Another supposed biblical "proof" for Geocentrism is the account of Joshua's long day found in Joshua 10. It is probably their most appealed to passage.
12, Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13, And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
14, And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
This event will be invariably brought up in any presentation of "biblical Geocentrism," and many of them will smugly proclaim,
"See there, it says specifically the 'sun stood still, and the moon stayed' proving that they are normally moving. If the earth was spinning, why didn't the Lord just say that the earth stopped spinning to cause the long day."
Seems very "cut and dried" on the surface doesn't it. That is, until one actually studies the passage and their stilted reasoning.
Joshua 10 is not as much a friend to Geocentrism as many assume. In fact, some of the most notable Geocentrism proponents will concede this. We know the account, Israel was in battle with the Amorites and the day was getting late, and Joshua prayed to the Lord that the "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." And they did stop! The day did not progress for about another whole day. The issue concerning Geocentrism is not did they appear to stop, but HOW did they stop.
Some of the more shallow Geocentrists will just repeat like a "broken record," "The Bible says the sun stopped...The Bible says the sun stopped...," but that is not all the Bible says here. The Bible also says the sun and moon was to stop in specific places; the sun UPON Gibeon; and the Moon IN the valley of Ajalon, and there lies the dilemma. The Lord threw another monkey-wrench into the Geocentrists hyper-literal desire for the passage by placing figurative or phenomenological language right in the middle of it!
The sun did not rest absolutely and literally "upon Gibeon" and neither did the moon literally dwell "in the valley of Ajalon." Joshua's words are a clear figure of speech. This is such an obvious figure of speech or instance of "perspective language" that even one of the major "deans of Geocentrism," Gerardus Bouw, acknowledges as much. Joshua 10:12 is such a snare to him that he says,
Joshua 10:12 plays no role in my belief in geocentricity. In that verse we are told that Joshua spake as a man, not on behalf of God, let alone inspiration. So Joshua's phraseology of "upon Gibeon" and "in the valley" can be stated from a human perspective without having to be true. All that inerrancy requires is that God quote him correctly. If this were the only verse on geocentricity in Scripture then Scripture is not geocentric.
What a statement! Do you see what Bouw has done? He has potentially undercut vast amounts of Scripture by claiming when someone in the Bible speaks "as a man" they are not speaking by inspiration! It is true not every word said by an individual recorded in the Scriptures is a true statement ("Ye shall not surely die."), but the account is still "given by inspiration and inerrant." There is no reason to even suggest Joshua's request is flawed or untrue. However, Bouw seems to not believe Joshua 10:12 was "given by inspiration?" If it is not given by inspiration then it is not Scripture because "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16). Bouw may be trying to say that the verse is Scripture but not factually true, but if so he did a poor job of it.
Furthermore, what man in the Bible doesn't speak as a man? Is such a concept possible? Did not Adam, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Daniel, Peter, John, Paul, etc., speak as men? Can we believe Adam when he said Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh"? How about Abraham when he said, "Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old"? How about Moses when he said, "I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt"? Were they not "moved by the holy ghost" (2 Pet 1:21) to say these things? How do you know? Is Paul lying to us when he said in Rom 3:5, "Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)." In the entire book of Job, Job and his "friends" are speaking as men on the earth and they say quite a bit about the heavens. It is not until Job 38 God starts speaking for Himself. Are we to dismiss everything Job has said previously because he spoke "as a man"? Plus, the entire book of Ecclesiastes is the words of a man "under the sun." Bouw has cast doubt on a lot of the Bible just so he can defend his pet doctrine.
When Joshua spoke verse 12 he was speaking directly to God. It was a prayer for God to stop the day from progressing until the battle could be won. He was not asking God to consider something that was untrue. What irks the Geocentrists is the fact Joshua used a very localized and relative figure of speech to make his request. From where Joshua was standing the sun was over Gibeon and the moon somewhat in the valley and Joshua and he wanted them to stay in that position for a while. This same type of figure of speech is used today ("Moon over Miami", etc.). Bouw and others are aggravated because Joshua wasn't "scientific" in his request. By using a figure of speech Joshua greatly weakened one of their greatest potential "proof texts."
As much as the Geocentrists try to avoid verse 12, they emphasize verse 13. Verse 13 has the words they think they want to see, "And the sun stood still." Bouw is more than happy to insist this verse speaks for God. He says,
"Verse 13 is a different matter. There the Holy Ghost, who inspired Scripture, says that the "sun stood still and the moon stayed." He does not mention Gibeon or Ajalon...."
So the words of verse 12 are the untrue words of a man but those of verse 13 are of the Holy Ghost? There is one important little detail Bouw neglected to relate. Both verses were recorded by the same man?oshua! By all accounts Joshua himself is the author of the book that bears his name so he is truthfully stating what was said and done. Bouw insists that the last part of the verse is a quote from the book of Jasher? book not Scripture. Maybe so, but why would an eye witness to the events and also the very person who requested the miracle to start with need to quote from an obscure book to verify it? That would be like a person needing to consult his birth certificate to verify he was born!
Also, the supposed quote from Jasher raises a significant problem many Geocentrists have overlooked. It says, "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven." So the sun was in the midst or middle of heaven? ("Midst" is most often defined as "the middle" or in the "thickest part" of something. For instance, the "tree of life" was in the midst or very middle of the Garden of Eden" Gen 2:9, 3:3) The heaven the sun resides in is the second heaven. That is, space or the visible material universe. So at thousands or millions of light-years across, if the sun was in the middle of it...it would be so far away it could not even be seen! But more than that if the sun is in the middle of heaven that would make it the center of the universe; the very concept the Geocentrists claim for the earth!
Geocentrists. You cannot produce a single verse that says the earth is in the midst, middle or center of heaven (or anything else), but we can show you one that says THE SUN IS in the midst of heaven, and it is in one of your most key Geocentrism passages! Oh, the irony. The Lord must have a sense of humor.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the only other objects found in the "midst of heaven" are angels that fly "through the midst of heaven" (Rev 8:13), and that only stands to reason for an angel coming from the third heaven. The angel would have to pass completely through the second heaven to get to earth, thus traveling directly through the midst or middle of it! Furthermore, in the previous verse (Rev 8:12) an angel had just smitten a "third part of the stars" which naturally reside in the furthest extents of the second heaven. So trying to insist that the "midst of heaven" just means somewhat "within heaven" or "in part of heaven" is not taking the phrase literal because the only other instances of the words refer to angels flying all the way through it! Thus, taking the passages literally (and comparing with other Scripture) means the sun in Joshua 10:13 is in the midst or middle of heaven.
In all seriousness, however, could the sun being "in the midst of heaven," be another relative, phenomenological statement from the perspective of men on the earth who see the sun in the sky? Of course. Oh, the poor Geocentrists and their hyper-literalism. Not even Joshua 10:13 is their friend.
Now the question arises, how did God actually lengthen the day in Joshua 10? The answer is simple, no one knows. Habakkuk 3:11 suggests the sun and moon were stopped because they were afraid of the Israelites glittering weapons,
"The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear."
Ah, but that is just more poetic, figurative language placed in the context to confound the poor Geocentrists.
What we do know is the sun and moon delayed their apparent course through the sky. We can think of several possible methods: the Lord stopped the sun and moon if they are moving; He stopped the earth's spin if it is spinning; He matched the rotation of the earth with the sun (or vice versa) so their was no apparent motion between them; or the simplest way of all could have been He simply stopped ALL motion in the universe!
Stopping all celestial movement everywhere actually covers all the issues. The sun would stop, the moon would stop, the earth would stop, and so with everything else, and when all was started back up, everything would remain in perfect sync! What is interesting with this method is even in a Heliocentric system one can literally say the sun and moon stood still! They would not be stopping in the way the Geocentrist want to portray, but they would still be stopped and thus the verse fulfilled. There goes another favorite Geocentric argument.
Nevertheless, how the miracle occurred is irrelevant, but that won't hinder the die-hard Geocentrist from insisting "The sun stopped...the sun stopped...so it must have been moving before." His selective hyper-literalism blinds him to all reason and compels that automatic response.
Here is a silly observation as a break from some of the doctrine you have been getting so far. Some shallow and naive Geocentrists actually insist God couldn't stop the earth from spinning (a hypothetical spinning to them), because if he did, all the water would splash out of the oceans over the continents, people would be thrown down and get hurt (or even thrown off the earth into outer space), and all kinds of other bad things would happen. How they make such asinine statements with a straight face is a mystery. Is their allegiance to Geocentrism so strong that they will even abandon reason? Are they so married to Geocentrism that they have become theological midgets?
Do these Geocentrists actually know what a miracle is? Well, if not, a miracle is defined as a suspension of natural laws by the Lord so He can do something supernatural. I know of no one who denies the lengthened day of Joshua 10 as a miracle, so all of this ignorant hogwash promoted by some Geocentrists about the oceans splashing is pure nonsense. When the Lord performs a miracle He takes into account all the ramifications He doesn't want to occur and adjusts for them. So yes, of course, the Lord could stop the earth from spinning with no undesired ill affects as easy as He could walk on water without getting is feet wet. The Geocentrists argument is like saying the Israelites could not have crossed the Red Sea because their shoes and carts would have been stuck in the mud. God not only parted the sea; He also dried up the muddy sea bottom as well (Ex 14:16)! Nothing escapes Him. One would think some people would eventually make it out of third grade.
A similar event to Joshua's long day is the account of Hezekiah's sign. One time king Hezekiah was sick and near death and he asked the Lord to remember him. The Lord replied through Isaiah,
"I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake." (2Kings 20:5-6)
Hezekiah asked Isaiah for a sign that the Lord would do this and he replied,
This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? (2Kings 20:9)
Hezekiah requested the shadow on the sun dial go backwards ten degrees and,
And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz. (2Kings 20:11)
This sign is also mentioned in Isaiah chapter 38. Here it is the Lord's own words recorded,
And this shall be a sign unto thee from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that he hath spoken; Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.... (Isa 38:7-8)
Much to the chagrin of the Geocentrists, notice the Lord does not mention that He is doing anything with the sun. It is the "shadow" that is the object in question. The Lord said He would move the "shadow" in both accounts. How did He do this? No one knows. Here the Geocentrists will interject the last part of Isa 38:8 where it says, "So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down," but these are not the Lord's direct words. They are the words of Isaiah, the narrator of his book and the events, thus they are from man's perspective.
It would have been very easy for the Lord to say He was going to move the sun...but He didn't. He left how He was going to perform the sign ambiguous. Did He move the sun anyway? Maybe, or He may have just moved the appearance of the sun in the sky in some way by reflection or other means. Nevertheless, a prime opportunity for the Lord to explicitly say He was going to literally move the sun was passed by. Wonder why?
There is really only one other key argument the Geocentrists try to coerce from Scripture to support their claims, and that is that the earth is fixed in place or immobile. Their most quoted verses are,
1 Chr 16:30 ?ear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.?
Psa 96:10 "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."
Psa 93:1 "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
Yes, these verses are pretty much the extent of their "immobile earth" "proofs." Is the context in any of them dealing with physical laws or cosmological reality? No. They deal with the Lord reigning on the earth in the future. Furthermore, if the earth being static or motionless is its natural state, why mention that it is doing what its supposed to be doing? Geocentrists want to say that the sun in Joshua 10 stopped because it is normally moving, so to be consistent saying the Bible proclaims the earth "shall not be moved" must then mean it is normally moving! Ah, but don't look for consistency among Geocentrists. They are as "fluid" as a politician.
Here is another related verse the Geocentrists conveniently omit,
Psa 99:1 The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
What? The earth is to be moved? Ah, but there is one subtle difference in the accounts the Geocentrists will not mention and hope you breeze past. Look at the first three verses above. What is it specifically that is not to be moved? It is the "world." Now what is to be moved in Psa 99:1? It is the "earth." Here the question arises, is there a difference between the "world" and the "earth."? Yes, generally there is. Isaiah 23:17 pretty much defines both "earth" and "world",
"...and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth."
Notice how the "kingdoms of the world," and thus people, governments, cities, etc., are "upon the face of the earth." The "earth" is the physical globe or planet itself while the "world" is basically a social system of life and people (and all their inventions) upon it. That is why John 3:16 says, "God so loved the world," not that He loved the planet earth. Look at Psalm 24:1,
"The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein."
The distinction here is clear. There is the "earth" and the "world." Two separate concepts.
Here is another verse the Geocentrists need to explain from their "literal" approach. Psalm 76:8 says,
"Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was still,"
Is the earth literally afraid? How can a inanimate planet fear? Maybe they believe the earth is alive and conscious (while they hug their trees)? Come on Geocentrists. Are you not going to take this passage literally? Are you beginning to realize passages like this expose your failings however your answer?
If you say the physical planet earth can have the emotion of fear you will be seen as a new-age kook. If you say it is a figurative statement meaning the earth will be quiet during the Millennial period from all its earthquakes and tumult of the recent Tribulation (what it actually is saying), you will not be taking the Bible literally. If you say "earth" also represents the people on the earth as well as the planet, then you have undermined your whole stable or "stablished" argument. If it means people here it can mean people anywhere.
It's time to obfuscate and equivocate again Geocentrists. You all are masters of it.
Even though the terms "world" and "earth" usually refer to different aspects of physical existence, they are very much joined together, but the relationship is not equal. There can be no earthly world without the physical earth, but there can be, and was in Genesis 1, an earth with no "world." Ever since Adam the earth has always had a world upon it, but not before. Therefore, it is possible in certain contexts for the term "earth" to represent the people of earth as well (Psa 67:7) but not the opposite. If the planet earth stopped moving, of course, all the people on it would stop moving as well. But if the "world" stopped in some way, the earth would not have to stop at all. Suppose everyone on earth could synchronize and stand still for five seconds. Would the earth stop spinning. Nope. What if every thing on earth died? The earth would chug along on its travels as long as the Lord wanted.
Bouw in his book, A Geocentric Primer, while discussing Psalm 93:1, tries to equate the world with the earth while at the same time rightly saying "the Bible makes a consistent and important distinction between the world and the earth." He agrees that "world" refers to people and their worldly systems and "earth" refers to the planet, and then he essentially undoes it all by claiming the Bible "indicates that if it can be shown that the world does not move, that then the earth does not move either, and vice versa." As we saw above this is not the case at all. The worldly systems can be completely dissolved and not affect the planet earth at all.
Take a look at Noah's flood. The Lord completely gutted the then existing worldly system and the earth itself didn't flinch. At the tower of Babel the Lord confounded the existing one world system so thoroughly that not a remnant of it was left. They all scattered babbling strange languages, and the earth continued as if nothing happened.
Bouw says when the Lord "stablished" "the world," He actually stablished the earth also so it wouldn't move. As we have seen, this is highly inconsistent and self-serving position. Has Bouw forgotten about Mat. 12:32 where the Lord speaks about the "world to come"? This present world will pass away during the Tribulation and a new world will come with the Millennium, and the earth will keep right on doing its day and night routine through it all.
Obviously, the term "world" can't mean "earth" just when one wants it to. This is Bouw's very first Scripture in his book supposedly indicating Geocentrism is scriptural, and He botched it bad.
(In Heb 1:2; 11:3 the term "worlds" [plural] is used. There "worlds" refers to the universe as a whole. It is from the same Greek word as "age." The Lord created all the worlds, both physical and spiritual.)
Now, concerning the word "move[ed]" meaning a physical movement in 2Ch 16:20, etc., what are you going to do with this verse (Psa 16:8),
"I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved."
Obviously, "moved" doesn't mean David can't physically move or he couldn't even breathe. "Not be moved" means he will not waver off his course or direction; he will not be forced from his current path of goodness and righteousness and be confounded (see Psa 15:5; 62:6, Isa 50:7). And for you brethren with "Originalitis," the same Hebrew word is used for "moved" in Psa 16:8 as used in 1Ch 16:30, Psa 93:1, and Psa 96:10.
Now as soon as we say this some Geocentrists will bring up a verse like Zech 1:11 where it says,
"We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest."
But look at how the term "all the earth" is used. It is clear from the context that "all the earth" refers to the people of the earth. Remember, speaking of the earth can also speak of the world (society) upon it if the context suggests it, as it does here. They walked through the land or earth and found that the people were at rest. They wouldn't have to walk anywhere if they were saying that the physical planet earth was not moving. How does walking around help one determine if the planet is moving or not?
(Note: Using difficult and obscure passages like Zechariah chapter 1 to develop doctrine is a cultic practice. Any Bible Believer who does so is at risk of harming himself and the perception of the gospel among the lost. Zechariah is one of the toughest books in the Bible to understand. Why would anyone go there to try and prove a doctrine?)
Therefore, the context of the key verses Geocentrists use to claim the physical earth is immobile actually refer to the people and systems on the earth at the future time?he Millennium. During the Millennium the Lord will have established his own government and no one will be able to move or thwart it. Furthermore, sometime during that time the physical earth WILL be moved to some extent by an undetermined means (Psa 99:1).
Those poor Geocentrists. They can't win for loosing. Doesn't the Bible make much better sense if you just let it speak for itself?
Another passage that is often brought in the Heliocentric, Geocentric, Flat-Earth debate is Isa 40:22,
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
The Geocentrists say this "circle" is the edge of the globe of the earth. The Flat-Earth people say it is the edge of the flat disk of the earth, like a pancake. Some have even said it refers to the circle of the horizon. Any of these could be the case, but there is one other option that is not considered by either group.
First what is a "circle"? Webster says it is "a plane figure comprehended by a single curve line, called its circumference." He also defines it as a "compass" or "circuit." The Hebrew word is "chug" (G2329) and is defined as a "circle, circuit, or compass." The KJB uses the word "chug" only three times. Once as "circle" (Isa 40:22), once as "circuit" (Job 22:14) and once as "compass" (Pro 8:27), so its usage is quite clear. "Circle" itself only speaks of the edge or perimeter; not what may be inside it. To form a circle one uses a "compass" and moves it through a "circuit" or path. Therefore the "circle of the earth" could just as easily refer to the circuit of the earth as it travels a path. Or in other words its orbit around the sun.
That the "circle of the earth" could be its orbit cannot be disproven if you tried all night. Why? Because Isa 40 is another place where the Scriptures are sometimes "poetic" or figurative. Just in verse 22 the Lord is said to "sitteth upon the circle of the earth," yet other passages says His throne is in heaven (Isa 66:1). The verse says the people of earth are like grasshoppers. The passage is replete with figure and symbolism. How does the Lord literally "sitteth upon the circle of the earth"? (Maybe this is just another one of Bouw's "language of man" passages and should be discounted!)
Since the passage is ambiguous and figurative the "circle of the earth" could mean any of several things: the edge of the globe, the edge of a disk, the circle of the horizon, the dome of the firmament, or even a path or orbit the earth may move along. Actually, the last one fits best when you consider a circle comes from something moving in a circuit. You can't prove or disprove any of them. One thing is certain, however, there is a circle connected with the earth. The rest is pretty much speculation until the Lord reveals more. It may be the Lord will let it mean different things to people of different ages and times. More on this later.
In these two chapters we have looked at basically every scriptural claim the Geocentrists use to try and defend their contentions, and we have shown them to be flawed. Yes, they may come up with a few more verses to try and "prove" their ideas, but they will merely be used to bolster the same arguments we have already addressed; either the sun and universe moves or the earth is motionless.
We thoroughly examined their claims that their beloved terms such as "sunrise," "sunset," etc., must be taken in the absolute sense in that the sun is moving and found these are clearly a relative perspective issue. We saw with the account of Joshua's long day that even the most strict Geocentrists have grudgingly admitted the Bible uses "perspective language" at times ("speak as a man"), and other less strict Geocentrists readily admitted that all those types of verses were "phenomenal language."
The Bible Believing Geocentrists are the most vocal of the bunch in claiming "the Bible is geocentric throughout." They say things like, "All Bible terminology is geocentric...I believe God is telling us like it is...," and this is true, but it doesn't address the crux of the issue. The Bible IS geocentric in its terminology, and God does tell us "like it is," but the question to resolve is, from who's perspective? Obviously, it is from man's perspective of living on the earth. The Geocentric verses hold true from our earthly vantage point. They do not necessarily hold true in heaven or elsewhere. Remember, Psalm 19:6 where it said in speaking about the sun "...and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof"? Does that "nothing" mean the sun's heat is felt in heaven and/or hell? No, it means only on the earth.
Imagine an angel sitting on the sun, does he ever see a sunset or sunrise on earth or anywhere else? No. Neither would he see night. To him it would appear the earth was moving around the sun. The sun is his "frame of reference." Suppose he was sitting on the moon. No sunrise here either. He would always see the sun, but now he can see the shadow of night pass across the earth. Since his frame of reference has changed it would then appear the earth was circling the moon. Just these little "thought experiments" show that sunrise and sunset are local, relative, perspective terms and to claim they refer to an "absolute truth" of the sun or firmament moving is forcing the Scriptures to say too much. That is hyper-literalism. All one can absolutely rest upon in these Geocentric verses is there is movement between the earth, sun, moon, and heavens. As to what is moving the Scriptures do not definitively declare.
Your author has heard the statement made, "How could God make it any plainer in Scripture that the earth is stationary and the sun and universe revolve around it?" How can people be so shallow? If God wanted to specifically say that the sun and universe absolutely revolves around the earth, He could have settled it before he said "Let their be light."
How about a Genesis 1:2a that reads,
"...and the Lord firmly set the earth in the center of the heavens and said, Let the firmament encompass the earth and move around it...."
That is only one of countless different ways the Lord could have settled the issue, but He didn't. He wants it obscure for a reason.
As we said at the start, it seems many believers don't realize a lot can be gleaned from what the Bible doesn't say about a subject nearly as much as what it does say. For instance, most don't realize that the Scriptures never say that the earth is within, surrounded, or contained in the heavens in any way. (Some of you learned something right there.) Furthermore, it does not say the earth is in the center, middle, or midst of any heaven, firmament, universe or anything else. (there you learned something, again.) All these Geocentrists talk about the earth being the center of the universe, but there is not a passage of scripture that even suggests that. The Bible ALWAYS says the heavens are above the earth. And here is the "kicker," the earth and the heavens are ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION SPOKEN OF AS COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTITIES. One is never spoken of as part of or contained in the other. So to try and use Scripture to "prove" that the earth is sitting within or at the center of the heavens is a clear "wresting" of the Bible.
What did the Lord do, forget to tell us those things? Did He not know that man in the 21st century is going to be smart and knowledgeable about science and the universe, and He needed to make these things clear (I speak as a man). No, He didn't forget. Apparently, He just doesn't care about relaying to us cosmological details with His Scriptures. It is not that he is "dumbing down" the Bible for man, he is just not much interested in spending words talking about inanimate objects he created. He is interested in the people on the earth; the world! The world is His focus and the heavens were largely created to support the earth.
The term "Geocentric" would be a good term to show the Lord's interest and focus on man on the earth, but it has been hijacked. So your author has a term to signify God's true interest. He is "Geofocal." One could also say "Anthrofocal," but Geofocal works as well. God's focus, attention, and concern is on the earth because of its human element, and that's completely without regard to where it is in His physical universe. Man looks on the outward appearance (physical); God looks on the heart. God is Geofocal.
(Its rather ironic that we had to write two whole chapters on "Bible Cosmology" just to show the Bible doesn't take a stand on it!)