Author Topic: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong (Read 9954 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** August 13, 2022, 03:58:15 PM »

So I bought his PDF book and just started skimming it. I must say that I'm incredibly disappointed. I skipped ahead to the Church Fathers, where Sungenis asserts that there's a Patristic consensus that the Earth is a sphere.

So his first proof text here is from St. Ambrose:

Quote

They ask us to concede to them that heaven turns on its
axis with a swift motion, while the sphere of the earth remains
motionless, so as to conclude that 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.

Italics were from Sungenis.

Who that wishes to be honest does not recognize that St. Ambrose here is describing the position of his adversaries? It's impossible to tell from this whether he rejects some of it or all of it. But he describes these as THEIR beliefs.

But then, what's more if you look at what he's actually saying, and not focus on the mere presence of the world "sphere," St. Ambrose is talking about a sphere on which the WATERS rest (and his opponents claim would flow off if the heavens rotated). So this notion of "sphere" refers to the idea of the FIRMAMENT as being the surface of the sphere, on which the waters flow. It is not the surface of the earth, the inhabited land, that he describes as a sphere, but he's clearly talking about the firmament dome on top of which the waters above rest. So, what?, Dr. Sungenis, human beings are marine creatures that live admidst waters that are directly on top of the inhabit sphere of the earth?

How is St. Ambrose's description of a sphere on top of which the waters rest consistent with Sungenis' believe that the firmament is "space"? It doesn't.

This is a huge strike right out of the gate from just my initial random selection of where to start in his book.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:19:40 PM »

Here's the full passage cited by Dr. Sungenis:

Quote

They ask us to concede to them that heaven turns on its
axis with a swift motion, while the sphere of the earth remains
motionless, so as to conclude that 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 in 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. For who can easily set
himself up to be a judge of God’s work? There exists, therefore,
breadth in the very heights of heaven. …What prevents us, then, from
admitting that water is suspended above the heavens? How can they say
that the earth, although it is certainly heavier than water, stays
suspended and immobile in the middle? Following the same principle,
they can admit the water which is above the heavens does not descend
because of the rotation of that celestial sphere. Just as the earth is
suspended in the void and stays immobile in position, its weight being
balanced on every side, in like manner the water, too, is balanced by
weights either equal to or greater than that of the earth. For the same
reason, the sea does not tend to inundate the land without a special
command to do so.

I'll have to read this in a larger context to understand what's going on. But his ADVERSARIES are the one trying to get St. Ambrose to accept or concede as a premise the passage cited by Sungenis as indicating St. Ambrose's belief that the earth is a sphere. It's unclear to me how much of the premise he concedes, and how much he does not. But it's clear that both sides are speaking of a "sphere" on top of which waters rest. And the point of argument is the claim by these adversaries that the cosmology of St. Ambrose would result in the waters flowing off the top of the sphere. Clearly both sides agree that there are actual waters above the "sphere of the earth", and that we're not talking about globe earth here.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:27:36 PM »

Next passage from someone named Archelaus that I've never heard of:

Quote

But just as those Orientals have the light rising on them
earlier than the people who live in the west, so they have it also more
quickly obscured, and they only who are settled in the middle of the
globe see always an equality of light.

So we've just established that not every reference to a "sphere" or here a "globe" refers to a globe earth on which people LIVE, a globe surface of the earth.

We have Dr. Sungenis picking up every single reference to "sphere" or "globe" as if it's proof that the Fathers believed that the surface of the earth is a globe. This is clearly dishonest and applying confirmation bias. In the previous segment on St. Ambrose, it is absolutely clear to anyone who is honest and not applying said confirmation bias that he was talking about the "sphere" of the firmament on top of which the waters rest.

As for this passage, it's unclear, but without further proof, some more context, it is not possible to know what is meant here. This is not evidence, Dr. Sungenis.

If by "globe" here, Archelaus means a ball earth on which people live, please do explain what the "MIDDLE" of such a "globe" would be ... from East to West? On a globe as conceived by Dr. Sungenis and the globe earthers, there's NO MIDDLE between WEST AND EAST as described here. This suggests that once again he's speaking of a flat surface, with an East and a West EDGE or END, that's under a globe firmament.

And it's entirely unclear what he means that those in the middle (between east and west) "always see an equality of light".

Donachie · « **Reply #3 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:29:18 PM »

How many pages is the pdf? Can you post some more of it?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:33:13 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on August 13, 2022, 04:29:18 PM

How many pages is the pdf? Can you post some more of it?

These two quotes comprise one page of his PDF, which is about 800 pages long. And I would consider it theft if I simply posted the entire PDF. It can be obtained for $10 on his website. As I have time to go through it, I'll post pieces of it, with my commentary (with the notion of fair use), but I would not feel right posting the entire thing. Not to mention that it's nearly 100MB in size.

You can get it here.
http://flatearthflatwrong.com/

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:41:19 PM »

Those quotes are certainly interesting. And between this and his Rob Skiba debate shows that he's either wilfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that the Christian, Biblical cosmology is that of a geocentric earth which is a flat plane enclosed within a globe. And that the modern cosmology of an acentric universe filled with other worlds and a spherical earth, with the habitable land encompassing its surface, is wholly pagan.

Edit: I say this because of how it is laid out in that Pythagoras or Christ book I've referenced, specifically surrounding Giordano Bruno and how his Pythagorean thesis of many worlds was condemned as heresy by the Church, including St. Robert Bellarmine, not just heliocentrism. And yet today, nearly all of what modern science proposes aligns with the heretical cosmology of Bruno. Which, of course, stems directly from the influence of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and pagan/occult wisdom.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:47:35 PM »

Next he cites Arnobius.

Quote

For whatever is round, and bounded on every side by the
circuмference of a solid sphere, has no beginning, no end; where there
is no end and beginning, no part can have its own name and form the
beginning. Therefore, when we say, This is the right, and that the left
side, we do not refer to anything in the world, which is everywhere
very much the same, but to our own place and position, we being so
formed that we speak of some things as on our right hand, of others as
on our left; and yet these very things which we name left, and the
others which we name right, have in us no continuance, no fixedness,
but take their forms from our sides, just as chance, and the accident of
the moment, may have placed us. If I look towards the rising sun, the
north pole and the north are on my left hand; and if I turn my face
there, the west will be on my left, for it will be regarded as behind the
sun’s back. But, again, if I turn my eyes to the region of the west, the
wind and country of the south are now said to be on my left.

Again, the italics are those of Dr. Sungenis. It is becoming increasingly apparent that every time Dr. Sungenis sees the word "sphere" or "globe", he checks it off as proof that the Church Father who uttered that word believed that the earth is a globe.

This is the ultimate confirmation bias.

So in most of the passage he's simply talking about how "right" and "left" are relative terms based on the direction you're facing. OK, and?

In the first sentence there, he says [presumably the earth] is "ROUND, and BOUNDED on every side by the circuмference of a solid sphere". So the earth is ROUND and BOUNDED by a solid sphere. He doesn't say that the earth on which we live is a solid sphere. In fact, this passage implies the exact opposite, that the surface of the earth is ROUND, as it's BOUNDED (at its edges) by a SOLID SPHERE (where the firmament touches down). That sounds again much more like the description of "snow globe" earth than that it's a solid sphere. He does not say that it IS a SOLID SPHERE, but that it is BOUNDED by a solid sphere. Can someone who interprets this to mean that the earth is a globe please explain how the expression "ROUND AND BOUNDED BY A SOLID SPHERE" possibly describes a solid globe on which people live?

Then he says something curious, that if he turns north, the West will be on his left, which is "regarded as behind the sun's back". I'm not sure what he would mean about the West behind behind the SUN's back. Does he regard the sun as facing East and travelling backwards? That's a side question, but interesting on its own.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 13, 2022, 04:59:49 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 13, 2022, 04:41:19 PM

It's becoming clearer and clearer that the Christian, Biblical cosmology is that of a geocentric earth which is a flat plane enclosed within a globe.

Indeed, and I just added the next quote, which says the same thing, that the earth is round and BOUNDED by a sphere. Between this and the citation from St. Ambrose, they regarded the world as a sphere in the middle of the waters, so the "sphere" they are referring to is in fact the enclosure that they believed went all the way AROUND the earth in the shape of a sphere and which kept the waters out. When St. Ambrose is arguing with someone about whether the waters would flow down off of the sphere that kept them separated from the earth, we are clearly not talking about Dr. Sungen's "empty space". [Yes, I know he has a nuance where for him empty space is something of infinite density, but for that there is clearly no support from the Fathers.]

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 13, 2022, 05:15:45 PM »

Next are two separate quotes from Athenagoras:

Quote

For if the world, being made spherical, is confined
within the circles of heaven, and the Creator of the world is above the
things created, managing that by His providential care of these, what
place is there for the second god, or for the other gods?

and

Quote

Beautiful without doubt is the world, excelling, as well
in its magnitude as in the arrangement of its parts, both those in the
oblique circle and those about the north, and also in its spherical
form.

So, the "world, being made spherical" and "confined with in the circles of heaven". There's nothing about this that rules out once again the snow-globe view. This is yet another case of Dr. Sungenis seeing the word "sphere" and then interpreting it as proof for our living on a globe.

In fact, if you think about it, if this means that the SURFACE of the earth is a globe, and people live on the surface, then if the globe is suspended in the heavens, what exactly is the barrier between the heavens and the surface dwellers? In fact they would be on the edge of the line between the globe and the heavens ... which of course they believed to be WATERS. So with Sungenis' iterpretation, they'd have to have completely discarded the notion that there's a firmament above the earth separating the inhabitants of the earth from the waters above. So when did these Fathers abandon that notion?

This second passage probably requires some deeper analysis. So he describes "the world" (same term he used in the first passage) as consisting of "parts". And he refers to some parts being in the "oblique circle", some "about the north", and others "in its spherical form". Again we have some combination of a CIRLCE along with a SPHERE. How are the circle and the sphere related? If you recall, earlier we saw Arnobius saying that the earth is ROUND and BOUNDED by a circle. Between that passage and this one, you get the impression or a world more like this.

It would be interesting to see the original languages, to see how they use the term translated here as "world" vs. when they might use "earth". It really does appear to me that the term "world" is much bigger than just the surface of the earth, and attempting to equate the term with the surface of the earth actually begs the question about whether they're talking about a globe earth surface.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2022, 05:30:25 PM »

I have some work I need to go do, but I'll try to continue tomorrow, perhaps a couple pages a day. I've read ahead a bit (while not posting), but I assure that it's more of the same. EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE Sungenis cites (of the ones I've read) is perfectly consistent with (and some are MORE consistent with) the "snow globe" model of the world.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2022, 06:29:10 PM »

Just a quick interesting thing I found among the Fathers that completely rejects the Glober assertion that everyone believed the earth was a globe. Several Fathers stated that there were competing notions out there among the "astronomers," with some holding that the "world" is shaped like a sphere, others that it's like a "cone," and others still that it's in the shape of a "hemisphere". Another Father refers to the fact that one group of astronomers after another come along and overturn the views of the previous ones. So this idea that it was universally believed since Pythagoras and Eratosthenes that the "earth" was a globe are just flat out lying.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2022, 06:58:21 PM »

Sungenis goes on to absolutely BUTCHER St. Augustine (who from the texts clearly believes in a flat SURFACE of the earth). Throughout, every single time Sungenis sees "circle" or "sphere" or "globe" he interprets it to mean a globe earth. He cites Fathers who refer to the "circle of the earth" as being globers.

It is, thus, an astonishing irony that Sungenis claims of Flat Eathers:

Quote

I would add that Ferrari’s reluctance to admit the case is common to a flat
Earth mentality, that is, they search into every nook and cranny looking for
just the slightest possible nuance toward a flat Earth view in the person
under investigation and then jump to hasty and specious conclusions.

Ridiculous.

I'm afraid that I have completely lost the respect I initially had for Sungenis after reading these citations from the Church Fathers and how badly he butchers them (in a couple cases interpreting the to be saying the exact opposite of what they actually wrote).

I retract what I wrote earlier about considering Sungenis to be intellectually honest. This section on the Church Fathers exposes his dishonesty. As the Dimond Brothers would say, he is clearly "of bad will" on this particular subject.

These comments here are coming from someone who does not believe that the Church Fathers had a dogmatic consensus ONE WAY OR THE OTHER on the subject. But after reading these passages, I'm becoming more and more inclined to believe that they did in fact have a universal consensus, about certain ASPECTS of "flat earth" theory, based on their reading of Sacred Scripture. I don't regret spending the $10 because he does have lots of material from the Church Fathers.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2022, 07:17:06 PM »

So, for instance, among the matters about which there was a total and universal consensus among the Church Fathers. Without exception they believed that there is an actual firmament (made of some substance ... one Father said there were differing opinions about what this substance was made of) and that there was ACTUAL, REAL, non-metaphorical-for-space WATER above the firmament, and it was these waters that were released through the firmament to cause the Great Flood. So, did space flow in onto the earth to drown all of humanity?

And Sacred Scripture CLEARLY describes various "windows" of the firmament that were opened up (along with the fountains of the deep, i.e. the waters that were BELOW the earth) to combine in a one-two punch to flood the world.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2022, 07:43:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 13, 2022, 07:17:06 PM

So, for instance, among the matters about which there was a total and universal consensus among the Church Fathers. Without exception they believed that there is an actual firmament (made of some substance ... one Father said there were differing opinions about what this substance was made of) and that there was ACTUAL, REAL, non-metaphorical-for-space WATER above the firmament, and it was these waters that were released through the firmament to cause the Great Flood. So, did space flow in onto the earth to drown all of humanity?

And Sacred Scripture CLEARLY describes various "windows" of the firmament that were opened up (along with the fountains of the deep, i.e. the waters that were BELOW the earth) to combine in a one-two punch to flood the world.

If you've read Sugenis' analysis of Bl. Hildegard: he theorizes that there was a massive sphere of water surrounding the earth (millions of miles in diameter) that existed prior to the Deluge that ceased to exist once the Flood occurred, leaving empty "space" between the earth's atmosphere and the "firmament" some great distance toward the edge of the cosmos. He bases this on supposed "clouds" of water found through images of space.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2022, 07:57:41 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on August 13, 2022, 07:43:58 PM

If you've read Sugenis' analysis of Bl. Hildegard: he theorizes that there was a massive sphere of water surrounding the earth (millions of miles in diameter) that existed prior to the Deluge that ceased to exist once the Flood occurred, leaving empty "space" between the earth's atmosphere and the "firmament" some great distance toward the edge of the cosmos. He bases this on supposed "clouds" of water found through images of space.

Yeah, the water canopy theory. No, that's not what the Fathers believed, but that there's a permanent physical barrier between these waters above and the earth and atmosphere below, and that the waters remains and were STILL up there at the time of their writing (long after the Flood). They describe how the heavier elements, earth and water settled lower and that above this layer of water, like a large Ocean, was the void, and that the earth is at the bottom center of creation.

Author Topic: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong (Read 9954 times)

Ladislaus

Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Donachie

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong