Some Final Thoughts
When your author started this book he had no idea it would become
so extensive. He originally envisioned it to be a short article or
two showing how the Scriptures use figurative and relative
language dealing with both earthly and heavenly matters plus maybe
a few words on how Geocentrists misuse science and the quotes of
scientists. It seems once he started researching the Scriptures
and writing, though, there was always more that needed to be said.
It wasn't long before he realized the the main issue at hand was
not geocentrism, heliocentrism, or cosmology, but how some of
those who claim to be Bible Believers or Fundamentalists actually
use, misuse, and even ignore the very Scriptures they claim to
believe. With this little book tried to address some of these
As mentioned previously, your author posted some questions about
Geocentrism online then engaged in some "debate" with a few
Geocentrists. The questions were designed to see how the
Geocentrists would deal with the undeniable figurative language in
the Scriptures as it relates to cosmological matters. The
responses were quite revealing. Some would just flatly deny the
language was figurative and then try massage the passages to suit
their contention. Some would very, very grudgingly acknowledge
figurative language, but refuse to elaborate on it or expound upon
it. Your author asked one repeatedly to clearly state if the sun
waxing hot was an absolute or figurative statement and he never
did. Instead he berated your author for even bringing the subject
of figurative language in the Bible up, all the while claiming he
was not afraid to address any Scripture! There are really some
rather "eccentric" and irrational brethren out there.
Nevertheless, most of the Fundamentilist Geocentrists could not
disprove or even effectively deal with the figurative language
presented no matter how much they wished it wasn't there, but I
did learn a few other things about them. One was many of the
global Geocentrists are petrified of their Flat-Earth brethren.
The obvious reason is the Flat-Earthers use the same logic and
approach toward the Scriptures as the Geocentrists, only they
take it farther than the global Geocentrists want to go. That
explains why some of the most heated critics of the Flat-Earthers
are the global Geocentrists. The Flat-Earthers are often mocked by
the globalists online, but they use science and observation to do
it. The Scriptures don't help them.
It's All A Big Conspiracy
Another thing one will learn about most Geocentrists is they are
often conspiracy nuts. Many contend "the government" (or
"gov'ment") is potentially poisoning, manipulating, or
trying to control people with "chemtrails," vaccines (especially
flu and infant vaccines), fluoride in water, food additives
(aspartame, etc.), etc. Furthermore, they insist there are
potentially large conspiratorial group such as the Trilateral
Commission, Bilderbergers, Illuminati, etc., who organize great
schemes and plans to control the world using "False flag"
operations, etc., etc. But, of course, the greatest conspirator of
all dealing with science is NASA. They contend NASA cannot be
believed about much of anything in spite of the fact that they
have been launching space-craft into space and to the moon since
the early 1960s. NASA represents everything that is wrong with the
world to the Geocentrists and Flat-Earthers. They just won't tow
the geocentric line.
Robert Sungenis was asked one time, "Are we really going to say
that all astronomers and scientists in the field are in a mass
conspiracy to suppress this truth?" He answered,
"If geocentrism were true, would you expect the proud
and revered lions of modern science to admit it? Wouldn’t the
discovery of geocentrism, in one fell swoop, demote them all to
a bunch of charlatans who hadn’t the slightest idea what they
were talking about?...Trust me, modern scientists would
sacrifice their life to suppress geocentrism. There is simply
too much at stake. This issue is much more than a scientific
debate. It is a debate about the nature and future of the world
Enough said. To many Geocentrists modern science is engaged in a
vast conspiracy to suppress the "truth of Geocentrism."
The Chosen Ones
A logical result of believing the scientific truth of the Bible is
being suppressed is that those who CAN "see the conspiracy" and
UNDERSTAND the real truth are a special class of believer. No, of
course, they usually won't SAY this publicly (they are too
humble?), but often they act this way among themselves. One
Geocentrist actually said to another, "It can be lonely passing
up the pack," meaning passing in knowledge of the truth
Fundamentalist scientists who don't believe geocentrism.
This exalted idea of themselves is more damaging and deceiving
than believing the conspiracies themselves. Geocentrists often act
as if they have a "secret" or "elevated" knowledge or revelation.
In this regard they resemble Calvinists who insist their fanciful
doctrines of election cannot be understood until a person's "eyes
are opened" to the truth. This is a form of Gnosticism. It is as
if they are the gifted or enlightened ones: like the 7000 who
didn’t bow to Baal (or heliocentrism). It is ironic that these
"knowledgeable ones" who believe the "truth of the Scriptures"
often refuse to face the figurative language in the Scriptures and
even live in fear of carnal conspiracies. They claim they are
spiritual but constantly dwell on carnal things.
If the conspiracy theory, science skeptics want to
have a tiny smidgen of respect, at least they should be
consistent. People will respect consistency even if they
whole-heartedly disagree with their conspiratorial claims. But
when one of these conspiracy buffs claims to be a Christian and
acts inconsistently or erratically, it brings harm to the cause
of Christ. For instance, if one insists (or even suggests) all
"flu shots" and immunizations are tainted by "the government"
with various unknown substances to control, mark, sicken,
infect, etc., people for some nefarious reason, but then when
they need medical attention they run to the same medical
profession for treatment (and maybe even ask the government to
pay for it), they are acting hypocritically.
The Insecurities of the Insecure
When one confronts some Geocentrists with the fact that the Bible
does not take a position for or against any cosmological model and
will accommodate nearly all of them, some of the brethren will
come "unglued." "You are saying God was lying to us all this time
by using geocentric terminology?" "Do you mean the Lord is
allowing man to believe something He knows to be untrue?" One of
the Flat-Earthers said,
"If the spinning, heliocentric, globular model of our
world is true, then Divine inspiration and inerrancy of
Scripture is demonstrably false and all such notions must
therefore, of necessity, be forever abandoned. So, which “sacred
cow” are we willing to let go of in order to maintain our
beliefs? You can’t have both. A choice must be made."
They show their insecurities by claiming if one doesn't believe
the Bible on geocentrism, then there is no basis to believe in the
virgin birth, resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ or much of
anything else in the Scriptures! This is a cheap debate
tactic and a tedious method of argument that desperate people use.
They realize their position is weak so they try to link it up with
more important doctrines to try and make it appear legitimate.
They want to claim it is "all or nothing." Nonsense.
The virgin birth of Christ is stated in clear, unambiguous
terms. Twice the Scriptures says Christ will be born of a
virgin (Isa 7:14, Mat 1:23), and Mary herself says, "How shall
this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34). Ditto for the
resurrection. It is mentioned many times, witnessed by 500 people,
and said to have "many infallible proofs" (Act 1). Insisting that
if one takes the resurrection as literal and absolute he must also
take verses like, "The sun was risen upon the earth...." (Gen
19:23) as absolute is laughable.
Another argument the insecure Geocentrists use is claiming not
believing in Geocentrism allows one to not believe in creation for
the same reason. They insist if the geocentric verses are not to
be taken literally then the creation verses don't have to be
either, but this is just another false comparison. Direct creation
of everything by God is explicitly stated in both the Old and New
Testaments. The Scriptures are not ambiguous on the subject at
all. In fact, they are clear in stating that "the Word," before He
became our Savior Jesus Christ, was the person of the Godhead who
actually created (John 1:3). This same Jesus also said, "he which
made them at the beginning made them [Adam and Eve] male and
female." There is absolutely no reason to take these words as
other than absolutely literal. They completely destroy the idea of
any kind of evolution. As we have seen, there are no geocentric
verses that make an absolute statement proving Geocentrism.
Is seems approaches like these are the last resort of some of the
Geocentrists. Since they can't prove their doctrine with Scripture
or science, they fall back on false comparisons and faulty logic.
One can make exactly the same arguments using the anthropomorphic
expressions in Scripture, "If you don't believe God has a
literal nose, tongue, face, arms, hands, etc., plus wings,
feathers, and tattoos, then you can't consistently believe in
the virgin birth, resurrection, or creation." Hogwash!
Although insecure Geocentrists will howl mightily when one points
out their outrageous assertions, their insecurity and obvious lack
of confidence is there nonetheless. These "over the top"
assertions of trying to link the most clear and important
doctrines of Christianity with the insignificant and ambiguous
idea of geocentrism is a key indicator of their insecurity. Again,
it seems they have reservations believing geocentrism's arguments
are convincing on their own so they must try to tie them to more
accepted doctrines to give them credence.
As we have briefly mentioned previously, the Bible Believing
faction of Geocentrism is the most insecure of the lot. The Roman
Catholics who believe it seem pretty confident in their position,
but the Bible Believers not so much. They realize they are a
relatively small group and all of science and most of their
brethren disagree with them, and some just don't handle it well.
For instance, during the online debate mentioned above your author
asked about the "light" from the moon. In response one replied,
"Your questions are not refuting geocentricity. They are casting
doubt on the BIBLE..." That's another key sign of the insecure, if
you can't deal with a question, just throw out anything to change
the subject and confound the issue or as a last resort try and
impugn the character of your opponent. Do anything you have to, to
keep from dealing with an embarrassing subject.
During the same online debate your author saw several traits of a
lack of confidence among the Bible Believing Geocentrists,
And, of course, the most prominent trait of the insecure is,
- They sometimes acted as if they are above being challenged.
- They are highly defensive when challenged.
- They often talk down to or about their opponent.
- They may utterly refuse to address certain Scripture that
challenges their assertions.
- They must have the final word in every discussion.
Since they are not confident in their position they try their best
to make you insecure in yours. "Misery loves company."
- They try to make their opponent feel insecure himself.
Why Do Some Insist on Geocentrism
Once a believer understands that the Scriptures do not take a
stand on cosmology, why do some insist it does? As we have
mentioned, there are basically two groups who do: a small faction
of (usually Independent Baptist) Fundamentalists or Bible
Believers, and a likewise small faction of Roman Catholics. What a
strange and unlikely brotherhood!
We covered earlier a couple of the reasons Bible Believers adhere
to Geocentrism. One is most refuse to acknowledge much of the
figurative language in the Bible. They insist the "geocentric
verses" be taken literally even when it can be shown they cannot
be sensibly or consistently taken that way. As we mentioned, if
they refuse to learn from the figurative language in the Bible,
some of the Bible will be hidden from them.
The Catholics, on the other hand, believe they are defending the
long-standing position of their Roman Catholic Church and their
"church fathers." Robert Sungenis' book title alone, "Galileo
Was Wrong, The Church Was Right" essentially explains their
motive. Sungenis is also quoted as saying,
"False information leads to false ideas
[heliocentrism], and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral
actions -- thus the state of the world today. ... Prior to
Galileo, the church was in full command of the world; and
governments and academia were subservient to her."
It appears Sungenis is attacking Galileo and Heliocentrism because
he believes Galileo's confrontation with the Roman Church was a
key cause for the Church losing political power in the
world. He also said contemplating if Geocentrism were proven
"...And would it not restore the Catholic Church to
the highest pinnacle of humankind, since it was the only
institution that defended geocentrism by putting its magisterium
on the line?"
Obviously, the Catholics want to vindicate their "Church" and
their Church's treatment of the Scriptures. It is rather
interesting that the Catholics appeal to their Apocryphal books
for "proof" of Geocentrism (Wis. 13:2; Sir. 43:2, 5; 46:4; 1
Esdras 4:34, etc.) as well as to the "fathers" (Ambrose,
Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Eusebius, etc.). One of
them made an interesting statement comparing Geocentrism to the
"In fact, the Church has other
dogmatic, infallible teachings such as the Immaculate Conception
of Mary with less Scriptural, papal, patristic and medieval
support than geocentrism."
In other words, if one believes in the "Immaculate Conception," he
should believe Geocentrism.
Nevertheless, for the most part modern Geocentrism is driven by
Roman Catholics. They have by far the most material on it and have
even produced a movie promoting it called The Principle.
The Bible Believing adherents seem to be tagging along for the
ride. Other than a few older works by Geraldus Bouw, there is not
much original material on Geocentrism by Bible Believers
available, and what little bit is, is mainly just rehashed Bouw.
For the most part the Bible Believing Geocentrists appeal to
Sungenis and his "scientific" explanations to defend Geocentrism
since they have no recognized scientists of their own. What
An Ethical Question
Concerning the ethics of the Geocentrists quoting scientists who
they know deny Geocentrism, when Sungenis and others produced the
aforementioned movie, The Principle, they asked some well
known scientists to be interviewed for it. What they didn't tell
the scientists, however, was the movie was intended to challenge
Heliocentrism, the Copernian Principle, and promote Geocentrism.
Once the movie was released and the scientists realized how they
had been duped, they were not happy. One of them, Max Tegmark, an
MIT cosmologist said about his appearance in the film,
"They cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists
into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an
ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything
about their hidden agenda or that people like Sungenis were
Ditto for South African mathematician and cosmologist George
Ellis, a well-respected professor at the University of Cape Town,
"I was interviewed for it but they did not disclose
this agenda, which of course is nonsense...I don't think it's
worth responding to -- it just gives them publicity. To ignore
is the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that
If "authorities" have to be tricked to take part in a documentary
so their words can be somehow used to support something they
patently do not believe, what does this say about the claims
of Geocentrism proponents? Clearly, if their claims cannot
stand on their own merit and people must be duped to "legitimize"
them, the claims themselves must be dubious indeed. I
wouldn't buy a used car from any of them.
The Earth Must Be Predominate?
Finally, most Geocentrists, whether Catholic or not, make
much about the earth being the primary element in all creation and
thus must be the center of creation because...well...it just must
be. They insist since God places His attention on earth and His
son was born and died here, it just must be the center of the
universe. This is a pitiful argument. In what possible way
does the fact that Christ lived and died here prove that earth is
the center of the universe? These are two entirely different
concepts and their contention in this regard show the error of
their thought process and mentality. They are constantly looking
on the outward appearance; on the physical.
Even in their own geocentric models Geocentrists must concede the
earth is not the prominent planet in the solar system in size or
order from the sun. They understand by simple observation that the
earth is not the closest planet to the sun (Mercury) or the
largest planet orbiting it (Jupiter). Earth is actually number
three in order—"The third rock from the sun." Neither does the
earth have a monopoly on having a moon. Earth has only one moon
while Jupiter has 67! So from a purely size and positional aspect
among the other planets, earth has no prominence at all.
Though the earth is not number one in position or
size, it is in the optimum position to support life. There are
countless variables including size, distance to the sun,
distance and size of the moon, etc., etc., that all perfectly
come together to make the earth what it is. Earth is a very
special planet; there is no other like it in all creation. It is
the only planet to harbor life and the place the God of heaven
places His attention. But this "specialness" does not require
the earth to be the center of the physical universe. Nothing in
Scripture requires that at all. This is a purely emotional
Look at Jerusalem, for example. It is the "apple" of God's eye.
The city He put His dwelling place (temple) in and His name on
(Psa 9:11, 132:14, 135:21; Eze 43:7). It is the only city that God
inscribes on the "palms of my hands;" it is the only city where
the Mighty God watches over its walls continually (Isa. 49:16). It
is the city of the great king (Psa 48:1-2). Since Jerusalem has
such a unique position in God's eyes and is His chosen dwelling
place above all others, is it physically the most beautiful city
on earth situated on the most physically prominent place on the
planet? Hardly. Is it the "center" of commerce; the world's
premier city and capital? Of course not.
There is nothing physically special about Jerusalem at all.
Actually, it is a quite small city located on a mostly barren
mountain within a dry and arid region. Its closest body of water
is called the "Dead Sea" and has no outlet. Apart from its
religious significance, few would consider Jerusalem exceptional
or predominate in any manner, let alone the predominate location
on earth. However, one day it will be earth's capital when the
King returns to claim His throne within its soon to be built
temple. In that day it will be preeminent and predominate,
but apart from the revelation of the Scriptures, one would never
think it possible today.
A similar observation could be made about the person of the Lord
Jesus Christ while He walked this earth. Was there anything that
physically distinguished Him from anyone else? No. Was He more
handsome, more wealthy, more educated, more personable, more
popular, etc. than anyone else? No. Did a ray of sunlight
constantly follow Him around like a spotlight showing Him to be
the preeminent one, No. There was nothing physically exceptional
about Him. However, after He rose from the dead things changed.
And when He returns "every eye shall see him" and He will be seen
by all as the very preeminent one, the Savior and King of the
In the new heaven and new earth that is to come, earth (or new
Jerusalem) may very well be the center of the universe, but to
claim that now, one is severely "jumping the gun."
Summary and Conclusion
We have covered a considerable amount of material in this
treatise, especially from a scriptural perspective. In the first
few chapters we have shown how the Scriptures heavily use
figurative, relative, and perspective language. Figurative
language does not require the Bible's words convey a figurative or
allegorical message. In the Bible, as in much of human life,
figurative language is used to express literal truths. If a Bible
reader does not acknowledge the figurative language and use it as
intended, He will miss much of the message of the Scriptures.
With the next few chapters we saw how the Bible does not take a
position on cosmology, in spite of the claims of many. The
Scriptures are essentially silent on this issue as well as other
"scientific" matters. We saw how the major scriptural claims of
the Geocentrists are based on very tenuous passages that often do
not state what the Geocentrists claim. Then we examined how the
Lord reveals truths, both spiritual and physical. We took a brief
look at science and saw how the common consensus is heliocentrism
and how it took centuries and even millennia for man to arrive at
that conclusion. And, finally, we looked at some of the reasons
God uses ambiguous terms in His word and the possible purposes He
may have in that regard.
In a nutshell, we saw that belief in geocentrism is based
primarily on supposition, assumption, and failure to understand
the way the Bible often uses words.
In conclusion, your author hopes these words will help sincere
seekers who have been perplexed by these issues. Although this
treatise does not have all the answers, it does present some
material that is little discussed or regarded among the
geocentrism crowd. It goes without saying that to a Christian the
Bible should be his final authority. He should rely on it above
all other sources, and that we have endeavored to do. As we
repeatedly mentioned, one can not only learn from what the Bible
says, he can also learn from what it doesn't say, and it doesn't
take a position on geocentrism, heliocentrism, the flat earth, or
any other cosmological assertions. If one wants to believe the
earth is resting on four elephants standing on a turtle's back
as some of the ancients believed, the Bible won't complain at
all. It's primary concern is an individual's relationship
with his creator.