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 failures.
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.
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 and mankind.
Enough said. To many Geocentrists modern science is engaged in a vast conspiracy to suppress the "truth of Geocentrism."
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.
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,
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.
And, of course, the most prominent trait of the insecure is,
They try to make their opponent feel insecure himself.
Since they are not confident in their position they try their best to make you insecure in yours. "Misery loves company."
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 true,
"...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 "Immaculate Conception,"
"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 strange bed-fellows.
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 involved."
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 silly agenda."
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.
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 argument.
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 world.
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."
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.