I'm going to demonstrate in one simple math calculation why Robert Sungenis's, Fr. Pfeiffer's, and cassini's version of geocentrism is wrong - and simultaneously prove why the flat earth model is correct.
First: All three - Sungenis, Fr. Pfeiffer, and cassini - hold the Bible to be true and correct where it states that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.
See: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 Isaiah 45:18.
Since they hold that the earth does not move, this means the earth can neither travel in a circuit around the sun, nor does it rotate on its axis.
However, this creates a little problem: the heliocentric model states that day/night is caused by the earth rotating on its axis. If there is no movement of earth, because it is stationary and unmoving according to the Bible, then this means there can be no rotation.
So only the sun can be in motion.
Therefore, in order for us to have day and night, the sun would have to go around the earth:
ONCE EVERY 24 HOURS.
If you take the figure that Sungenis, Fr. P. and cassini accept for the distance to the sun, of 93 million miles, then one can calculate the distance the sun must travel going around the earth in a single 24 hour day.
If earth is center, and the radius of this circuit (R) is the distance of 93 million miles, we can calculate the circuмference (C).
The equation is C = 2 x pi x R
C = 2 x 3.14 x 93 million miles
C = 584 million miles
584 million miles per day/ 24 hours in a day = 24.3 million MPH (speed of the sun)
Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?
Because that is what the math gives you, if you partially adhere to the Bible's stationary geocentrism, while simultaneously trying to adhere to NASA and heliocentrism's distance of the sun being 93 million miles from earth.
Therefore, the Bible is correct. The earth is a flat, stationary plain, and the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours.
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.
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 (http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=COMMOVEO100)]
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?
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.
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 (http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=COMMOVEO100)]
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.
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:// (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html)www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html (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…
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.