Monday, March 26, 2018

Schnoebelen - agreeing with most except Flat Earth

Genesis, Globes & Gnostics: Flat Earth Paradigm Shift?
Dr. William Schnoebelen | 25.VI.2016

I Chronicles 16:30 Geocentric, not Flat Earth
(parallels would involve "Ps 93:1" and "96:10" = 92:1, 95:10 in Douay Rheims numbering)

II Kings 22:[16] And the overflowings of the sea appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid open at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the spirit of his wrath.


(parallels would involve Ps "18:15" and "102:25" = 17:16, 101:26, Proverbs 8:27-29 seem to concur with tectonics interpretation, Isaiah 48:13 does not make any objection)

I Kings 2:8 has poles in DR, Job 9:6 seems to indicate some support (!) of tectonics interpretation.

7:46 "you can't get four corners out of a ball"

No, but you can with land masses meeting seas on a ball.

The actual maps for flat earth involve 3 south corners (unless you generously think Oz counts as two South corners), but the land masses on a globe would involve NW, NE, SE and SW corners, either of Old World or involving Americas.

Isaiah 11:12 was fulfilled in Acts 2. DR has "the four quarters of the earth."

Ezekiel 7:2 has "the four quarters of the land."

Apocalypse 7:1 has "the four corners of the earth" and would be said NW, NE, SE and SW corners.

Firmament - I posit it could be aether turning around the Earth, it is strong enough to keep geostationary satellites up and some more ...

Genesis 1:6-8 could seem to speak of atmosphere, since oxygen divides water below atmosphere from hydrogen and water way above it.

But if my identification of aether as medium of electromagnetic waves is correct, this could be involved since aether could have been involved in electrolysis on day 2.

Ezechiel 1:26 has firmament as all of the aether turning around Earth, since we are in Empyrean heaven here.

Job 37:18 speaks of a strength equal to a very strong solid, but does not directly predicate the heavens are per se solid.

Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.

9:56 Geocentricity = agreed.

That is what Pope Urban VIII upheld in 1633 against Galileo, or his judges did, and he sent out their judgement. Note, he abjured, he was the rest of his life in house arrest and I believe he is with God, by now perhaps already above the fix stars.

Psalm 18:6-7 Not just geocentricity but sun being in some sense animate, either sun is an angel or there is an angel in the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 with a round earth we have either phenomenal language or a reference to solar apogee and perigee - these happening at same place in zodiak.

Joshua 10:12-13, I'd say verse 12 clinches it that Sun and Moon are usually moving and were those that stopped.

11:35 Earth is called a globe in Isaiah 40 in DR.

Isaias 40: [22] It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

LXX seems to imply sth like a "tour" (ton gyron) - which is obviously equally the case if heavens make a tour around Earth.

Ps 18 - already dealt with.

Daniel 4 involves a dream with symbolic imagery.

Isaiah 40:22 already dealt with.

Matthew 4:8 has this comment by bishop Challoner:

"shewed him": That is, pointed out to him where each kingdom lay; and set forth in words what was most glorious and admirable in each of them. Or also set before his eyes, as it were in a large map, a lively representation of all those kingdoms.

Considering demons can do everything that scientists can do, I consider it possible Satan showed Our Lord some TV shows from around the globe on that mountain - it only had to be hidden from where other people could have seen it.

Thanks for the reminder about one reason why we keep Lenten fast!

Ps 135:6 is speaking about dry land.

Isaiah 44:24 would once again speak about tectonics.

Schnoebelen is speaking about seeing Israel from mount Everest, but if those who were up there can't do that today, why would Jesus have been able to do that back then?

Rather, this confirms that Earth is a globe and that Satan was showing some TV show. However, it is possible that Satan did try to make Our Lord a flat earther too, but, if flat earth had been the real perspective, it would normally be so now too.

Excepting of course the "mechanics" or "fluid stability" of elfland. One metaphysical possibility too.

For Luke 4, lectio 2 in Catena Aurea, THEOPHYL. But how did the devil show Him all the kingdoms of the world? Some say that he presented them to Him in imagination, but I hold that he brought them before Him in visible form and appearance.

Here is Chrysostom, Matthew 4, lectio 3, in a work now denied him (I don't believe Higher Criticism more than I believe psychiatry, or not much):

The Devil, left in uncertainty by this second reply, passes to a third temptation. Christ had broken the nets of appetite, had passed over those of ambition, he now spreads for Him those of covetousness; "He taketh him up into a very high mountain," such as in going round about the earth he had noticed rising above the rest. The higher the mountain, the wider the view from it. He shews Him not so as that they truly saw the very kingdoms, cities, nations, their silver and their gold; but the quarters of the earth where each kingdom and city lay. As suppose from some high ground I were to point out to you, see there lies Rome, there Alexandria; you are not supposed to see the towns themselves, but the quarter in which they lie. Thus the Devil might point out the several quarters with his finger, and recount in words the greatness of each kingdom and its condition; for that is said to be shewn which is in any way presented to the understanding.

In other words, if it was Mt Everest he could point to the West and add "beyond the horizon" and if it was on Caucasus he could point to the South, also saying that.

Ends of the Earth are coastlines of the mainland, of the continents. Eretz in Hebrew is used for dry land in Genesis 1 (the whole shebang is however referred to as Arda).

Deuteronomy 13:7 May I guess Hebrews has eretz?

14:41 "that is how the world looked like according to the Sumerians, the Babylonians"

We don't know that for certain, but we do know the Bible verses are not that specific.

15:22 I agree we are a far cry from a solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago, that is rubbish.

For earth being a globe we have surer things, like geography.

15:29 "Modern science presents a direct attack" - but Magellan did not do so.

He was a globe earther, "but" he was also a Young Earth Creationist and a Geocentric.

18:01 - 18:10 "science fiction is built upon this idea that the earth is just this little teeny blue speck in the vastness of space with the idea that there are alien races more advanced"


And Heliocentrism has been in Kant and in Euler sold by sci fi about aliens (either redeemed by Christ having parallel incarnations in other solar systems or unfallen and not needing redemption) seeing their own planets as much as a centre as we do with ours, optically.

Hello, that was 200 years ago, and we still don't know that these guys even exist. More like we can start suspecting they don't exist by now.

19:48 Actually, "since Copernicus" has NOTHING to do with Earth being a sphere, that was already uncontroversial and common place.

Since Copernicus has only to do with at first a debate surrounding and later a culture unilaterally supporting Heliocentrism - or Geokinetism.

20:18 "There are no genuine pictures of the globe earth from space"

Do we need them? I find Magellan believable and the implication of four corners even more so.

20:44 "NASA is primarily made up of Freemasons."

Possible. Certainly there was one on one of the real or purported moon landings.

B U T, Magellan was not a Freemason.

21:56 On this picture, you don't know how high it is taken from, and you don't know how much refraction in atmosphere has lifted up "the picture" of Chicago skyline above its ordinary position.

"that should not be possible"

Well, not if the photo was taken with the camera held at the feet of someone on the opposite lake shore just one meter behind the waves, no.

If it was taken from a window in a building it would be much more feasible. I have checked those parts of the mathematical formulas.

I also tried to get through to Rob Skiba with that one, as well as with Four Corners, and no reaction.

I Tim 6:10 - a good thing to keep in mind with materialism ("mind is a product of matter organised in brains"), heliocentrism, as mentioned here, and evolution.

Magellan was not a PhD in science, he was a geographer and a seafarer.

24:18 Yes, scientists believing they are custodians of esoteric knowledge, that I have encountered. Matthew Hunt, Ilya Usoskin, in some ways also Daniel Ross defending Proto-Indo-European, but he at last and at least had the decency to give me what I need for my research : Pokorny, available online.

Matthew Hunt for Michelson Morley and Ilya Usoskin for radioactivity and speed of carbon 14 production have shown somewhat more of a disingenious attitude.


  • "science lies about evolution" - well, evolutionist scientists do, then there are also creation scientists;
  • "science lies about cancer" - possibly about cures which could be available but would be bad for business, I'd recommend, based on ma's ideas and on anecdotic material raw red beet root juice;
  • "science lies about global warming" - possibly, but some measures for less transport and less high energy production would be good for employment as well;
  • "science lies about vaccines" - well, there was one who died recently due to one or at least got seruiously ill ...;
  • "science lies about the unborn" - not honest Christian gynaecologists who are pro-life;
  • "science lies about mental illness and psychiatric drugs" - if you call psychiatry "science" ...;
  • "science lies about childhood disorders like ADHD" - when both ADHD and Asperger are admitted to be each one in 50, we are clearly dealing with normal conditions, and it is modern school environments and modern work evinronments which make these uncomfortable in some situations. So, again illustrating, if you call psychiatry "science".

25:56 Attacking the Catholic Church - no thanks.

See Matthew 28:20.

26:10 Obviously not saying that Catholics who are syncretistic with scientism are real Catholics.

26:21 immovable, centre of cosmos and unique? Well, I have gotten back to how Medievals and Baroque Catholic Theologians viewed Scripture : as inerrant word of God.

Not just tacking the label inerrant to them, but actually agreeing they are.

26:36 Since about 16 and a half years I am no longer dealing with any cognitive dissonance between Bible and "science" falsely so called, since I am Geocentric and don't think Earth is at all spinning or whirling anywhere or anyway.

Not around itself, not around Sun, not with Sun through the Galaxy, nothing, zilch, nada.

I also think the limits of the visible universe are way closer than moderns think leaving room for Empyrean heaven to be above the fix stars.

Before that, previous years, very little, already steeped in St Thomas and therefore also Young Earth Creationism.

27:07 A circle exists in a plane, but to take Isaiah 40:22 as implying only one circle in only one plane to exclusion of globe is also to take God as in His Divinity actually spatially circumscribed and limited. God sitteth on every circle of the Earth as seen on either side of every plane going through it.

27:53 You might be interested that a globe earth but also geocentric like Sungenis perfectly shares your attitude to Neil DeGrasse Tyson ...

28:17 Isaac Newton New Agey Christian?

I'd say a lot of those are more Christian than he was. Arian, I think. Possibly into necromancy and certainly into astrology. Someone wrote a book about him calling him "the last Sumerian".

I had heard this from Lyndon LaRouche, and got it confirmed from elsewhere.

But Kepler whom Schiller Institute prefers was also an astrologer.

And Riccioli, who was in a sense more "New Agey" than Kepler, because Kepler believed magnetism ruled the celestial movements, and Riccioli believed the celestial bodies are moved by angels, he was far less New Agey. I don't think Riccioli ever made a horoscope - but that would need checking. Kepler certainly did, he made horoscopes for Wallenstein and for Tilly, generals involved in THirty Years War.

It may interest you that Magellan lived before all of these guys and one thing he did discover when on the Southern hemisphere was the Southern Cross.

You know what he concluded, as did every other Spaniard and Portuguese back then?

"The stars form a cross, that must be where the Pearly Gates are".

Now, that is a scientific conclusion - as long as Theology is queen of sciences.

No comments: