Bible Cosmology — Is There Such A Thing?
What Saith The Scriptures
When speaking of matters dealing with creation the Bible is very
specific and clear as to why there is a creation—the God of heaven
created it! There is no waffling; no ambiguity; no vagueness, "In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Bible
takes for granted the reader understands God exists and is the
creator and doesn't waste time defending or explaining God or His
existence. One either believes it or not. However, when it comes
to HOW God created, the Scriptures are often very ambiguous;
sometimes frustratingly so to those with an agenda.
When confronted with the Bible's ambiguity, the believer needs to
remember the passages are ambiguous or indefinite by design. God
has a purpose in it. We often wish the Scriptures would reveal
more detail, but the Lord limited His revelation for His own
reasons. Thus, the believer is not to add his personal
suppositions to the texts to force them to "comply" to his
doctrine, but instead, from a practical perspective, he should try
to learn something from the ambiguity. One very helpful concept
your author learned many years ago was one can learn quite a bit
from the Bible's silence—what the Bible doesn't say.
Whether a Bible passage or doctrine is very clear and definite or
unclear and ambiguous, the believer's duty is to not go beyond
what they actually say. Some brethren feel the need to help the
Lord convey His "truth," so they, often in a matter-of-fact way,
teach that the Bible proclaims doctrines that it simply doesn't
mention. When it comes to creation and the physical movements of
the heavens, a lot of this "sanctified" doctrinal embellishment
One important fact a believer needs to always keep in mind is the
Bible was not written primarily to Christians in the Church Age,
but to believers (and unbelievers) of all ages. To the Jews were
committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:2) and the bulk of the Book
was written directly to and for them. Likewise, one must remember
the Bible was addressed to people in different time periods as
well. Early on people had much less knowledge and revelation than
we do today. This is on several fronts: from theology to
science. Thus we have to remember that we today, those
progressing through time on the very cutting edge, can't expect
what the Lord revealed 3500 years ago to be at the level of
"scientific detail" we may expect. Some say, "Yes, but God knows
everything and all the intricacies of reality." True, but He
doesn't have to "tell everything He knows" in a book that is meant
for believers over a 3500 year period.
Beginning at the Beginning
In Genesis 1 the account begins with the simple but profound
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the
One cannot overestimate the scope of this statement. By creating
the first physical objects, the Lord had to create an entire,
extremely intricate, system of physical principles and "laws" to
govern His new reality. Just to get the earth to simply
exist, even in a "without form and void" state, the Lord created
atoms and molecules of countless types and variations and then
instantly devised unfathomable methods or "laws" to join these
atoms in ways to make the most basic elements. Then with these
elements he somehow combined them to make the heavens and the
earth. No one knows how the Lord did this, and no one will in this
earthly life. It appears He just spoke it all into existence, and
that is all we really need to know. It is like the Lord is telling
us, "I made everything, now lets go on."
With the ten words of Genesis 1:1 the Lord tells us he created
three things: the heaven, the earth, and time ("the beginning").
When God created matter he created physical movement. Though it
took around 6000 years for man to learn it, all matter is made up
of atoms that are buzzing with countless particles orbiting a tiny
nucleus. With this movement the concept of time was created. When
one thinks about it, something must be moving to measure time.
Look at your watch or clock. Something is moving in it whether
tiny gears or a quartz crystal. Consider the length of a day: it's
measured by the sun; the month by the moon; and the year by the
combination of the sun and earth. If they all stopped moving there
would be no calendar and if the atoms stopped moving there would
be no time or matter. Thus time and matter are mutually entwined
and depend on each other for their very existence, all by the
Gen 1:2 opens up a whole new "can of ambiguity." Here the earth is
"without form." Since around 1800 many books and debates have
transpired trying to deal with this verse and some have placed
"time-gap" in it, but the "Genesis Gap" topic is not relevant to
our present subject so we will digress. However, the second
sentence of the verse is very relevant, "And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters." Geocentrists often use
this verse to "prove" the earth is stationary since the Spirit of
God is the object moving in the passage. They often glibly say
something like, "What about where it says the Spirit moved on the
face of the earth in Genesis 1:2? That shows God does the moving
and the earth is stationary." Have you ever heard such a contrived
statement designed to bolster a pet argument regardless of what
the Scripture actually says? Lets look at this claim in a little
"The Spirit moved around the earth" they say, but what does the
verse really say—"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the WATERS." Want to see a perfect example of why
Geocentrism is on shaky ground? It's because they can't go two
verses without misquoting Scripture and revealing their obvious
suppositions. The verse does not say the Spirit moved over the
"earth;" It states He moved over the "waters." They just assume
the waters are on the earth. Assumption is a key element of modern
Furthermore, they try and insinuate that since the spirit is
moving the earth is not moving, but that is a false comparison and
juvenile error. How does merely stating one object is moving prove
(or even suggest) that another object is not moving? It doesn't.
Both could be moving and the focus of the text is just on one of
them moving. Their claim would be like saying if a person is
walking on a ocean liner, that means the ocean liner cannot be
moving through the sea. Nonsense.
Now consider the context. Genesis 1:2 starts with "And" which
connects it with verse 1. Thus the context is the heaven and the
earth. Verse 6 says,
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
So there is/was at least two places of "waters." God put the
firmament (first and second heavens) in between the waters. Verse
"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters
which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament:"
The locations of the waters was under the firmament and ABOVE the
firmament. As for the earth's position in this, Psalm 136:6 speaks
of the Lord stretching "out the earth above the waters"
indicating there is/was waters below or under the earth. So it
appears there was "waters" above and below the earth and God put
the firmament in place to permanently separate them from the
It is not until verse 20 that the Scriptures speak of water that
is specifically on the earth. They bring forth life and fowls fly
above it. Thus the waters closest to the context of verse 2
are the waters above the earth—but that is not a proof.
As we mentioned, the passages are quite ambiguous and they simply
do not make a definitive statement as to what waters are meant in
verse 2. Could it be the waters on earth, yes, or it could be the
waters far above the earth now above the firmament. Nevertheless,
the Geocentrists want one to believe their opinion is
A further example of the Bible's ambiguity in
describing creation is when God said "let there be light" in
verse 3. It is never stated WHERE that light actually is. Most assume
it is on the earth, but that is not stated. It may have been the
light of heaven shining on the waters of verse 2. The key truth
to be remembered is one cannot build sound doctrine on
assumptions about ambiguous passages.
Round and Round
Another argument that Geocentrists like to bring up when
discussing Genesis chapter 1 is, "If the earth circles the sun and
the sun isn’t created until the fourth day, then what did the
earth go around the first three days?" They ask this as if it is
an unsurmountible problem.
Can they not see the desperation in such a contrived question? Do
they really think such a question serves their purpose? Apparently
so. What did the earth go around? What Scripture says it had
to go around or orbit anything? None. What Scripture
says any physical thing was moving around the earth? None.
The earth could have been stationary or it may have been moving.
The question is irrelevant thus the Lord doesn't say. When one
gives them this answer they most often sarcastically say,
"According to Heliocentrism the Lord must have nudged the earth in
orbit when he created the sun." Not really, according to
physicists who would likely know, once the sun was in place the
earth would automatically begin to orbit it. The pull of gravity
would initiate the motion.
Nevertheless, if the Lord did nudge the earth in motion around the
sun that would be a whole lot less involved than making the sun
and the rest of the universe spin instead! God had to initiate
the motion in whatever is moving, whether the earth or the
firmament. Making the earth both spin and orbit the sun
would be the least involved method of getting our present
cosmological situation. Making the earth static and the
entire universe rotate with the sun, moon, planets moving
independently would be the most elaborate method of doing it.
Some of you may be old enough to remember Curly Neal of the old
Harlem Globetrotters (interesting, "Globetrotters"). Curly
was a master basketball handler. He could make a basketball spin
on his finger all sorts of ways. Imagine Curly Neal in the center
of a basketball stadium doing his classic ball spin. It is
impressive but also easily understandable how it happens. However,
if we make an analogy to Geocentric thought, the basketball is
not spinning at all. It is fixed in place and the whole
stadium plus the rest of the universe is spinning around it!
To an ant on the ball its world would look the same in either
scenario (if the ball was spinning once per day), but the
differences in motion would be astronomical. Consider which
scenario is simpler, more efficient, more intuitive, and more
Concerning the sun, do the Geocentrists not realize
the Scriptures do not "literally" say the "sun" was created on
the 4th day. It says "lights" were made,
By the Light of the Moon
And God said, Let there be
lights in the firmament...And let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth...And God
made two great lights...(Gen 1:14-16)
It is interesting that the names of the heavenly bodies are
not given, they are merely called "lights." Thus, what
was specifically created that day were the "lights," not
necessarily the celestial bodies themselves. It cannot be
proven with the language given that the bodies of the sun and
moon were not created (dark) on day one and only "set" in the
firmament and made to emit light (only the sun) on the 4th day.
Since they both reside in the "heaven" (vs 1), it is a real
A key heavenly body that is a snare to the Geocentrists claims is
the beautiful moon. As mentioned above, it is interesting that the
first name for the moon was not "moon" but "light." It is called
the "lesser light" in Gen 1:16 while the sun is called the
"greater light." Thus these two heavenly bodies are primarily
known for what they do, "give light upon the earth." They are not
identified by their common names until later.
The problem here for the Hyper-Literal Geocentrist is obvious. Man
has known for millennia that the moon is not a true light. It
produces no light of its own. It merely reflects the light of the
sun, and even at that there is a day every month called a "New
Moon" when it does not bear any light at all to the earth. Since
it is a universal fact (not disputed by anyone with any sense)
that the moon does not generate its own light, consider these
"For the stars of heaven and the constellations
thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in
his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to
shine." (Isa 13:10)
"The moon shall not cause her light to shine"? These verses, if
taken in the absolute sense, require the moon to produce "her" own
light and make it "shine" on the earth. Is the Bible wrong? Did
God lie to us? Only if you are a hyper-literal Geocentrist who is
consistent in his exegesis. Does the Bible anywhere say or even
suggest that the light from the moon originates from the sun? No,
it does not. So if the Bible does not even mention this simple
"cosmological fact" are the Geocentrists still going to claim it
dogmatically proves Geocentrism? Many will, because they have sold
their soul to it.
"And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and
make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon shall not give her light." (Eze 32:7)
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun
be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken:" (Mat 24:29)
Again, the Scriptures are using relative and non-absolute
language. To people on earth the moon gives light. That the light
originates with the sun is such a frivolous detail to the
Scriptures that they don't even mention it.
Many on earth fail to realize that from the moon's
perspective the earth gives light for the same reason the moon
does—reflection. In fact, a double reflection on the moon can be
seen from the earth! When you look at a crescent moon right
after sunset, if you look closely you can see the circle outline
of the whole moon faintly behind the crescent. This faint
outline is caused from the light from the earth being reflected
to the moon and back again to earth. Right after sunset there is
still a large part of the earth lighted by the sun just beyond
the horizon and it provides the reflected light. Later in the
night, when the moon is directly overhead, this outline cannot
be seen because the whole backside of the earth is in the dark
and there is no light to reflect.
Joel 2:31 (also Act 2:20) states,
"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon
How can the sun be "darkness" yet the moon still be seen even if
"blood"? To take this verse literally the sun will no longer be
light but darkness itself. It will not emit any light. But if the
sun is absolutely dark, where does the moon get its light to be
"blood" (red)? Would not the moon be invisible also? Yes, if you
are a Hyper-Literal Geocentrist. No, if you are a sensible Bible
Believing Christian who reads the Bible the way it is meant to be
understood. The sun is only "darkness" to the earth. It can still
shine on the moon so its bloody redness can be seen.
There are a few hyper-literal Geocentrists out there
who are so literal they believe the moon turning to blood means
the moon actually becomes literal blood! If it is absolutely
"turned into blood," then the moon as we know it ceases to exist
and turns into a big moon sized ocean of red liquid blood! Talk
about hyper-literalism! Well, at least they are consistent, even
if highly misguided. If the moon becomes literal blood, what
living creatures supplied the blood? In the Bible true, actual
blood is always from a living creature. God never created blood
as a stand-alone entity. It is designed to be the "life of the
flesh." This is a question they cannot answer.
Up, Up, Which Way Is Up?
The global Geocentrists are in another "pickle" concerning the sun
"rising" and "setting" because when something is said to
absolutely and literally rise it must go "up." But which way is
Here is an interesting passage (Psalms 75:6-7),
"Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the
west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down
one, and setteth up another."
Notice how "promotion" (help or deliverance) does not come from
the east, west, or south but from God. So what direction is left
for the Lord to come from? Why the north, or course. That the
direction of God's dwelling place in heaven is due north is
confirmed by other passages. Isaiah 14:13 tells us,
"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will
sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the
Thus the "mount of the congregation" is in the "sides of the
north" "above the stars of God." This mount is called the heavenly
Mount Zion (Psa 48:2, Heb 12:22, Rev 14:1),
Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth,
is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great
Moses also knew the Lord is northward (Lev 1:11),
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels."
"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion... "
"And he shall kill it on the side of the altar
northward before the LORD..."
Therefore, the Bible clearly indicates the direction of God, His
throne, and the third heaven is due north, and thus due north is
the only true and literal direction of "up."
The Scriptures also confirm that the Lord coming from heaven is
Him coming "down" and His returning back is going "up." When the
people built the tower of Babel, God said, "Let us go down" (Gen.
11:7). After God spoke to Abraham, "he left off talking with him,
and God went up from Abraham" (Gen. 17:22).
Now that we've got our bearings on the direction of heaven and
"up," what direction does "rise" mean? Of course, "rise" means to
come "up." So if the sun literally rises then it must be going
North...but...wait a minute, the sun rises in the East
(Num 2:3) and sets in the West (Ecc 1:5; Isa 45:6), plus according
to every global geocentric model they have, the sun is on a fairly
even plane with the earth, called an ecliptic, placing the
sun beside the earth. The sun is never literally and
absolutely above it, yet man is said to be "under the sun" (Ecc
1:3, 9, 14, etc.). How can a poor Geocentrist "literally" explain
this? He can't. The only explanation is "sunrise" and "sunset" is
relative language considering the perspective of the observer.
Since the sun obviously doesn't travel north and south, the terms
must be considered figures of speech.
This fact is a snare to the global Geocentrists. Since the earth
is a globe, unless a person is at the north pole, when he looks
straight up, he is not looking north at all but in some other
direction. If a person is south of the equator looking "up," he is
looking more south than north. He would actually have to look
through the earth to look north! The true direction of God's
throne would be under his feet!
The Flat-Earth Geocentrists can deal with "up"
being always north much better, since they believe the earth
is basically a flat plane facing north. Their nemesis, the
global Geocentrists, will protest that in the Flat-Earth
model the sun doesn't rise or set at all, but this is
nonsense. To the Flat-Earthers the sun is
essentially due east in the morning and due west in the
evening very slightly above the horizon. As the morning
progresses the sun rises in the sky until noon when it is
directly overhead and then sets back down to near level.
Watching these two factions of Geocentrism argue is like
watching the clowns at the circus.
Another interesting observation showing "up" is often relative is
the direction one looks when he looks up to heaven. You may be
thinking "didn't you just show how the direction of heaven is due
north?" Yes, but does a New Zealander need to look past his feet
through the earth when he raises his eyes to heaven? Not at all.
The Lord will accept looking up as looking toward Him no matter
where he is, even if he is actually looking South!
Consider that Israel is around 32 degrees North latitude above the
equator. (That is about the same latitude as Savanna, Ga). When
all the Bible saints looked straight up into the sky they weren't
looking due north, but many degrees below due north somewhere in
space. As the earth turns (or the firmament, to humor the
Geocentrists) the place they are looking is constantly moving in a
circle. Only due north (or south) is a fixed point.
Now consider when the Lord ascended into heaven. If He went
straight up, He was not going directly in the direction of the
Father in the third heaven. To go due North (toward the North
Star) He would have had to ascend at a pretty shallow angle toward
the North because from Jerusalem due North is fairly low in the
sky. He would have gradually ascended as He skirted the tops of
the trees and hills until the cloud received Him. In Act 1, where
His ascension is described, we find,
And when he had spoken these things, while they
beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their
sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went
up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also
said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall
so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Act
Did the Lord ascend at an angle towards due North or pretty much
straight up? It doesn't say, and the fact it doesn't say shows one
can look into any part of heaven from anywhere on earth and be
figuratively facing the Lord in His heaven even if it is not
possible for Him to look literally due North.
The Circuit of the Sun
One of the key claims of all Geocentrists is that the sun moves in
a "circuit," and they use Psalm 19 as a proof text. Some claim
"circuit" "refers to the time span of one year" and is to be taken
literally. Let's take a look.
1, To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
Verse 1 makes it clear the subject is the heavens and the
2, Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth
3, There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not
4, Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words
to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for
5, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and
rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6, His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the
heat thereof. (Psa 19:1-6)
Verse 2 proclaims them to utter "speech" during the day and show
"knowledge" at night. Hum...do the heavens literally speak or
is this figurative language explaining that the heavens reveal
truths about the Lord?
Verse 3 continues by saying they have a "voice" that everyone can
hear. Ever hear the literal, audible "voice" of the sky
speaking with words (vs. 4)? Me neither. Obviously, when
David refers of the heavens speaking with a voice he is referring
to it revealing the power and nature of God.
Verse 4 says this revelation goes through "all the earth" and the
"end of the world." Then it states how the sun was "set" in them
to "tabernacle" or dwell. A tabernacle or dwelling is put a fixed
place; a place a home is "set." When the Israelites set up the
tent of the tabernacle, they pitched it in a fixed spot. Therefore
the sun is "set" or fixed in the heavens...but wait a minute, what
about verses 5 and 6?
Verse 5 likens the sun to a "bridegroom coming out of his
chamber," and where do you find bridegrooms and chambers? On
earth, of course. Where do you find "strong men" run[ing] a race"?
Why, again, on earth. How could the sun go in and out of a
"chamber" in the heavens unless it is figuratively speaking of how
it appears to man on earth? Thus the perspective of Psalm 19
is naturally from the earth, and it speaks using strong
figurative and symbolic language.
Verse 6 concludes the thought by saying the sun, which is
personified by gender ("his"), travels from the "end of the
heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it (heaven)"...but didn't
we just read where the sun was "set" in the heaven? What a passage
to build a controversial doctrine upon!
Geocentrists love to appeal to verse 6 where it says the sun has a
"circuit." The rest of the verse where it says the sun's circuit
takes it from one end of heaven to the other they don't like so
much because they can't make it literal. They can't claim without
looking like fools that the sun travels from one end of the entire
universe to the other every day or year. They want to take the
circuit as literal but not the actual extent of the circuit:
to the "ends" of heaven. Typical inconsistent, self-serving
behavior. Obviously, the "ends of heaven" refers to the extent the
sun travels from horizon to horizon from the perspective of David
Like the other passages mentioned earlier, Psalm 19's statements
are all made from the perspective of men on the earth.
Furthermore, the passage is dominated by figurative language. The
circuit of the sun is merely a reference to the sun's "movements"
from the viewpoint of a man gazing into the sky. Whether it refers
to its daily circuit or yearly circuit is irrelevant. The point
David is making is his amazement at the manifestation of the
power, glory, and majesty of God's creation as we puny humans look
at the heavens. It is not a literal and dogmatic discourse on
Bible cosmology, and to try an make it such is disingenuous.
The Psalms — The Geocentrists Stomping-Ground?
Oddly enough most Geocentrists will admit that it is not Genesis
(the book of beginnings) or other narrative books that have the
most to say about Bible cosmology, instead it is the poetic
Psalms. Psalms, a book of songs, is the primary Scripture
ground for Geocentric "proofs"? That figures. Songs by their very
nature are often highly poetic and figurative and the Psalms are
no different. Take a look at the Psalm 23. Probably the most well
"The LORD is my shepherd" — You are not a sheep
and He is not a shepherd.
Even though this Psalm is nearly all figurative it is one of the
most descriptive and comforting books in all the Bible. The Lord
doesn't restrict Himself to cold, sterile literal language. He
uses metaphors, similes, and other literary devices to express the
nature of His care and compassion. A shepherd's loving care for
his sheep is an image David and people of all ages can identify
with, and it expresses God's love and care for His people. To try
and make the expressions literal would essentially destroy the
entire Psalm because no human could easily identify with it.
"He maketh me to lie down in green pastures" — Has the
Lord ever made you lie down in a literal green pasture...
"he leadeth me beside the still waters." — ...or walk
beside a calm lake?
"though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,"
— Where is this valley?
"thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." — Have you ever
felt a literal rod?
"Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine
enemies" — Where, what table?
"thou anointest my head with oil" — When?
"my cup runneth over." — What cup...runs over with what?
Naturally, since they are songs, this non-literal, descriptive
language is very frequent in the Psalms. When they say the Lord
God is "a sun and shield" (Psa 84:11) or a "rock" (Psa 62:2), we
know that is figurative. When they say the Lord owns "the cattle
upon a thousand hills" (Psa 50:10) we understand that the passage
is not restricting what He owns (what about the 1001st hill,
etc.), but is poetically describing that He owns all. To refuse to
take passages that are clearly figurative as such is to handle the
Furthermore, we very much realize that several of the Psalms are
Messianic and prophetic. Psalms such as Psalm 2, 22, 45, 89, 110,
118, etc. have prophetic utterances that refer to Jesus Christ.
Many have already been fulfilled, but others won't be fulfilled
until He returns. However, that certain passages are prophetic
does not mean they cannot also contain figurative language. Look
at Psalm 45:6-7,
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre
of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness,
and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Did God the Father literally anoint His son with an "oil of
gladness"? Chapter and verse? No, this is a figurative expression
of Christ being filled with the fullness of the Holy Spirit (John
3:34) which was given without measure.
Because of the figurative nature of the Psalms (and some other
books), they are not the most fitting ground from which to establish
doctrine. That is, because of the symbolism one often cannot pin
the words down in the Psalms alone to a specific prophecy or
meaning. However, they are very fertile ground to find truths
after a doctrine has already been established, such as in the New
Testament. Before Christ was born much of the truths in the Psalms
were hidden. No one realized Psalm 22 was referring to how the God
of heaven was going to be crucified on a cross and mocked by
wicked men. No one really understood what "The LORD said unto my
Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool" meant until Christ brought it up (Psa 110:1, Mark
12:36-37). But since the advent of the New Testament many passages
in the Psalms come alive with prophecy and revelation. This is an
example of progressive revelation.
Nevertheless, the figurative and symbolic Psalms are a key
"stomping-ground" for the Geocentrists, and this speaks loudly.
Since they cannot much support their doctrine from anywhere else
in the Scriptures, they cling to this poetic book where they can
"massage" the figurative texts to fit their belief (Psa 19, etc.).