Sorry guys about the multiple obesessive posts, but I couldnt resist this one.
In Father Pfeiffers conference he pretends that the St. Jerome quote is some spooky inaccessible, lost in time manuscript that we cannot know the context of.

But it is readily available.

St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah

God "[had] established the great mass of the land and had gathered it together above the seas and rivers, so that the heaviest element [earth] hangs over the lighter weight waters by the will of God, who like a king sits above the circle of the earth. There are some who assert that this mass is like a point and globe...What, then, will the land be over ...?"
Original latin here


Total intellectual dishonesty by Father Pfeiffer.


To answer the question above.

There are four great proofs listed as stickys at this link: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs

The second one is not so easily verifiable to lay people, but is the strongest.
All of them are scientific and stick to the evidence before ones eyes. Let he who has eyes to see, see....


As for the St. Gregory of Nyssa quote, I am looking into that. It seems that he was talking about the sun going under the flat earth. Yes people thought that! And that the references to globes, as per usual, are mistranslations, which actually refer to circles. I am looking into it...

I will make this very quick observation:

Fr. Pfeiffer is attempting to say that the idea of a globe earth and the people who believed it and therefore, by extension, heliocentrism, goes back to Aristotle, Aristarchus, and Ptolemy, in ascending order:

Aristotle, b. 384 - d. 322 B.C.

Aristarchus, b. 310 - d. 230 B.C.

Ptolemy, b. 168 - d. 106 B.C.

But, the truth is Fr. Pfeiffer does not go back FAR ENOUGH in time and tell you WHO the source of the pernicious error of globe earth and heliocentrism originates from and WHERE it originates from:

PYTHAGORAS, b. 570 - d. 495 B.C.


PYTHAGORAS is a Kabbalist of the highest order, the modern "Father" of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He received all of his knowledge through "revelations" in his practice of the darks arts of Kabbalah. In other words, witchcraft. So, Fr. Pfeiffer has effectively rested his ball-earth argument on the doctrines and philosophy of satan's army, and the greatest enemy of the Church - Jєωιѕн Kabbalah.

Please see my related thread "NASA and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ":

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/NASA-and-Fressmasonry

 

You can't have two poles on a flat earth.

 Deuteronomy:

If thou be driven as far as the poles of heaven, the Lord thy God will fetch thee back from thence,

In Latin:
Si ad cardines caeli fueris dissipatus, inde te retrahet Dominus Deus tuus,

Proverbs:

 He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.

Adhuc terram non fecerat, et flumina, et cardines orbis terrae.

Job:

The clouds are his covert, and he doth not consider our things, and he walketh about the poles of heaven.

Nubes latibulum ejus, nec nostra considerat, et circa cardines caeli perambulat.

I Kings:

He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord' s, and upon them he hath set the world.

Suscitat de pulvere egenum, et de stercore elevat pauperem: ut sedeat cuм principibus, et solium gloriae teneat. Domini enim sunt cardines terrae, et posuit super eos orbem.



The word "poles" does NOT mean the top and bottom of a globe, in the Bible. You are simply parroting a word that modern-day scientism has co-opted for its false ball-earth model.

The Bible , which always is above scientism, is referring to the LITERAL poles that uphold heaven and earth. There is NOTHING holding up a ball-earth in the globe model. The Bible speaks of the cardines (poles) and pillars in multiple places.

pole n. - a long, slender, rounded piece of wood or metal, typically used with one end placed in the ground as a support for something.
Historical: a linear or square rod.
"a tent pole"

There are literal "tent poles" holding up the Firmament of the Heavens on the flat plane of earth.

There are no such tent poles possible on a ball earth.

To everyone trying to make arguments based on specific translations and/or interpretations of scriptural passages: you should realize that Revelation exists to help us know things that cannot be discovered by reason. It so happens that this question can be resolved entirely without any appeal to Revelation, and so it has no place in this conversation. Also, see thread title.

That said, I am still waiting for a flat earth explanation of sunset that isn't based on a flawed understanding of perspective. It is readily apparent that when an object gets further and further away over a flat surface, it will never appear to fall below said surface. If the world, and by extension the ocean, were flat, this picture would not be possible.

To everyone trying to make arguments based on specific translations and/or interpretations of scriptural passages: you should realize that Revelation exists to help us know things that cannot be discovered by reason. It so happens that this question can be resolved entirely without any appeal to Revelation, and so it has no place in this conversation. Also, see thread title.

That said, I am still waiting for a flat earth explanation of sunset that isn't based on a flawed understanding of perspective. It is readily apparent that when an object gets further and further away over a flat surface, it will never appear to fall below said surface. If the world, and by extension the ocean, were flat, this picture would not be possible.

I saw your post and thought it was well said.

However, since you didn't manage to include the image of the link you posted, I presume to expect you won't mind me inserting it to wit:



---Curiously, if you click on the link "this picture" above, you see a more clear image, but one that happens to contain a "bleeds" phenomenon where the sun meets the water's horizon.  This effect was argued by a flat-earther earlier in this thread to claim that there was, in effect applied here, there was two suns moving through the image depicted.---

Arguing with an FEer is like beating your head against a wall…it feels so good when you stop.

 

But - but - but - if you "stop" then I won't be able to enjoy your contributions!!  

Quote from: ManuelChavez

1   
Deuteronomy 30:4
If thou be driven as far as the poles of heaven, the Lord thy God will fetch thee back from thence,

2   
1 Kings (1 Samuel) 2:8
He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord' s, and upon them he hath set the world.

3   
Job 22:14
The clouds are his covert, and he doth not consider our things, and he walketh about the poles of heaven.

4   
Proverbs 8:26
He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.

- - -

You can't have two poles on a flat earth.

Perhaps you missed their latest version of flat-earthism, which has a dome on top, and another upside-down dome underneath the bottom flat-earthism situation, effectively making earth into a big round knish. Or would that be a knish-under-glass?



In any event, the opposing domes curiously resemble a "ball," no??

God created the flat earth. The flat earth is not new.

As far as the flat earth idea goes, I have tried to understand it and was able to explain some things in the flat earth model, but there is one thing I cannot understand. That is the movement of the sun and sunrise and sunset. The explanations I have seen from flat earthers do not make sense to me and seem to be impossible.

I agree with your concern re: sun movm't.

But I also take issue with their explanation of weight.  There are very simple experiments you can do to support the principle of mass inherent in matter, and to show the falseness of buoyancy as the complete answer for differing weights among material objects.

We live in an age of very sophisticated mechanical systems, and mechanical engineering is a fact of life now.  You'll be hard pressed to find a mechanical engineer who says that the reason one item weighs more than another is entirely because of the difference in density between them and the air they displace.  But this is to what the flat-earthers reduce their discussion.

As far as the flat earth idea goes, I have tried to understand it and was able to explain some things in the flat earth model, but there is one thing I cannot understand. That is the movement of the sun and sunrise and sunset. The explanations I have seen from flat earthers do not make sense to me and seem to be impossible.

In my opinion, youtuber p-brane gives the best and easiest to understand explanation of this on the flat earth model.

Watch his video here, and go to the 10:30 mark for a diagram illustration:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GDaiw-G1VGE[/youtube]