I don't agree with Henry on everything. But the context of Is 24 is more suggestive of the more local effects. Henry talks some about the same word used for "earth" and "land", suggesting that it really does probably mean more than just the land of Israel or the land of a single nation. But then he said it was talking most likely about the Assyrian or Babylonian invasions.
My point is that much of the prophecies are colorful language that could symbolize, rather than verbalize, what's going to happen. If the "earth will be shaken", that doesn't necessarily mean the whole earth, and it might not always mean there will be an earthquake, just like the world wasn't really turned upside down by the spread of the gospel, as in Acts 17:6. Could Acts 17:6 refer to the same thing as Is 24:1?
Guzik equates the two passages, and maybe that's appropriate, but if the Isaiah passages were originally intended for the audience that first received them, then they must have also had a more immediate fulfillment, even if they also were intended for our time and more remote fulfillment. (I have a thread where I discuss more immediate vs remote fulfillment of prophecies. It seems to me that if the purpose of a prophecy is to get people to repent prior to an imminent threat, the efficiency of the prophecy is highly decreased over time.
Guzik seems to presume his own interpretation is correct and builds on what that means. This is what we are all struggling with in the flat earth discussion. We presume a model from which to interpret the bible. In some instances that isn't a bad thing to do. But if we get anything wrong in our model, it's hard to go back and fix just that part--we tend to need to start over completely, like when you botch a sudoku puzzle and don't realize for awhile.
I think I see this "starting over" aspect of the flat earth movement. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be bad if we then presume we know the whole truth when we are seeing it for the first time.
