Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong (Read 5408 times)

happenby · « **Reply #30 on:** March 29, 2017, 12:27:46 AM »

Additional Catholic teachings on geocentrism and flat earth

“J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary
Systems’, (1906)” A limited preview of it is here, and Severian is on p.211-2. Here is what is said:

A contemporary of Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, lays great stress on the necessity of accepting as real the supercelestial waters ¹, while a younger contemporary of Basil, Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, speaks out even more strongly and in more detail in his Six Orations on the Creation of the World,², in which the cosmical system sketched in the first chapter of Genesis is explained. On the first day God made the heaven, not the one we see, but the one above that, the whole forming a house of two storeys with a roof in the middle and the waters above that. As an angel is spirit without body, so the upper heaven is fire without matter, while the lower one is fire with matter, and only by the special arrangement of providence sends its light and heat down to us, instead of upwards as other fires do³. The lower heaven was made on the second day; it is crystalline, congealed water, intended to be able to resist the flame of sun and moon and the infinite number of stars, to be full of fire and yet not dissolve nor burn, for which reason there is water on the outside. This water will also come in handy on the last day, when it will be used for putting out the fire of the sun, moon and stars⁴. The heaven is not a sphere, but a tent or tabernacle; “it is He…that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in⁵“; the Scripture says that it has a top, which a sphere has not, and it is also written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar⁶.” 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,” and he quotes: “The sun goeth down and hasteth to his place where he ariseth⁷.” When the sun goes more to the south, the days are shorter and we have winter, as the sun takes all the longer to perform his nightly journey¹.
¹ Catechesis, ix., Opera, Oxford, 1703, p. 116.
² Joh. Chrysostomi Opera, ed. Montfaucon, t. vii. (Paris, 1724), p. 436 sqq. Compare also the extracts given by Kosmas, pp. 320-325.
³ I. 4.
⁴ II. 3-4.
⁵ Isaiah xl. 22.
⁶ Gen. xix. 23. The above is from the Revised Version, but Severianus (III. 4) has: “Sol egressus est super terram, et Lot ingressus est in Segor. Quare liquet, Scriptura teste, egressum esse Solem, non ascendisse.”
⁷ Eccles. i. 5.
¹ III. 5.

happenby · « **Reply #31 on:** March 29, 2017, 12:28:25 AM »

Wikipedia on Severian

Severian belonged to the Antiochene school of exegesis, and his interpretations can be very literal. He is notorious for his six sermons on the Creation, in which he expresses "absurdly literal"^[5] views including support for the Flat Earth.^[6]

happenby · « **Reply #32 on:** March 29, 2017, 12:41:18 AM »

1912 Catholic Encyclopedia St Boniface accused Vergilius of teaching a doctrine with regard to the rotundity of the earth which was contrary to scriptures.

Vergilius later abandoned this position.

happenby · « **Reply #33 on:** March 29, 2017, 12:51:28 AM »

Enoch describes a flat earth which sits under the firmament with waters above it as well as earth and waters below. Sun, moon and stars are found under the firmament/dome and pass over the earth entering and exiting the firmament through portals or windows.

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.
Two of these phrase are in the Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly…" The time difference between Enoch and Jude is approximately 3400 years. Therefore, Jude's reference to the Enochian prophesies strongly leans toward the conclusion that these written prophecies were available to him at that time.

Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milan also approved of and supported the Enochian writings. Even St. Augustine (354-430) suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch.
https://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/enoch_book_of_history.html

happenby · « **Reply #34 on:** March 29, 2017, 01:01:52 AM »

What then can be more absurd than the Pagan doctrine that the earth is in the |xvii middle of the universe? Were it in the middle, there must be something below it as well as above it; but there is nothing below it, since we learn from Genesis that God made heaven and earth, and nothing else beyond these. Here then the Pagans are at war with divine Scripture; but, not content with this, they are at war also with common sense itself and the very laws of nature, declaring, as they do, that the earth is a central sphere, and that there are Antipodes, who must be standing head-downward and on whom the rain must fall up. Introduction, Christian Topography, Cosmas Indiocopleustes

Cosmas further demonstrates the problems in the year 550 were with the pagan beliefs that the earth was a sphere.

Book I
But should one wish to examine more elaborately the question of the Antipodes, he would easily find them to be old wives' fables. For if two men on opposite sides placed the soles of their feet each against each, whether they chose to stand on earth, or water, or air, or fire, or any other kind of body, how could both be found standing upright? The one would assuredly be found in the natural upright position, and the other, contrary to nature, head downward.²⁰ Such notions are opposed to reason, and alien to our nature and condition. And how, again, when it rains upon both of them, is it possible to say that the rain falls down upon the two, and not that it falls down to the one and falls up to the other, or falls against them, or towards them, or away from them. For to think that there are Antipodes compels us to think also that rain falls on them from an opposite direction to ours; and any one will, with good reason, deride these ludicrous theories, which set forth principles incongruous, ill-adjusted, and contrary to nature.

20. ¹ See Cicero, Acad. Prior., 2, 39, and Plutarch, 2, 869 c., on Antipodes. Nearly all the Christian Fathers held the same opinion as Cosmas abput the Antipodes; as, for instance, Lactantius, who asks: "Est quisqam tam ineptus qui credat esse homines, quorum vestigia sint superiora quam capita?" Augustin, Chrysostom, Severianus of Gabala, Beda, were likewise anti-Antipodeans.

Book II

The Deity accordingly having founded the earth, which is oblong, upon its own stability, bound together the extremities of the heaven with the extremities of the earth, making the nether extremities of the heaven rest upon the four extremities of the earth, while on high he formed it into a most lofty vault overspanning the length of the earth. Along the breadth again of the earth he built a wall from the nethermost extremities of the heaven upwards to the summit, and having enclosed the place, made a house, as one might call it, of enormous size, like an oblong vaulted vapour-bath. For, saith the Prophet Isaiah (xlix, 22): He who established heaven as a vault. With regard, moreover, to the glueing together of the heaven and the earth, we find this written in Job: He has inclined heaven to earth, and it has been poured out as the dust of the earth. I have welded it as a square block of stone.¹⁶ Do not the expressions about inclining it to the earth and welding it thereto clearly show that the heaven standing as a vault has its extremities bound together with the extremities of the earth? The fact of its inclination to the earth, and its being welded with it, makes it totally inconceivable that it is a sphere.¹⁷ |31

Moses, likewise, in describing the table in the Tabernacle, which is an image of the earth, ordered its length to be of two cubits, and its breadth of one cubit. So then in the same way as Isaiah spoke, so do we also speak of the figure of the first heaven made on the first day, made along with the earth, and comprising along with the earth the universe, and say that its figure is vaultlike. And just as it is said in Job that the heaven has been welded to the earth, so do we again also say the same. Having learned, moreover, from Moses that the earth has been extended in length more than in breadth, we again admit this, knowing that the scriptures, which are truly divine, ought to be believed. But further, when God had produced the waters and angels and other things simultaneously with the earth and the highest heaven itself, he on the second day exposed to their vision this second heaven visible to our eyes, which, as if putting to use the creations of his own hands, he formed from the waters as his material. In appearance it is like the highest heaven, but not in figure, and it lies midway between that heaven and the earth; and God [130] having then stretched it out extended it throughout the whole space in the direction of its breadth, like an intermediate roof, and bound together the firmament with the highest heaven, separating and disparting the remainder of the waters, leaving some above the firmament, and others on the earth below the firmament, as the divine Moses explains to us, and so makes the one area or house two houses----an upper and a lower story.
==================================================
Note from happenby:
If you notice Severian of Gabala also speaks of the earth being a tabernacle-like structure with an upper and lower story. And like the tabernacle in scripture which is a type of the earth, reflects the similarities with heaven being above, and the holy of holies, while the earth is the outer area where people gather.

happenby · « **Reply #35 on:** March 29, 2017, 01:31:43 AM »

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickenson White

A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view, but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, "It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things." Basil of Caesarea declared it "a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan." Lactantius referred to the ideas of those studying astronomy as "bad and senseless," and opposed the doctrine of the earth's sphericity both from Scripture and reason. St. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific belief; and Ephraem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church, widely known as the "lute of the Holy Ghost," opposed it no less earnestly.

But the strictly biblical men of science, such eminent fathers and bishops as Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, and Clement of Alexandria in the third, with others in centuries following, were not content with merely opposing what they stigmatized as an old heathen theory; they drew from their Bibles a new Christian theory, to which one Church authority added one idea and another, until it was fully developed. Taking the survival of various early traditions, given in the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, they insisted on the clear declarations of Scripture that the earth was, at creation, arched over with a solid vault, "a firmament," and to this they added the passages from Isaiah and the Psalms, in which it declared that the heavens are stretched out "like a curtain," and again "like a tent to dwell in." The universe, then, is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, "like a bathing-tank," and containing "the waters which are above the firmament." These waters are let down upon the earth by the Almighty and his angels through the "windows of heaven." As to the movement of the sun, there was a citation of various passages in Genesis, mixed with metaphysics in various proportions, and this was thought to give ample proofs from the Bible that the earth could not be a sphere.(27)

(27) For Eusebius, see the Proep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the
Hexaemeron, Hom. ix. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap.
3; also citations in Whewell , Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 1857, vol.
i, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217.
For the views of St. John Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, and other great
churchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap i.nklhlbl 


This book was written by a Protestant historian who hated the Catholic Church and thought he could make Her look stupid 
by docuмenting the Church's position through saints and popes interpreting scripture as geocentric and flat.   
There is more on the subject in the book which is 
available to read for free online.  
Also, highly recommended is the book Christian Topography by the Catholic monk, Cosmas Indiocopleustes also available 
to read for free online.  This book has a marvelous description of Moses and the tabernacle being a copy, a microcosm 
of the earth itself.   

I am going to stop here, having extended things a little in order to give you a clearer view of the Church's
geocentric flat earth position.  With antiquity showing that pagans held the round earth theory even back in 550, this
round earth theory adopted by the majority of the pagan world today, remains a serious problem.  When the Church 
denounced Galileo, it denounced all the pagan notions of heliocentrism which includes round earth.

Nadir · « **Reply #36 on:** March 29, 2017, 04:54:53 AM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 28, 2017, 06:24:46 PM

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?

Yes, thank you for answering my question.

cassini · « **Reply #37 on:** March 29, 2017, 05:04:27 AM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 28, 2017, 03:57:01 PM

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

The first and most obvious astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.

The second recurring motion noted was that of the moon. As well as turning around the earth every day, it also shifted position in the sky for 29.33 days before returning to its original position. This was interpreted as a full rotation of the moon around the earth every month.

The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period was called a year.

Alas, this tropical year as it is called, does not divide evenly into twelve months, so adjustments in the number of days allocated to each of the twelve months had to be made. If the civil year (365 days) were to hold to the tropical year (365.242264 days), as the ancient Egyptians did, the dates would regress through all the various seasons of the year performing a complete revolution in 1508 years. Julius Caesar tried to solve this problem by the intercalation every fourth year of a leap year consisting of 366 days. But this too, because it made each year 365.25 days, now progressed the year by 11 minutes 12 seconds doing a complete cycle in 47,213 years.

As it happened, Caesar’s 27.85 seconds a day aberration meant that by the early 1600s the Spring Equinox was 10 days out. To resolve this, in Oct. 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, after great consultation, removed 10 days off the new ‘Gregorian Calendar,’ which, because it was out by a mere second, means our successors will have to make further adjustments in 4,000 years.

Then there is the astronomer Hipparchus who worked out that there is another ‘day,’ the period in which the stars do a complete daily revolution around the earth. [Hipparchus (died 125BC) was born in Nicaea in north-western Asia Minor. Little else is known about his personal life and fortune. Most of what we do know of his astronomy is due to the references made by the equally famous Ptolemy (died 187AD.) in his Almagest because, with one small exception, his works have been lost.]

This star measured day is called a sidereal day. But this presented another problem because an astronomical day - measured by the sun’s meridian passage - exceeds the sidereal day, measured by the meridian passage of any fixed star, by nearly four minutes every day. This in turn of course resulted in a star measured year, a sidereal year, and some 20 min 20 seconds shorter than the tropical year. This disparity is responsible for the phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes, a retrograde motion of the equinoxes that will complete a full revolution in the plane of the ecliptic every 25,869 years.

cassini · « **Reply #38 on:** March 29, 2017, 05:20:45 AM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 28, 2017, 06:24:46 PM

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?

For this to happen the sun has to be lowered in the sky from 93 million miles to a few thousand miles above the earth. Again FEism has to deny the science of measuring distances from earth to the planets and the sun, that is mathematics, one of the few methods to achieve proofs.

cassini · « **Reply #39 on:** March 29, 2017, 06:19:40 AM »

There is no doubt that some of the Fathers believed in a flat earth. But unless there is unanimous belief of the Fathers the belief does not qualify as CHURCH TEACHING as regards what the Bible says. It is therefore not right to insist a Catholic must or should accept a flat-earth Scripture.

“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’

The term circle in the scriptures does not eliminate a globe, a sphere. A flat earth has only one circle. A globe is circular as viewed from every angle.

happenby · « **Reply #40 on:** March 29, 2017, 02:26:37 PM »

Quote from: cassini on March 29, 2017, 06:19:40 AM

There is no doubt that some of the Fathers believed in a flat earth. But unless there is unanimous belief of the Fathers the belief does not qualify as CHURCH TEACHING as regards what the Bible says. It is therefore not right to insist a Catholic must or should accept a flat-earth Scripture.

“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’

The term circle in the scriptures does not eliminate a globe, a sphere. A flat earth has only one circle. A globe is circular as viewed from every angle.

Along with descriptions of scripture, the only saints (and the majority I might add) that actually taught anything about the earth, taught flat earth. A few mentioned earth in passing, that they thought earth might be a globe. But, they didn't teach anything. So... if you see, somewhere along the way, a teaching of a saint on round earth with biblical references, please post it.

mw2016 · « **Reply #41 on:** March 30, 2017, 12:08:02 AM »

Quote from: cassini on March 29, 2017, 05:04:27 AM

The first and most obvious astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth.

You did not answer my question.
I asked: explain the mechanism of day and night under your Biblical non-moving earth form of geocentrism.
Cutting and pasting a wikipedia entry on heliocentrism is not an answer.
So, if day and night is caused by the earth rotating on its axis under heliocentrism, what is the mechanism causing day and night with a non-rotating earth?
Or, are you actually going to admit that you BELIEVE IN A ROTATING EARTH? Which is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which holds that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.

cassini · « **Reply #42 on:** March 30, 2017, 05:29:49 AM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 30, 2017, 12:08:02 AM

You did not answer my question.
I asked: explain the mechanism of day and night under your Biblical non-moving earth form of geocentrism.
Cutting and pasting a wikipedia entry on heliocentrism is not an answer.
So, if day and night is caused by the earth rotating on its axis under heliocentrism, what is the mechanism causing day and night with a non-rotating earth?
Or, are you actually going to admit that you BELIEVE IN A ROTATING EARTH? Which is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which holds that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.

I did not answer your question, merely pasting a wikipedia entry instead? Are you serious mw2016? First of all I wrote the above posting and I drew the illustrations.

It explains how the orbiting sun brings about day and night on earth. I added in how the sun brings seasons on earth. I further added how precession works and for good measure showed how the calendar had to be changed to bring it into line with Church celebrations of Easter etc.

Now if you read that as a heliocentric explanation then we are all in trouble.

Then again maybe your 'mechanism' is asking how the sun orbits the earth. My belief is that the sun, moon and stars are fixed into the universe and given only a small local movement (for example the seasonal movement of the sun). I believe God causes the universe to rotate around the fixed earth at its center. This causes the sun, moon and stars to turn around the global earth every day. One can say the sun ORBITS around the earth but in fact it is TURNED around the earth in its place in a rotating universe. This last distinction is important as ORBITING is confined to moons and planets.

I think it was St Thomas who wondered if all the sun, moon and stars move in unison or if they were fixed into the aether of the universe. He preferred the first option I prefer the second. Both are possible to God, the first if he placed each body under the care of an angel to direct daily and local movement, or the angels take care of local movements as the are turned around the earth in a fixed universe.

Notice how a global earth works in the geocentric model. It does not need to deny science its measurements of distances, or deny that any curvature of earth was ever photographed from a position in space that could show that curve.

It also shows how the sun not only causes day and night on earth but also on all the planets and moons. I see a nightmare of explanations to show how a flat-earth system could explain these planetary and moon phases observed due to the sun having to be a couple of thousand miles above the earth in a flat-earth scenario.

Given that a scriptural flat-earth was never dogmatised by the Church, it is not a matter of faith. Only a geocentric universe was dogmatised in order to protect the Scriptures and common sense, the means by which man can recognise that a Creator exists.

To subject the Scriptures and the Catholic faith to the idea that the earth is a flat circular body is to place the Catholic faith under the auspices of so many denials that it can only HARM the faith. To actually insist the earth has edges of a high wall of ice that somehow cannot be identified from an airplane or satellite and insist the integrity of the Scriptures depends on that is just not right.

I have no doubt some do believe it is true, others that it is a possibility, but for God's sake do not say one's Catholic faith depends on it being true. Nor does it help your cause by attacking those who disagree or implying they are ignorant. One does not gain friends or converts that way.

mw2016 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 30, 2017, 01:50:58 PM »

Quote from: cassini on March 30, 2017, 05:29:49 AM

Then again maybe your 'mechanism' is asking how the sun orbits the earth. My belief is that the sun, moon and stars are fixed into the universe and given only a small local movement (for example the seasonal movement of the sun). I believe God causes the universe to rotate around the fixed earth at its center. This causes the sun, moon and stars to turn around the global earth every day. One can say the sun ORBITS around the earth but in fact it is TURNED around the earth in its place in a rotating universe. This last distinction is important as ORBITING is confined to moons and planets.

I think it was St Thomas who wondered if all the sun, moon and stars move in unison or if they were fixed into the aether of the universe. He preferred the first option I prefer the second. Both are possible to God, the first if he placed each body under the care of an angel to direct daily and local movement, or the angels take care of local movements as the are turned around the earth in a fixed universe.

Note to cassini: you do not need to type or paste a WALL OF TEXT to answer a simple question.
So, now we have, from your very verbose response, that you do not believe the earth is rotating, and that you believe the sun is, in fact, rotating about the earth, along with all the rest of the "universe" in the ether.
Therefore, you have proved my point:
You accept the heliocentric distance to the sun of 93 million miles.
Therefore, according to YOU, the sun is traversing a 584 million mile long circular path around the earth EVERY 24-hours.
THAT is more absurd than a flat earth plane with the Firmament above, enclosing the earth from the waters of the great deep, with the sun and moon and stars circling above, could ever be.

cassini · « **Reply #44 on:** March 30, 2017, 02:18:39 PM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 30, 2017, 01:50:58 PM

Note to cassini: you do not need to type or paste a WALL OF TEXT to answer a simple question.
So, now we have, from your very verbose response, that you do not believe the earth is rotating, and that you believe the sun is, in fact, rotating about the earth, along with all the rest of the "universe" in the ether.
Therefore, you have proved my point:
You accept the heliocentric distance to the sun of 93 million miles.
Therefore, according to YOU, the sun is traversing a 584 million mile long circular path around the earth EVERY 24-hours.
THAT is more absurd than a flat earth plane with the Firmament above, enclosing the earth from the waters of the great deep, with the sun and moon and stars circling above, could ever be.

Unlike you mw2016, I not only answer posts but I write in such a way that the reading public can judge for themselves which opinion is the more reasonable. I am long aware that flat-earthers are not for turning no matter what is argued against what they believe is the greatest conspiracy ever conceived.

Next you will be telling us there are fewer stars than all the grains of sand on Earth. Such a number is absurd to flat-earthers. As a Catholic I do not accuse God of creating any absurdities when it comes to size, distances or speeds.

Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong (Read 5408 times)

happenby

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

happenby

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

Nadir

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

cassini

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

cassini

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

cassini

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

cassini

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

cassini

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong