Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong (Read 5691 times)

mw2016 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2017, 03:57:01 PM »

Quote from: cassini on March 28, 2017, 03:34:41 PM

Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.

Please explain day/night on your version of geocentrism, which includes the Biblical non-rotating, non-moving earth.
Thanks!

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2017, 04:04:04 PM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 28, 2017, 02:31:17 PM

Psalm 104:5 "Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever."

If you are going to accuse others of error, at least do us the service of quoting from a Catholic Bible. This is either the Darby bible or the Good News Translation. Especially when we're talking about semantics of individual words, protty texts aren't going to cut it.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2017, 04:17:57 PM »

Let's look at the Latin for starters. Psalms 103:5 "qui fundasti terram super basem suam non commovebitur in saeculum et in saeculum"

Commovebitur (from online latin dictionary dot com)

1 passive form of [commoveo]
2 to shake, to stir up, to agitate
3 to displace (emphasis mine), to disturb, to trouble, to worry, to upset
4 to jolt
5 to excite
6 to waken
7 to provoke
8 (money or camp) to move
9 to produce
10 (war) to cause, start
11 (point) to raise

Now this is just the Latin translation from the original (Hebrew?). So let's say that the latin meant commovebitur in the sense of "to be displaced", as it is clearly listed in the third definition of this word. Why should we then assume that the literal interpretation must be the eighth sense of the word listed in authoritative latin dictionaries?

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2017, 04:22:52 PM »

The group is on Mark Sargent's youtube channel? Shouldn't they have a website of their own if they are indeed a group?

happenby · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2017, 04:36:17 PM »

Quote from: cassini on March 28, 2017, 03:34:41 PM

Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth - now said to be approximately 11,650 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.

‘In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s proposed measurements of 92.96 million miles]. ---David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.

Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?

Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.

The flat-earth proposal depends on the unbelievable idea that all space photography of a curved earth is one of the biggest hoaxes ever, with thousands and thousands of global-earthers conspiring to keep the flat-earth a secret with not one whistler-blower ever to emerge over 50 years. There may well be relative facts that could be used by both FEers and GEers but there is so much (like distances and now speeds) that have to be denied to procure a flat-earth that we are still a million miles away from a proven flat earth. The evidence for a global earth is enough to convince me at any rate that The Child of Prague got it right.

Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.

I question that God supercedes his own laws of physics to promote relativity.

happenby · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2017, 04:49:07 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 04:17:57 PM

Let's look at the Latin for starters. Psalms 103:5 "qui fundasti terram super basem suam non commovebitur in saeculum et in saeculum"

Commovebitur (from online latin dictionary dot com)

1 passive form of [commoveo]
2 to shake, to stir up, to agitate
3 to displace (emphasis mine), to disturb, to trouble, to worry, to upset
4 to jolt
5 to excite
6 to waken
7 to provoke
8 (money or camp) to move
9 to produce
10 (war) to cause, start
11 (point) to raise

Now this is just the Latin translation from the original (Hebrew?). So let's say that the latin meant commovebitur in the sense of "to be displaced", as it is clearly listed in the third definition of this word. Why should we then assume that the literal interpretation must be the eighth sense of the word listed in authoritative latin dictionaries?

The Church has a long history of believing the earth is not round and that it doesn't move. The above blurb on Latin definitions of 'move' does nothing for your case and doesn't even make sense when you pose your proof as a question you yourself cannot answer. The Church fathers have discussed this plenty. You are just unaware of it. St. Augustine, Severian, Bshp of Gabala, St. Jerome, Cosmas, Methodius, St. John Chrysostom and many others confirmed earth is flat and geocentric, a snow globe, as it were. All saints agree that antipodes do not exist, (that people in Australia walking upside down to the rest because they are on a ball) is at the level of doctrine since it has been held universally for over 1,000 years, as historians reveal. Some saints did think the earth might be round, but they prove themselves unaware of previous teaching in their writings, and of course, not in agreement with scripture. Not one shred of evidence shows that the Church taught anything except geocentrism. Ball geocentrism, supported by Sungenis-esque pagan authorities is no proof of anything except flat earth.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2017, 05:11:15 PM »

The burden of proof is on you two. Mw2016 said this was gonna be proof. Let's see the authoritative texts stating the Earth is flat. Of course I believe in geocentrism. Most of us do here, so stop with the pro-geocentric arguments. It's unnecessary and repetitive. Show the texts of the fathers supporting flat earth.

mw2016 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2017, 06:08:41 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 04:04:04 PM

If you are going to accuse others of error, at least do us the service of quoting from a Catholic Bible. This is either the Darby bible or the Good News Translation. Especially when we're talking about semantics of individual words, protty texts aren't going to cut it.

Are you mildly retarded? If not, then I am sure you know that the numbers for Psalms are different between the two, but the text is the same.
"Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever."
Psalm 103:5-7/DRV

" Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam, non inclinabitur in saeculum saeculi."

http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=103&l=5#x

mw2016 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2017, 06:12:58 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 04:22:52 PM

The group is on Mark Sargent's youtube channel? Shouldn't they have a website of their own if they are indeed a group?

Mark Sargent has a collection of interviews with surveyors, engineers, pilots, sailors, etc. who all assent to the truth of flat earth and demonstrate why on his YT channel.

happenby · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2017, 06:22:35 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 05:11:15 PM

The burden of proof is on you two. Mw2016 said this was gonna be proof. Let's see the authoritative texts stating the Earth is flat. Of course I believe in geocentrism. Most of us do here, so stop with the pro-geocentric arguments. It's unnecessary and repetitive. Show the texts of the fathers supporting flat earth.

•Gen 1. 6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

•Gen 1.7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

•Severian, Bishop of Gabala – Depended upon Scriptures for view of the earth. “The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall” 1.
• [15] He shared John Chrysostom’s fundamentalism and opposition to pagan learning. SEVERIAN OF GABALA ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
He made the upper heavens about which David sang: "The heaven of the heavens is the Lord's."6 This heaven forms in a certain way the upper stage of the firmament. As in any two-story house, there is an intermediate stage; well in this building which is the world, the Creator has prepared the sky as an intermediate level, and he has put it over the waters; from where this passage of David: "It is you who covered with water its upper part.“7

Noted St. Augustine scholar Leo Ferrari, concluded that Augustine was familiar with the Greek theory of a spherical earth, nevertheless, (following in the footsteps of his fellow North African, Lactantius), he was firmly convinced that the earth was flat and was one of the two biggest bodies in existence and that it lay at the bottom of the universe. Apparently Augustine saw this picture as more useful for scriptural exegesis than the global earth at the centre of an immense universe.

•"There are some who assert that this mass is like a point and a globe. What then will the land be over?" St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
•http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html Passage:
•
•"Greek gýros turns up in its transliterated form gyrus--present in Roman literature as early as Lucretius (mid-first century BC)--in the Latin versions of the Bible as well.27 St. Jerome (c. 340-420), the early Latin Church's master linguist and Bible translator, began his work on the Old Testament by creating a standard version from the several unreliable Old Latin recensions then in existence, using as a valuable aid Origen's fair copy of the Hexapla which he consulted in the library at Caesarea around 386 AD.28 The Old Latin recensions were based on the LXX and commonly rendered this same portion of Isa. 40:22a as "qui tenet gyrum terrae."29 Later, when he prepared a new version from the Hebrew that would become part of the Vulgate, he kept the Old Latin reading, changing only the verb tenet, "dwells," to sedet, "sits."30 And in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome, who is regarded by critics today as a competent and careful scholar,31 specifically rejected the notion that in this verse the prophet is referring to a spherical earth." 32
Footnote for 32:
32S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentariorum In Esaiam Libri, XI, ed. M. Adriaen. Corpus Christianorum, 73 (Turnholt, Belgium: Brepols, 1963), 2:463. Jerome's comment shows that interpreting the Bible in light of current scientific theory or knowledge has a long history in Christianity. Having in mind the popular Aristotelian theory of the four elements, which makes earth the heaviest and water the lighter element, he states that 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." (Deus, qui tantam molem terrae fundas[set] et super maria et super flumina collocasset eam, ut elementum grauissimum super tenues aquas Dei penderet arbitrio, qui instar regis sedet super gyrum terrae.) Although, he adds: "there are some who assert that this mass is like a point and globe" [scil., in the center of the universe, according to Greek theory] ... (Ex quo nonnulli quasi punctum et globum eam [molem terrae] esse contendunt ...), Jerome rejects this assertion: "What, then, will the land be over ...?" (Quid igitur superbit terra ...?) (ibid., xl, 21/26).

Those "some" Jerome had in mind may have been Christian contemporaries, but he also may have been reminded of the views expressed in the works of one of his favorite pagan authors, Cicero, who uses punctum and globum to characterize the earth in Republic, 6.16, and Tusculan Disputations, 1.68, respectively, though it is not clear that in the latter Cicero is referring to a spherical earth, as some have contended: see the note loc. cit. by J. E. King, ed. and trans., Cicero, Tusculan Disputations. Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinemann, 1966), 80.

•St. Cyril of Jerusalem – He followed Basil’s teaching and was a flat earther, using quotes from the Bible portraying earth with firmament floating on water using Gen. i. 6. He wrote in his Catechetical Lectures: Lecture IX: “Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water. God spake once for all, and it stands fast, and falls not. The heaven is water, and the orbs therein, sun, moon, and stars are of fire: and how do the orbs of fire run their course in the water? But if any one disputes this because of the opposite natures of fire and water, let him remember the fire which in the time of Moses in Egypt flamed amid the hail…”

Methodius:
“Resuming then, let us first lay bare, in speaking of those things according to our power, the imposture of those who boast as though they alone had comprehended from what forms the heaven is arranged, in accordance with the hypothesis of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. For *they* say that the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well‐rounded globe, the earth having a central point. For its outline being spherical, it is necessary, *they* say, since there are the same distances of the parts, that the earth should be the center of the universe, around which as being older, the heaven is whirling. For if a circuмference is described from the central point, which seems to be a circle, ‐ for it is impossible for a circle to be described without a point, and it is impossible for a circle to be without a point, ‐ surely the earth consisted before all, they say, in a state of chaos and disorganization. Now certainly the wretched ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, “because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God…

happenby · « **Reply #25 on:** March 28, 2017, 06:24:27 PM »

Provided above are only a few quotes of the Fathers, saints and scripture. We could be here all day with the proof available. In the meantime, do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied. There is a lot to know about flat earth.

Also notice I use scripture and Catholic saints/fathers for proof. Sungenis ONLY uses pagans and anti-Catholics to try to prove his fake ball case. I wonder which one will hold up when the time comes?

Any honest traditional Catholic that reads Sungenis' debunking of flat earth and then reads my response to Sungenis will see that he is firmly rooted in the modern world and atheistic science and scientists. My sources remain totally Catholic, or at least, not contrary to Catholic teaching.

mw2016 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 28, 2017, 06:24:46 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on March 28, 2017, 01:11:34 AM

Pardon my ignorance but, earth being the centre of the circle, does the circuмference, and hence the sun, pass below the flat stationary plain which is the earth?

You say the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours. Why is it then that the sun disappears from sight?

This is due to the law of perspective.
From where you stand on the flat plane of earth, from your perspective, all objects reach what is called "the vanishing point" where they converge and disappear from view (from your perspective) but not in reality.
It's like looking down the highway at the painted lines on the road - they converge and disappear from view, but you know if you drove a few miles down the road, the lines are still there, still in a straight line.
It's the same with the sun. It doesn't literally go "down" it only disappears from your point of view from your perspective, and if you had a super-fast vehicle that could drive you 1,000 miles down the road in a few moments, the sun would still be "up."
Do you see?

happenby · « **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2017, 07:49:17 PM »

More Catholic teaching on flat earth.

The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as the direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. 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.

It is impossible that Jerusalem is the center of the earth if earth is a ball.

From St. Jerome to Pope Urban is 1000 years, which this teaching being held for so long a time, may constitute revelation.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #28 on:** March 28, 2017, 09:39:27 PM »

Quote from: happenby on March 28, 2017, 06:24:27 PM

Provided above are only a few quotes of the Fathers, saints and scripture. We could be here all day with the proof available. In the meantime, do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied. There is a lot to know about flat earth.

Also notice I use scripture and Catholic saints/fathers for proof. Sungenis ONLY uses pagans and anti-Catholics to try to prove his fake ball case. I wonder which one will hold up when the time comes?

Any honest traditional Catholic that reads Sungenis' debunking of flat earth and then reads my response to Sungenis will see that he is firmly rooted in the modern world and atheistic science and scientists. My sources remain totally Catholic, or at least, not contrary to Catholic teaching.

A couple of things and then I'm going to stop reading for the night. Early day tomorrow. Firstly, "do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied"? I'm not. I am proposing arguments and asking how you would respond to them. The semantic argument for differing senses of words in other languages, is a topic that I have studied. I have a bachelors degree in Applied Linguistics. So this is a subject that I've studied and one that I understand.
And as a Catholic, I am totally open to changing my mind on the issue if you could convince me that the Church fathers had a consensus or even a near-consensus on the issue. So on to the proof. I didn't read through all of your examples but I did take a look at the first two, and do some research to attempt to determine if they were solid. The first example, Severian of Gabala, was not a Church Father. He is presented because he is supposed to have been of one mind with St. Chrysostom. However, not only is Severian not a Church father, but he also helped to condemn and exile St. Chrysostom, against the desire of Pope Innocent, who tried and failed to intercede on his behalf. Then I researched the quote from St. Jerome, but I was only able to find it in a discussion forum for flat earth trads, so I can't even verify the authenticity of the quote. I will research the others you provided when I have some time tomorrow, but needless to say, I remain unconvinced of your argument. All the same, thank you for providing me with the quotes.

happenby · « **Reply #29 on:** March 28, 2017, 09:48:13 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 09:39:27 PM

A couple of things and then I'm going to stop reading for the night. Early day tomorrow. Firstly, "do not persist in being contrary to what you have not studied"? I'm not. I am proposing arguments and asking how you would respond to them. The semantic argument for differing senses of words in other languages, is a topic that I have studied. I have a bachelors degree in Applied Linguistics. So this is a subject that I've studied and one that I understand.
And as a Catholic, I am totally open to changing my mind on the issue if you could convince me that the Church fathers had a consensus or even a near-consensus on the issue. So on to the proof. I didn't read through all of your examples but I did take a look at the first two, and do some research to attempt to determine if they were solid. The first example, Severian of Gabala, was not a Church Father. He is presented because he is supposed to have been of one mind with St. Chrysostom. However, not only is Severian not a Church father, but he also helped to condemn and exile St. Chrysostom, against the desire of Pope Innocent, who tried and failed to intercede on his behalf. Then I researched the quote from St. Jerome, but I was only able to find it in a discussion forum for flat earth trads, so I can't even verify the authenticity of the quote. I will research the others you provided when I have some time tomorrow, but needless to say, I remain unconvinced of your argument. All the same, thank you for providing me with the quotes.

The quote from St. Jerome was provided by Fr. Pfeiffer in his Power Point against the flat earth. Didn't mean to jump on you, so if I sounded harsh, forgive me. That you are unconvinced is no problem. Failing to continue looking into it would be the problem. Enjoy your studies. Have a wonderful evening.

Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong (Read 5691 times)

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong