Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat earth

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat earth

Post by flatterme on Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:36 pm

A Short Critique of Robert Sungenis' Critique of the Flat Earth
by flatterme


This link will take you to Sungenis' pdf article online called,The Flat Earth Frenzy
Unscientific and Unbiblical.  http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf

Sungenis starts off right away with accusations against flat earth and after a few paragraphs finally admits: "...in some cases that NASA is certainly not the highest epitome of truth and honesty."

What an understatement.  Let's consider NASA for a few moments:


* Reuters: The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used NASA officials said on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
* NASA also admitted the Apollo 11 moon trip telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape of the first Moon landing in 1969 was subsequently lost.
* NASA also says there are 600 boxes, weighing over one ton, of telemetry data missing from EVERY Apollo mission.


That's just the beginning of NASA fakery, mockery, and theft.  But this critique really isn't about NASA per se.  Let's keep going.  Sungenis says early on in his article:

"Scientifically speaking, on the principle that flat earth advocates must be able to answer all the anomalies in their model, it is rather easy to discredit. Just two simple scientific facts will show this to be the case."

This is outrageous!  Sungenis is not able to answer all the anomalies in his model, neither does a flat earth believer have to provide every detail for flat earth to be true.  God has not revealed all secrets of the earth to us.  We sure don't have access to the sophisticated equipment available only to the NASA elite. It is therefore impossible to do as Sungenis suggests not to mention that he appears to remove the same duty from himself.  

Let's talk globe anomalies:

* Compasses don’t work on a globe
* Gyros don’t work on a globe
* Sundials don’t work on a globe
* Plane sailing doesn’t work on a globe
* Lighthouse don’t work on a globe
* Periscopes don’t work on a globe
* Star trails don’t work on a globe
* Water surface doesn't curve
* Curvature commensurate with a ball 25,000 mi in circumference has never been demonstrated
* NASA has never even once provided true, untouched photos or videos of the entire earth


Sungenis then leads us to the Russian Space Agency: "These are pictures of Earth taken very recently from the geostationary weather satellite, Elektro‐L, from 22,242 miles high, courtesy of the Russian Federal Space Agency.2"

Here, Sungenis shows a couple of pictures and says:

"Two pictures of Earth taken a few hours apart. Notice the Sun’s light traveling east to west. Conversely, flat‐earthers have never shown a photograph of a flat earth from space. We have never seen anything from flat‐earthers resembling the picture below. All their pictures of a flat‐earth are either drawn by hand or are computer generated graphics CGI."

Flat earthers have never claimed to show authentic pictures of earth. None of them has access to such information and they admit it.  However, NASA does have the capability, and yet they only show photo-shopped paintings and CGI composites of a globe earth.  So Sungenis has no authentic pictures either. Knowing NASA has engaged in very questionable endeavors like the moon landing, why is Sungenis even turning to them for reference? Even worse, Sungenis pretends these non-photos of earth are authentic when NASA has openly admitted they have no true photos/videos of earth, but all are renderings!  Now, either NASA is lying, or NASA is lying about lying.  Or Sungenis is just gullible.  

Sungenis says: "If we point the telescope toward the opposite edge of the flat earth, on a clear day or night, we should be able to see all the way to the opposite edge, the whole 8,000 mile diameter. But the reality is, we can only see a few hundred miles and the end point is always at the horizon. It is even more problematic for flat‐earthers since they believe the diameter of the Earth is only 4,000 miles."  

This answer from Sungenis shows complete lack of understanding of how angles of perspective work to limit human vision to a relatively short distance.  At great distances, the angles for an object become too small for the eye to resolve, so visibility is limited to just a few miles.  Certainly 4,000 miles is never possible even for a land scope, let alone the naked eye. At ground level the limits on sight are pretty severe, but improve when one elevates the line of sight because the angles are large enough for the eye to resolve the object and therefore one can see further, but only a few miles further.  Never the 4000 suggested because the angles of distance to the eye prevent it. The horizon, provably horizontal, however, will rise along with the viewer and stays flat no matter how high one goes, proving earth is a plane, not a ball.  

On the moon being visible in the south upside down compared to the north, Sungenis says:
"The inverted image could only happen on a spherical Earth, since everyone on a flat earth is standing with their head pointing north."

This is laughable and Sungenis makes no apologies for not knowing that people can stand facing south and will see one side of the moon right side up.  Conversely, facing north from southern regions, while viewing the moon one sees the exact opposite view of the moon in the north looking south because one is viewing from the opposite direction and will see the pattern on the moon upside down.  Yes, even on a plane, proven many times over by people in these regions taking photos of the moon at the same time, then switching positions, the moon goes upside down again.  This is no proof of a ball earth, but a law of perspective.

Sungenis then blankets his reader with three statements:

1. the Bible does not teach a flat earth
2. neither the Church Fathers nor the Church after them taught a flat earth
3. the scientific data does not support a flat earth.

So, all you have to do is say it, Mr Sungenis? THESE STATEMENTS ARE ALL FALSE:

The Bible absolutely teaches a flat earth and this is verified many times over, first by the texts themselves, secondly by the writings of great Catholic men of history such as Cosmas of Indiocopleustes, many saints, including St. Augustine, much of them verified by historians like Andrew Dickson White who actually disagreed with the flat geocentric assessment of the Church, but references many saints and popes and others who affirm the Catholic Church did indeed hold the flat geocentric earth.  See his book: A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom, and read it for free online. As for number three, the scientific data, not one shred of evidence points to spherical earth.  Unbiased, scientific evidence either proves flat earth or supports it, as this rebuttal in its entirety will show.

Sungenis laughably suggests that bad bible translations and liberal exegeses is responsible for flat earthers believing in a literal dome over the earth and then blames flat earthers for supporting the Big Bang.

Sungenis says:
"Since from the human perspective the heavens appear as dome above a flat earth ሺeven as it appears to us today as we look into the heavens when standing on earthሻ, the NAB translators slant their translation to depict that primitive picture. In turn, this slanted translation allows these modern scholars to disregard the literal teachings of Genesis 1 and make the text appear as fanciful and unscientific ruminations of ancient peoples who were unversed in the real science of how the universe came into being. And here’s the rub. Instead of a miraculous creation in six days spoken into existence by God, these scholars believe in such theories as the Big Bang and evolution as the only way the material world came into being. They have the same disregard for divine miraculous intrusion for all the other narratives in Genesis ሺe.g., the great flood of Noah’s day; the exodus from Egypt, etc.ሻ. Since Genesis 1 teaches, for example, that the Earth was created before the sun, moon and stars..."

Oh dear.  Where does one start.  Firstly, the literal translation of scripture always demonstrates a flat earth in any translation and contradicts scripture if one tries to fit a spherical earth with the text.  Next, I don't use the NAB, I use the Douay Rheims of 1610, so I'm not subject to the white wash Sungenis attempts to paint with.  Nor do I stoop to pick up any exegeses from modern scholars as Sungenis suggests.  In fact, in this critique I will bypass all pagan garbage proofs and only use scripture and Catholic references. Worse than his ridiculous notion about the dome, Sungenis twists the truth so badly that he winds up inferring that the Big Bang paradigm is the fault of flat earthers.

To make flat earthers feel real stupid, he finishes with this:
"they have been deceived by the Wellhausen scholars and have become the very unsophisticated and clueless Bible‐thumpers that the scholars wish to portray them as."

"Unsophisticated clueless Bible thumpers?"  "...make the text appear as fanciful and unscientific ruminations of ancient peoples who were unversed in the real science of how the universe came into being..."  Hmm...These quotes say a lot.  Sungenis' position, saying such things, shows he has little respect for scripture or for ancient peoples like Moses, Enoch and Cosmas.

Perhaps Sungenis hasn't come to the realization that not all flat earthers read the NAB.  Most flat earthers who speak of earth's dome do not even refer to scripture because they aren't even Christian.  Of those who are Christian, most read the KJV. Only Catholics read the NAB, and as a group, they don't believe earth is flat.  So maybe a couple hundred people are supposed to be responsible for the idea of the dome?  This premise is so crippled, it can't even make it out the door before falling down!  Had Sungenis grasped at any other straw man, he might have made some kind of case, but that the NAB and a handful of scholars are at fault for thinking earth is covered by a dome?  Please. This is downright embarrassing for Sungenis.  

After reading the entire 39 pages of this article, there is no mistake, Sungenis's entire approach to flat earth is utterly dishonest. But what is his motive for resorting to obfuscation and misinformation? Money perhaps? Sungenis has written several books and produced a movie showing the modern Geocentric model with the spherical earth.  To admit a mistake now would seriously cut off the bulk of his revenue, but even worse, he'd look pretty bad.  Sungenis has everything to lose if his spherical Geocentric model is cast aside and the flat truth comes out.  His career and income are obvious motives for him to continue all kinds of circular reasoning and defend the indefensible.  

At this point, Sungenis fails to finish his commentary on the dome firmament, blaming people who call it a dome for the misunderstanding.  Then Sungenis magically moves the hot potato of who might be wrong about this into the hands of those flat earth scholars he blames earlier saying: "In turn, these liberal‐minded scholars regards themselves as those “in the know” since they hold firm to the idea that universe came into being by the theories of Einstein, Copernicus and Darwin. Essentially, they think they know better than God as to how the universe should be built."  

Unbelievable! This blatantly dishonest twisting of the readers' mind as well as the truth, is so outrageous I'm finding it hard to type my response I'm so angry.   How can flat earthers who believe in the domed Geocentric model the Church always held, be responsible for pushing the theories of Einstein, Copernicus and Darwin or support or promote such Heliocentric high priests? Simply because Sungenis equates them with "liberal scholars" who read the NAB and think the firmament is a dome? This the height of arrogance and stupidity!  Sungenis actually benefits from the spherical aspects of Heliocentrism.  His entire life's work is at stake!  So he moves blame for evolution and the Big Bang etc. onto the flat earthers, taking time to distance himself from Heliocentrism using smoke and mirrors.  What he's proposing is so convoluted as to boggle the mind.  Sungenis is implying that flat earthers, who are all literal creationists, Christians and Catholics, are responsible for the Big Bang and Heliocetrism, as well as promoting silly tales of the unversed ancients.  

In order to explain the firmament, what he refers to as, 'outer and inner",  guess where Mr S takes us next?  Ah, of course, back to Heliocentric authorities and theories!  In fact, throughout his critique of flat earth, Sungenis gives 100% of his attention to modern Heliocentric scientists in order to support his theories.  
Below, Sungenis accomplishes this using quotes from one Paul C. W. Davies.  But first, a little info on Davies from Wikipedia....

Wiki says Davies' research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology.

"Davies' inquiries have included theoretical physics, cosmology, and astrobiology; his research has been mainly in the area of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. His notable contributions are the so-called Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect, according to which an observer accelerating through empty space will perceive a bath of thermal radiation, and the Bunch–Davies vacuum state, often used as the basis for explaining the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang."

Looks like Davies is the very definition of an Heliocentrist!  As Sungenis points the finger at the flat earthers for Big Bang Heliocentrism, this pathetic, spherical earth emperor is parading around naked! Davies is not the only one Sungenis uses, either.  Sungenis' proofs all come from Heliocentric personalities and their pagan theories.  All of them!  

Sungenis proves this further when he relies on James Clerk Maxwell saying:

"On the centenary of Maxwell's birthday, Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton".At Trinity he was elected to the elite secret society known as the Cambridge Apostles.He joined the "Apostles", an exclusive debating society of the intellectual elite, where through his essays he sought to work out this understanding.Immediately after earning his degree, Maxwell read his paper On the Transformation of Surfaces by Bending to the Cambridge Philosophical Society."  

Interestingly, almost every subject Maxwell studied is related to furthering the cause of pagan Heliocentrism.  So fascinating that Sungenis would recommend and quote him so copiously.  And lets not forget Einstein loved Maxwell.

Let's see who else Sungenis recommends.  Hmm...  
Dr. Abhay Ashtekar.  

Wiki says of the religious beliefs of Dr. Abhay Ashtekar.  "Dr. Abhay Ashtekar is an atheist, though he enjoys reading on Indian and other eastern philosophy, namely the Tao and the Zen traditions. Furthermore, he claims to be inspired from the Bhagwat Gita as regards his attitude towards work." And, "The Bhagavadgita may be treated as a great synthesis of the ideas of the impersonal spiritual monism with personalistic monotheism, of the yoga of action with the yoga of transcendence of action, and these again with yogas of devotion and knowledge."

Again, not exactly someone good Catholics could turn to in so delicate a matter of discerning truth about God's Word. But, after quoting several atheistic scientists, purring about their modern black hole dark matter science including extensive insight to the enigmatic planck* theory, Sungenis goes back to complaining about the Big Bangers and Heliocentrists, who he just got finished praising in the form of certain personages.  

Its clear where Sungenis' loyalties lay with heliocentric planck theory thus far, with the new repackaged version of super tiny atom things that still manage to support Heliocentrism condemned long ago.  But we will get back to that in a moment. Lets follow as Mr. Sungenis takes on the corners of the earth.  He says: "The Bible speaks about the “corners of the Earth,”37 or “ends of the Earth.”38 The latter two terms do not, of course, mean that the Earth has literal corners or ends. Rather, “corners” refers to the four compass points ሺnorth, east, south and westሻ, while “ends” refers to the respective east and west 35 Orthodox Faith, Bk 2, Ch VII. 36 Orthodox Faith, Bk 2, Ch VII. 37 Jb 37:3; Is 11:12; 41:9; Ez 7:2; Ap 7:1; 20:8. 38 Dt 28:64; 33:17; 1Sm 2:10; Jb 28:24; 38:13; Ps 19:4-6; 22:27; 46:9; 48:10; 59:13; 61:2; 65:5; 41:9; Jr 51:16; Dn 4:10-11; Mk 13:27. 35 horizons. Hence, Scripture is not implying that the Earth is flat. Not only does Scripture imply that the Earth is a sphere,39 it never refers to the Earth as being flat."

The above is so preposterous it could take days to unpack all the trash buried in this heap.  First of all and most importantly, scripture says 'four corners', not four directions, destroying any possibility that MR S can be permitted to discuss the subject intelligently let alone honestly.  This deceptive work buried a game of words is beyond despicable and provides a completely inadequate response.  Mr. S cannot just make corners equal to directions just by saying it, pretending, without explanation, provide a ridiculously poor comparison followed by a blanket statement he offers as a legit conclusion?  Unbelievable!

But MR S continues:  "Job 38:4 shows that the foundation of the Earth is a complicated structure with precise measurements that are unfathomable to Job.  Jeremiah 31:37 echoes this perspective as it says “the foundations cannot be discovered.” We understand from this language that the “foundation of the earth” is its core, upon which everything else rests."  

Oh really? Because Sungenis draws this conclusion?   Another outrage! He concludes that, 'we' understand from this language, and then he draws a conclusion for us?  Who are 'we'? Hopefully not to include Mr. S's other recommended scientists discussed earlier.  This statement is the height of indecency! Sungenis is completely upside down here.

Sungenis soon diverts attention to slip readers a mickey when he quotes Stephen Hawking, the cheek-speaking wheelchair savant who modern scientists parade around as the odd ball genius of NASA scientism.  Hawking is the poster child for modern atheistic science and he appears altogether pathetic, shocking, and brilliant.

Watch closely what Robert Sungenis says:

"So what kind of material substance could the firmament of the heavens be? First, let’s look at some suggestions from modern science. Interestingly enough, when modern scientists have to describe the Big Bang, they seem to be borrowing from the Bible’s description about the “stretching of the firmament,” but perhaps without even knowing it.  Stephen Hawking, no stranger to innovative ideas, describes something unusual in his 2010 book, The Grand Design. Pay special attention to Hawking’s last sentence: …during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of 1 ൈ 1030 in 1 ൈ 10‒35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself…physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened….But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion‐trillion‐trillionth of a centimeter.
Although we by no means subscribe to the Big Bang theory, Hawking does tell us what modern science believes is the fundamental particle. He says it is a particle of “the Planck size.” Modern physics has come to realize that there must be a shortest length for matter—the state in which matter becomes indivisible. It is the entity of indivisibility the Greeks called the “atom.”"

Well, well, what have we here? Sungenis quotes an atheist, to prove modern atheist scientists may have accidentally borrowed from scripture in a way that proves the Heliocentric Planck theory, which is the basis for the Big Bang and Heliocentrism.  

So what is planck theory anyway?  Wiki tells us: From Wiki, Planck*:

"A Planck particle, named after physicist Max Planck, is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius.[1] Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass, and its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are about the Planck length.[2] Planck particles are sometimes used as an exercise to define the Planck mass and Planck length.[3]They play a role in some models of the evolution of the universe during the Planck epoch."  

A quick search shows that this planck epoch is the very beginning of the Big Bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology

And just in case my readers don't know anything about Stephen Hawking, here are just a few of the poor, crippled atheist's quotes showing his unique spin on Astro-philosophy:  

“The victim should have the right to end his life, if he wants. But I think it would be a great mistake. However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do, and succeed at. While there's life, there is hope.”
― Stephen Hawking

“I think computer viruses should count as life ... I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.”
― Stephen Hawking

“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.” ― Stephen Hawking

“The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
― Stephen Hawking

“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”
― Stephen Hawking

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
― Stephen Hawking




Hawking also reveals to us what modern science believes is the fundamental particle
​in the Heliocentric model​ is a particle of “the Planck size.”


​Now, Sungenis has stated at least a couple of times that he by no means subscribes to the Big Bang theory.  Yet here he is, busy proving through this spokesman wheel-chair philosopher​ for pagan science is Sungenis' own foundational basis for the globe.  He certainly has not proven globe with scripture or reason, so he wheels in a bunch of Big Bangers and thinks he got the job done.

Sungenis then continues to wax poetic about the contradiction in his theory. All couched in his own techno babble that no reasonable person can make sense of.  While he attempts to discredit the flat earth, he pumps up his own theory of a globe suspended in space, supporting it with Heliocentric Planck theory, as well as the pagans he claims he doesn't agree with.  I know.  If you can make sense of that, you win the booby prize.

Let's compare this next Heliocentric theorist to what Sungenis is teaching.  

"Nachmanides the kabbalist...says that although the days [of Genesis I] are 24 hours each, they contain ‘kol yemot ha olam’  --all the ages and all the secrets of the world.... Nachmanides says:  There’s only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck.... As this speck expanded out, this substance--so thin that it has no essence-- turned into matter as we know it.... The moment that matter formed from this substanceless substance, time grabs hold.... Einstein’s...E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold... This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A minuscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck (Planck) to about the size of the solar system. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows outward."

Maybe Sungenis ought to quit pointing frantically at the mote in the flat earther's eye and dig the planck out of his own.

Sungenis bases his entire theory on atheists, as seen above.  Here again, Sungenis fondly references another atheist big banger, George Musser, who wrote the book: In Spooky Action at a Distance. Musser sets out to answer the space time planck continuum vacuum question, offering a provocative exploration of nonlocality and a celebration of the scientists who are trying to explain it. Musser guides the reader on a journey into the lives of experimental physicists observing particles acting in tandem, astronomers finding galaxies that look statistically identical, and cosmologists hoping to unravel the paradoxes surrounding the Big Bang.

Have we not all had enough of these Big Bangers?  Simultaneously admitting Heliocentrism is a problem, Sungenis fails to face his true feelings about it. The guy is flat out in lust with Big Bangers, and a silly suspended ball earth theory based on the Heliocentric Planck.

Listen to some more of Sungenis' theoretical blather from his article. Just don't dare call it Big Bang theory:

"Of course, it is hard for us to imagine how spheres could have no space between them"...
"This is similar to Zeno’s Paradox"
"If one wants to insist there is space between adjacent Planck‐particles, what substance would constitute the unfilled space? It can’t be “nothing” since, metaphysically speaking, it is impossible for “nothing” to exist."
Sungenis continues...
"So the question remaining is: how small can the radius of matter be such that it remains ponderable matter, yet with no spaces between its independent material particles? Planck‐particles are the closest thing we have to solving that metaphysical and physical conundrum. If there is something else, I am certainly open to see it, but so far the Planck world is the limit. Many other modern physicists have realized that Planck‐dimensions exist. In 1957, Princeton professor John Wheeler was the first to describe the Planck dimensions as “space‐time foam.”
19

Oh, but there IS something else, Robert Sungenis... All the aliens, atheists, black holes, big bangs, curved water, dark matter, evolution, fake gravity, globalism, millions year old earth, NASA's lies, planck theories, relativity, speculative specks, space vacuums, whirling earth, and 1000's other bugaboos disappear with the flat earth.  How simple things suddenly become! Up is actually up, for everyone; and down is down, for everyone.  Human beings live on a level playing field, not a raucous chaotic contradiction upside down to each other; because God is God and God is good and God is true. Level and true. Scripture describes creation literally and needs no spin.  Density and buoyancy explain weight in things without the contradictions of gravity. With flat earth, there's no more head banging about Big Banging.  

Mr S hails the atheist modern scientists by theorizing out to infinity and down to the unimaginable tiny
10 to the -35 meters to do what?​ To dazzle ​readers with his pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, distracting to ​the negative umpteenth power ​of uncertainty ​in order to prove that 'simple' cannot be the answer.  In his article, you'll see plenty of glittery jargon tantamount to a type of kind of mind candy as he insists that the earth must be a globe hanging in space in a special Geo/Helio hybrid only he and his atheist buddies can understand.  While raising this cloud of techno smoke, he hopes to leave readers a little slack-jawed in the wake of all the numeric symbols, but ultimately leads his reader away from how his theories actually work, because we're told there are no other options that he knows of, just accept it. That's not science!  Mr. S derides flat earth yet never addresses the bigger questions in any serious way, like water surface being unable to curve, boats disappearing despite lack of curve, or that pesty horizon rising to the eye of the viewer no matter how high he goes.  Because the horizon would drop away for the viewer who's rising, if earth were a ball.  

As for the list of the final Catholic quotes at the end of Sungenis' article, most are from Catholics who are actually proponents of the flat earth as seen in their writings, and read properly, in context, the quotes are descriptions of flat earth.






​  ​
avatar
flatterme

Posts : 103
Join date : 2016-09-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat earth

Post by Meg on Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:33 pm

Good refutation of Sugenis' beliefs regarding a flat earth. I hope that Sungenis will read and respond to it. I still don't know much about the flat earth, but here are a few of my observations.

Good explanation of how the moon is seen as upside-down even on a plane, when viewed from opposite sides of the plane. A family member of mine also brought this up to prove that the earth is a ball.

I wasn't aware of all the anomalies that are mentioned, such as compasses not being able to work on a globe. It would be good for Sungenis to try to refute these.

Regarding Sungenis statement about being able to view a flat earth by a telescope, from one end to the other, I would think that he'd be aware that there are limits to what telescopes can pick up on the surface of the earth. Unless he can try to prove otherwise.

It seems odd that Sungenis makes his case against the earth's dome by quoting from heliocentrists, atheists and pagans. This is something that a traditional Catholic shouldn't do, except maybe in rare cases.

I have to wonder about what bible Sungenis uses, since he believes that scripture says  "four directions," instead of "four corners."

It would indeed be a good thing if Sungenis would address the water curvature issue, boats disappearing despite lack of curve, etc. And it would be good if he doesn't use references from atheists, pagans, and heliocentrists if he addresses these issues.

Meg

Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum