Interesting.

We see the rich and the powerful in the world today, who act like gods.

Then you see creation and realize we are nothing but a speck to the all powerful Creator.

I was taught as a young person that all you need to know about theology and the power of our Lord is in the first few words of the Bible...... " In the beginning God.."

This comes across, preliminarily, as just a cope to explain how the Biblical firmament is consistent with his cosmological model.  But I'll give it a fair hearing

Yes, I agree. More outer space fantasy. I'm not hopeful, nor am I really looking forward to learning a single thing from the video, considering how fundamentally flawed the whole premise is. If you believe in "outer space" you're pretty much hopeless for getting any real, true knowledge of the physical world God created around us.

I'm starting to watch Day 1 there, and they (Hugh Owen speaking) have the temerity to lump Flat Earthers in with those who consider Genesis a "myth," just stories borrowed from earlier cultures, etc.  This is disgraceful for them to include us among the infidels and heretics, whereas Catholic Flat Earthers have as much if not more reverence for the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture as they do.

I've about had enough of these guys.

Where it comes to what's most important, a belief that God (the Holy Spirit) is the Primary Author of Sacred Scripture and that it's historical and literal unless it's otherwise obvious and where the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers so indicates, and above all that the Sacred Scriptures are inerrant, we should be on the "same side," as it were ... disagreeing merely about our respective scientific theories, considering it an academic debate.  I've attempted to give them a fair shake and hear out their theories, but I find these allegations to be slander and calumny of the highest order.

And, of course, when they mention Flat Earthers in their list of scoundrels, as they see them, they show the typical dishonest strawman of the edgeless disc floating through space.  They should at least show intellectual honesty.

They are obviously dishonest.

If they instead showed an ancient-looking illustration of a domed creation, as believed by the Hebrews (you know, God's Chosen People, children of Abraham, who alone worshipped the One True God in ancient times...) that wouldn't make Flat Earth look bad. In fact, it would make Flat Earth look more faithful to God, wouldn't it? It would also make it look more venerable, traditional, tested, reasonable, believable, etc. They can't have that -- because they are intellectually DISHONEST.

Here's another bit of dishonesty.  In their attempts to distance the Catholic Church from things like Big Bang theory, they repeatedly claim that Hubble invented it, whereas the truth is that it was invented by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître.  At least be honest about it ... but then they might have to admit that the Church was being contaminated by Modernists already in the 1930s.  They'll be called out on that by their opponents in 5 minutes and aren't fooling anyone.

Here's the picture they show when mentioning Flat Earth (screenshot from the video):

Yes. An actual strawman. Believed by no Flat Earth proponent anywhere at any time.

They use every logical fallacy in the book, besides good-old-fashioned lying: begging the question, ad hominem, strawman, and countless others.

Which is one reason I'll never join their dishonest side. EVER. At this point, I'd have to suffer severe brain damage to join their side. 
If their side is true, they can make their case honestly. But they don't. WHY?

So I watched part of "Day Two" ... didn't have time to watch more than like 10-15 minutes in, but the theory they're floating (and it is just a theory) is that in the beginning the earth was in the middle of a giant (6 billion-mile diameter) ice ball.  Not sure where they got this number from.  Then the "light" of the First Day, "Let there be light." was some kind of giant sun they picture off to the right that was big enough to melt the ice into water.  I hope they realize that this theory will be considered just as ridiculous (if not moreso) than Flat Earth by the scientific mainstream whose favor they're attempting to curry.

So, after Day One, when the ice was now melted into water, God created a firmament in the middle of the now giant ball of water, to separate the water from the earth.  Interestingly, they cite numerous Church Fathers indicating that the firmament was solid, but then promote a theory that somehow the firmament "changed" on "Day Four" when God put the sun, moon, and stars in it, expanding massively and therefore becoming at that time a more ethereal substance, having been "stretched out", i.e.  transforming into what we now know as space.  Dr. Sungenis admits that Scripture is silent on the matter, but then claims there are hints about it there ... none of which I really buy.  I'm interested to hear, then, with this theory, how during the time of the Great Flood, Sacred Scripture indicates that the windows of the firmament were opened to create some of the flood waters.  Perhaps some huge blast of water flew in from the edge of space and clobbered the earth.

Now, Dr. Sungenis does cite some physicist who discussed the idea that the universe could be much smaller than is generally claimed.

But the one thing I notice throughout is that Dr. Sugenis begs the question that "outer space", as described by modern "science" actually exists as such, with the possible exception of it perhaps being smaller than is generally believed.  He said that the original solid firmament had to be stretched out because it was "too small" to hold the sun, moon, stars, etc.  This simply begs the question that the sun and stars are the size and distance from earth that modern science claim they are.

If you look at this picture again, what's to prevent the Flat Earth "snow globe" model of the earth from being in the center there?  Nothing other than Sungenis' acceptance of the claim of modern science.



I do respect the fact that Dr. Sungenis and Hugh Owen take Sacred Scripture literally and are attempting to come up with an explanation for it in its literal sense, but I disrespect the fact that 1) they lump FEs in with all those who deny the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and 2) dismiss FE on the basis of modern "science", often ridiculing and disparaging it ... despite the fact that modern science would ridicule his giant ice/water ball theory perhaps even more than Flat Earth.