Contrary to the allegation, I am in fact open to any conclusions regarding the shape of the earth that do not blatantly contradict Sacred Scripture. I could ALMOST accept Dr. Sungenis' latest attempt as consistent with Scripture, except that I don't believe his assertion that the firmament changed after the 4th day stands up to scrutiny. He agrees that firmament (and the source Hebrew) clearly indicate something solid, but then believes that on the 4th day it got stretched out into what is now space. Where IMO it fails is where Sacred Scripture describes the firmament vis-a-vis the Great Deluge, long after the 4th day of creation, and the Church Fathers clearly believed that it remained as described early in Genesis to their very day. But with some refinement, I could accept his theory as not iherently inconsistent with Sacred Scripture.
So apart from the rule of compatibility with Sacred Scripture, from a scientific standpoint I am open to accepting any hypothesis that works. With regard to the critical "see too far" problem for globe earth, I am open to PLAUSIBLE explanations for the phenomenon. If someone wanted to argue that the earth is a globe, just, oh, 15 times larger than what we're told, I'd be open to looking at any evidence for it. If someone wanted to argue that the flow of ether cause light to bend consistently around the globe of the earth, I'm open to that. Or some other force that could plausibly account for those observations. But refraction is absurd and can't come close to explaining it, for reasons I won't go into now, since that's not my point ... my point being that I'm open to plausible/reasonable explanations for various phenomena that currently falsify the globe.
As mentioned, also, very few of us FEs grew up that way. It too me close to 2 years personally to come around to it. Some prominent FEs actually started looking into it with the intent of just debunking it, believing it to be a psy-op to discredit the people who believed the moon landing was faked ... and then were not only unable to debunk it but were convinced by the evidence. Nor did all FEs come in with a preconception that the Bible shows a flat earth, and a couple were in fact atheists or agnostics at best, but then later came to believe in God and an Intelligent Designer AFTER they became convinced of FE.
I also find the explanation for why the atmosphere does not just blow off out into the nearly-infinite-vacuum of space to be utterly preposterous. There's no way the atmosphere could stay "attached to" and adjacent to the earth, per the current "explanation", as the force of gravity simply doesn't suffice. But there too, if someone could come up with a plausible explanation for it, I'm open to it. Maybe, again, it's some flow of either, where space isn't a complete vacuum, etc. ... and perhaps Dr. Sungenis can help articulate a hypothesis, since he does believe in there being a "Plack Fabric" and not true empty space. But the currently-prevailing explanation ... "gravity" ... is nonsense.
Topic: Round Earth reference? (Read 152393 times)