Yeah, but this last formulation was your worst.  You stated that the Bible was inerrant with respect to those things it intended to teach.  That implies that it's not absolutely inerrant but only in qualified way, that there could be errors in matters which the Bible doesn't intend to "teach" but happens to mention in passing.  You need to stop writing like that or you'll never shake the accusation that you're a modernist when it comes to Sacred Scripture.

You need to stop with a period after "everything" and before "that".  While the Bible is inerrant in everything PERIOD, it does always use language in a precise scientific way so as to intend to impart scientific knowledge in any particular passage.  Your phrasing suggest that the Bible is NOT inerrant in things that it doesn't INTEND to teach.  It most certainly is and the use of figurative language is not error.

Of course the figurative language in Scripture is not in error.  The people who take the figurative literally are.  When people misinterpret  Scripture, their ideas are not inerrant.  Only Scripture itself is inerrant.  That is all I am saying.

Some here will accuse me of being a modernist, no matter what wording I use.  They need to reject anything that challenges their belief in a flat earth.

To be fair, they have SOME Patristic evidence.  But it's not unanimous, and it's not dogmatic.

True, so....for globe-earthers to say that there's NOTHING is not at all truthful. They are lying when they say such a thing. 

There is Patristic, scriptural, and scientific evidence, even though there's not a dogma. Just because something isn't dogmatic - that doesn't mean that it isn't important to know about. 

To be fair, they have SOME Patristic evidence.  But it's not unanimous, and it's not dogmatic.

Ok, we only have some Patristic evidence, a relatively small amount.  We also have Scriptural evidence.  The spherical earth has no Patristic evidence or scriptural evidence.  That means whatever evidence there is, certainly makes what is there so far, unanimous.  Sparse, but without serious opposition, in agreement with Scripture, makes it the only teaching there is and therefore, ought to be believed.  Certainly, the converse is decidedly pagan, and more specifically, the model that  teaches the moving ball earth, was condemned.  The question becomes: How much unanimity is enough? Because unanimity alone by Catholic Fathers is enough to make it a teaching.  Seems the only opposition from tradition is that a couple of Saints said some of this doesn't matter.  But that isn't unanimous.  Some Saints seem to believe earth is a ball.  That isn't unanimous teaching, it is a particular leaning. Seems only two proofs for spherical earth ever existed: pagan science and personal opinion.   

They have plenty quotes for Geocentrism, but have little to none Patristic. They only have one who seemed to condemn globe Earth, and only have a few that seemed to relay their belief in a flat Earth. These others have no religious connotations to them though and no condemnatory feelings are shown. These minute commentaries by the Fathers provide absolutely no Patristic proof that flat Earth is Dogma.

THE FATHERS AREN'T INFALLIBLE;  SCRIPTURE IS.  

They have plenty quotes for Geocentrism, but have little to none Patristic. They only have one who seemed to condemn globe Earth, and only have a few that seemed to relay their belief in a flat Earth. These others have no religious connotations to them though and no condemnatory feelings are shown. These minute commentaries by the Fathers provide absolutely no Patristic proof that flat Earth is Dogma.

The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.  Jerusalem cannot be at the center of a sphere. The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes--that is, people who live upside down relative to others, as Cosmas so aptly describes, "on whom the rain must fall up."   It is unthinkable to reject the rest of the quotes from the Fathers who also describe that the tabernacle was made in a pattern of the earth.  A tabernacle with its dome, pillars, veil, etc. are not compatible with a sphere, but resemble a Church--another clue. And reflect perfectly what Scripture describes.  It is also unthinkable to reject Cosmas' ongoing argument with pagans who promoted the globe back in 550 AD, as if somehow, it doesn't matter that the pagans were promoting the globe with their heliocentric science waaaaay back then.  Fascinating that the brilliant monk Cosmas was not censured or condemned for what he derived from Moses and Scripture, nor was his book put on the Index, but his writings were well received, and even quoted by Church Fathers.  Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.    

The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.  

AES: No they don't.

The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes

AES: No they don't.

Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.    

AES: No it isn't.



Yes, the Fathers do teach Jerusalem is in the center of the earth.  So does scripture.  You'd do yourself well to disprove these facts so that you can finally be right.  But you won't because you can't.    

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 center; 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 Poe 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 and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth."  Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox. 



Also, from the book,

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

There then stood in Germany, in those first years of the eight century, one of the greatest and noblest of men, --St. Boniface.  His learning was of the best then known. In labours he was a worthy successor of the apostles; is genius for Christian work made him unwillingly primate of Germany; his devotion to duty led him willingly to martyrdom.  There sat too, at that time, on the papal throne a great Christian statesman--Pope Zachary.  Boniface immediately declared against the revival of such a heresy as the doctrine of the antipodes; he stigmatized it as an assertion that there are men beyond the reach of the appointed means of salvation; he attacked Virgil, and called on Pope Zachary for aid.  Pg 105
The Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made a strong response. He cited passages from the book of Job and the widsom of Solomon against the doctrine of the antipodes; he declared it "perverse, iniquitous, and against Virgil's own soul," and indicated a purpose of driving him from his bishopric.  106


The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  pg 104

The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.  

AES: No they don't.

The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes

AES: No they don't.

Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.    

AES: No it isn't.



Yes, the Fathers do teach Jerusalem is in the center of the earth.  So does scripture.  You'd do yourself well to disprove these facts so that you can finally be right.  But you won't because you can't.    

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 center; 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 Poe 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 and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth."  Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.  



Also, from the book,

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

There then stood in Germany, in those first years of the eight century, one of the greatest and noblest of men, --St. Boniface.  His learning was of the best then known. In labours he was a worthy successor of the apostles; is genius for Christian work made him unwillingly primate of Germany; his devotion to duty led him willingly to martyrdom.  There sat too, at that time, on the papal throne a great Christian statesman--Pope Zachary.  Boniface immediately declared against the revival of such a heresy as the doctrine of the antipodes; he stigmatized it as an assertion that there are men beyond the reach of the appointed means of salvation; he attacked Virgil, and called on Pope Zachary for aid.  Pg 105
The Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made a strong response. He cited passages from the book of Job and the widsom of Solomon against the doctrine of the antipodes; he declared it "perverse, iniquitous, and against Virgil's own soul," and indicated a purpose of driving him from his bishopric.  106


The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.  pg 104

The author of the book you are quoting was a Big Time Liberal, who was trying to show in his book how Anti-Science Christianity was and how necessary it was to push it out of universities.  
The book that's being cited in your post (I wonder if you aren't just copying and pasting this from a website) "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," is commonly said to be poorly supported.  So, it/whatever source you have, may not be as credible a source as you think for assessing the actual positions of EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER (THERE ARE LOTS).  Most people claim that many Church Fathers never spoke on the topic. 

However, when it comes to Science contradicting The Scripture, we have a duty to defend Scripture, if we can.  Otherwise, we have a duty to submit, which implies that we have a duty to The Truth.  So, it matters if The Earth is Flat or a Globe and Moving or Stationary, particularly since Scripture implies a Flat and Stationary Earth, which everyone knows, it's just that some people want to say it is figurative, which of course the language doesn't seem figurative and the actual science seems to point towards a flat and stationary Earth.  And we have centuries of known conspiracy against The Faith.  

So, we have a crime that needs to be set right and the authority to do it, regardless of what Church Fathers thought about it, before 749 A.D.  It is encouraging though, that some actually preached on it and were Flat Earthers.  
 

The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.  

AES: No they don't.

The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes

AES: No they don't.

Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.    

AES: No it isn't.

Hey Seven, what source do you have for all the claims you are making?