.
Here is a third party independent review of the debate:
.
http://flatearthdeception.com/review-of-the-fe2018-robert-sungenis-and-rob-skiba-debate/.
Review Of The FE2018 Robert Sungenis And Rob Skiba Debate
by DAVID on NOVEMBER 16, 2018
This website exposes
the flat earth deception and proves that the earth is globe shaped.
Last night (11/15/18) I watched the FE2018 Flat Earth Conference debate between Robert Sungenis and Rob Skiba.
I don’t agree with Rob Skiba’s flat earth theory explanations, but I don’t agree with all of the explanations from Robert Sungenis geocentric globe earth explanations either.
I’m not going to review their whole debate, because it was a two-hour discussion, but I’ll point out the major things that I disagree with.
If Robert Sungenis understood these things, then he would have totally prevailed in the debate.
Like Robert, I believe that the evil ones are hiding something, and that there is a grand conspiracy, to hide that the globe earth is geocentric; which proves a creator.
Rob Skiba said that the word ‘firmament‘ was key to his conversation in becoming a flat earther, as he thinks that it points to a hard-glass dome, which could only cover a flat earth.
Firmament is Strong’s Hebrew word 7554 raqiya, meaning an expanse.
But that doesn’t give flat earthers the meaning that they want, so they cite the word that it’s based on, Hebrew 7554 raqa, to hammer thin sheets of metal to spread/stretch them out. The idea being conveyed here is that in those days people would hammer metals, to flatten them out, and then polish them, to make it give a reflection, like a mirror.
Does the expanse of heaven not like a looking glass, clear and shining? Yes!
If the Hebrews meant to define firmament as raqa, they would have used that word; but they didn’t, they used raqiya, meaning an expanse.
There was much debate about the use of the Hebrew letters bet and mem; and whether the birds, stars and sun are ‘in’ or ‘inside’ the firmament.
If the firmament is a solid dome, the birds, stars and sun, can’t be in the solid dome itself. They can be inside of the dome, or below the dome, but that’s not the Hebrew word that was used.
There are Hebrew words for ‘in‘, ‘inside‘ and ‘below‘; but Genesis 1 only uses ‘in’.
So it’s not saying that the birds, sun, moon and stars, are inside or below a dome; it’s saying that the birds, sun, moon and stars, are literally in the expanse of heaven.
I think that Robert Sungenis won this point.
Rob Skiba focused on the word ‘circle,’ proclaiming that it points to a flat disc earth.
Robert Sungenis made the point that a flat disc is 3D, as it has depth; so it’s not a circle, which is 2D.
Robert could have destroyed Rob’s claim, by pointing out that the ‘circle’ of Isaiah 40:22 is not about the shape of the earth; but rather about the circle of the ecliptic, on which Elohim sits. Isaiah didn’t use the word ball, as he was not describing a ball.
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
The ‘he’ is our Creator. He is not sitting upon a circular flat earth. He is sitting in the heavens, where the
circle of the ecliptic displays the narrative of redemption, the Gospel, through the 12 constellations. Satan has perverted the narrative, to hide the true meaning of the constellations.
The word for ‘tent‘ can be rendered as ‘tabernacle‘; so it’s saying that our Creator is sitting in the tabernacle of the stars which He created.
Let’s back up to get the context of the verse. Elohim is declaring the glory of His creation.
And to whom would you liken Ěl? And what likeness would you compare to Him? The workman moulds a graven image, and the goldsmith overspreads it with gold, and the silversmith casts silver chains. Isaiah 40:18-19
He’s declaring that the works of man are nothing as compared to His creativity and power. Then He points out His mazzaroth, the twelve signs in the circle of the mazzaroth, which have proclaimed His plan of redemption from the beginning.
Did you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? Isaiah 40:21
Do you bind the bands of Kimah (Pleiades), or loosen the cords of Kesil (Orion)? Do you bring out the constellations (mazzaroth) in its season? Or do you lead the Bear (Arcturus) with its sons? Job 38:31-32
The CIRCLE in Isaiah 40:22 is the mazzaroth in the sky above, that has 12 constellations in a circle on the ecliptic, which declare the Gospel. It is like a curtain which covers the earth, and in which the stars dwell. It’s a tabernacle (tent) in which the Father dwells.
.
.
REPLY FROM ROBERT SUNGENIS.Robert Sungenis November 17, 2018 at 3:28 pmDear David,
Thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts about the debate. I have read most of your website on this issue and I quote you in my book, Flat Earth/Flat Wrong. Thank you for you untiring efforts to help the flat-earthers out of their dilemma.
.
Regarding the arguments in my debate that you believe my efforts could have been stronger, namely, Is 40:22 and Rev 6:13, I will have to disagree with your approach to these passages, although I understand and appreciate your viewpoint.
.
Regarding Is 40:22, this is my one paragraph comment in my book on your theory.
.
“Although this author’s purpose is to discredit the flat Earth theory, this is the wrong way to go about it since it conflates references to the constellations, which are in a circle, with the Earth which is a circle. Is 40:21, which introduces the context of Is 40:22, makes a specific reference to the Earth as the focus of the passage (“Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?”). Is 40:22 then follows immediately with, “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.” Moreover, Isaiah’s reference in verse 22 to the “heavens” immediately after (“who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in”) is not talking about the twelve constellations of Mazzoroth, but the whole heavens that includes all the stars which, in its hemispherical or spherical shape, is like a circular tent covering. Hence Mazzoroth is not even part of the discussion in Isaiah 40:21-22.”
.
So, basically what I am saying here is that by introducing Mazzoroth into the interpretation you are bringing in a foreign element into the discussion that the Isaiah text does not include or appeal to in any way. I believe exegesis has to stick with the context as the primary source.
.
Regarding Rev 6:13, in order to claim that the falling stars of the passage are speaking about the fall of the Roman leaders, you would first have to prove that the overall text of Rev 6 is pointing to the historical situation of Rome in the first century, which is the preterist viewpoint of the whole of Revelation. That is rather hard to do considering Rev 4-6 is a highly symbolic text. I’m not saying your view is necessarily wrong, but only that your view begs the question as to how Revelation should be interpreted as a whole..
My view is that Revelation is divided into seven sections that all point to the time between the First Coming of Christ to the Second Coming, and each section tells the same story about what happens between those two times but from seven different symbolic vantage points. The sections are Chapters: 1-3; 4-6; 7-9; 10-11; 12-14; 15-19; 20-22.
.
So, for example, in Chapters 4-6, chapter 6 is speaking about the end of the world when Christ returns. Likewise in Chapters 12-14, chapter 14 is speaking about the end of the world when Christ returns, and thus, so are chapters 19, 22 and 9, and you notice that each of these chapters (9, 11, 14, 19, 22) although they speak of the same time (the return of Christ and the end of the world), each speaks from a different vantage point and with different symbolic language.
.
Rev 6 is the only one of the seven sections that speaks of the stars falling because it is concentrating on the collapse of the universe at the end of time. If we compare this language to other parts of Scripture (e.g., Mt 24:29-31, Mk 13:24-26; Lk 21:25-27; Is 13:10; Joel 2:10; 3:15-16; 34, et. al.) we notice that each of these contexts is speaking about the end of the world and the return of Christ. So it seems without question that Rev 6:13 is speaking about the end of the world.
.
I think this is further illustrated when we see that other contexts that exclude the stars and only mention that darkening of the sun and moon, it is apparent that the text is speaking only of Christ’s first coming (cf. Joel 2:31-32; Ac 2:20-21; Mt 27:45-46; Mk 15:33-34; Lk 23:44-45; Malachi 4:5).
.
In any case, I think the point remains that whether it is Isaiah, Joel or the synoptic gospels, the idea of stars falling to Earth is discounted as a support for the flat-earthers' idea that small stars the size of meteors fall to a large flat disc, since in the globe-geocentric universe the stars can be big or small but can fall toward the Earth because the Earth is in the center of the universe, which corresponds to the idea in 2Peter 3:10-12 that the sky is rolled up.
.
Robert Sungenis
.
Topic: Robert Sungenis to debate Rob Skiba (Read 2407 times)