I'm on chapter 36 of this book, and it's been well worth the purchase. The range of topics the author covers to support the Flat Earth model is robust. The only real problem I have with it is his Biblical exegesis, which, of course, is lacking because of his Protestantism. In short, if you read this book, maybe skim over his chapters on Biblical exegesis. He does find some very good points, but also makes a lot of errors.
For example, in chapter 34 "What does the Bible say?", based upon the KJV (of course), the author initially condemns those who misunderstand the importance of the Genesis account, and God's role in creation, to quote: "To have a false concept of God's creation gives one a false concept of God." An agreeable point, and certainly relevant to the rampant Scientism today which has corrupted a Biblical worldview, most importantly that of Genesis. He follows this with the assertion, "If one believes in a creation that does not exist, he also necessarily believes in a creator that does not exist. It is important, therefore, to have an accurate understanding of God's creation." Yet another point I don't disagree with.
But, then he immediately goes of the rails by attempting to pontificate the Flat Earth model as an unimpeachable truth of Scripture: "A Jesus who creates a spherical, moving earth is a different Jesus from the true Jesus in the Bible." Not quite. The Church, in response to Galileo, supported a geocentric model of the universe. But has not spoken on the shape of the earth. You could yet have a globular earth fixed in place with the universe revolving around it. It does not necessitate that it be flat. The emphasis on the immobile earth central to the universe is a matter of faith, which falls in the realm of the Church. But, whether or not it is spherical or flat is a matter for natural science, not necessarily the Church, to settle. Therefore, the author errs because he puts his faith in a single translation of the Bible rather than any established tradition since the time of Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church.
Furthermore, he condemns Christian scientists by stating "They take the view that the Bible is true about everything, except scientific "facts." True. Again, though, while the Bible itself may have statements that are explicit about the formation of the world, establishing something as
de fide requires it be a matter of faith and morals; not that of natural science. But, this is speaking as a Catholic. This author is a Protestant heretic and apostate from the Catholic Faith, so certainly he would fall into the error of natural science
needing to be found in Sacred Scripture.
He makes several good points going on, but seems to have a problem, as most Protestants do, with looking
only at the literal sense of the Scriptures while neglecting the allegorical, tropological and anagogical senses. For example, "It is the sun that travels in a circuit, not the earth." Agreed; "What is a circuit? It is a continuous circular route that starts and ends in the same place." I don't necessarily disagree with this, but, must state that 'circuit' could also reference the sun in such a position over a flat plane,
or, it's position in orbit around a
stationary globe.
Later in the same chapter, he references Isaias 40:22, citing the same discrepancies I had with the 1750 Douay-Rheims translation of the passage, which uses "globe" for the Latin
gyrum, which literally translates to "compass" as found in the 1610 DR Bible. Which is more of a niggle on the part of the translator, Bp. Challoner, due to common opinion of a spherical globe, rather than a "corruption" that the author insists that it is out of "a centuries old plan by Satan." Condemning the 1750 Douay as "given over entirely to following after 'science falsely so called' in direct opposition to God's admonition."
The last thing I wanted to point out was the serious error of his conception of God, ironically, found after initially condemning those who have incorrect ideas of God, due to his anthropomorphizing the Almighty in some of his exegesis. Most notably, the following:
"Where is God's habitation? God's habitation is in heaven. God's throne is heaven and the earth as his footstool. 'Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?' (Isaiah 66:1) Footstools are not spherical. God can only look over the inhabitants of the earth from one location if the earth is flat."
Yes, but, this is a common fallacy of
sola scriptura Protestants, who look at the letter of the Word as a description directly applicable to God Himself. God, in His essence, does not have an earthly body, therefore, it does not necessitate Him to be seated or to "look" at the earth by any means due to His omniscience. He is present among all things at all times because He holds them in existence.
The author once more places limitations on the Lord God because of his erroneous view of Scripture:
"God states that he looks upon all the inhabitants of the earth from one location, his place of habitation in heaven. 'From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.' (Psalms 33:14) It is not possible for God to look upon all of the inhabitants of the earth on a globe from one location;"
God is omniscient. The author falls into his own fallacy of having the wrong idea about God. If the earth is flat or spherical, He can look upon all things simultaneously because He is above all things and knows all things in one act of knowing. The author ignorantly anthropomorphizes Almighty God with his presupposition that the earth is flat (which I don't agree or disagree with).
Do I think the book is worth reading? Yes. I think many of the proofs he provides in regard to natural science and the machinations of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic conspiracy are definitely worth reading. But, I caution any Catholics who read this book expecting a Biblical exegesis that is in line with Church teaching. You won't necessarily find that here. I'm not denigrating all of his exegesis, as he does make some very valid observations about Scripture (I recommend reading the excerpts cited from a Catholic Bible, though) that do support a Flat Earth model.
Topic: Edward Hendrie's book? (Read 1083 times)