is not clear as to what he exactly believed, this is what historian Andrew Dickson White tells us about Eusebius: References below may add more information.
A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view (spherical earth), but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, “It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things.” Basil of Caesarea declared it “a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan.” Lactantius referred to the ideas of those studying astronomy as “bad and senseless,” and opposed the doctrine of the earth’s sphericity both from Scripture and reason. St. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific belief; and Ephraem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church, widely known as the “lute of the Holy Ghost,” opposed it no less earnestly.
(27) For Eusebius, see the Proep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the
Hexaemeron, Hom. ix. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap.
3; also citations in Whewell , Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 1857, vol.
i, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217.
For the views of St. John Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, and other great
churchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap i.nklhlbl
Another Father on Sungenis’ list is Gregory Thaumaturgus, yet Gregory was a student of Origen, who was an ardent flat earther and who taught that the firmament was without doubt a solid structure above the earth through which rain passed. Although this isn’t exactly proof Gregory wasn’t a globe promoter, with the errors Sungenis has found himself immersed in already doesn’t bode well for his claim. Note the glowing sentiment of Gregory for Origen:
In his panegyric on Origen, Gregory describes the method employed by that master to win the confidence and esteem of those he wished to convert; how he mingled a persuasive candour with outbursts of temper and theological argument put cleverly at once and unexpectedly. Persuasive skill rather than bare reasoning, and evident sincerity and an ardent conviction were the means Origen used to make converts. Gregory took up at first the study of philosophy; theology was afterwards added, but his mind remained always inclined to philosophical study, so much so indeed that in his youth he cherished strongly the hope of demonstrating that the Christian religion was the only true and good philosophy. For seven years he underwent the mental and moral discipline of Origen (231 to 238 or 239).
Before leaving Palestine, Gregory delivered in presence of Origen a public farewell oration in which he returned thanks to the illustrious master he was leaving.
From Wiki
Also on Sungenis’ list is St. Jerome. And yet we have information from Wiki telling us that St. Jerome did believed in the flat earth.
“Greek gýros turns up in its transliterated form gyrus–present in Roman literature as early as Lucretius (mid-first century BC)–in the Latin versions of the Bible as well.27 St. Jerome (c. 340-420), the early Latin Church’s master linguist and Bible translator, began his work on the Old Testament by creating a standard version from the several unreliable Old Latin recensions then in existence, using as a valuable aid Origen’s fair copy of the Hexapla which he consulted in the library at Caesarea around 386 AD.28 The Old Latin recensions were based on the LXX and commonly rendered this same portion of Isa. 40:22a as “qui tenet gyrum terrae.”29 Later, when he prepared a new version from the Hebrew that would become part of the Vulgate, he kept the Old Latin reading, changing only the verb tenet, “dwells,” to sedet, “sits.”30 And in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome, who is regarded by critics today as a competent and careful scholar,31 specifically rejected the notion that in this verse the prophet is referring to a spherical earth.” 32
We also know that St. Jerome taught, based on Scripture, that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth; which is totally impossible on a globe.
The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the “ages of faith” this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth’s form. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth’s centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, “Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth”; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, “As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth,” – “so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth.” Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
Sungenis quotes St. Ambrose as though the Saint is teaching the spherical earth.
From Sungenis’ Book, The Consensus of the Fathers: Earth is a Sphere
Pg 97 Sungenis tries to infer Ambrose is a globe earther.
Ambrose:
“They ask us to concede to them the heaven turns on its axis with a swift motion, while the sphere of the earth remains motionless, so as to conclude the waters cannot stay above the heavens, because the axis of heaven as it revolved would cause these to flow off. They wish, in fact, that we grant them their premise and that our reply be based on their beliefs. In this way they would avoid the question of the existence of length and breadth and that height and depth, a fact which no one can comprehend except Him who is filled with the fullness of the Godhead, as the Apostle says.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Anyone with half a brain can see that St. Ambrose is saying that “they” (pagans) ask “us” (Catholics) to concede to them that heaven turns on its axis with a swift motion, while the sphere the earth remains motionless. And Ambrose tells us why. “so as to conclude the waters cannot stay above the heavens, because the axis of heaven as it revolved would cause these to flow off.”
This entire statement of St. Ambrose’s is his contention against the their globe and describes the firmament with the waters above. St. Ambrose is telling us about what “they” believe and what their purpose is in believing it. And yet, Sungenis has the word “sphere” in italics as if St. Ambrose is teaching the sphere himself. Sungenis sees the word “sphere” or “globe” and he jumps on the quote without discernment, which invariably destroys his argument. This is a common mistake by those who have a preconceived idea that earth is a globe.
St Ambrose goes on to say that pagans say all this about the sphere to avoid the question of the existence of length and breadth and height and depth (of earth) a fact which no on can fully comprehend, except God.
St Ambrose speaks of the firmament as well, saying that it is solid, something Sungenis somehow misses.
St Ambrose comments on Genesis 1:6, saying, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60).
The firmament and waters above earth are a deal killers for globe promoters and Sungenis prefers to sweep all this information under the globe.
-
Sungenis and Skiba are planning a debate on flat earth sometime around November or December. Hopefully, Sungenis converts Rob Skiba to the Catholic Faith and Skiba converts Sungenis to flat earth.
.
Why would Robert Sungenis be "converted" to believing the flat-earther lie?
-
Post here what St. Augustine actually said, not just a paraphrased version, please.
Although water still covered all the earth, there was nothing to prevent the massive watery sphere from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light. Thus, in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other.
St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis
-
@happenby
I don't see any quote of Sungenis.
Did Sungenis claim that Church fathers "taught" a globe earth? I would not expect that.
-
.
Why would Church Fathers teach something like an earth that would require spherical trigonometry to navigate when spherical trigonometry had not yet been developed?
.
BTW, don't bother looking for "sphere" in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures because they had no word for sphere or globe in ancient Hebrew, as Sungenis explains in his new book. Nor did they have a word for trigonometry. Consequently, they had no term equivalent to spherical trigonometry, even though it did not exist yet. They didn't have words for lots of things that DID exist: why would they have had words for things that did not exist?
-
@happenby
I don't see any quote of Sungenis.
Did Sungenis claim that Church fathers "taught" a globe earth? I would not expect that.
No, Sungenis does not teach that the Fathers "taught" a globe earth. But neither does he admit they teach from Scripture a flat earth. Even though Scripture addresses the shape of the earth by description, and the Fathers expound on it, Sungenis pretends that Scripture is too vague and the Fathers don't say what they are saying. There is no question that the Fathers, Augustine, Lactanctius, Methodius, Origen, Ambrose, Severian, Cosmas, and others support and defend the flat earth and even liken the earth to the altar and Church architecture and even the liturgy.
-
.
.
If any of the Church Fathers had had the means we have today to measure and ascertain the movements of the celestial bodies they would have had no problem with universal agreement regarding the sphericity of the earth. We should give them credit for doing the best they could with what they had to work with, especially regarding a topic that is not essential to the Faith.
.
.
-
.
Why would Robert Sungenis be "converted" to believing the flat-earther lie?
.
No flat-earther has a good answer to this question.
-
No, Sungenis does not teach that the Fathers "taught" a globe earth.
Well, you contradict the long entry which you yourself posted earlier, which is trying to refute Sungenis based on the very idea which you now deny. That post apparently was a copy and paste without using "quote"-tags and without giving the source, anyway.
What do you expect me to comment, when you contradict yourself? What terms are appropriate to name someone in a case like that?
The rest of your post shows that you don't even take notice of the content of my posts. Or at least you hide it. Feels like talking to a concrete wall. You have to deal with what folks say to you, in case you don't want to appear like a robot spitting at humans.
-
Well, you contradict the long entry which you yourself posted earlier, which is trying to refute Sungenis based on the very idea which you now deny. That post apparently was a copy and paste without using "quote"-tags and without giving the source, anyway.
What do you expect me to comment, when you contradict yourself? What terms are appropriate to name someone in a case like that?
The rest of your post shows that you don't even take notice of the content of my posts. Or at least you hide it. Feels like talking to a concrete wall. You have to deal with what folks say to you, in case you don't want to appear like a robot spitting at humans.
My bad. I didn't add the two words "from Scripture" to: Sungenis does not teach that the Fathers "taught" a globe earth. No contradiction. Sungenis doesn't believe Scripture says anything about the form of the earth. The Fathers say otherwise.
-
My bad. I didn't add the two words "from Scripture" to: Sungenis does not teach that the Fathers "taught" a globe earth. No contradiction. Sungenis doesn't believe Scripture says anything about the form of the earth. The Fathers say otherwise.
.
The Church Fathers have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
They had no comprehension of the topic and their perception was quite limited.
What they have to offer is in regards to spiritual matters and moral issues, which have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
.
Sungenis refers to the Church Fathers in regards to faith and morals, but if he ever refers to them regarding the shape of the earth he's making a big mistake, and he gets what he deserves.
.
Scripture has utterly nothing to do with the shape of the earth, and any who think it does are deluding themselves.
-
Well, you contradict the long entry which you yourself posted earlier, which is trying to refute Sungenis based on the very idea which you now deny. That post apparently was a copy and paste without using "quote"-tags and without giving the source, anyway.
What do you expect me to comment, when you contradict yourself? What terms are appropriate to name someone in a case like that?
The rest of your post shows that you don't even take notice of the content of my posts. Or at least you hide it. Feels like talking to a concrete wall. You have to deal with what folks say to you, in case you don't want to appear like a robot spitting at humans.
.
Flat-earthers contradict themselves all the time, it's normal behavior for them.
It's a one way street though, to them they have free license to self-contradict but nobody else does.
They think they own the rights to self-contradiction, do it with wild abandon, and refuse to recognize the fact that they do it.
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carl Sagan's Humean, positivist dictum isn't true. Transubstantiation is an excellent counterexample. (https://sententiaedeo.blogspot.com/2011/04/hume-vs-aquinas-on-transubstantiation.html)
-
Carl Sagan's Humean, positivist dictum isn't true. Transubstantiation is an excellent counterexample. (https://sententiaedeo.blogspot.com/2011/04/hume-vs-aquinas-on-transubstantiation.html)
Transubstantiation is a completely separate issue that falls in the realm of religion and belief. Not that it is any less true, but that it remains unverifiable (except for miracles) and it is beyond the scope of science. For the rest of the ordinary metaphysical realities in our world, the claim applies.
-
.
a robot spitting at humans.
.
That's a good one, a robot spitting at humans! :cheers:
-
Sungenis' latest book has been proven wrong and his response has been proven wrong according to Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. Those who are unable to detach themselves from their false ideologies and their scientific heroes long enough to discern are myriad. But isn't that always the way?
-
Sungenis' latest book has been proven wrong and his response has been proven wrong according to Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. Those who are unable to detach themselves from their false ideologies and their scientific heroes long enough to discern are myriad. But isn't that always the way?
.
Flat earth has been proven wrong. Sour grapes flat-earthers can't cope with the truth. Same old fake flat-earth news.