Interesting. I have no skin in the game on this issue. It really does not matter to me one way or the other. But here’s my criticism’s of this piece. I am no expert and don’t wish to engage in discussion with conflict because I don’t care that much. But this topic is interesting but the fallacies still remain. In the foreword by Donald Simanek- reveal’s his bias right off the bat with his insulting view of the ‘writers’ of the Bible. The writers are not the author Enoch is not considered as part of the Biblical cannon. In the church it is taken with a large grain of salt due to it’s apparent inconsistencies. the Book is not contained in a standard Protestant Bible. I do not believe concordances have much merit. Everything is always political. And finally, there is no distinction for when the Bible is literal, allegorical or metaphoric. Based on this reading it seems very literal. For example the stars are often used to describe the fallen angels. Lucifer the Morning Star or the “wandering stars for whom it is reserved, the blackness the darkness forever” Jude 1:13 I personally believe that when the writers are describing the heavens it’s about ownership. The earth is the Lords....the earth is His footstool. Is God’s feet literally splayed out on the earth? No. And more references to foundations of the earth. But on earth where do we find spirals and double helix’s? Wouldn’t that symmetry exist all through God’s creation? After all there doesn’t seem to be any argument about Creation versus evolution. It can’t be both. I find this particular piece on flat earth too narrow. I do look forward to reading something convincing.