King James Cosmology

A Bible Believer's Look At
Bible Cosmology, Geocentrism,
Figurative Language,
& Progressive Revelation

By Timothy S. Morton

© Copyright 2018
Timothy S. Morton
All Rights Reserved

Revised and Updated
June 2019

Published by
PreservedWords.com

Introduction

1. Figurative Language
a. Figurative, Relative, and Symbolic Language in the Bible
b. Hyper-Literalism and Bible Believers
c. Figurative Language And Geocentrism

2. Bible Cosmology
a. Bible Cosmology - Part 1
b. Bible Cosmology - Part 2
c. Those Pesky "Flat-Earthers"

3. God's Various Revelations
a. God's Revelation of Himself
b. The Golden Age of Discovery and Revelation

4. What About Science?
a. Science and the Geocentrists
b. The Flat-Earth Fallacy
c. A Biological Question

5. Wrapping Things Up
a. Why is the Bible Ambiguous?
b. Some Final Thoughts

Appendix
a. A Geocentrist's Questions Answered

King James Cosmology

Introduction

Over the last 20 years or so there has been a rather peculiar trend among some Bible Believers to adopt a belief known as Geocentrism—an earth-centered universe. Before around 1990 the term was practically unknown among believers. Your author was first introduced to it in the 1990s from unsolicited books sent to him by some well-meaning brethren. More recently, with the increased usage of the Internet and "social media," those who promote it have even an even wider, more visible influence.

In some Fundamentalist or Bible Believing circles belief in geocentrism has gotten to the point where it has become a sort of proof of "Bible literacy" gauge. These brethren heavily emphasize taking the Bible as literal as possible and frown on any approach that fails to do so. As a consequence any brother who does not see "the truth of geocentrism" is considered weak in taking the Scriptures literally and deficient in sound Bible exegesis. Unlike the geocentrists who claim to have "seen through the heliocentrism conspiracy," those who don't accept geocentrism are in their view "still blinded by science and government disinformation." "If only they would just believe the Scriptures," they insist.

Furthermore, this new trend doesn't stop with only geocentrism. A related but even more fringe group of geocentric believers has come along that again believes in "Flat-Earth" geocentrism. They believe the earth is flat, has edges, and the sun is just a few thousand miles away. The visible curvature of the earth, photos from space, and the fact that no one has seen the supposed edge doesn't dissuade them at all. They have their Bible verses and they have their "proof," and no "human conspiracy" or "Satan inspired facts" are going to deviate them from their truth.

You author has found when some geocentrists are challenged with a fact they cannot adequately answer they will usually fall back to their "safe space" by saying, "Well...I believe the Bible" or "I'll take God's word for it." Almost always this is said in a tone where he is strongly implying his counterpart doesn't believe the Scriptures...at least not as much as he does. Both may be Bible Believers, but that doesn't matter. This thinly veiled accusatory statement is merely a diversion and a method to "save face" when the geocentrist gets in a bind. It's a tactic designed to put their nemesis on the defensive when they can't defend their position. Of course, a true Bible Believer, geocentrist or not, believes the Bible as much as he is able. The real issue is, "What is the Bible actually saying."

In this book we are going to examine what the Bible actually says (and doesn't say) about creation, the heavens, the "universe," the earth, and related matters in the context of motion in the universe. We will especially look at how the Bible "speaks" and its usage of human language to get its message across.

By no means are geocentrism, heliocentrism, a flat earth and other "scientific" pursuits essential or fundamental to Christian doctrine. One can not have an opinion on any them and the Scriptures won't care a bit. Over the last few centuries geocentrism and Bible cosmology have became more relevant topics among believers because of the great expansion of knowledge and science in the last 400 years; especially the last 100. People are naturally curious as to what the Bible says about the visible creation and the universe in general, and Bible believers try their best to provide answers. This book is one attempt.

We will delve into this subject from multiple directions. First from the standpoint of the Scriptures we'll examine its heavy usage of figurative language; then we will examine what the Bible says about cosmology; next we'll consider matters from the perspective of progressive revelation; then in a limited way we'll consider the perspective of science. Finally, we'll try and understand what God is actually saying (or not saying) in cosmological matters.

King James Cosmology

1a
Figurative, Relative, and Symbolic Language in the Bible

Do You Believe?

Among those who deem themselves Bible Believers, "Biblicists," or even "Evangelical" there is a common claim, "I believe every word of the Bible and take it all literally," or just "I take the Bible literally." Some will go as far to say something like, "I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and take every word literally." Though these words may sound "orthodox" and true to Bible doctrine, they can state more than what is actually true. Some may have not considered it, but having a literal approach to the Bible and taking it "ALL literally" are two different things as we will explain below.

Those who demand the "all literal" treatment of the Scriptures see their view as a type of "litmus text" concerning whether a person is "sound in the faith." Most of these hard line literalists have disdain and even contempt for those who don't agree with them. They regard them as "liberal" or "modernistic." Actually, your author has found that many who make such claims don't actually realize what they are saying. They equate taking all the words of the Bible literally with taking it as truth, but again, these concepts are not the same.

When one confronts many of these literalists with some of the obvious figurative language in the Bible they begin to "crawfish." "Well..." they say, "there is some figurative language in the Bible, but I take every word as literal except where it is impossible to do so." Sometimes they won't face the figurative language all the while still insisting they receive the "whole Bible." Trying to get some of them to even admit certain passages are figurative is like "pulling teeth" because of the implications involving some of their pet doctrines. These doctrines are built on taking certain words as "wooden literal," and where proof is shown that the words are obviously figurative, they resist to the point of ignoring that part of Scripture completely. Instead of being the big, bold believers of the "whole counsel of God" they like to think they are, they selectively ignore certain parts of Scripture that do not support their doctrine. Some act as if their doctrine must survive regardless what the Scriptures actually say.

The simple fact is the Scriptures "are full" of figurative language. It is all through them from the Garden of Eden to the Great White Throne. Often figurative language is the preferred method the Lord uses to communicate with man, and figurative or representative words can sometimes be more effective in revealing truth than sterile, literal terms. The Lord can write His Bible however He wants, and He chose to use a lot of non-literal language to do it.

A Dearth of Material

It is interesting to observe that among the Bible Believing crowd there is almost no material on the study of figurative language in the Bible. This very important topic that deals with many words in the Scriptures is essentially ignored. Bible Believers have rightly emphasized the literal approach to the Scriptures (as opposed to the allegorical approach) for so long they have failed to realize that significant parts of them are not to be taken strictly literal. Some of the brethren (who may have even been in the ministry for years) don't have the slightest idea how to determine figurative language or deal with it once they have found it. For instance, in Rev. 20 John sees an angel with a chain and key who descends to earth to bind Satan. Those who treat the chapter as allegorical (Amillennialists, etc) insist every thing is figurative, the key, the chain, and the 1000 year period (Millennium), etc. They will confront the literalist with "How can a spiritual creature be bound with a literal chain" and because of his ignorance of how to deal with figurative language the literalist often has no convincing (or even sensible) answer. (See below for more on Satan's Chain)

What does it mean when one says he "takes the Bible literally"? Does he really realize what he is saying? Your author is convinced some use the phrase simply because they want to be counted among "the faithful" while realizing that many parts of the Bible cannot be taken strictly literal. They use the accepted "lingo" but with reservations. Others who are less informed don't seem to know what the word "literal" even means and use it ignorantly. In this chapter we will look into this issue.

"Biblical Literalism" and the Scriptures

There are generally two senses to what is called "Biblical Literalism." The first defines "literalism" as "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense" where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical." That is, all the Bible's words must be read in the most strictly literal sense unless absolutely impossible.

The second view is known as the "Historical-Grammatical Method" which is just a a fancy way of saying the reader "strives to discover the Biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text." This method not only takes into account the actual words but it does not ignore "the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text." Both views can be said to approach the Bible "literally," but the second considers the context words are found in and how the words are used throughout the context and Scripture as a whole.

It may come as a surprise to some but today's Biblical Literalism is a fairly new concept, not much more than 100 years old. Before then the Bible was generally accepted, by unbelievers as well as believers, as simply the authoritative word of God. It was considered God's very words given to man and essentially all treated it as such. Whether to take the words "literally" or not was not an issue. However, with the rise of "rationalism" and later "liberalism" and "modernism" during the 18th and 19th centuries, some began to view the Bible as "allegorical" or "symbolical" and treated it as just another historical book.

Around the turn of the 20th century a movement among true believers arose to combat modernism which became known as "Fundamentalism." Fundamentalism's key goal was to promote the "inerrancy of the Bible" and emphasize the literal nature of biblical accounts such as Christ's virgin birth, His miracles, His resurrection, and bodily return. Thus, in contrast to the Modernists and Liberals who mostly deny these truths, the Fundamentalists became known as "literalists" who emphasize Biblical Literalism.

The type of literalism of those who started the Fundamentalist movement was of the second type mentioned above; the Historical-Grammatical Method. Men such as R. A. Torrey, C. I. Scofield, Arthur T. Pierson, James Orr, G. Campbell Morgan, Charles T. Studd, Philip Mauro, A. C. Dixon, and James M. Gray were staunch defenders of the inspiration of the Scriptures and insisted "the Bible plainly teaches that inspiration extends to its words," but they were not strict literalists insisting the Bible's words could ONLY be understood through "wooden literalism." They believed the Scriptures also reveal truth through figurative language and can express truths using man's earthly, human perspective. A Bible word's context and biblical usage were a key aid in conveying the intended meaning. This is still the position of the majority of Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals today.

However, there are still those who claim to adhere to strict literalism, and many claim to be King James Bible Believers. They spout off of how they take every word of the Bible absolutely literally whenever possible, but in such statements they reveal their ignorance.

Take The Bible As "Literal" Or Take It As Truth?

The term "literal" in any form is not found in the Bible, yet the term "figure" is. Adam is a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14); the tabernacle a figure of the "more perfect tabernacle" (Heb 9:11); and baptism a figure of salvation (1Pet 3:21). "Similitude" is a term much like "figure." It is used referring to the prophets speaking in a parable or comparison like manner. The Scriptures do not spend time using words like "literal" or "figurative" to describe its words; it uses much more weighty and meaningful words like "truth." Consider these passages,

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (Joh 17:17)

"But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness." (Act 26:25)

"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2Co 6:7)

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation..." (Eph 1:13)

"whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;" (Col 1:5)

"...when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God," (1Th 2:13)

"...rightly dividing the word of truth." (2Ti 2:15)

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth..." (Jam 1:18)

All is clear. The primary way one is to treat the Scriptures is as the very words of God consisting of TRUTH. If the words are to be taken as literal they are TRUTH. If they are to be taken as figurative, such as the parables, etc., they are still to be received as TRUTH, even if the words themselves are not to be taken as strictly literal. For instance, Jesus said plainly,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

But He also said,

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,..." (John 10:9)

Is either statement less true than the other? Even though one uses figurative language and cannot be taken verbally literal? Absolutely not! Both statements are Scripture and TRUTH and express very similar concepts. That the latter uses figurative language does not weaken its power or veracity at all. Since it is quite clear that the figurative expression ("door") is meant to be understood as a figure, then understanding it that way is actually approaching the text literally and as intended! That is, one is taking the Bible as literal "TRUTH" even when many of its words express the truth in a non-literal manner.

To expand upon our introductory comments above, in this day and age of rationalism and liberalism a question is often asked in surveys and such, "Do you believe the Bible literally?" That is a rather ambivalent question. Actually, the person is not really asking if one takes every word of the Bible as literal. They are asking if one believes the Bible is actually true as opposed to allegorical or symbolic. The key concept is that of TRUTH; is the Bible true. Did God really create the heaven and earth, did He send a world-wide flood, did He part the Red Sea, was Jesus Christ really God manifest in the flesh, did He really rise from the dead, etc., etc. Again, any believer who believes the Scriptures are the true words of God and receives them as they are intended is taking them as actual TRUTH even though some of its truths are expressed in non-literal language.

When the Lord said He is "the door," that is the literal TRUTH expressed in figurative words. God's words are ALL TRUTH but not all His words are to be taken "literally." There are many, many similar instances of this type of language. Think about that a while. Maybe some of you should reconsider how you explain your approach to the Scriptures. As for your author, he contends all the words are TRUTH, literal or not.

The "Human" Attributes of God

Since in the Scriptures the Lord is speaking to men on earth, He often uses human "speech" peppered with human attributes to describe Himself. Christ said "God is a spirit," but what do physical men who rely on their physical senses know about immaterial spirits? How would a man interact with a spirit or how would a spirit describe Himself to a mortal man without using words and concepts man can fathom? God knows we are merely flesh and finite creatures and thus often speaks with us as if He has our fleshly, finite attributes. From the physical perspective God is said to have a face (Leviticus 20:6); (Numbers 6:25); a hand (with tattoos!, Isa 49:16) which He can stretch out (Exodus 7:5; Isaiah 23:11), a strong arm (Psalm 89:10). He "stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth" (Psalm 113:6). He "keeps his eye" on the land (Deut 11:12), He smells (Gen 8:21), holds His tongue (Hab 1:13), and the earth is said to be His "footstool" (Isaiah 66:1). Does a spirit inherently and literally have these attributes? Not at all. The Lord is accommodating us so we can understand Him. The fancy name for these descriptions is "anthropomorphism."

Some geocentrists will claim God actually does have the "form" of these physical features. He does have hands, feet, face, etc., even though He is a spirit. They feel compelled to claim this because if these descriptions of God are figurative, then the descriptions of the heavens may be figurative also. Gerardus Bouw insists in his book "A Geocentric Primer," "Most assuredly, God has hands and feet." Bouw is not referring to the instances in the Scriptures where the Lord would appear to people in human form (Genesis 12:7-9; 18:1-33; 32:22-30), He is referring to God's essence or form as a spirit.

Nowhere in the Bible is God said to have a "spirit body" (a contradiction) nor does it say a spirit has any kind of human like form. It says God is invisible (Col 1:15) and omnipresent. Omnipresence does not speak of or even allow any kind of "form," material or otherwise. Of course, He can appear in a corporeal body, but that is far different than saying he has bodily parts in His essence.

There are basically only two groups of people who claim God has a body of some form: the Mormons and some Charismatics (Dake, etc.). Historically, this has not been a view held by "orthodox" believers. They have always insisted "God is a spirit" and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

God Puts His "Finger" On It

Another common anthropomorphic description of God refers to his "finger(s)." The term "finger of God" is found several times. David says the heavens with the moon and stars are the work of God's "fingers" (Psa 8:3) When the magicians in Egypt couldn't duplicate one of Moses' miracles, they said it was because "the finger of God" was responsible (Exo 8:16-18). Even the ten commandments were "written with the finger of God" (Exo 3:18). In the NT Jesus said He cast out devils with "the finger of God." Do all these accounts mean God has literal, fleshly fingers? Not at all. God's fingers represent his working in power. Every passage shows God doing something only He can do. You may say, "But Jesus has fingers." Yes, He does, but He did not say "With my finger I cast out devils," He said "with the finger of God" He cast them out—with God's power. No literal "fingers" are involved.

That the Scriptures commonly and routinely use human attributes to figuratively describe the Lord is acknowledged by nearly all believers. Dr. Peter Ruckman (who no one can deny being a King James Bible Believer) in his commentary on Luke 11:20 says,

"An expression like "the finger of God" is what is known as an "anthropomorphism." It is ascribing the physical characteristics of man to God. "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), so outside of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, He has no physical hands or fingers or heart or legs or feet or nose or eyes, etc. But when relating to His creation, God speaks of Himself in men's terms. In the Old Testament, the Lord appears in the form of a man (the Angel of the Lord), and when He shows up in the New Testament, He takes the form of a man (His Son). So even though "the finger of God" is a figurative expression, we understand its meaning."

Not only do the Scriptures describe the Lord with human attributes, they also use attributes of animals to describe Him. In several places God is said to have wings!

"Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings," (Psa 17:8)

"...the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings." (Psa 36:7)

"...yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge" (Psa 57:1)

"...I will trust in the covert of thy wings. Selah." (Psa 61:4)

"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust..." (Psa 91:4)

Obviously, wings (made of feathers!) are not a feature of a spirit, yet some Hyper-Literal geocentrists will insist God has them, feathers and all, so they can appear to legitimately present geocentric claims. All the passages above from the Psalms are clearly poetic and figurative. They are the affectionate words of the Psalmist showing his confidence in his God's protection, safety, and care. To claim that the words must be taken absolutely literally is an overreach of desperation.

The Lord Jesus Christ even likened Himself to a bird—a hen chicken (Matt 23:27)! His usage of a mother hen protecting her young points right back to the usage of "wings" in the Old Testament.

However, the "wings" found in the Psalms are not the geocentrists major concern. It is the "wings" in Mal 4:2 that are the most disturbing,

"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."

Notice how "Sun" is capitalized. This personifies the sun as a type of Christ. Also notice how the Sun "arises." The geocentrists use this passage to connect the resurrection of Christ from the dead to the rising of the literal sun every morning. They insist if the sun doesn't literally rise then Christ didn't either...but those "inconvenient" wings have to appear and mess things up.

Do they actually want to condition belief in the resurrection of Christ on such as flimsy contention as sunrise? Do they really contend one cannot believe one without believing the other? This is not only desperate but dangerous. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ stands on its own merit and is presented with "many infallible proofs" (Act 1). It should not be tied to literal belief in sunrise or sunset or any other arbitrary and ambiguous condition.

How is it that the Lord Jesus Christ could be born as a man, live among men 33 years, and die likely naked on a cross and no one see His wings? How is it that when He was "transfigured" on the mount and in His glorified body that no one made mention of His wings? How is it that after His arose from the grave in His resurrection body of righteousness that no one saw wings then either? Because HE DOESN'T HAVE WINGS! They are FIGURATIVE; they are a similitude,

I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. (Hos 12:10)

A "similitude" is a "likeness" or "resemblance;" a "comparison." God's "wings" as well as the physical human attributes that are associated with Him are just that, similitudes for God's care, concern, and actions. Again, in describing Himself with human and animal attributes the Lord is using terms and analogies that men across the ages can easily identify with. He speaks with man's earthly perspective in mind. The same for essentially all the figures of speech in the Scriptures.

God's "Human" Emotions

Besides the physical anthropomorphic expressions made about God in the Scriptures, there are other "human traits" attributed to Him that many don't seem to realize are also figurative. For instance, the Bible speaks of God changing His mind, regretting, or "repenting" about something He did (Gen 6:6). It also speaks of Him as learning or gaining knowledge He didn't have before (Gen 22:12). There are verses that state the Lord was surprised when certain things happened (Isa 5:3-7), and seems to be unsure of some future events (Exo 4:9, 13:7). Furthermore, there are many verses if taken literally that indicate God exists in a linear, sequential, time based reality just like we humans. That is, the Lord dwells within time and reacts to the changing states that time brings.

Consider the many places where the Lord's passions or emotions are said to change. For example, the Bible emphatically states the Lord's wrath increases under certain circumstances (Exod 32:11). It is said to His wrath can "wax hot," be "kindled," be "provoked," etc. (Num 11:33, etc.). For His wrath to increase under certain circumstances, it must be less under other circumstances, thus the Lord emotionally changes within time if these words are taken literally. The same can be said about God's favor or grace towards certain people or nations. If taken literally these Scriptures present God as dwelling within time, changing with the progress of time, and in some ways even subject to time.

If a Hyper-Literal Bible Believer insists one take these passages showing God's changing emotional states literally, he will quickly conjure up a God that may appear to be scripturally "defensible" but who is foreign to the actual truth. It is contrary to the Scriptures and the concept of an almighty and infinite God that has existed from the beginning. Consider the ramifications, if these verses are taken literally and God is subject to time,

He can actually change His mind when circumstances change (Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, etc.).

He can regret actions He had previously taken (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 35; Ezek. 22:29-31).

He may not know all the future holds and can be surprised by actions people may take (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).

He would have to test individuals to see what is in their heart (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Jdg 2:20-3:5).

The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about the future (Num. 14:11; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms of what may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9; 13:17; Jer. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3)

This presents a view of God that is drastically different from the traditional view, and this doctrine can be "proved" by simply taking the above Bible passages literal, and there is a rather recent group or movement that does that very thing—the "Open Theists."

Taking Literal To The Extreme

"Open Theism" is a relatively new doctrine that teaches that the future is open ended. That is, since the future has not yet happened, it is unknown to all, even to God. They promote a God who is subject to time and dwells within it and thus cannot "know every detail about what will come to pass." He has to wait and see what the future holds just like everyone else. They claim God cannot know the future because it is "unknowable" and does not yet exist even in God's foreknowledge. (This theology seems to be designed to counteract the Calvinist argument that God has completely predestinated the future.) Like Calvinism, Open Theism is more of a philosophy than a theology since it develops its main arguments from "logic" and human reasoning embellished with out of context or figurative Scripture rather than what Scripture actually says as a whole.

Obviously, the Open Theism concept of God is a clear departure from the Judaeo/Christian concept. It is not a historical position and was unknown by the apostles and the saints who came immediately after them. It is a perfect example of wresting the Scriptures to one's own destruction because it drastically changes the very nature of God from an all-knowing sovereign to an ignorant, impotent deity. If God is not powerful enough to reign over time, how could any of His promises be sure? If he doesn't know what time has in store, how can He guarantee what He cannot foresee or control?

On the contrary, in spite of the figurative passages often appealed to, the Scriptures plainly say God is the creator of all things (which includes time, Col 1:16-17), is almighty and all powerful (has power over time, Isa 44:24), and dwells in eternity (in contrast to time, Isa 57:15). The Bible proclaims God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is not subject to His creation and exists apart from it. He is no more subject to time than He is subject to gravity, and when something occurs in time, He is not surprised by it nor does He only then react to it. He by nature doesn't change even though the figurative "anthropomorphical" passages indicate that He does. The very nature of God is in question depending on how one approaches these verses.

Some may have trouble reconciling the concept of an infinite God who created and transcends time (who can see all of time at once like a person in an airplane can see a whole moving train at once) with the concept of God most often presented in the Scriptures. This latter concept describes a God who interacts with man within time, makes covenants with man based on events that occur in time, and appears to flow along with time. However, an infinite God who is omnipresent (omnipresent throughout time as well as throughout all places) and omnipotent can easily interact with man within time. He can be the infinite God of heaven and also present Himself as the personal, interactive God of man.

Geocentrists and other Hyper-Literal brethren will have a hard time effectively dealing with Open Theists and others who take verses literally that are meant to be taken figuratively. One group does much the same as the other only with different verses "proving" different doctrines.

Satan's Chain

One passage of Scripture that is often used to either confirm or deny a literal approach to the Bible is in Rev. 20 where Satan is said to be bound. Those who take an allegorical approach to the Scriptures say the chain used to bind Satan is not literal but figurative, and if the chain is not literal then the 1000 year Millennium mentioned six times in the same chapter is not literal either. On the other hand the literalists demand the chain is literal yet concede it may not be physical. They insist that even though Satan is a spirit and cannot be bound with a physical chain, the Lord can make some type of chain that can hold him...but is Satan actually said to be bound with any type of chain? The answer will reveal another literary device used by the Scriptures, inference or implication.

Few seem to realize that Revelation 20 does NOT "literally" say Satan is bound with a chain. Consider the passage,

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (Rev 20:1-3)

Notice the verses state John saw a vision of an angel with a key and chain come down from heaven and then the angel laid hold of and bound the dragon. However, it does not specifically say that he binds the dragon with the chain or even opens the pit with the key! These actions are implied. The vision of the chain is likely an object lesson used to drive home to John (and us) the extent of Satan's binding and not the actual means. The thrust of the passage is not HOW Satan is bound but the fact that he IS literally bound in some way and hindered from deceiving the nations of the world for a specific period of time.

How could any kind of chain whether physical or non physical actually restrain a spirit from influencing others through their mind or spirit? Even if Satan is bound with some sort of mystical, ethereal, non-material chain, how would that keep him from continuing to operate in the minds of men as he has done since Eden? Chains and minds don't mix. The vision of a chain is for our benefit so we can better understand what the Lord is doing because men equate chains with strength and binding. Also, consider that chains are a human invention! There are no chains mentioned in heaven. It is fitting that God used the image of a human invention to bind things to show man that He was going to bind Satan. Thus what John saw in his visions does not necessarily have to match in every detail of what will literally happen when the events occur, but each vision does reveal specific and literal truths the Lord is showing with the vision.

Another example of this is sort of revelation is John's visions of the "beasts" in Revelation chapters 13 and 17. By definition a beast is a four footed animal of some sort, not a human, but even the most strict, Hyper-Literal believer will insist these beasts are not true beasts at all but actually men, specifically the "man of sin" or the Antichrist. Furthermore, the "sea" the beast comes out of is not a literal, watery ocean but actually the sea of nations or humanity. The key lesson is the future events don't have to literally match what John saw in his visions to be true. There is a "beast" coming, but he won't really be a seven headed beast like John saw. He will be a man with a seven-fold aspect of some sort.

Using symbols and figurative language in prophecy to reveal a specific literal truth is a very frequent practice of the Scriptures. The chain in Revelation chapter 20 does not have to speak of a literal chain but of Satan being literally bound, the beast of Rev 13 speaks not of a literal beast but of a literal human Antichrist, and the key to the bottomless pit speaks not of an actual key and gate but of literal access to hell.

Before we move on, we mentioned how the Scriptures do not actually state that Satan is bound with a chain but only imply it. This is a frequent device of the Scriptures. Take the beloved passage in John 14 where Christ says His Father's house has "many mansions,"

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (Joh 14:1-3)

The passage states the fact of the existence of "many mansions," but nowhere does it explicitly state that the mansions are FOR the disciples or that THEY will live in them! This is only implied. Furthermore, if the mansions ARE for the disciples, then WHY does Christ have to "prepare a place" for them since the mansions already exist? Situations like this demand one study context to try and determine the subjects and objects of a passage, but that is still no substitute for an explicit statement which is REQUIRED to PROVE a doctrine. This passage only suggests through context that the mansions are for the disciples. Furthermore, to claim that the promise of a mansion extends to all believers is not even hinted in the context. Christ was only speaking to the disciples, and all the promises of John chapters 14-16 were made only to the disciples. Other believers, like us, are not mentioned until John 17:20! Think about that a week or two. Many believers assume too much and appropriate promises they cannot prove apply to them.

King James Cosmology

1b
Hyper-Literalism and Bible Believers

Bible Believers are so named because they claim to do that very thing—believe the Bible—and that, a specific Bible. The Authorized King James Bible of 1611. They claim to believe what it says, as it says it, without reservation. Your author is among this group. However, some of the brethren are so strict and literal in how one is to believe or approach the Bible that they actually miss some of the truths the Lord is wanting to convey. We call this Hyper-Literalism.

Now as soon as we say believers can be hyper or too literal with some statements in the Scriptures some will puff up and charge us as being "liberal" or even an "unbeliever." This type of reactionary charge is typical. Bible believers as a group have had to deal with true unbelief from Modernism and Liberalism for so long that some over-react and become hyper-literal, even to their own Bible Believing brethren. They insist every passage must be taken strictly literal unless it is absolutely impossible to do so. On the surface this may sound "militant" and "biblical," but problems arise when they force and distort figurative passages to make them "fit" their literalism. In fact, by not allowing obvious figurative language to speak as intended, they hinder or muffle what the Scriptures are actually saying.

In general, that the Bible should be first approached by taking its words literally is a "no brainer." When a person reads the Bible he should assess the words in their plain, normal, natural, obvious sense, much like we would read and understand a newspaper or book. Dr. David Cooper, founder of The Biblical Research Society, is known for his "Golden Rule of Interpretation,"

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.

This rule should be generally followed, but it is not flawless. Scripture uses many literary devices that are not always announced in the immediate context. Devices such as metaphor, allegory, types, hyperbole, idioms, parable, etc. Ethelbert Bullinger wrote a book called "Figures of Speech In the Bible" that details 217 different types of figures. His Companion Bible has many of them marked in the Bible notes.

Cooper's Rule can also be limiting in its scope. He says, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense," but many passages in Scripture have more than one sense or a dual (or even multiple) application. If one just takes the local, immediate sense of say, Gen 22:8 where Abraham says, "My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering," and then seeks no other sense, he misses that the passage is not only speaking about God providing Himself a lamb, but He is also MAKING Himself a lamb!

Again, Scripture is to be first taken literally and plainly, and that is the normal way people approach words. When a person sees or hears any words or speech he naturally (and by instinct it seems) assesses the words literally first and only if they cannot sensibly be taken that way does he consider them as figurative. When the Bible says God "created the heaven and the earth," flooded the earth, parted the Red Sea, sent manna every day, etc., it is natural to take the words at face value. The same when it says Jesus was born of a virgin, died on a cross, rose from the dead, is able to save sinners, and will physically return, etc. Those passages are not unclear, ambiguous, or figurative. If one tries to make them figurative or allegorical he is arguing against the natural and plain meaning of the words. All the key and fundamental doctrines of the Bible are clear, plain, and explicit.

A Prime Example

Although the words of Scriptures should be first addressed literally, there are many passages and statements in the Scriptures that simply should not be taken that way. A lot of this figurative language is found in the Old Testament, but the New Testament has a significant share also. Here is a clear New Testament example straight from the Lord's mouth.

In Acts 9:5, after Paul fell to the earth from the bright light from heaven, the Lord spoke to him and asked, "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." "Pricks" are sharp goads or spikes carried by men plowing with oxen, and if an ox would kick against the prick, it would hurt and could even wound its legs. Here the question arises, would it be physically possible for Paul to be literally harnessed in an ox yoke, pulling a plow, and kicking against the spikes? Well...yes, it is very possible; people have done stranger things. But is that what really happened? Of course not. Even though it could actually occur, it is so outrageous that everyone rightly sees it as a figure. The Lord was referring to how Paul was battling with his conscience in persecuting His people.

With just this one passage the Hyper-Literal "impossible" argument has been shown to be invalid. Their claim that all passages that can be taken literally must be taken literally just doesn't work. Your author has never heard or read anyone who claimed Paul was literally kicking against literal pricks with his literal feet. Nor does he know of any who claim Paul was actually hitched to a literal ox yoke.

Another figure like this in Acts is where the Jews "gnashed on him (Stephen) with their teeth" in Act 7:54. Did they actually chew his flesh with their mouths? Highly unlikely.

How about when Paul said,

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Act 20:29)

Was he talking about literal, canine wolves with four legs or people who seek to devour like wolves? Is a congregation a literal flock of sheep or are sheep a figure of the believer? Likewise when Paul said,

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." (Phi 3:2)

Does he mean German Shepherds and Doberman Pinchers or people who act like dogs? Can you prove it from the context? Is it impossible to beware of literal, four-legged dogs? See the messes the Hyper-Literal make for themselves?

"Wash One Another's Feet"?

There are many comparison type figures in the Scriptures. When the Lord said He was "water," "bread," a "door," a "stone," and a "vine," etc., these are all obvious figures. More than that there are even figurative actions; actions the Lord promoted that many believers now do not perform literally. One is the action of the Lord washing the disciples feet. Here it is not just a few words or a phrase that are figurative, but the whole process. After the Lord washed their feet he said (John 13:14),

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet."

Should this be taken literally? Should believers actually wash one another's feet? That's what the words plainly say, but very few literally practice it. Your author has never been in a Bible Believing church where he saw it practiced. Why do most Bible Believing churches refrain from doing this, even those who are hyper-literal about other things like geocentrism? Its because they see the passage as a metaphor for believers serving each other in general. The inconsistency (and even hypocrisy) is obvious.

What Did You Say?

Here is a figure of speech of another type. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:8, 10,

"Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you...We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised."

Are these statements that should be taken literally at face value? Hardly, Paul is using the literary methods or irony and sarcasm to convey the opposite of what the words actually say! It is a quite common way of speaking. Job did it as well,

"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. (Job 12:2)

This type of speech is made "all the time" (another figure) today: "You really did a good job..." (of wrecking your car).

Words of this type could be taken literally very easily, and it is very possible to do so. However, if these passages and phrases are taken strictly literal then the very message the Scriptures are wishing to convey is completely lost! Now think about that a while.

Idioms For Dummies

Another very common figure of speech in the Scriptures is the idiom. As another said,

"An idiom is a common way of expressing thoughts by words and phrases having an understood meaning that is different from the literal meaning. The intended meaning cannot be comprehended by inspection of the words alone but also by investigation of ordinary usage. Idioms of one's own native language are difficult to detect because they are simply the way we normally put words together. English is full of idiomatic expressions; examples include "real estate," "give way," "take your time," "come up with an idea," "come down with a cold," "work out," "dead even," "level best," "of course," and "how do you do.

"Idioms are often lost when translating, because they differ from language to language. For example, the way to say "good bye" in German is literally "on again to see." The same is true when the Bible is translated into English or any other language. An actual word-for-word idiom translation is difficult to follow. However, some so-called translations today are considered "thought" translations, which are essentially commentaries more than true translations."

Take, for instance, the American English idiom "He bit the dust." What do the words actually say? A rather filthy thing to do, don't you think? But what do the words really mean? To any American of the last 50 years the words mean someone has died, usually by accident. Notice how the words themselves don't even remotely convey the actual meaning of the phrase. There is no way a person speaking another language could understand the meaning of these words EVEN IF ACCURATELY TRANSLATED! The meaning is not in the individual words but in the colloquial use of the phrase. The phrase has a meaning of its own which is independent of the words. Verbal literalism in cases like this is a hindrance to the truth.

Many of the idioms of the King James Bible have become so accustomed to us that we forget some of them are figures. Take for instance the word "seed." The Bible speaks much about men having "seed," but they really don't. Plants have seed (Gen 1:11), men have descendants or heirs. Isaac and Jesus are of the "seed of Abraham." "Seed" is a Hebrew idiom for human descendants. And, of course, we all know what the biblical "know" means (Gen 5:1). The first part of Jeremiah 4:4 ("Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart") would really be a mess if you tried to make those descriptive words literal. Hebrew is a very expressive language and the King James Bible masterfully translates it into English, idioms and all.

The Bible says Jerusalem is the "apple of his [God's] eye" (Zec 2:8). This is a double idiom of sorts because people do not have apples in their eyes, and if they did, what would it mean? The "apple" is an idiom for the pupil, but what does it mean to say something is the "pupil of mine eye"? That is a idiom stating something is very dear or precious to a person. To take the phrase as literal is meaningless.

Ever read in the parable of the "Good Samaritan" about how the thieves left the man "half dead" (Luke 10:30)? How could that possibly be taken literally? A person is either dead or not. There are "literally" (smile!) thousands of idioms and other figures in the Bible that by their very nature should not be taken literally. Again, to do so is to miss the very intent of the passages the Lord is wanting to convey.

Clearly, the "cut and dried" world of the Hyper-Literal is not so "cut and dried"?

Of Heart and Eyes

Often the Bible uses parts of the human anatomy as figures of speech. The "heart," for instance, is the most often used. Everyone knows what one's literal heart is. It's the organ that pumps blood through your body. An interesting observation is, to your author's knowledge, out of the 833 times "heart" is found in the Bible, not once does it refer to the physical organ. Instead the term most often figuratively refers to one's inner being: the center of man's thinking, emotions, and will. As the physical heart is in the center of one's body, his spiritual heart is the center of the man himself. As the Way Of Life Encyclopedia states,

"Man thinks in his heart (Ge. 6:5; Pro. 23:7). He understands with his heart (Pro. 2:2). He deviseth his way with his heart (Pr. 16:9). The heart meditates (Psa. 19:14), considers (De. 4:39), purposes (Da. 1:8), takes counsel (Pr. 20:5), reasons (Lk. 5:22), desires (Ro. 10:1), has intents (He. 4:12). From the heart proceed all the actions and motivations of man (Pro. 4:23-27; Mt. 15:18-20). The mind is used as a synonym for the heart (De. 28:65; 1 Sa. 2:35; 1 Ch. 28:9; Da. 5:20; Phil. 4:7; He. 8:10). The heart/mind is the source of the thoughts and imaginations (Gen. 6:5; De. 15:9; 1 Ch. 29:18; Pro. 23:7)."

Even though the term heart is used in several different applications, every time it is used in the Bible it is figurative. Fascinating.

Much the same can be said about the"eye." Although the physical eye is referred to many times (Gen 13:10; Mat 20:34, etc.), the spiritual, inner "eye" is the primary usage of the term. When Adam and Eve's "eyes were opened," it was not their literal, physical eyes, it was their spiritual inner eye or sight that was given. In this case their inner sight could see evil. On the flip side, after Paul's conversion, one of the things the Lord said he would do among the Gentiles was "open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light" (Act 26:18). The eyes are figurative (as is the "darkness" and "light"). Later in Acts 28:27 when the Jews refused to hear Paul's message he said,

"For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

The "heart," "ears," and "eyes" are all figurative uses of human organs. The organs represent the inner spiritual aspects of the human condition. Treating the terms as literal would greatly cloud the intent of the message.

What About the Parables?

One of the Lord's preferred methods of communication was with "parables" (Mark 4:34), and a parable is the epitome of a figure of speech. The Greek word behind parable ("parabole") is even translated as "figure" in Heb 9:9. By its very design it is not to be taken literally. A parable is generally defined as "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson," and the story may or may not be actually true. The Lord spoke using a parable around 50 times.

Although most parables could be taken in some sense literally, to do so would wreck its entire message. take for instance the parable of the shepherd and his lost sheep,

And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. (Luk 15:3-7)

Notice how unlike some of the other parables this one is personalized to those present, "What man of you...." Does this charge only apply to them? Furthermore, the story only deals with shepherds and sheep. Does that mean that those of us who are not shepherds can ignore it? See how the flow goes? Taking this account as strictly literal, even though it is possible, essentially "guts it" to where it has no meaning. However, when the story is used as it is intended, the meaning is very clear—Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He came to seek us as a sheep who had "gone astray" (Isa 53:6) and to save you (Luke 19:10).

If you want to get into a quagmire, however, start pushing the figures a little harder into doctrine a see the problems that arise. Suppose you make the lost sheep a saved man as the Bible often does in other places (John 10:26-28). How do you explain the shepherd (Christ) loosing one of his sheep, especially when He says, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall NEVER PERISH, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:28)? If you make the sheep a lost person, the shepherd is said to LEAVE the 99 saved sheep while looking for the lost one! This is the same Shepherd who said "I will NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee" (Heb 13:5)! Either way the parable becomes a hindrance to truth rather than an aid when pushed too far.

Ah, the messes some of the brethren make for themselves. Obviously, the parable is not meant to be pushed that hard or read that literal. To do so renders it pretty much meaningless. This is much the same for many other parables.

Figurative Language Between Members of the Godhead

It may come as a surprise to many, but figurative language is so pervasive in the Scriptures that it is even used between members of the Godhead (or Trinity). Look at Luke 10:21,

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

Notice how the Lord thanks the Father for revealing truths unto "babes." Does He really mean infants who may not even "know their right hand from the left," or does he mean those who are not considered "wise and prudent" by themselves and the world? Obviously, "babes" is used in the latter sense. Also, Look at John 17:12

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

"Son of perdition"? Perdition is a state of being, not a person. Perdition is essentially the opposite of salvation; the state of lostness. It can only have children in a figurative sense.

Of course, Judas is the person in question and it is interesting that when talking about him the Lord and His Father use a description of him instead of his name. Hum...what would your name be?

Saying a person is a "son of" something is a common Hebrew idiom showing a relationship between the person and what he is the "son of" ("sons of the prophets", "son of Belial," etc.)

While in the Garden of Gethsemane the Lord prayed (Matt 26:39),

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Was the Lord desiring a literal (wooden, glass, metal, etc.) "cup" pass from Him? Of course not. The cup is a figure of His Father's wrath which He was to bear on the cross. That the members of the Godhead communicate using figures of speech is very interesting. It shows that figures in language are not necessarily a human invention and are used to accommodate man's understanding.

Too Literal Can Be Dangerous

Those who hold to Hyper-Literalism refrain from mentioning the passages where being too literal is not only an error but can even be dangerous. Consider the Christ's words in John 6,

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life...For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed...He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him..." (Joh 6:53-57)

This is the famous passage used by Roman Catholics to "prove" that one must "eat" the actual flesh of Christ to "receive" Him. On the basis of taking this literally the Catholics invented the doctrine of "Transubstantiation" where their priests can magically change normal bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutherans also believe a form of this by claiming "that Christ is in, with and under the forms of bread and wine." Christ's words are quite clear and if taken literally they would mean exactly what they say. They were so clear that many of the disciples He was speaking too became so perplexed they said, "...This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" and eventually left Him.

Passages like this are a bane to the Hyper-Literal Bible Believer. Bible Believers do not teach one must actually eat the flesh of Christ to get eternal life so how are they going to consistently deal with them? They can't. They usually try to bluff their way through by insisting eating Christ's flesh should not to be taken literally because it is impossible, but on the other hand all the passages THEY want to take literal must be treated as such.

The answer to passages like this is to take them the way the Bible presents the subject as a whole. If the language is figurative, deal with it as such. If not, take it literally. Plowing through passages with a fixed mentality, whether taking words literal or allegorical, will lead to error along the way. (The Catholics are in error here because in vs 63 Christ clarifies matters by saying, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing...")

Preterism is another heretical view that overemphasizes the "literalness" of certain passages.

"Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the Biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days (or End Times) refer to events which actually happened in the first century after Christ's birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past." Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. Preterists believe that the Second Coming of Christ took place in 70 A.D. and they also believe that the "great tribulation" (Matt. 24:21) took place in or around 70 A.D."

One passage they often quote is Matt 16:28,

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

They insist this verse must be taken absolutely literally and then use it to "prove" that Christ's second coming had to occur before the disciples died who were present when He spoke. Matthew 24:34; 26:24 and a few more verses are used in a similar manner. If the verse is taken literally in a stand-alone manner it does say what they claim, but if one reads the next chapter where Christ is transfigured before the disciples eyes, he realizes Christ was speaking of that event. The kingdom did not actually arrive but a foretaste of the King's glory was on display which was a figure of His actual coming in the future. A lot can be learned from this passage about how the Lord uses words and His intended meaning with them.

Of Course, another group that gets into a mess by taking certain Bible passages too literal are the above mentioned Open Theists. The primary error of the Open Theists is taking passages literal that should be taken figuratively and on that basis insisting God is subject to time. Remember above where we mentioned the Scriptures using "anthropomorphisms" to describe God's actions? Since in the Scriptures the Lord is speaking to men on earth, He often uses human methods and human attributes to describe Himself. By taking these passages as literal (like a good Hyper-Literal), they actually end up teaching heresy.

Figurative Language—How Can One Tell?

From the examples we have mentioned above (and more to follow) it should be quite clear that figurative language is common in the Scriptures. We also demonstrated that to try and force the figurative language into strict or wooden literalism leads to error at the least and heresy at the worst. The way to approach the language of the Scriptures is to simply let them speak in their natural manner. Every word is truth, even the most literal truth, but many of the words only reveal their literal truth when they are not taken absolutely literal themselves. Here is what Ethelbert Bullinger says about figures in Appendix 6 of his Companion Bible (emphasis mine),

A "Figure of speech" relates to the form in which the words are used. It consists in the fact that a word or words are used out of their ordinary sense, or place, or manner, for the purpose of attracting our attention to what is thus said. A Figure of speech is a deigned and legitimate departure from the laws of language, in order to emphasize what is said. Hence in such Figures we have the Holy Spirit's own marking, so to speak, of His own words.

This peculiar form or unusual manner may not be true, or so true, to the literal meaning of the words; but it is more true to their real sense, and truer to truth. Figures are never used but for the sake of emphasis. They can never, therefore, be ignored. Ignorance of Figures of speech has led to the grossest errors, which have been caused either from taking literally what is figurative, or from taking figuratively what is literal.

Here some will complain, "If we allow figurative language in the Bible, then how can we know what is figurative and what isn't?" or "Everyone will have a different idea as to what is figurative and use it to explain away what is actually true, such as creation, the miracles, Christ's resurrection and return, etc."

First, there is almost always no problem for a rational human being who can comprehend natural and normal language to determine the figurative from the literal. Take Matthew 7:15 for instance,

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

Is there any problem in determining that the "prophets" are literal and the "sheep's clothing" and "ravenous wolves" are figurative? How about Matthew 21:42 where it says,

"...The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner:..."

That whole phrase is figurative. The "stone," "builders," and "corner" do not literally exist, but does anyone have any problem understanding the truth of the words when considered in their context?

Bible prophecy often has figurative symbolism associated with it. Here are a few examples,

SYMBOL | EXPLANATION | REFERENCE
Head of Gold | Nebuchadnezzar | Dan. 2:37-38
Rock cut out of mountain | Kingdom of God | Dan. 2:44-45
Ten horns of 4th beast | Ten kings | Dan. 7:24
Two-horned ram | Medo-Persian kings | Dan. 8:20
Woman in bushel | Iniquity of the land | Zech. 5:6
Seven stars | Angels of the churches | Rev. 1:20
Seven lampstands | Seven churches of Asia | Rev. 1:20
Bowls of incense | Prayers of saints | Rev. 5:8
Great dragon | Satan, Devil | Rev. 12:9
Ten horns of beast | Ten kings | Rev. 17:12

from Walther C. Kaiser, Jr. Back Toward the Future, Baker Books, 1989.

Often just reading these symbols within their context will clear them up. Usually the Scriptures will specifically state what the figure represents like Satan is called a "dragon" (Rev 12:9). Is he really a reptilian dragon like "Godzilla"? Or is he really a "roaring lion" (1Pet 5:8) from the plains of Africa? No, but those comparisons do effectively describe his characteristics much more than just saying Satan is a "bad guy."

Guidelines for Determining Figures of Speech

As we mentioned earlier, figures of speech usually present themselves quite obviously, however some can be a little more elusive. When confronted with a passage that the reader may believe contains a figure of speech there are a few guidelines that will help.

First, always try to take the words literally. If it makes little or no sense to apply it literally, then it's probably a figure of speech. As we saw above with the example of Paul kicking against the pricks, using the "impossible test" will often fail. One cannot reliably insist that a passage must be impossible to take literally before it should be taken figuratively.

Once a figure is determined, let the context determine the meaning of the figure.

Then look for what is behind the figure; what the figure represents.

Look for specific points of similarity and difference.

Be careful not to force the figure past the author's intended meaning. Just like the parables, there's a limit to the meaning of any figure of speech.

When one follows these guidelines, much of the Bible's figurative language will easily be understood.

King James Cosmology

1c
Figurative Language And geocentrism

In the previous chapters we looked at how the Bible uses figurative language in general. In this chapter we will examine figurative language in the context of Geocentric and Flat Earth cosmology.

The Traveling Sun?

Geocentrists often mention how the Scriptures portray the heavens from a Geocentric perspective, and in this they are correct. The Bible does speak of the sun, moon, stars, and heavens in general from an earthly, geocentric standpoint, as everyone does yet today. Even the most die-hard Heliocentrist speaks of "sunrise," "sunset," etc., in his normal conversation. We all live on the earth and naturally view the physical world from an earthly perspective, and since the Scriptures were written for men on the earth, they also speak from an earthly perspective. They speak to men "under the sun" (Ecc 1:3).

The geocentrists will often brag about how they have 100, 200, or even 300 verses in the Bible that show geocentrism is true, but upon examination almost all of them are relative, earth perspective statements. For an example we will look at the first mention of the "sun" rising found in the Scripture, Gen 19:23,

"The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar."

Consider these words carefully. It says the "sun was risen upon the earth." If this is taken as an absolute statement then there must be a time when the sun is NOT risen or shining upon the earth...but that is not possible! The sun is shining somewhere on the earth at all times in any cosmological system. When pushed on this the geocentrists will usually say, "Well...here the earth is not the whole earth but just the local area." Ah, equivocating already. Their absolute approach to dealing with these terms is falling apart at their very first "proof" verse!

If one will be honest with the Scriptures and himself he will admit the sun does not literally and absolutely set in any scenario. It is always relatively moving and shining on half the earth at any given time. To "set" means to stop or rest. The sun never does. This simple observation proves that when the Bible speaks of sunrise/sunset it is plainly speaking from the local, relative perspective of a person on the earth gazing into the sky. It is by no means making a dogmatic, absolute statement about the movement of heavenly bodies. When the sun is setting for me, at the same moment it may be rising for you.

When cornered with this fact the geocentrists will then claim, "Well...the terms still mean the sun is the object doing the moving even if it doesn't actually set." Really? We shall see.

The Lord Sets the Precedent

For scriptural proof the Lord and His Scriptures speak from an earthly frame of reference we only need to look at one of His most profound promises. In Genesis 15:5 the Lord made a key promise to Abraham. He told Abe to gaze into the sky and "Tell the stars if thou be able to number them?". Then the Lord, in just five words, unloaded an unconditional promise that still has huge ramifications today. He told Abe, "So shall thy seed be." This promise that Abraham's seed would number as the stars speaks of the beginning of the nation of Israel and of Israel's seed, Jesus Christ. This promise based of the number of the starts was reiterated again and again,

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven,..." (Gen 22:17)

"And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,..." (Gen 26:4)

Several hundred years later, after Israel was freed from Egyptian bondage, Moses said to them (Deut 1:10),

"The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude."

He said again in Deut 10:22 (see also Deut 28:62),

"Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude."

Nehemiah even gets in on this (Neh 9:23),

"Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land..."

And the author of Hebrews gives a New Testament confirmation of the promise's fulfillment (Heb 11:12),

"Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude,..."

Many times the Scriptures say this promise has been fulfilled, but how could this be? Did Abe already have billions and billions of descendants, as many as all the existing stars, only 400 years or so later? At most Abraham could only have had two million or so descendants (Ex 12:37), no where near the number of stars that are in the heavens (100 billion in our Milky Way Galaxy alone!). How do we reconcile this? Simple, the Lord was using Abraham's limited human vision and earthly perspective of the heavens as the quantifying basis for His promise. He did not use as the quantifier the literal, absolute number of the stars of heaven as He knows them (Psa 147:4). He only used the number of stars Abraham could actually see: probably less than three thousand stars, even on a very clear night.

Imagine the scene: in a manner of speaking the Lord is on His throne in the third heaven looking down through all the billions and billions of galaxies He created (100 to 200 billion estimated at present), each with around 100 billion stars, finally stopping his gaze at tiny planet earth and sees an old man standing looking up into the heavens; looking back towards Him. Then the Lord tells the man to count the stars (if he can), knowing the man with his very limited human vision can only see 2,000-3,000 of the very brightest stars that are near the earth. Then the Lord makes a promise generally based upon the number of stars the man sees.

This scriptural observation sets a precedent of the "frame of reference" the Lord uses when He communicates with man and relays information. Unless specifically and clearly shown otherwise, the Bible perspective of reality and the universe is from the earth, and that is the basis of the "geocentric" terminology the Bible uses.

Here are even more texts that indicate this,

"Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD." (Oba 1:4)

Can birds fly to the stars? Since we know NOW the nearest star is over four light-years away, it is impossible. However, from a human perspective 3000 years ago, the stars are in heaven and birds fly in heaven, so the concept is somewhat conceivable.

"Thou (Nineveh) hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven:..."

Really? There were more merchants in Nineveh 2500 years ago than the stars of heaven? From who's perspective God's or an earth bound man? Obviously, this is not an absolute statement. No, geocentrists, God is not deceiving us; He is simply using figurative, relative, and even hyperbolic language. In these cases it is not only relative for the location, but also for the time period.

The Host of Heaven Innumerable?

In relation to the Lord having Abraham count the stars 4000 years ago, around 1400 years later he said through Jeremiah (Jer 33:22),

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me."

Here the Lord is not referring to the children of Israel, but of David's seed. However, this time He says the host or stars of heaven cannot be numbered. Ah...it seems a little advanced revelation is going on here! The Lord told Abraham to count all the stars he saw and then fulfilled the promise a few hundred years later. Many centuries after Abraham a Greek named Ptolemy counted a total of 1026 visible stars claiming they could be numbered thus "proving" Jeremiah 33:22 is an overstatement or false. Today we know the truth of the passage. The stars in heaven cannot be numbered, no more than the sand of the sea.

Note: A few years ago some researchers tried to estimate the number of stars in the known universe and the number of grains of sand on all the sea shores. Obviously, no exact number of either can be determined by man, and it never will be. The best we can do is estimate. They determined that there are 70 thousand million million million (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars visible from the Earth through telescopes. This is roughly 10 times more than there are grains of sand on all the beaches. Looking in another direction, there are about the same number of water molecules in 10 drops of water as there are stars in the heavens! God's creation contains very small things as well as very large.

Notice the Lord does not say in Jeremiah 33:22 that the seed of David will number as many as the host of heaven; it says they will be innumerable as the sand is innumerable. The number could be much less and still innumerable. Nevertheless, in this instance the Lord said the stars cannot be numbered. Around 600 BC when these words were spoken men could not see anymore stars in the sky than they could in Abraham's day. However, the Lord progressed from "tell the stars" to you can't number them in that time period. This seems to be an instance of progressive revelation hidden in the Scriptures which Bible readers could only understand AFTER the telescope was invented in 1608!

A Few Grains of Sand

In Genesis 22:17 the Lord reaffirmed the promise to Abraham concerning his seed. He again mentioned he would multiply his seed as the stars of heaven, but also added another quantifying comparison?the sand which is upon the sea shore." The number of Abraham's descendants drastically increased with this "enhanced" promise! Before it was a few thousand according to the number of visible stars (which certainly tickled Abraham), but now it is much, much more. Anyone can stand on the beach and by merely looking between his feet see more grains of sand than he can stars in the sky. Thus with this new quantifier, Abraham realized his descendants would be as countless as the sand.

Later on in the Scriptures it is revealed that the terms "stars of the sky" and "sand by the sea" are metaphors for an innumerable amount. The actual number (which God only knows) is not to be taken literally. Look at Judges 7:12,

"And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude."

Obviously, there were not as many camels as there is sand by the sea side, but the camels were just as uncountable. The phrases are thus figures of speech. Further proof of this is found in Revelation 20:8,

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

The earth cannot hold as many people as there are actual grains of sand (7 thousand million million million), so, again, this verse is speaking figuratively of a countless number.

To Wax and Wane

Another fascinating phrase found multiple times in the Bible is where it speaks of the sun "waxing hot" during the day (Exo 16:21, 1Sam 11:9, Neh 7:3). The phrase has a very clear and understandable meaning: as the day progresses and the sun appears higher in the sky, the local "heat" from the sun increases. This is something everyone has experienced and when the Bible speaks of it the meaning is instantly understood. However, the sun "waxing hot" is a bane to the geocentrists. They will never bring the verses up and when confronted with them they usually become very defensive, irrational, and even combative. The reason? If they treat these verses as literal as they treat the sunrise verses, they will look like blank fools.

Look at Exo 16:21,

"And they gathered it (manna) every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted."

What does it mean if this verse is taken absolutely literally? It means the sun actually, in itself, gets hotter. But that simply can't happen because when it is noon and "hot" in one place, it is dawn and dusk (and thus cooler) in other places, all from the same sun. Obviously, the sun itself is NOT changing its temperature; it does not actually get hotter. What is changing is the sun's angle of exposure to a local area. At mid-day the sun's rays are the most direct. At dawn and dusk they are weaker and diluted because of the shallow angle.

Example: Take a flashlight, for instance. Turn the light on and hold it directly over a desk so that the beam is shining straight down. The light will be a bright circle not much larger than the lens of the flashlight. Now hold the light almost flat or horizontal on the desk so the beam is shooting all the way across it. See how the light is spread across a much larger area and the brightness is diminished? The amount of light and heat generated by the flashlight is constant, but since it is spread out over a wider area when held at a shallow angle its relative intensity at any given spot is weaker. Now imaging holding a light bulb over a basketball in a dark room. Although it is a little harder to see, the light will be brighter on the center of the ball facing the light that it will be on the very edges of the light. The same goes for the sun and earth. The light and heat reaching the edges of the earth is "thinner" than the heat hitting it "head on."

Rational people realize the sun cannot change its temperature every day to increase the temperature only in a very localized area. They understand when the Bible says the sun "waxed hot," it is speaking in a relative, local sense. However, some geocentrists try to "have their cake and eat it too." One insisted the sun absolutely and literally got hotter, but only in a local sense, but "saying doesn't make it so." This is a conflation of terms. Something cannot be absolutely true in a local sense. As the dictionary states, "Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places." It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances." Either the sun absolutely waxed hot or it didn't, and as we have seen, the sun itself cannot get hotter in one locale and not another.

A Key Revelation

Now the question arises, why does the Lord use relative language in some places that is impossible to be taken literally? He could have said "the day waxed hot" instead of the sun and there would have been no issue...but maybe he wanted an issue! Maybe He wanted to make it clear to Bible readers that references to the sun in His book are to be understood from an earthly perspective. There could be other reasons, but when it comes to creation, the movement of the heavenly bodies, geocentrism, and even the Flat Earth idea, it appears the Lord wants to be purposely vague. What do the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" tells us? Relatively, they tell us that from the earth it appears the sun is moving, but the only absolute conclusion one can arrive at is simply there is movement of something.

How passages like this are dealt with will reveal ones maturity and consistency in dealing with the scriptures. If a geocentrist treats the action of the sun waxing hot as absolute as he treats the action of the sun "moving" when it sets or rises, to be consistent he must conclude the sun itself (its body) is in some unknown way getting hotter in a very local area. But since only an ignoramus would contend this, the Hyper-Literal geocentrists are in a dilemma. They either have to confound the terms and hope no one will notice; admit the terms are relative, perspective language; or look like a blank fool.

The simple fact is "sunrise" no more requires the sun to move than "waxed hot" requires it to get hotter. The Scriptures have "thrown a monkey wrench" into the geocentrist's whirling contraption of geocentrism. The honest and spiritual believer will acknowledge what the Lord has done with this obvious relative language and try to learn from it. The "simple," however, will continue on in his simpleness.

A geocentrist Answers

Since most of the verses that deal with the sun "moving" in some way have been dealt with, the geocentrists only have a few other Bible passages to appeal to for support, and we will look at them in the following chapters on Bible Cosmology. Nevertheless, during the summer of 2017 your author posted a list of questions for geocentrists on Facebook. The only geocentrist to sensibly address them all was one of the most notable among them, Robert Sungenis. He kindly answered every one without ridicule or mockery and without an air of defensiveness (a bad habit of some of the Bible-believing geocentrists) Sungenis was quick to admit that most Bible verses that deal with the sun moving, etc., were what is known as "phenomenal language." That is, the language of the senses or appearance.

When asked, about sun rising and sun setting being relative to the observer. Sungenis replied, "Correct, since the "Sun rising" and "Sun setting" is phenomenal language."

When asked about the sun waxing hot, He replied, "This is merely phenomenal language..."

When asked about Nahum 3:16 where it says says, "Thou (Nineveh) hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven," and if he believes that to be literally and absolutely true? He replied, "It is phenomenal and hyperbolic language that humans uses frequently, as does Scripture."

When asked, "Were the merchants greater in number than the stars of heaven or were they placed physically above the stars?" Sungenis answered, "It is a figure of speech."

It is clear Sungenis realizes that many of the passages used by most Bible Believing geocentrists to prove their claims are not to be taken in an absolute, literal sense. They speak using phenomenal language. It is a shame that a Roman Catholic (Sungenis) can make these obvious and necessary distinctions but the Bible Believing Fundamentalists often cannot.

In the following chapters we will examine the Bible to try and determine its "cosmology," and address most of geocentrism's other key arguments.

King James Cosmology

2a
Bible Cosmology — Is There Such A Thing?
Part 1

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 occurs.

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 desire. 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 statement,

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

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 Lord's design.

Water...Where?

Genesis 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 detail.

"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 presuppositions. 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 geocentrism.

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 waters."

So there is/was at least two places of "waters." God put the firmament (first and second heavens) in between the waters. Verse 7 continues,

"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 earth.

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 "gospel.

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.

What is the "Earth" Anyway?

Above we mentioned how geocentrists (and others) entertain presuppositions when they deal with Scripture. They bring preconceived ideas to the table they assume to be true without biblical support. Calvinists are notorious in doing this. They assume personal "election" to salvation before the foundation of the world and thus see election everywhere in the Bible. One of the geocentrist's presuppositions is they assume "the earth" in the Bible is a "planet" or celestial body, but the Bible never speaks of the earth in such a manner. When people today think of the earth, they think of a spinning planet  surrounded by the sun, moon, other planets, and stars within a vast universe (well, most think of it this way). Again, the Bible never presents the earth and the heavens this way at all. It is a foreign concept.

In the Bible the earth and heaven(s) are distinctly separate concepts. The earth is never said to be within the heavens or surrounded by them like we now understand the universe surrounding a planet. The heavens are always spoken of as ABOVE the earth (Gen 1:20, 23:39; Exo 20:4; Act 2:16; etc.) and separate from it.

Here you may ask, "Is not the earth a planet that IS surrounded by the universe?" Yes, it is, but you didn't learn that from the Bible. You (mankind) learned that by the progressive revelation of nature to man (Psa 19:1). God did not let that truth be fully known until just a few hundred years ago, and He let Japeth find it. Not the Hebrews.

The Bible tells us what it means when it says "earth" — it is "dry land." Genesis chapter 1 defines its own terms and it defines "earth" in vs 9-10,

9, And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
    10, And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

All is clear. "Earth" first appeared in vs 9 and was named such in vs 10. It is not a "planet earth" surrounded by a universe; it is a landmass surrounded by but distinct from water.

The primary definition of "earth" in any standard dictionary agrees with the Scripture definition; it is "soil," "ground," or "areas of land as distinguished from sea and air" (Merriam/Webster), and since none of these existed until Gen 1:9, there was no tangible "earth" until then. Insisting the Bible speaks of the earth as a planet surrounded by the heavens only confuses the matter. A true Bible student lets the Bible define its own terms.

The order of creation described in Genesis chapter one is the physical or material reality, then water (not explicitly stated), light (from which night and day arise), then a firmament called "Heaven" (to divide the waters), then the gathering of waters to "let" land appear. The conventional thought is the land was already there from vs 1 and only revealed in vs 9. Sounds nice, but can you prove it? Psalms 95:5 indicates otherwise,

The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land.

Take note of the order again, first the sea was made and His very hands formed the "dry land" afterwards! This is the creation of "earth." For another example see Jonah 1:9,

I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.

Again, the sea (of water) first and earth or land second.

David makes a clear distinction between "the earth" and "the sea" (Psa 65:5),

By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

Notice that "all the ends of the earth," which refers to the whole earth, does not include those "upon the sea." It refers to the earth as the whole landmass which does not include anything other than "dry land." The earth and the sea are kept distinctly separate. Even Psalms 24:1-2 shows this distinction,

The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Here also the earth was founded or established upon the seas. Many quote verse 1 as if it refers to a "planet earth." Verse 2 makes it clear it doesn't.

When a Bible reader suppresses his natural presupposition to think of the earth as a planet or some type of celestial object and instead uses the Bible's own definition of "dry land," it brings new light and perspective to the Scriptures. For instance, considering the earth being a landmass such as a continent allows all the verses that speak of the earth having foundations (Psa 102:25, 104:5) and pillars (1Sa 2:8; Job 9:6) make sense. How does a whole planet floating in space have a foundation or pillars holding it up? It doesn't. Foundations and pillars speak of the base of the earth. As for when Job said the Lord "hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7), it means just that. The earth as "dry land" is hanging on nothing because it is supported from beneath (Job 38:6; Psa 104:5).

Note: In the remainder of this work, we will refer to the earth as a planet when referring to the geocentrist's usage and claims, but when referencing the Scripture's use of the term we will render it as the land mass it truly is. For a fuller treatment of this subject, see our work, The Genesis Gap Mishap.

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 insurmountably 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 practical.

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,

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 possibility.

By the Light of the Moon

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 verses,

"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)

"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)

"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.

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 into blood,"

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 up?

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 north: "

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 King.

"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... "

Moses also knew the Lord is northward (Lev 1:11),

"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 1:9-11)

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 handywork.

2, Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3, There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

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 the sun,

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 1 makes it clear the subject is the heavens and the firmament.

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." (Remember, this refers to the dry landmass, not a planet.) 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 (land), 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 on earth.

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 known,

"The LORD is my shepherd" — You are not a sheep and He is not a shepherd.

"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?

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.

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 Bible dishonestly.

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.).

King James Cosmology

2b
Bible Cosmology? Is There Such A Thing?
Part 2

Joshua's Long Day

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 were 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: Joshua! 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; a 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!

The Midst of Heaven

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 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. The Lord is toying with them like a cat does a mouse.

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.

Note: For a little comic relief from the words 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 His 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.

Only The Shadow Knows

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. So if we follow Dr. Bouw argument in Joshua 10:12 found above, these are the words of Isaiah, the narrator of his book and the events are from man's perspective and not "inspired." Hogwash.

Nevertheless, 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?

The Immobile Earth?

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 "Fear 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.

Earth vs the World

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 (land) literally afraid? How can inanimate land 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 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 passage 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 (land) 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 (remember, though, the Bible defines earth as dry land), 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.)

To Move or Not to Move

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 earth (land) 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: the 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?

Circles and Circuits

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. However, as we have seen, the Bible defines earth as "dry land." The Lord sitting upon a circle of land is a more reasonable explanation of the verse than Him sitting on a ball shaped planet (something Isaiah knew nothing about) like a bird on its nest. Nevertheless, there is another 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. This would also be a concept Isaiah knew nothing about.

Note: Some of the geocentrists and even young earth creationists try very hard to make the "circle" of Isaiah 40:22 a sphere. They desperately need some kind of biblical proof to show the earth is a globe. Try as they may, however, the "circle" is just a circle. It is simply a two dimensional construct which is defined by the shape of it perimeter. The Lord did not see fit to say any more.

That the "circle of the earth" could be its orbit cannot be disproven if you tried all night. Why? Because today it is understood by most that the earth has an orbit or circuit that is generally circular (actually it is elliptical). In Isaiah's day the term could have referred to the perceived shape of the landmass, firmament, or even the horizon, but today it can refer to more.

Moreover, Isaiah chapter 40 is another place where the Scriptures are "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!)

In summary, 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 with the knowledge we have today 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.

To Sum It All Up

In these two chapters we have looked at basically every scriptural claim the geocentrists use to try and defend their contentions, and 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.

Thought Experiment: 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.

Could it be Plainer?

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.) One can read how geocentrists constantly talk about the earth being the center of the universe, but there is not one 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; actually 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!)

King James Cosmology

2c
Those Pesky "Flat-Earthers"

For the most part we have been addressing the "global" geocentrists; those who believe the earth is a globe or ball. The other geocentrism faction is the Flat-Earth variety. Concerning strict geocentrism they believe essentially the same—the earth is stable and the universe or the bodies in it moves, but there the similarities end.

The globalists contend the universe is designed much the same as the heliocentrists. That is, the earth is a round planet surrounded by the universe. Their key difference with the heliocentrists is over what moves. However, the Flat-Earthers describe a flat earth with a much smaller universe only above it. Many insist there is a solid dome or "firmament" that contains this universe.

These differences make the Flat-Earthers and "globals" rivals for the "truth." The "globals" think the "pancakers" are unscientific and the pancakers think the globals are afraid to fully believe the Bible. Watching them argue is like watching two drunken brothers mud-wrestling.

Curiously, the Flat-Earthers have been gaining disciples in the last few years while the ball-earthers have remained fairly stagnant or even lost some members. As we mentioned the modern version of geocentrism is only around 30-40 years old, but the current Flat-Earthism is only around 15 years old. It does not take much examination to realize that Flat-Earthism is an offshoot of strict geocentrism.

Ironically, the global geocentrists insistence that certain terms in the Bible like "sunrise," the earth not moving, the sun stood still, etc., must be taken literally has encouraged the Flat-Earth crowd in their beliefs. They simply take more verses literal than their global brothers. Maybe THEY are the ultimate Bible Believers!

The Flat-Earthers' beliefs are short and simple. Here is a brief list in their own words,

The earth is flat and finite. Its boundary may be circular, but the earth is most certainly not a sphere as was hypothesized by Eratosthenes. The placement of globes in public classrooms can only serve to promote ecology as a possible state religion.

The sky is the roof over the earth — a solid impervious barrier that protects both believers and non-believers from the waters beyond.

The stars on the sky are much smaller than the earth. (The word "on" is not a typographical error here.) The notion of "distant suns" is nothing more than a theory entertained by misguided scientists.

The laws of physics as they exist on the earth are different from those of the sun, moon, stars, and planets.

As for their Scriptural arguments, they do have them, and they are as "sound" as any other geocentrist argument.

To show that the earth is flat they use

Job 28:24 — "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;"

Psa 19:6 — "...and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

Dan 4:11 — "...and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"

Mat 4:8 — "...and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;"

Isa 40:22 — "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

Psa 136:6 — "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters...."

Isa 44:24 — "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer...that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

To show the extent of the earth, that it has "ends," they use,

Psa 103:12— "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us."

Deu 28:64— "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other;"

Deu 33:17— "...with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth.... (Also, 1Sa 2:10, Job 28:24 Job 38:13, Psa 46:9, Isa 41:9, Jer 51:16, etc.)"

Psa 19:4— "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world...."

Psa 22:27— "All the ends of the world shall remember...."

Dan 4:11— "...and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"

Mar 13:27— "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

They also use the verses speaking about the "foundations" of the earth, the "pillars" of the earth, and so on. As for the nature of the sky, they insist it is solid and like a tent or dome which we all live under.

Job 22:14 — "Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven."

Pro 8:27 — "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"

Isa 48:13 — "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens:..."

Concerning the stars they insist,

"The stars are exactly as they appear — mere points of light fastened to the sky that would fall to earth were they ever dislodged. Distant suns, far larger than the earth could not fall to earth but small points of light could."

Their verses for this are obvious,

Dan 8:10 — "...and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them."

Mat 24:29 — "...and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

Mar 13:25 — "And the stars of heaven shall fall...."

Rev 6:13 — "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...."

Rev 12:4 — "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...."

You should see where they are coming from. They take verses that are figurative and relative and treat them as absolutely wooden literal. They put their global geocentrist brethren to shame when it comes to taking the Bible literally...and it seems to make some of the globalists "knash at their teeth." They are supposed to be the "literal" ones! They can't be upstaged by the scientifically ignorant who appear more "biblical."

Ironically, the global geocentrists don't really have any Scriptural argument against the Flat-Earthers. Yes, a few try to come up with some like claiming there is no sunrise or sunset in a Flat-Earth view, but that is merely an act of desperation with no sound basis. As we mentioned earlier, the sun does "rise" in a Flat-Earth model. It rises over one's head from the east horizon and goes down to the west horizon every day.

The only real arguments the globalists can present are practical, visual, or "scientific" in nature. The Bible doesn't aid them in this regard one bit.

We will have more on the Flat-Earth under the following Science chapters.

King James Cosmology

3a
God's Revelation of Himself

How Do We Know?

God reveals knowledge of Himself to mankind in primarily three ways. Any Bible Believer will agree that the Scriptures as found in the AV are the revelation of God. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." and much of that doctrine reveals details about the God of heaven Himself and His son Jesus Christ.

Another means of revelation is through man's conscience (Rom 2). Unless it has been seared (1Tim 4:2), man's conscience convicts him when he does something wrong. The Holy Spirit convicts a person of sin as well (John 16:8). Thus since the conscience and the work of the Holy Spirit tell us that some actions and thoughts are wrong, one can reasonably conclude these behaviors or actions are contrary and displeasing to God.

However, the third revelation of God is not much emphasized by believers today, that is the revelation of truth through God's creation, and that is the main topic of this chapter.

Psalm 19:1 mentions this,

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

As well as Romans 1:19-20,

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

This passage states emphatically there are certain things that may be known of God solely through nature. It says these "invisible things" can be "clearly seen" from the things that are "made" or visible. Paul mentions a couple of these things in Acts 14:17,

"Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."

Thus, some of the things we learn from nature is that God is good, powerful, generous, and kind. If people follow their conscience and seek the "glory and honour and immortality" only God can give (Rom 2:7), He will reveal more of Himself from the Scriptures. If they refuse, all they can expect is "tribulation and anguish."

Progressive Revelation

When God reveals his knowledge and truth, whether through nature or His word, He does not reveal it all at once. Instead He reveals it progressively. The very fact that the Scriptures were written over a 1500 year period testifies to this truth. Some have likened God's progressive revelation to that of educating a child: the teacher starts with elementary truths and then gradually increases the content to match the development of the pupil. The later revelation does not contradict the earlier but compliments it.

The progressive revelation of God's plan of redemption is a key revelation in the Scriptures. After man's fall in the garden, the Lord needed to show man the extent of his fall, the severity of his sin and state, the great cost it would take to redeem him, and the nature of Himself in providing that redemption. This process started with the "coats of skins" the Lord provided in the garden of Eden and continues through with the great flood, Abraham's offering of Isaac, the Passover and deliverance of Israel from Egypt, all the sacrifices and offerings at the tabernacle and temple, all the way up to Christ dying on the cross. This process encompassed around 4000 years of time in 1500 years of Scripture.

Concerning the Scriptures, the revelation of them as God's word was established nearly 2000 years ago. However, that does not mean the full scope of the content within them has been revealed. There are still several passages that are unclear as to where or how they apply or what they refer to, and the Lord will open people's hearts to receive their truths when He is ready to reveal them. This is obvious to any knowledgeable Bible Believing Dispensationalist. He understands God reveals scriptural truths progressively and usually marks the divisions with covenants and dispensations.

The Mysterious Afterlife

One of the key areas where the Lord was clearly progressive in His revelation was in knowledge of the "afterlife." Where one goes when he dies has been a question man has pondered since creation, and the Lord revealed very little about it for over 4000 years. If one studies only the Old Testament for indications of where a person's soul and/or spirit goes when he dies or what state it is in at death, he will find practically nothing definitive and very little by implication. There are indications of a resurrection. Job said in Job 19:26-27 that he knew he would "in my flesh...see God," but the state his soul would be in until that day is not mentioned.

Think about that a minute. In the first five books of the Bible the Lord reveals many things to Israel. He told them of all kinds of laws and commandments, how they were expected to behave, and He told them quite a bit about himself; especially about His love and care for them. But the Lord told them essentially nothing about what would happen to them after they die. Fascinating. He told them many times that if they did wrong they would physically die, but He never described what that death held for their soul. There is a lesson in this if someone would study it out.

A few hundred years later, Solomon, with all his God given wisdom, was not much better informed. He stated, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" (Ecc 9:5). His father, David, said along the same lines, "For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks" (Psa 6:5). David even said one's "thoughts perish" when he dies (Psa 146:4). If these are "thoughts of the heart" they are now considered part of the soul. Because of this saints in the Old Testament appeared to believe a person was asleep or unconscious until he is resurrected for judgment. We know now that is far from the truth, but the Lord revealed the facts in His own time. Those Old Testament saints didn't seem to have any idea that the dead were still conscious in either "Abraham's Bosom" (Paradise) or Hell (Luke 16).

Likewise, the Lord also did not reveal much at all about everlasting life or punishment after the judgment. Not until Daniel 12:1-2 is "everlasting life" and "everlasting shame and contempt" mentioned. Before Daniel there was no firm declaration in the Scriptures people would be forever conscious anywhere. This is another very important issue, but the Lord kept it to Himself for centuries for His own reasons.

Why did the Lord not reveal what seems like such vital information? Who knows? We can only speculate, but all should be thankful the Lord has revealed those truths for us today with Jesus Christ. We know there is a Hell to shun and a Heaven to gain and at death we will be in one or the other. This is a clear case of progressive revelation concerning aspects of the spiritual realm.

Progressive Knowledge of Creation

It only stands to reason that if the Lord progressively reveals His knowledge in the revelation of the Scriptures, He also can reveal progressively the truths about His creation. This is where Deut. 29:29 comes in,

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

A similar passage is Daniel 2:47,

"The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets..."

When God created creation and put man on the earth, He had very many "secrets" Adam did not know. How God revealed some of these secrets, both moral and physical, over the millennia is an interesting study.

When Adam "Woke Up"

Imagine the scene when God created Adam. One can envision a beautiful garden filled with green plants, playful animals and God in the midst forming His greatest earthly creation, but the Bible indicates that Adam was made before the garden of Eden (Gen 2:7-8, 15). How He formed Adam is not revealed, but we can speculate. He may have formed him with blowing wind, churning water, rumbling earth, flashing lightening, or even with His own fleshy hands as the Angel of the Lord. That the Lord did not just speak Adam into existence in a flash is indicated by the way He created all the things before him. He spent six days forming the previously "without form" earth, thus, He likely spent time forming Adam from the shapeless dust of that earth.

After putting all of Adam's physical components in order: his cells and DNA, his heart and hair, his brain and toenails; and having a complete human body; the Lord only needed to do one more thing: give him life. There laid on the ground a perfect but lifeless body. If a modern day doctor could have examined it, he would have not been able to find a "medical reason" why it doesn't live, but it was lifeless nonetheless. Earlier the body was just a mound of dust. Now it is a perfectly formed, and soon it will become and contain a living soul.

From nowhere and everywhere a whistling sound arose. The wind gathered from the ends of heaven and the four corners of the earth and blew over the lifeless Adam...and then into his nostrils...Adam's chest arose with a mighty sigh...he took his first breath...and opened his brand new eyes. If Adam was on his back when he awoke, the expanse of heaven was likely his first sight. He may have seen a wonderful blue sky holding a bright shining sun with birds dancing in the wind as it fluttered away. Or maybe his first sight was the face of the God who gave him life, who was now gazing down upon him with a winning smile. Regardless what he first saw, how could he appreciate it having not existed only seconds before? He awoke from a sleep he never had; from an amnesia he never experienced. Unlike the newborn infant who first opens its eyes to the world, Adam was fully mature; a full and complete human being, but he had zero practical experience of life and living. He had no one to care for him but the God who made him.

Adam immediately discovered he could move his eyes and head and looked down and saw his arms, legs, and feet. He soon realized those appendages could move as he desired and he tried them out; bending and wiggling them around. He then looked to the side and saw colorful plants and various animals, with some of the animals gazing back at the new addition to their garden home. After a few minutes a lamb walks near to him and Adam has another epiphany, "If that creature can move around on this ground, maybe I can too" and Adam sits up, rolls over on his hand and knees and tries to walk like the lamb...and he soon does. A little while later he realizes he doesn't need to use his hands at all but unlike the lamb he can walk with his feet alone. All the while his creator is sitting on a rock observing him.

How much Adam had to learn and how much the Lord built into him as instinct is unknown, but likely there was a large measure of both. Nevertheless, Adam's first days were filled with one epiphany after another. He likely was "pre-programmed" with a language (certainly a form of Hebrew) and given other knowledge his offspring would have to learn, but the new king of the earth was rapidly learning more about his earth and its inhabitants every moment. He learned he must eat and that many of the plants he saw served that purpose well. He also learned some plants weren't so tasty. He learned about night. When his first night came he experienced darkness. Imagine the thoughts that ran through his mind. When he saw the moon and stars they added even more to the wonder. After a while toward the east Adam saw a glow in the distance and before long again came the same sun he saw the day before with all its glory.

Once he was placed in the Garden of Eden Adam was told to "dress it and to keep it." Thus, even in the garden paradise attention and work were required to keep it in order. While watching Adam examine all the various plants and trees of the garden, the Lord warned him about a particularly nice one in the midst as he walked by (Gen 2:16-17),

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

All is free but one.

The epiphanies are not over for Adam by any means. The Lord brought all the animals before him to watch him name them, and that he did, but while doing so Adam likely realized a profound thing. With all the animals there were at least two of each kind, and at least one was male and one was female. Adam wondered, Why is there two of each kind but only one of me?" The Lord saw something that was "not good" in his new creation and that was his "man" was alone (Gen 2:18).

Adam Wakes Up a Second Time

If he had never slept before Adam was about to now,

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made2 he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

When Adam wakes he notices his creator walking towards him with the most beautiful creature he had ever seen. A person who is made just like him (well, almost like him). Adam feels his side, notices a missing rib, and puts "two and two together;" he realizes the woman came from him. The Lord concurs and Adam proclaims,

"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

For the first time Adam speaks to and about another human and his words are prophetic. She was undoubtedly pre-programmed to know the same language he spake (and probably used it much more than he did...smile ladies!).

What a ride it has been for Adam, and now also Eve. Imagine all the experiences they had in such short time. Adam was very likely created with the appearance of a 30 year old man since Christ was that age when He started His ministry. Eve would have been the same mature age. How long things transpired in this pre-fall paradise is unknown. It may have been three years (to match the length of Christ's ministry) or three weeks. All we can do is speculate.

For our purposes in this chapter the main issue we need to realize is how the Lord revealed both spiritual and natural things to Adam. God revealed many elements of His creation and their various functions to some extent to Adam. He even introduced all the "beasts" and "fowls" to him. Adam learned about day and night and their cycles, the moon and stars and how they change throughout the months and year, how water flows in rivers, how plants grow bigger and bigger and need "dressed," and all sorts of similar truths. While walking through his domain Adam would have noticed how the earth and sky extends on and on into infinity. His world seemed endless.

The Flat Truth

With all the information Adam and gained and knew, there was still very much he didn't know. Take the endless earth, for instance. A natural man with an unaided eye gazing out over the vast expanse of earth would naturally think it is flat. Depending on the terrain, the earth generally looks like a large, endless flat plain. There would be no reason to think otherwise. Consider for a moment, dear reader. What if you were born in an isolated land where outside, modern information had no access, and all you and your neighbors had were your senses to guide you? Would there be any overwhelming reason for you to think the earth was anything other than flat and the sun and moon moved over it? No at all. You would just naturally believe the world continued on and on according to how it appeared to you and all those you know: flat and motionless.

The image above represents the ancient Hebrew concept of the world. It is flat with a firmament above holding the moving sun and moon and with pillars beneath. What is enlightening to some and perplexing to others is that not one word in the Bible shows this concept to be wrong! Nowhere do the Scriptures insist that the ancient flat-earth idea of the universe is anything but accommodated. The Hebrews were not the only civilization to believe it, essentially all peoples and nations did. It was the natural conclusion from limited human observation. Other nations may have not believed in the Hebrew "firmament," "pillars," and "sheol," but they believed the earth was flat.

This idea continued for thousands of years and the Lord was content to let mankind believe it. Man believing in a flat earth did not hinder God's program in the least. That the earth is actually a globe was something only God and the heavenly creatures knew until He was ready to reveal otherwise.

The Fall Changes Things

After his fall in the garden, Adam's epiphanies continued, but with a much darker tone. When he ate the fruit he probably had the greatest shock of reality he had experienced since he physically opened his eyes...his figurative, spiritual eyes (or heart) were opened to the reality of sin (Gen 3:7). With his "opened" eyes bringing a "new perspective on life," he suddenly realized he was naked and thus a sinner! He probably set on a rock and thought "long and hard" about what just happened to him; about how things used to be compared to what he "feels" now. He also likely wondered about what the word "die" meant when the Lord told him if he ate of the tree he would "surely die." Eventually, he looks at his naked wife and feels compelled to say, "We need to cover ourselves up!", and that they try to do. However, the Lord needs to reveal even more to his sinful creatures. He goes into the garden, kills two innocent sheep for their "skins," makes coats out of the skins, and gives them to the blushing pair. They are overwhelmed. What a day it has been.

Adam gained the knowledge he thought he needed and had his spiritual eyes opened to sin, but he and his seed will pay the price of death until the Lord makes a new heaven and earth. The Lord drove the pair from their beautiful location and banned them and their descendants from the "tree of life" forever. They will have to get eternal life another way.

Note: Notice that their eyes being "opened" is not a literal statement unless one insists Adam and Eve were created physically blind! Was it impossible for God to create them blind, of course not, but no one believes they were. As mentioned in a previous chapter the opened eyes speak of the revelation of sin to the heart or conscience. Their inner sight could now "see" sin and evil. Another strike against the hyper-literal geocentrists' "impossible" argument.

Revelations to the Seed

Over the coming centuries Adam's seed was revealed more about God and His creation. Cain learned first hand God will accept people if they "doest well" (Gen 4:7), but Cain wanted no part of the Lord. Enoch learned if one walks with God, He may take him away without dying. Noah learned God's patience has it limits and His power has no bounds (Gen 6-9). The whole world at Babel learned they must obey God's command to scatter and populate the whole earth (Gen 11).

The events at Babel are interesting for the reasons the Lord gave for confounding the languages. He said they are "one," have "one language," and "now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." This is fascinating. Men were at the point where they became more and more inquisitive and inventive. They learned how to build a towering tower and had much greater ambitions. All humanity seemed to be one in mind and goal, but since "man? heart is evil from his youth," their goals were evil. With their combined "unity" and abilities the Lord said they were capable of doing anything they imagine! Amazing. Since they wanted to climb higher and higher, it would not have been long before they imagined ways to fly in the heavens.

Think for a minute, where was the current world's space program 100 years ago? Ah...nowhere except in people like Jules Verne's imagination. Where was the airline industry 150 years ago? The answer is the same. Where was mass communication before the telephone and telegraph which are less than 200 years old? In people's imagination. Consider all the "advances" and discoveries man has made in the last 200 years. One could loose 200 years between Genesis chapters 9 and 11 pretty easily. If left alone the people of Babel could have discovered natural laws and principles and developed various devices to use them that the Lord did not yet want discovered or implemented. Think automobiles, airplanes, telephones, computers, spacecraft, etc. The Lord had many things yet to show mankind before they reached that stage of "progress," so He slowed them down in one of the most effective ways imaginable?e simple confounded their language.

A key lesson from Babel for our study is man cannot discover anything until God is ready to let it happen.

The scattering of the world at Babel greatly slowed down mankind's natural discoveries. Actually, from a cosmological viewpoint there was not much of anything discovered, learned, or even proposed for around 1200 years until the Greek Culture came along. The divisions at Babel caused men to form cultures and nations that became competitive with each other and these differences led to conflict and wars. These occupied their time rather that building towers to heaven.

Even though new physical truths were slow in coming, the Lord was revealing moral truths "right and left" to the Israelites. He proved to Abraham he would make of him a great nation, and confirmed it with his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. While in Egypt he showed Abraham's seed great wonders and revealed many aspects of His desire and nature through the many commandments, statutes, and laws he laid down. With them the Lord showed the seriousness and cost of sin and its atonement. As for the natural revelation, there is no reason to believe the Israelites believed anything other than that the world is flat and the sun and moon moved above it.

Maybe Earth's Not Flat After All?

The first record of someone considering the earth to be round is found among the early Greek philosophers. According to one historian " "Pythagoras was the first Greek who called the Earth round." The specific things that led them to think such "heresy" are not given, but they are likely observances of the stars moving in relation to the horizon when one travels north or south, ships at sea gradually going below the horizon (for those with very good eyesight), and the shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. Although this was proposed by the 6th century BC, it was not absolutely proven until 2100 years later when Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the globe in the 1520s.

Some may ask, "Why did God allow the Greeks to discover the global earth and not the Hebrews? That is not revealed, but what is revealed in the Scriptures is God uses pagan and secular men for His purposes,

"And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him."

The Lord called the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, "my servant," because he is doing the Lord's bidding. The Lord gave the Greeks the opportunity to discover some other things like mathematics, geometry, physics, etc., also. It seems the Lord will allow natural man to discover certain facts that will later be used to benefit His children as well. Nevertheless, even though a few Greeks in Athens believed the earth was a sphere, nearly all the rest of humanity still thought it was flat with the sun and moon hovering above. Gradually, over the subsequent centuries the round earth claim gained popularity until around 1400 AD it was pretty much accepted as truth by the "knowledgeable," and a few years later Magellan proved it.

The "Eyes" Have It

Another example of the progressive revelation of natural truths deals with optics. Once man had perfected the process of making clear glass (1st century BC), curious souls discovered that if a clear glass bowl was filled with water it had a magnifying effect. If the bowl was placed in front of some text, the print was easier to read. The Roman emperor Nero was said to have "read all the books in Rome through a large glass bowl filled with water." About 1000 years later (yes, that long) someone in Venice replaced the bowl and water with "a flat-bottom, convex glass sphere that was laid on top of the reading material, becoming in effect the first "magnifying glass." These were called "reading stones' and were a "Godsend" to people over 40 years old. They were basically the same as the simple hand magnifiers we use today.

Around 300 years later (things moved very, very slow then) another Italian was playing around with these stones and put two together in a crude frame and made the first pair of "spectacles." These were the "smart phones" of the day. Everybody had to have a pair that could read (not very many could read, though. Maybe as few as 6% of the population in places) and had the money.

14th Century Painting of "Spectacle" Usage

Another 300 years passed (now around 1600 AD) and some Dutch spectacle makers were messing around with some lenses and happened upon a huge discovery, one that would change the quest for "scientific knowledge" forever—the telescope (which led later to its inverse twin, the microscope)

Geocentrism Begins to Crack

As we mentioned geocentrism was the dominate cosmology model for millennia. From Adam to the Middle Ages it was assumed that the earth was the center of the solar system and/or universe and the universe rotated around it daily. As far as we know it wasn't until Claudius Ptolemy and some other Greeks came along in the first century B.C. that a working model of geocentrism was developed. It tried to reconcile all the movements of the sun, moon, planets, and stars into one consistent model, and for the most part it worked. However, there were still some matters that could not be sufficiently explained such as why do the planets follow their paths. To compensate for this the model claimed the celestial bodies traveled in their paths because they are attached to hollow, invisible spheres and are basically rolling around them. In spite of some of its far-fetched assertions, the Ptolemy Geocentric model of the universe was the standard for around 1500 years.

Around the year 1530 A.D. Nicolaus Copernicus came up with the idea that the sun may be the center of the solar system and universe. Although the Copernican model placed the sun at the center of the universe, in other respects it was very similar to Ptolemy? model. Although Copernicus' sun-centered idea was novel, it did not gain much popularity until years later.

Around 1587 an astronomer named, Tycho Brahe, "appreciated the Copernican system, but objected to the idea of a moving Earth on the basis of physics, astronomy, and religion." He came up with a compromise model that took what he deemed to be the best of both the Ptolmey and Copernicus models now known as the "Tychonic System." This model had all the planets but earth orbiting the sun and the sun in turn (with its planets) orbiting the earth. (This hybrid model is also called, "geoheliocentrism," and it is basically the model used by geocentrists today.)

Tychonic Model

Nevertheless, geocentrism remained the dominate model with most still clinging to the older Ptolomy system. This all changed in the early 17th century with the discoveries of two men, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei who we will examine in the next chapter.

King James Cosmology

3b
The Golden Age of Discovery and Revelation

One can easily visualize the Dutch eyeglass makers of the last chapter goofing around with reading stones and lenses in their makeshift laboratories. One day one of then likely grabbed a lens in one hand and another lens in the other and was looking through them both and saw the same blurry sight they all had seen before, but then something different happened. The Dutchman held one close to his eye and the other farther away and happened to hit the sweet spot of convergence—the point of focus where all became clear. It was hard to hold the lenses in the precise spots needed to duplicate this "focus," but when it happened the sight was amazing; it made distant objects appear closer! Another enterprising soul made a tube to hold the lenses and block the extraneous light and they had the world's first working telescope.

In the meanwhile, Johannes Kepler was a student of Tycho Brahe and eventually replaced him as the "imperial mathematician." Here is a quote from www.faithfulscience.com,

"...After experimenting with various possible shapes for the planetary orbits, and many failed attempts, Kepler finally discovered that the observed planetary motions could be described with unprecedented precision by supposing that the planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun [instead of perfect circles]."

With Kepler's model showing the planets move in elliptical orbits he was able to precisely predict the location of the planets at any given time. Something that was not possible with the Ptolmaic model. The same year Kepler published his findings, news of the new invention now known as the "telescope" spread around the scientific community in Europe like wildfire. The Italian Galileo Galilei got wind of the new "spyglass" (it's interesting that the inventors "marketed" the device for spying on one's neighbors), and after seeing some written plans decided to make one of his own. While building his new telescope he improved the design and instead of pointing it toward his neighbors, he pointed it to the heavens. In that same year he made some observations that rocked the scientific world like few things have since creation!

One new sight he beheld was the rough and bumpy surface of the moon. Man from time immemorial (at least from Aristotle) has insisted that the moon was a perfect heavenly body with no ugly mountains or valleys to deform its pristine surface. Since it was not subject to the curse God placed on earth, it must be perfect. Galileo's telescope proved them wrong. He said he found the,

"surface of the moon to be not smooth, even and perfectly spherical,...,but on the contrary, to be uneven, rough, and crowded with depressions and bulges. And it is like the face of the earth itself, which is marked here and there with chains of mountains and depths of valleys."

Similar to the "imperfect" moon revelation, Galileo saw "spots" on the sun. According to the Aristotelian ideal of a perfect cosmos, spots on the sun simply did not fit. How could God's perfect creation have these "imperfections"? Galileo also determined the sun was rotating.

Another sight Galileo was the first to see were the moons of Jupiter. He saw four specks of light in line with the planet and they moved in relation to it every night. He inferred that these must be moons and they orbited Jupiter just like earth's moon orbits it. This also destroyed the long held Ptolemic Geocentric view that everything in the universe orbited only the earth.

A fourth new sight was the phases of Venus. As another said,

"Venus was observed to go through a sequence of phases similar to the Moon. This could not be explained in the Ptolemaic model but could be accounted for by either the Sun-centered Copernican model or the Earth-centered Tychonic model that had the other planets orbiting the Sun as it orbited the Earth. Galileo rejected Tycho's model as an unnecessary hybrid and used the discovery to consolidate his support of the Copernican model."

One other great revelation the Lord allowed Galileo to see was when he pointed his spyglass into the Milky Way, he saw that it was not just a huge cloudy or milky part of the sky, it was actually filled with more stars! Much too many to count. This new fact posed the question as to why there were objects in the heavens that were invisible to the natural man; invisible for millennia until this new "telescope" was invented. Why was God hiding things from His creatures?

The old ways and thoughts that man had held since creation were crumbling before their eyes in 1610 when Galileo published his findings. Some claimed Galileo's telescope was "trickery" or "of the devil" and he would prove to them in daylight by letting them look at buildings and trees that the glass did not change anything, it only made distant objects appear closer. Everything in the heavens Galileo saw in 1609 anyone today can see with a good pair of binoculars or small telescope. He can now easily see heavenly details that were hidden from man since Adam.

Galileo's discoveries got him in "hot water" with the "scholarly community" and the religious establishment—the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic court system (Inquisition) ruled that heliocentrism was heretical and ordered Galileo to abandon it. He didn't and was eventually sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.

A Time of Revelation

The early 17th century seems to be an extra dense time period of revelation and discovery. Consider the time line,

1603 - King James of England is coronated

1603 - King James commissions the translating of an Authorized Version of the Bible

1607 - English settlers looking for "New England" discover the James River in Virginia and found Jamestown.

1608 - The telescope is invented by Dutchman.

1609 - Galileo discovers several unknown revelations in the heavens

1609 - Kepler reveals two of his laws of planetary motion.

1611 - The Authorized Version of the Bible was published.

The Lord had more revelations to reveal in the 17th century, and some of the most enduring and far-reaching were those given to "a deeply introverted character" named, Isaac Newton.

The Reluctant Genius

Newton was born prematurely on Christmas Day 1642, a few months after his father died. When he was three his mother remarried, but Newton's new father did not want a stepson so he was left behind with his grandparents when his parents moved away. Little Isaac was scarred by their abandonment of him and later said he thought of burning their house down around them. He spent a lot of time in solitude pondering things.

Initially Newton was a poor student in school. The mundane courses the school taught did not much interest him. Eventually, he became a better student and entered Trinity College in Cambridge. In 1665 the dreaded Black Death once again entered London and spread fear throughout the city and all England. Cambridge University closed it doors and sent the students out of the city hoping the squelch the spread of the disease. Newton went back home and spent much of the next two years in solitude working on his experiments, mathematics, physics, and whatever else interested him.

Note: The Black Death or Bubonic Plague took a severe toll on London. It was first found near the docks and shipyards and quickly spread throughout the city. At its height it was killing more than 6000 people a week. The stench of death was everywhere. No one knew the cause. It was speculated it was carried by animals such as dogs and cats so a campaign was initiated to eradicate the city of these vermin. Every dog, cat, or other animal was killed by any means available, but it was impossible to find and kill all the rats. London was a rat infested city, they were everywhere and were pretty much considered unwelcome but permanent residents. Little did the Londonites know but the rats were in a sense the carriers of the plague, not of the disease itself but of the tiny insect that did carry it, the flea. Over an 18 month period within 1665-66 over 100,000 people died in London alone. Around one fourth the population.

While the plague raged in London, Newton was safe in his country home with plenty of time to think. While gazing out into a field near his home he saw an apple fall from a tree. Its fall raised several questions in Newton's probing mind, "Why did the apple fall?" "Why did it fall straight down and not waver to the right or left?" "Does this pull towards the earth go all the way up into the heavens?" While alone to his thoughts Newton used inductive reasoning to formulate the basis of the three laws of motion that bare his name yet today. He was 23 years old.

Newton's revelations about gravity have held true in the subsequent centuries and are the basis for all modern physics. After around 5600 years of Bible history the Lord finally allowed a man to discover some of the basic laws and principles that govern the universe He created. Arguably, these laws, more than any other discovery, are responsible for the great Industrial and Scientific Revolution that began soon after. Building upon the discoveries of Galileo, Kepler, and other "giants," Newton laws started "nailing down" the framework of just how the physical universe works. With them he was able to explain all known movements of the planets with much greater accuracy and detail than any Geocentric model, plus Newton's heliocentrism could predict the location of unknown celestial bodies. One key proof of this is the discovery of the planet Neptune.

Newton Put to the Test

Using Newton's laws of motion and gravitational theory, astronomers found slight disturbances in the orbit of Uranus (discovered in 1781). These disturbances caused the observers to predict that there was another planet past Uranus that was affecting its orbit. In 1846 Johann Gottfried Galle discovered Neptune precisely where Newton's laws said it should be. As Robert Carter said,

"This was perhaps the greatest achievement of the Newtonian system, and ranks as one of the greatest achievements of experimental science. The perturbations of Jupiter and Saturn on Uranus are greater than that of Neptune and it was only by applying Newtonian gravitational theory to the situation (by factoring out the effects of Jupiter and Saturn) that Neptune could be discovered. What is even more amazing is that Uranus, with an orbital period of 84 years, had not even completed one orbit of the sun before it was used to find Neptune!"

Carter continues by showing how Neptune could have never been discovered using any Geocentric model,

"Absolute geocentrism could never have predicted Uranus and Neptune from orbital mechanics. Remember, both the Ptolemaic and Tychonian models are kinematic: they merely describe how planets are observed to move. Any observed deviations are just tacked on to the model—what's another epicycle here or there? Only under a dynamic model [Newton's Heliocentric model] with forces causing motions, can a deviation from predictions have any real meaning."

Thus geocentrism can only deal with bodies as they are observed. It cannot predict anything previously unknown.

Note: At this point sly geocentrists will often claim Newton spoke of how geocentrism could be possible in his model. As "proof" they will bring up an unpublished proposition called "Proposition 43" where Newton said the Geocentric system could work if the proper forces existed to counteract the gravity of the sun, but this is a BIG IF! Of course, any contention is possible if one can conjure up the forces to cause it. All Newton was saying is geocentrism is theoretically possible IF some force unknown to him was available. geocentrists try to claim these magic forces do exist among the stars and travel through the mysterious ether to effect the sun and planets (See chapter on science). How convenient. See this page for more details

geocentrism Abandoned by Scientific Community

Since the Ptolemaic model was proven untenable by Kepler and Galileo, the Tychonic system was then embraced by some geocentrists. Since it was a hybrid, compromise system that had all the planets orbiting the sun and the sun in turn orbiting the earth, it could account for the phases of Venus and other observations which doomed the Ptolemaic model. Over the succeeding generations more and more geocentrists abandoned all models of geocentrism for the Heliocentric model until it became dominate. By the 19th century (especially when Friedrich Bessel made the first successful measurements of annual parallax for a star in 1838), heliocentrism was the accepted system. Although the transition was slow, deliberative, and took the better part of three centuries, geocentrism as a cosmology has been essentially abandoned by the scientific community.

Of the 6000 years of recorded history, it took around 5400 of those years for most of humanity to realize the earth was round and not flat, and it took nearly 5800 years for the majority of astronomers to conclude the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa. The Lord kept these truths to Himself for the vast extent of human history.

The Discoveries Continue

Newton's laws unifying ideas about the motions of the stars, planets, and the earth broke the ground for many subsequent discoveries the Lord allowed to be made. Furthermore, discoveries in other areas of science were occurring as well. Michael Faraday is one of the most prominent. He was "widely regarded as the greatest experimenter of all time. His work involved showing that magnetism could produce electricity, and discovering benzene, among many other things."

James Clerk Maxwell is another great scientist. He "discovered the four fundamental equations of electricity and magnetism, and predicted electromagnetic radiation at a certain enormous speed. Light was measured to have that speed—300,000 km (186,000 miles) per second—showing that light was electromagnetic radiation.

Without the discoveries of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell, we wouldn't have much of the knowledge and technology we have today. "Practically everything involving moving parts, electricity, and magnetism can in part be attributed to the work of these three men."

What is little reported by the scientist community today is all three men were avowed creationists and believed in the God of the Bible. As another said, "

"By today's standards [Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell] would be regarded as 'fundamentalists'. Newton wrote more on theology than he ever did on science, believing the Bible to be God's Word. Faraday was a member of a very conservative offshoot of the Church of Scotland, the Sandemanians. The Sandemanians were known for their plain interpretation of the Bible...Maxwell was widely read in theology. He interacted with many of the best theological minds of his day, always as a solid evangelical Christian."

These three men were the heroes of a soon coming scientist who unfortunately did not share in their religious convictions—Albert Einstein.

Is it Really Relative?

Einstein's theory of relativity was first proposed in 1905 and according to even creation scientists it is "the most experimentally vindicated theory of gravity in existence. It has not 'disproved' Newton's laws, but has absorbed them within a larger framework, being a more accurate description under certain conditions." Where Newton's laws show the effects of gravity without defining its source or cause, Einstein's theory actually defines it as a warp in what he calls space-time. His theory is called "relativity" because it states there is no fixed frame of reference in the physical universe. Everything is moving relative to everything else, thus there can be no such thing as an absolute center or fixed location.

This idea of relativity is another bane of geocentrism. If everything in the universe is only moving relative to something else then the whole concept of geocentrism is moot. Yes, geocentrists can truthfully say that their "coordinate system" of the universe can be a valid frame of reference according to relativity, but since all motion is relative any "coordinate system" can be valid. Once could just as accurately say the sun, moon, a house, or a person's big toe is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it. geocentrism looses all its uniqueness with relativity so its adherents deny the whole idea...but only to a point.

Although geocentrists vociferously reject general relativity, they often appeal to its concepts to defend geocentrism when pressed. For example, when someone challenges the geocentrists contention that the universe is spinning around the earth and reminds them that from near the orbit of Neptune and beyond it must be moving faster than the speed of light, the Geocentric will reply that the motion is relative to the earth, not between the distant stars. That is, they claim the universe is one huge spinning object and the stars are not moving within that object so they are not moving relative to each other. Thus they appeal to relative motion to support a claim while at the same time insisting they deny relativity. Typical inconsistent behavior. For more details on the geocentrists blatant inconsistency see this page and this one.

The Increasing Rate of Revelation

Daniel 12:4 is an oft quoted passage when discussing end-time events and prophecies,

"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

The context is the prophecies the Lord had just given to Daniel. He speaks of how the words will be sealed to the time of the end when many will run "to and fro" and "knowledge will be increased." Some of the old commentators claim the increase in knowledge refers to the revelation of the words of the prophecies, and certainly that has application. But the verse also seems to indicate that the time of the end will be characterized by a general increase of knowledge and humans will be traveling more frequently upon the earth. This is something today's society has definitely seen.

According to the "Knowledge Doubling Curve" someone worked out, up until the year 1900 human knowledge doubled around every century. By 1945 it was doubling every 25 years. Today it doubles about every year and when the "Internet of things" comes fully online it may double every 12 hours!

Transportation has also increased dramatically. Until around 1830 man could only travel as fast as he could walk, ride an animal, or sail on a ship. Now with "trains, planes, and automobiles" he can travel at speeds from 50 to over 500 miles per hour and more Anyone who has been in a busy airport has seen "many" running "to and fro." Within the last 200 years the Lord has allowed man to learn and discover a great multitude of things and there is no sign at present He is going to slow the knowledge revelation down.

Note: If the Lord wanted to slow or nearly stop the "progress of man" it would be simple to do. A massive Electromagnetic Pulse from the sun or a few man-made nuclear explosions would quickly render much of man's technology as useless. When practically everything electronic has been fried by the massive pulse, the internet, cell phones, computers, automobiles, etc., etc., would be useless pieces of junk. Then humanity would be forced to revert back to the basics of life to survive. It has been estimated that if such a scenario occurred only in the United States, there would be from 100 to 200 million Americans dead within a year. Most from starvation and disease.

This is just one way the Lord could slow down the increase in "knowledge." Certainly there are many others.

It must be remembered that the increase in knowledge does not necessarily mean there is an increase in absolute truth. Paul said man is "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Actually, for many the current knowledge seems to work against truth. Many today claim to be atheists or agnostic, and to be agnostic is to say one doesn't know or have knowledge. Man has knowledge about natural things but little about the truth of God and His son Jesus Christ. So if the increase in knowledge the Lord is allowing mankind to acquire is not helping man learn more of God and His truth, the Lord may be allowing it to further the coming time when man will be judged!

The Lord is Complimentary—to a Point

At least a couple times the Lord somewhat complimented man for his ability to discern natural things,

And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? (Luk 12:54-56)

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? (Matt 16:2-3)

Notice how the Lord says man can "discern the face of the sky and of the earth." Man is quite perceptive in reasoning out the patterns and sequences of the physical world. Here the Lord is speaking about how people could discern the weather merely from observation. (This is actually one of the very few instances of the Lord acknowledging any positive ability of fallen man). Nevertheless, any compliment is short-lived since the Lord rebukes the very same people for not being able to discern the "signs of the times." The natural man can discern natural things, but he has a very hard time discerning spiritual things. Even Christ's own disciples could not discern why He had to suffer and die (Matt 16:21-23).

Since Einstein there has been a massive amount of new natural knowledge discerned; everything from the atomic structure of atoms, to antibiotics, DNA, transistors, and silicon chips. Man's knowledge now goes far beyond the weather. No matter how far out in space man looks, there is always more to be found. No matter how close he magnifies the most minute object, there is always more that is unseen. The vastness and complexity of God's creation should lead a person to seek Him, but most reject the purpose of God's physical revelations to man (Rom 1:20) and in spite of their beloved knowledge, they have no truth.

A "Whale" of a Progression

Before we end this chapter it is interesting to look at a potential progression of knowledge that can be found in the King James Bible. It is a revelation from the general to the specific dealing with biology. When one reads the account of "Jonah and the whale," it is often overlooked that there is no "whale" mentioned in the story. The text says "the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:7). It is not until one gets to the Lord's reference to Jonah in Matthew that we see that this "great fish" is called a "whale" (Matt 12:40). Modern biologists and Bible skeptics will quickly insist these terms are "contradictory." They inform us that a whale is a warm-blooded mammal and NOT a cold-blooded fish. Fish and whales may live in the same environment, but they are no more alike than a mouse is like a lizard.

Bible "scholars" are quick to tell us that the original words for "great fish" and "whale" both simply mean "great fish." However, Thayer says the Greek word "ketos" can mean "a sea-monster, whale, [or] huge fish." So what can we derive from this? Actually, it is pretty simple when one considers how the Lord progressively reveals truths. Today we know a whale is not technically a fish, but who knew that 2500 years ago? At the time of Jonah, and even the time of Christ, men knew very little about the nature or biology of sea creatures. There is limited record that some knew that whales, porpoises, etc. were in some ways different from most other "fish," but they were still generally considered "fish." The term "fish" can be a generic reference to any water creature. How many times have children seen a picture of a whale and said "Daddy, look at that big fish." But in 30AD (or 1611) the Lord was more specific. He used the word"whale" instead. "Whale" greatly narrows the type of sea creature referred to. In 30AD it is unlikely most knew the difference between a whale and fish but by 1611 the distinctions were more known. Today we know the differences much better. Thus to the Israelites of Jonah's day and also those of Christ's, "whale" was used in a generic sense referring to a general sea creature, but today it can refer to a specific family of sea animal which is actually a mammal.

Did the Lord make a mistake in calling a "fish" a "whale" in Matthew 12? Is He "insulting our intelligence" or "talking down to us" by referring to the whale as a "fish" in Jonah 1:7? Nonsense. The Lord was simply referring to the creature in the common vernacular of the time. As we mentioned, "fish" can be used as a generic term for basically any sea creature just like sunset is a generic term for the end of the day. Neither term describes the precise or actual details of what is seen or happening.

Of Birds and Bats

Another interesting case is in Lev 11:13-19 where the "bat" is found in a list of "fowls" or birds. Biologists today will be quick to insist the bat is not a fowl but a mammal. In fact, a bat is more like a common mouse than a raven or crow. However, this is not an error or even an issue. The Lord was again using "fowl" or bird in a generic sense referring to any creature with wings and which flies. People today when speaking of flying an airplane may say they are "putting a bird in the air." Again, who knew the difference between flying fowls and mammals in 1500 B.C.? The biological classifications we use today did not come into practice until the 18th century so it is silly to hold today's classifications to people who lived 3500 years ago.

Some may contend, "Why did God not tell them there was a difference and that bats were not really birds." Simple, He didn't care what they understood about the differences between bats and birds and thus accommodated their existing knowledge. Remember, he is the one that classified a bat as a fowl at the time, "And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them...." This is no different than the Lord speaking of "sunrise" and sunset. He is simply accommodating the appearance of things from man's perspective: bats look like birds and the sun looks like it is moving.

Summary of Progressive Knowledge

In these last two chapters we have seen how the Lord progressively reveals both spiritual and natural truths. In both cases He chose to reveal these facts a little at a time and didn't seem to care that for large spans of time man was believing things that were not actually true. On the spiritual side, since the Lord revealed very little about life after death and other matters until Christ came along, most Old Testament saints had little reason to believe they were conscious after death until their judgment nor did they have a clear promise of everlasting life until Daniel.

Concerning the physical universe, the Lord kept a lot hidden there as well. With only his five unaided physical senses, man can only see a very minute scope of God's creation. Adam saw the earth and many of its animal inhabitants plus the sun, moon, and a few stars, and that was about it. God did not reveal the vastness of his creation including the countless number of stars and galaxies, nor did He reveal the microscopic universe that exists in a single cell or molecule. God was not concerned that man often assumed things that were not true and "facts" that were fallacies. For centuries mankind thought the earth was flat, the earth was center of the physical universe, that only the male carried the human "seed," and a host of other fallacious things, but the Lord accommodated their faulty beliefs without in any way verifying them or declaring them as truth. The Lord is always true and cannot lie, but that does not mean He can't accommodate the weaknesses of His naive creatures without confirming their errant beliefs.

King James Cosmology

4a
Science and the geocentrists

Note: Your author is not a scientist. He has interest in some scientific matters, but he is by no means qualified to write about it except at the layman's level. Nevertheless, "science" is often appealed to by geocentrists who are no more qualified to debate it than your author, thus we will look at some basic scientific issues the geocentrists use to promote their belief and also some that potentially disprove geocentrism. Nearly all the information herein was gleaned from others more knowledgeable.

If one reads much geocentrist material he soon realizes they have a penchant for famous scientists. They are constantly quoting them, posting Facebook memes of them, and generally appealing to them for support of their position. That essentially none of these mostly godless, evolution believing, atheists believe in geocentrism does not phase the geocentrists. Even the fact that most of the more recent scientists think geocentrism is a remnant of the "Dark Ages" and all who hold it are woefully ignorant at best or a religious zealot at worst, but this still does not dissuade the geocentrists. They must find some "credible authority" to give validity to their claims.

Some of the names they throw around are familiar, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking, Albert Michelson, Fred Hoyle, etc. Others are less well known, Hans Thirring, Max Tegmark, George Ellis, Lawrence Krauss, Paul Davies, Joseph Silk, Jonathan Katz, etc. When quoting them the geocentrists almost always extract a single sentence or even a single phrase from a larger quote. Here are some examples,

"The two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' are simply two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems" — Albert Einstein

"our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest." — Stephen Hawking

"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort" — Edwin Hubble

"we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system." — Fred Hoyle

"when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun...That would say we are truly the center of the universe." — Lawrence Krauss

With quotes like this from "respected scientists," geocentrism seems to have a plausible standing of legitimacy, doesn't it? One would think from reading them that geocentrism is an accepted theory among science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, these quotes are often taken out of context. Modern cosmology holds nothing but contempt for geocentrism. Unlike evolution, where there are many credentialed scientists who do not believe it, there is not one practicing peer recognized cosmologist in the world that promotes geocentrism. If there were, undoubtedly the geocentrists would be parading his name everywhere. But without one recognized scientist to support them the best they can do is selectively quote some mostly dead scientists hoping something will stick.

Concerning the quotes above by Einstein and Hoyle, this page shows how they were taken out of context and selectively used to promote something the authors did not intend and did not believe.

"Playing For the Tie"

Geocentrists like to claim non-geocentrists are "playing for the tie" when they claim heliocentrism is a scriptural possibility. They insist since the Bible uses geocentric terminology, the heliocentrists must overcome these terms by showing they are figurative, and even if they succeed, they have only shown heliocentrism to be a possibility along with geocentrism. They have not proved heliocentrism nor disproved geocentrism.

However, when it comes to the scientific community, the roles are reversed. heliocentrism is the accepted cosmological method and the very best geocentrism can hope for is to "play for the tie" or reach parity. If the geocentrists can just get geocentrism to be a possible alternative among the scientists, then in their eyes they will have made a great victory. Then they can claim since the Bible uses geocentric language and geocentrism is a viable model in science, all the bases are covered. One can take the Bible's geocentric terms literally and also be supported by science. This is the reason the geocentrists like to quote the scientists. It helps make their arguments look plausible and "scientific." If only it were so simple.

The Religious Holdouts

The reason there are still geocentrists today is not for scientific reasons, the Heliocentric model does not violate any known scientific laws and is a much simpler and more workable system than any Geocentric system. It is more intuitive, sensible, and accommodating to solar system observation than any Geocentric system. For instance, all observable celestial bodies orbit larger bodies. Earth's moon orbits the earth and Jupiter's moons orbit Jupiter. All the other planets in turn orbit the sun so it only stands to reason that the earth would as well. There are many more similar examples. The primary reason most do not accept heliocentrism is because of their religious beliefs. A few may doubt heliocentrism because they "just don't trust the government," but most reject it for "scriptural reasons."

As we saw in previous chapters the Bible does not proclaim geocentrism as a doctrine or truth. It does use geocentric language, and we covered the reasons why. If the Bible dogmatically stated that the earth was stationary, the center of the universe, and the universe revolved around it, that would be enough for any Bible Believer, but it doesn't say that at all. As we said, the Scriptures are intentionally ambiguous on these types of matters.

Can Science Be Trusted?

Many geocentrists will occasionally make snide remarks about science, scientists, NASA, the government, etc., and say they can't be trusted. Some will say if NASA said "the sun was shining" they would go outside and look before believing it. Many believe in various conspiracies, government suppressed information, government misinformation, faked moon landings, etc. Some will openly claim heliocentrism is a great worldwide conspiracy by scientists to attack the Bible. The rational for their skepticism, at least among the Bible Believers, is often science's promotion of evolution. They will say "science is wrong on evolution, global warming and other things so why would one trust them in cosmology." At first glance they appear to have a point with this oft used "talking point," but there is a significant issue they fail to recognize.

Evolution is not an "operational science" like physics and mathematics. It is supposedly an "historical science" based on hypothesis. Physics and mathematics rely on constants that can be proven. No one can go back into the past and prove or disprove evolution. Thus, any claims made on the basis of physics can be tested by anyone (with the means to do so) to see if they are true. The claims made by the scientists on the motions of the heavens are all based upon fixed "laws" and calculations that are known to man and proven to be valid. Gravity is one such force governed by established laws. As we have seen Isaac Newton is most famous for his "laws of motion" and they have to do with the affect gravity has on material objects, and they have never been shown to fail.

Since these laws and principles of matter and motion can be tested and verified, and these are the laws appealed to to show heliocentrism, this brings a very relevant human element into the equation—self-preservation or protection. This human element seems to be overlooked by the conspiracy theory buffs and the constant skeptics. They insist there is a "conspiracy among scientists" to destroy geocentrism, but they apparently underestimate the power potential humiliation and ridicule has among men. To put it in a nutshell: professional people hate to be wrong and will often go to great lengths to protect themselves from even appearing to be wrong. They have their professional reputation to defend. With that being said, it is very, very unlikely that a group of scientists would conspire to promote false information as fact when their claims can be tested by their very competitive peers. Deception can be done with a theory or hypothesis like evolution which cannot be conclusively disproven, but not with a hard science like physics.

Suppose nearly all the scientists in the United States did conspire against geocentrism and promoted heliocentrism. What about the Russian scientists? How about the Chinese, Indian, French, British, German, Japanese, and even North Korean scientists? Are they all in it, too? Nonsense. Talk like this brings nothing but contempt to the Bible Believing community from rational people who are not even scientists. There is no grand conspiracy to destroy geocentrism; secular scientists couldn't care less about what the Bible says because nearly all are atheists or agnostics. To reiterate what we said above, there is not one practicing, peer recognized cosmologist in the world that promotes geocentrism. Not one. The reason? All of them truly believe heliocentrism is a fact.

The Final Frontier

To test the scientist's claim that heliocentrism is true, consider the space program of the United States from the late 1950s until today. All the rocket launches, earth orbits, moon landings, deep space probes, etc. relied on knowledge of the fixed laws of physics. Failure to properly apply these laws would have resulted in utter failure of their projects. They wanted to be right and succeed and most often they did. To your author's knowledge, every scientist, physicist, mathematician, etc. who worked on the space program was a Heliocentrist and approached the physical problems they face with heliocentrism treated as a fact. Unless you are an extreme skeptic, all the successes they had showed they got their calculations right. They were not going to damage their reputation or the space program by promoting something they knew to be false just to disprove a Bible they don't believe anyway.

Furthermore, physics and cosmology is just one area of science. There are many more types of science and the geocentrists trust nearly all of them implicitly. For instance, if one gets sick or injured, who does he consult? A medical doctor, of course. A person trained in biological/physical sciences. If one or a loved one has to go to the Emergency Room for a sudden issue, does he ask the doctor if he is an atheist, Heliocentrist, etc., or just let the doctor treat him? Does he go to a fellow geocentrist and have him practice 3000 year old Babylonian "medicine" on him or follow 17th century "bleeding" practices to get the "poison" out of his body? No, he wants the latest, most "up-to-date" treatment with CAT scans and x-rays. What the doctor believes about the Bible is not very relevant. What matters is what the doctor knows about "medicine."

If a person wants to communicate with someone does he walk or ride a mule to them or send a courier with a letter? Or does he call or "text "them on a "smart-phone" or email them with the aid of a computer? He most often uses the current "technology," of course, which is a product of the study of the sciences and developed by people who may not believe the Bible or in God at all. The Lord allows the rain to fall on the just and unjust and He allows all men to share in His revelations of natural laws.

Again, as soon as we say this someone will yell, "What about evolution. Scientists believes in evolution." Yes, many do, but also many don't. Unlike geocentrism, there are a number of credentialed scientists who do not believe in organic evolution. They believe in direct creation by God or in some sort of "intelligent design." Unlike physics, electromagnetism, medicine, and all other practical, operational, and provable sciences based upon proven scientific laws, evolution is a "historical" science that can never be proven because it cannot be demonstrated.

The mantra of the geocentrist is, "I like physical science...except the parts I don't like."

Geocentrism...a Viable Model?

As we mentioned, geocentrists will constantly remind doubters that geocentrism is viable a model. They will continue to claim geocentrism does not violate the basic laws of physics—and in a limited sense they are correct! A Geocentric system could conceivably work if all the necessary components to make it work are in the right places—but in this universe we all live in—the components are not there. There is a huge difference between saying something can conceivably work in a theoretical sense and then showing it actually working with the way things really are.

In our present world pigs cannot fly. They are not equipped to fly. However, IF pigs had large enough wings AND the muscles to drive those wings AND the instinct to use them, then like other mammals, pigs could fly. The laws of physics would work the same for the pig as they do for a bat. geocentrism is similar. IF heavenly bodies were arranged in such a way to keep the earth stable AND tie the rest of the universe together, then it could conceivably work, but the simple fact is the observable universe is not put together that way at all.

Geocentrists will loudly proclaim that heliocentrism or geocentrism cannot be told apart by observation and that both would appear exactly the same to an observer, but this is only partially true. It is true that a person on earth only observing motion could not see any difference between them. Any motion seen would be relative motion, and there is no way to prove what is moving, but there are ways and methods to determine which model is more likely and more consistent with known laws. Remember our Curly Neal spinning basketball example in a few chapters back? Was the ball spinning on his finger or the ball stationary with the basketball court, Neal and his finger, and all the rest of the universe spinning around it? Although both scenarios are physically possible, which would be simpler and more intuitive with what we know about reality and the physical laws?

Though some elements of geocentrism are physically possible, its adherents have a very steep hill to climb to show geocentrism as the preferred model. heliocentrism is so much easier.

A "Weighty" Obstacle to Overcome

Geocentrists have a huge obstacle to overcome if they expect their claims to be considered reasonable, and the obstacle is simply gravity. Gravity is that constant force found in the universe that draws all matter together. It is the reason you fall towards the earth when you trip. It is the reason the moon orbits the earth and the earth the sun, it is the reason the whole universe sticks together. As another said, "Everywhere we look in the universe we see the effects of gravity as objects rotate on their axes and revolve around more massive objects." Gravity is universal and most if not all geocentrists affirm its existence.

Gravity causes all heavenly bodies to interact with each other and the "pull" each body has is in direct relation to its mass (generally how big it is) and distance. The bigger it is the more "pull" it has. Thus in every observable case when two heavenly bodies interact with each other the smaller one ALWAYS orbits the larger. There is no exception; it is a universal law that has always remained true, and that very law proclaims the death of strict geocentrism.

All Geocentric models insist the earth is motionless at or near the center of the universe and is being orbited by the sun and all the planets, and therein lies the problem. For the earth to remain motionless while being orbited by the sun (which is a much larger object), there would have to be an offsetting object with exactly the same amount of gravitational pull directly opposite from the sun at all times. As David Palms at www.geocentrismdebunked.org says,

"...there would have to be other sources of gravity that, at every second of every minute of every day exactly offset the constantly changing gravitational pull on the Earth from these close and massive objects.... There is absolutely no observational evidence for any such masses moving in any such way that would offset these local gravitational influences.

In other words, considering only the earth and the sun (adding the other planets makes it even more difficult for the geocentrists), there would have to be another sun sized object in the heavens on the exact opposite side and same distance away from earth and which exactly mirrored the movement of the sun to counteract the gravity of the sun and keep the earth stable. Needless to say, no such object exists. The object(s) could be farther away from earth and still work, but they would have to be much larger to bring the same gravitational effect to the earth and precisely counteract the sun's pull.

And there it is. geocentrism has been destroyed. geocentrism has not effectively answered this huge obstacle to their model. Yes, they come up with "responses," but they have no sensible answer that can be verified. They can produce no counter gravitational force that moves exactly counter to the sun to keep the earth stationary from the sun's gravity. Their typical response usually goes like this one from Robert Sungenis,

"From a geocentric point of view, the earth was created first and was the Center of Mass (Genesis 1:1-2). The other celestial objects were subsequently created (Genesis 1:14-17) and were placed around the earth with the earth still being the Center of Mass. God, as it were, calculated all the forces in the starry universe, and balanced them so that earth could be the center of mass. And then God set everything in motion, and it has remained so, just as Newton's laws of inertia state."

Sounds nice doesn't it...but it is all smoke and mirrors. Sungenis has very slyly changed the topic. He says the Lord balanced the universe so the earth could be the "center of mass." He is talking about "center of mass," not the local gravity of the sun. Here is the difference.

If one considers the universe as a single unit, it has a balancing point where it will balance just like a dinner plate will balance on the tip of one's finger. He [Sungenis] says if the universe is arranged so the balancing point is the earth, the earth would be the center of mass and the universe would revolve around it. He suggests since the sun is close to the earth that the Lord could put a little extra mass opposite the earth to compensate for it. The extra mass could be millions of light-years away in the stars. As long as it balanced all would work well. However, there are a couple things he doesn't mention.

First, if the universe is "balanced" heavy on one side to counteract the weight of the sun, since the sun moves in relation to the stars throughout the year, this heavy bulge in the stars would have to move every year with it! That does not happen. The stars stay in their same relative places year around.

Second, as we mentioned Sungensis' claim only speaks of the center of mass, it does not account for the local gravity of the sun and its pull on earth. This completely destroys his argument. Even if the universe in balanced at the earth, the sun and earth are constantly pulling on each other to bring themselves together. Since the sun is much more massive than the earth, the earth will do nearly all the moving towards the sun! There is nothing in the center of mass argument to counteract the suns local gravity. Again, gravity is the nemesis of geocentrism. It just won't cooperate. It keeps everything moving which can't happen in the Geocentric model. As Gary Hoge at www.geocentrismdebunked.org says,

"The bottom line is that if the geocentrists are right about the structure of the universe, it would be possible for the center of mass to be located as far away from the sun as the earth is. And yes, everything would orbit that point. But it would be impossible for a planet, or any other object, to remain motionless at that point, for two reasons. First, the center of mass itself is constantly shifting as the various masses in the universe rearrange themselves, and second, a point in space that close to the sun would not be a point of gravitational equilibrium. There would be an overwhelming gravitational pull from the sun. A planet at that location would either have to move fast enough to orbit the sun (as the earth, in fact, does), or it would plunge into the sun and be destroyed. In no case could it simply sit there motionless."

Unless geocentrists can demonstrate the forces required to keep the earth motionless, with just this one argument, geocentrism is shown to be impossible. heliocentrism does not need any special forces or contrived explanations. Gravity does all the work for it. In every way heliocentrism is the much simpler and more practical model.

For more thorough treatment of this topic from knowledgeable individuals see these web pages,

geocentrismdebunked.org/single-argument-geocentrism

geocentrismdebunked.org/as-the-universe-turns

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/geocentrismDisproved.htm

Ether—The Magic Elixir

Modern geocentrism requires strange and mysterious forces to make its system work, forces that no one else can find. These are forces that do just what is needed when the geocentrist needs them to and then disappear without a trace when not needed. These forces both hold the universe together but also hold it apart. These forces do strange things that defy observation and reason...they are so elusive they make the "dark matter" of physicists seem as if in plain sight...but the geocentrists insist these forces are very real and govern the movements of the universe. What is the medium these forces travel through? How do they transverse between all matter in the universe? Why it is through the "ether" (or "aether," "plenum").

The generic term "ether" simply means a medium or pathway something travels on or through. In the old days, over 150 years ago, ether was a term used to describe the supposed medium light travels through. However, the entire concept of ether was abandoned when it was determined light is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and doesn't require a medium. geocentrists have modified this old idea and insist there must be an ether (even though some of their favorite tests indicate it doesn't exist) because without it their system cannot work. They must have this unseen, unfelt, undetectable medium for their unknown, untestable, unverifiable forces to travel upon. They describe this ether as a "frictionless superfluid" and yet "ultra-dense and granular." They claim matter passes through it ("Plank particles" working under "Mach's Principle," blah, blah, blah...) "like light passes through glass."

How convenient it must be to magically conjure up any and all forces and mediums one needs to make an imaginary system work! Even if some type of ether does exist, all these fanciful forces and powers that the geocentrists claim travel through it are pure speculation. If you don't have a way to account for the bulge of the earth, just invent some mysterious ether and a force to cause it. Don't have a way to explain the Coriolis Force? Just consult your local snake oil...oh, we mean...ether salesman,

"Step right up folks, step right up. What we have right here in this bottle is an highly exotic superfluid developed by desperate minds that will cure any and all issues you may have with Coriolis forces, geostationary satellites, Foucault pendulums, equatorial bulges, rotational issues, speed of light problems, earth stability issues, and all similar issues. All you need to do is acquire a bottle of our magic ether elixir, and any time one of these issues come about just douse it with the ether. If the issue persists, just use more ether more forcefully. This magic ether will cure all your geocentrism problems whenever you need it and then become invisible whenever you don't need it. It is truly a one of a kind cure-all. Get your bottle today!"

The geocentrists magic ether is their cure for all issues. That it has never been conclusively proven, demonstrated, verified, or detected is no hindrance to them at all.

Facts geocentrists Cannot Adequately Answer

Frankly, there is little point in going on with the "scientific evidences" for geocentrism because it cannot make it over the first hurdle. Not that there are not many other evidences showing geocentrism is not true, such as,

The Speed of Objects in the Universe

— Since according to geocentrism the firmament would be spinning faster than the speed of light out past Neptune, there should be a 'spatial Coriolis' seen in the Pioneer probes and other spacecraft we have sent into the heavens. That is, they would have to accelerate to the speed of the moving bodies to reach them and this is not possible.

Geostationary Satellites

— Geostationary Satellites hover over the same point of the earth because they orbit the earth at the same speed as the earth rotates. However, in geocentrism the earth is motionless thus the satellites cannot be moving to remain direct above. What force holds them in position? The geocentrists can't provide any sensible and physically demonstrable answer.

Aberration of Starlight

— "Aberration is a direct effect of the earth's movement about the sun and is perfectly consistent with Newtonian physics. Under geocentrism, however, arbitrary explanations must be invoked to explain it."

The Equatorial Bulge

— When something is spinning it tends to swell or bulge outward. The same is true for the earth. As result it is slightly thicker at the equator than around the poles. This bulge has also been noticed on Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune because they rotate fast enough to cause one. geocentrists will admit the bulges on the other planets are caused by them rotating, but at the same time they insist the bulge on earth is not! They try to claim the universe through its "ether" is "pulling" the bulge on earth. How convenient.

What Keeps the Earth Still

— If the universe is pulling the bulge in the earth's equator and the universe is spinning, what is keeping the earth from spinning? If the firmament can exert enough force to cause the earth to bulge, why is that force not pulling the earth around as it turns? They have no answer.

Coriolis Force

— Hurricanes rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. This is cause by the rotation of the earth. Jupiter's Great Red Spot also rotates for the same reason. Again, the geocentrists will say Jupiter's Red Spot rotation is because of the planet rotating but earth's hurricanes rotate because the universe is rotating! The magic ether is at work again.

A Change on Earth Affects the Universe?

— When something happens on earth to slightly change its rotation, like an earthquake (scientists actually measured a change in the rate of rotation of the earth after the 2009 Japan earthquake), how does something happening on earth actually affect the rest of the universe? If the earth doesn't rotate, somehow the earthquake had to affect the entire universe to make the rotation change! (Some more of those mysterious geocentrism forces we presume.)

What Holds it all Together?

— If the universe is spinning around the earth like a huge spinning disk, the outer parts of the disk which are millions of light-years away would have forces on it that would be unimaginably huge. It would be like being on a large merry-go-round. At the center the centrifugal force would be small and it would be easy to hold on. As one walked away from the center the force would become stronger and stronger till he could no longer hold on. If the merry-go-round was very large it would fly apart. Imagine a spinning universe. The stars would all be cast off in a straight line deeper into space. There are no known forces or laws to hold them in orbit. (Oh, the magic ether does it. I forgot...Not)

These are just some of the problem geocentrists face. Of course, they have "high-sounding" replies to all of them, but they don't have any real answers. As we mentioned, most of their answers have to do with the fictitious "ether" or "plenum" that supposedly holds the universe together, but they have not been able to prove any of it. The "seams" show in all their answers. They start with the result they want and then try to come up with something they can call "evidence" to support it. Observances heliocentrism can easily explain require many pages of contrived Geocentric jargon. For multiple examples just visit Robert Sungenis' site www.galileowaswrong.com. You will wade through 100s of pages of babble and "explanation" and still not get a satisfactory answer. Sungenis' tactic it seems is to rely on a large quantity of words to "bamboozle" the naive.

It's Just Easier...

Gerardus Bouw said in 1984 at the National Bible Science Conference,

"I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures."

What a revealing thing to say! This candid statement from one of geocentrism's leading proponents actually says more than some geocentrists may want to admit. Bouw states he is not a geocentrist because of his scientific observation of the interaction of the earth and sun nor is he one because he believes science shows it to be the most plausible and "scientific," he is a geocentrist because he believes the Bible teaches it. If geocentrism is the most rational and scientific conclusion man could arrive at from his study of the universe, why would one not believe it on that basis as well as because he thinks the Bible says it? Ah, it's because he KNOWS science does NOT favor geocentrism! Science may not utterly disprove it, but it by no means presents geocentrism as the easiest and most probable model. That distinction goes to heliocentrism.

It is an obvious fact known to heliocentrists and honest geocentrists that heliocentrism is a much simpler and workable model than geocentrism. As we have seen, geocentrism demands the universe do some very strange and nearly unimaginable motions that are completely unnecessary in heliocentrism. For instance, insisting the entire universe, which may be billions of light-years wide, rotates every 24 hours is a titanic claim. It was one thing for the Hebrews to say the (to them) relatively close sun, moon, and stars rotated above the earth, but to assert that billions of entire galaxies (which most geocentrists now acknowledge) are rotating around it is much more extreme. Also, geocentrism insists the universe makes a completely different range of movement as well to cause the seasons (See below).

Isaac Newton said in his famous book, Principia Mathematica (1687):

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

This simply means, "One should keep his theories and hypotheses as simple as they can be while still accounting for the observed facts. It is foolhardy to make things more complicated than they are. For instance, when the Lord devised the salvation that is in Jesus Christ He did not make some elaborate and complicated system that is hard to follow or understand. He made it very simple without needless and incomprehensible excess. It's called, "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2Cor 11:3). When he showed the Israelites how to make the tabernacle (a type of the universe), He did not have them make it in a complicated, counter-intuitive manner. They made it as one would expect a tent to be made. The same can be said for heliocentrism. Between it and geocentrism it is much more simple, sensible, and practical from an observational and scientific perspective. Again, geocentrism requires many unneeded motions and forces that are completely unnecessary to account for the universe as man observes it.

There is a Season

Geocentrists don't speak much about the seasons on their stationary earth. The key reason is likely because of the counter-intuitive motion of the universe that is required to have seasons in their system. In the Geocentric model, not only does the universe revolve around the earth once a day, it also oscillates up and down 23.5 degrees, stopping and changing direction every six months! They have no practical explanation for what force causes this up and down motion. What mysterious power makes the universe move like this, and, more than that, completely stop its vertical motion every summer and winter solstice and change direction?

With the Heliocentric method the seasons are "easy as pie." There are no unexplained motions and instead of the entire universe having to move, the earth does it all by itself because of its pole orientation. The earth's poles do not point "straight up" in relation to its orbit but are tilted on an axis of 23.5 degrees. This tilt always stays in the same orientation throughout its yearly orbit, and as a result, the sun directly faces a slightly different part of the earth every day. In the winter, part of the earth tilts away from the sun and in the summer, it tilts toward it. No extra, mysterious movement is needed to accomplish this, the earth's fixed tilt and yearly orbit does it all.

In Genesis 8:22 the Lord mentions how the seasons are a permanent fixture,

"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

Notice how only the earth is mentioned in relation to the changing seasons and "day and night." There is no mention of the sun, heavens, oscillating universe, or other geocentrism complications, only the earth. Yes, Gen 1:14 mentions the "lights in the firmament" are to "divide the day from the night" and "for seasons," but it in no way says the lights or firmament are moving. Gen 8:22 says it is the state of the earth that is responsible, "While the earth remaineth," and that state is its axial tilt.

What makes the geocentrists seasons idea even more silly is their contention that the seasons seen on some of the other planets IS caused by the tilt of their axis and their movement around the sun...but the earth's is cause by the oscillating universe. Go figure, desperate people have desperate ways.

King James Cosmology

4b
The Flat Earth Fallacy

We are not going to spend much time showing how the current Flat-Earth belief is utter nonsense from a scientific or observational standpoint. Anyone who has been to the ocean with a pair of cheap binoculars watching the ships passing over the horizon can see it. Anyone who has seen the receding telephone poles and water tanks of west Texas can see it. Anyone who pays much attention to the stars and travels north or south will see that the stars are slightly higher or lower relative to the horizon. Anyone who has ridden on a jet airplane at around 40,000 feet can see a slight curvature of the earth. Anyone who has seen photos from space can see the globe of earth.

Yes, we have heard many of the conspiracy theories about how NASA doesn't have any single photos of the global earth and that the images they present are composite images, but that is just more conspiracy nonsense. First, NASA has many single images of the global earth. Here is one taken by the Galileo spacecraft in 1990,

Click the image and notice how it shows the earth rotating and receding away as the spacecraft travels in a straight line away from it. This single time-lapse set of photos disproves geocentrism and its twin brother the Flat-Earth theory. Of course, the geocentrists will insist the spacecraft is now in the "firmament" and controlled by the "ether" while it rotates a stationary earth, but think how that view strains credibility.

When NASA launched Galileo they launched it from west to east and as close to the equator as practical (Cape Canaveral, FL) to take advantage of the earth's rotation. This helped "sling-shot" the craft into space. Once out of the atmosphere it was propelled towards Jupiter in as straight a course as practical and left the earth spinning behind it. Using Heliocentric calculations they plotted the course perfectly. With the Geocentric model, when the spacecraft left orbit at some point it would enter the rotating firmament. (geocentrists have not been able to prove where this supposed threshold actually is.) Then once caught by the forces of the firmament and "ether" it would be suddenly changing direction and rotating with the firmament...but what they fail to mention is the space craft would be going the wrong way!

According to geocentrism the universe is spinning east to west. When NASA launched the rocket to the east it would be moving against the motion of the universe and would actually be slowed down. Thus for geocentrism to be true the craft would have to somehow be reversed in course to match the rotation of the firmament. geocentrists do not detail the forces that cause these crazy reversing motions, yet the earth rotating model used by NASA works perfectly.

The Flat-Earth crowd will continue to insist that even though the above image is not a composite photograph, it is still somehow "faked" because the US government cannot be trusted. Ok, if you don't trust the US government, how about the Russian government? Are they joined in the same conspiracy? Here is a non-composite, single image from a Russian weather satellite,

Russian Weather Satellite (Infared)

There are many web sites that expose the lunacy of the Flat-Earth position. Here is one that is better than most. Frankly, for one to insist the earth is flat is a case of willful ignorance or denial of reality. In centuries and millennia past it would be understandable for the sheltered or isolated to believe in a Flat-Earth. It would be only natural. But in this day and age of increased knowledge, there is little excuse for a reasonable person. There are just too many proofs to deny. This image across Lake Ontario of the Toronto skyline is verifiable proof one can see with his own eyes.

Global geocentrists vs Flat-Earth geocentrists

As mentioned earlier, one of the most comical debates to observe is the debate between global geocentrists and Flat-Earth geocentrists. The Flat-Earthers ridicule the Ball-Earthers for not fully believing the Bible and the Ball-Earthers mock the Flat-Earthers for denying common observations and science. What is ironic is both embrace an earth centered cosmology in contrast with essentially all that has been revealed over the last 400 years, thus they are kooks to science regardless what they deem the shape of the earth. It is like saying in view of their cosmologies, the Flat-Earthers are 100% wrong and the Ball-Earthers are 99.5% wrong. Not much difference between them.

King James Cosmology

4c
A Biological Question

An interesting parallel to the Bible's treatment (or lack thereof) of cosmology is its treatment of human "parenting" and biology. The Bible has quite a bit to say about "seeds," "sons," "heirs," and the like, and since biology and genetics are sciences as well as physics and cosmology, the extent of Scripture's treatment of one scientific "discipline" should hold pretty much true with the others.

Where Do They Come From?

It may come as a surprise to many but the most basic biological question, asked from as far back as history will take us, was not fully and scientifically answered until around 1900 AD! That question—"Where do babies come from"—perplexed man for millennia. Today many in the west assume it has long been common knowledge that the male has his part with his "sperm," the female has her part with her "egg," and when the two come together, a child sharing traits of both is conceived. Nine months later the child is born into the world. As matter-of-fact as this sounds today, this entire concept is only around 150 years old.

Consider a moment that for 5900 years of recorded history no one really knew the biology of how children were conceived. Yes, people came up with many sometimes crazy ideas, but no one could prove any of them. Aristotle, the (supposed) great philosopher didn't know; Leonardo DaVinci the genius didn't know; Isaac Newton, the great physicist didn't know; nor did even Charles Darwin the silly evolutionist know (he claimed to know where man came from...apes...but didn't have a clue how children are conceived). It was one of science's great mysteries.

The most common idea throughout the millennia was "the man supplied the seed and the woman the fertile ground." This contention was so prevalent that it still has adherents today. If one does a simple internet search he will find that practically all people in the Muslim nations of the Middle-East, and even some Americans in 2018 still insist the woman is merely the "field" or "soil" where the man plants his "seed." This belief makes the mother only a surrogate mother. She contributes no traits or nature of herself since she is not a true parent of the child. She is merely an incubator to grow the human seed of the father. As an ancient Greek said, four centuries before Christ (as found in The Seeds of Life by Edward Dolnick),

The woman you call the mother of the child
Is not the parent, just a nurse to the seed.
the new-sown seed that grow and swells inside her.
The man is the source of life—the one who mounts.
She, like a stranger for a stranger, keeps
the shoot alive unless god hurts the roots.

This view was still held twenty centuries later when King James of England's royal physician said in 1618,

'The woman hath a womb ordained by nature as a field or seed-plot to receive and cherish the seed."

Yes, this is the same King James who commissioned the "King James Bible" of 1611, thus we see the prevailing thought on "human reproduction" at the time the AV was translated. But this idea brought even more questions, "How does the man get the seed"? "Where does the seed come from"?

One suggestion that held sway for many years was every individual that will ever live was created when God created Adam. It held that man is too sinful to be the conduit of (pro)creation so God had to create all men at once. Thus, within the man's "issue" were tiny, immature humans bundled in a tiny seed pod waiting to be planted in the woman's "fertile soil" to grow and be born. To continue the perpetuity, each tiny human also had an even smaller tiny, immature human in him waiting for his day, and on and on into infinity. Humans were much like the nested gift boxes some get at Christmas: a box, in a box, in a box,.... The adherents of this view also had Bible to back them up. Look at Hebrews 7:9-10

"And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

Levi is said to be in his distant ancestor's "loins" and actually performed actions while there! Furthermore, Heb 7:5 says all the Jews came out of the "loins of Abraham." This fits perfectly with the male seed propagation idea. The entire Jewish race was dwelling inside Abraham "loins" doing the things he did. What are loins you ask? They are the part of the anatomy primarily around the pelvic area. The term is actually a figure of speech for the reproductive organs since the loins only speak of a general region of the human body, like "belly" or "bowels." Loins are made of flesh. This is made clear in Acts 2:30 when speaking of David Peter said,

"...and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"

So was Christ, at least His human body, inside David's body like Levi was in the loins of Abraham? Hum.... There is more to this than you first thought, isn't there?

"That's My Seed, Not Yours"

We have not even mentioned yet how the Scriptures use the term "seed." What a seed is, is common knowledge. Any grade school kid can tell you that a seed is the small part of something one plants to let it grow into maturity and then make more seeds. "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow." All the information needed for the seed to grow to maturity is already there; it is complete and whole. All it lacks is the "fertile ground" to supply the nutrients and allow it to germinate and mature. The first mention of seed in the Bible bears this out (Gen 1:11),

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

Each tree yields seed after its own kind, which produces more trees. Here you may say, "Everyone knows this, what about people, do they have a seed?" Indeed they do. Not only people, though, even serpents have them. Look at Genesis 3:15,

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Here both the woman, Eve, and the serpent, Satan, are said to have a seed. The woman's seed we later learn is ultimately the Lord Jesus Christ, and the serpent's seed is the "antichrist," "man of sin," or "beast." Nevertheless, it is said that a woman can have a seed, but...look at the next mention, Genesis 4:25,

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

It says Eve was "appointed" a seed. To "appoint" is "to place" or "bring" so the verse can easily be saying Eve's seed was not originally hers but was given to her by God through Adam. The same could be said of other places where women are said to have a "seed" (Gen 16:10, etc.) This also explains how men "begat" their children (Gen 5:4, etc.). They generate or sire the seed to the woman which she later bares (Gen 4:1). Women are NEVER said to "begat" a child, they are said to only "bare" it.

Considering the above, it is clear that the Bible indicates a "patriarchal" view towards human reproduction and family relations. Genesis 3:16 also speaks of this with, "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is actually part of the curse. Furthermore, the Lord said of Abraham, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him..." indicating he is the head of the household—the patriarch.

Doth Not Nature Teach You?

Obviously, every human has a "human nature." It is actually what makes one human, even the Lord Jesus Christ has one. Sadly, though, except for Christ, everyone's nature is a sinful, fallen nature; it fell when Adam fell because in a sense, we were all in him when he sinned (Rom 5:21) and his guilt is imputed to us. This makes us "by nature the children of wrath..." (Eph 2:3). Christ, however, though fully human, does not have a fallen, sinful nature even though He also is a descendant of Adam and was born into this same evil world. What is the difference? Why do we have a fallen nature and Christ doesn't? The reason subscribed to by most Bible Believers is it is because Christ did not have a human father. He was virgin born.

The virgin birth of Christ served two key purposes. One was to enable the second person of the Godhead, the Word, to be born into the world as a man. The second was to bypass the sin and fallen nature of Adam since the Scriptures indicate they are passed by the male; the father. Since Jesus had no human father, this sin, guilt, and fallen nature did not pass to him. He inherited a full human nature from his mother, Mary, but she, being female, did not pass along Adam's guilt or a tainted nature. The passing of Adam's nature to one's "seed" could be called "male guilt propagation."

The implications are obvious. If a believer believes Jesus did not inherit or have imputed to Him Adam's guilt and nature because He had no human father and by this claims Adam's guilt and nature only passes through the male, then the argument for male seed propagation is made even stronger. If Adam's guilt only passes through the male, then the contention the whole person, or at least the key elements of a person, does as well gains clear support.

What's the Point?

At this point you may be thinking, "What does all this have to do with geocentrism?" Simple. Biology is a science as physics and cosmology are sciences. If geocentrists are going to insist one take "sunrise" and "sunset" literally, then they must also insist Levi was actually in Abraham's loins and only the human male begats the seed: the whole person. This is the "historical" view held by man for millennia. To not contend this shows them as scripturally inconsistent. They can't consistently say the Bible is scientific in one science and not in another. They can't claim "sunset" and "not be moved" should be understood as absolute and literal while "seed," "begat," and a person being "yet in the loins of his father" should not and expect people to take them seriously.

However...if the Bible reader takes these passages the way they are meant to be taken, both the geocentric and biological, and does not force wooden, hyper-literalism on them, he realizes some great truths. Levi did not absolutely and literally pay tithes in Abraham, how could he, he did not yet exist! Levi was only in his ancestor's loins in a seminal manner: that is, because he subsequently became a seed or descendant. If Levi had never been born, it could never be said a nonexistent person was ever in someone's loins.

As for "male seed propagation" claim, the Scriptures do allow this view, but more importantly they do not disallow other views. (Allowing or accommodating a view is not the same as verifying or confirming it as absolute fact.) As we said in the first chapter dealing with creation, the Bible is often ambiguous, and it is ambiguous in the area of human biology as well as cosmology. The Bible does not specifically state HOW children are conceived, it does not state dogmatically women are not considered an actual parent, nor does it absolutely say only the father provides the entire "person" of a child.

Note: Concerning the human nature of Jesus Christ, Mary does provide her own nature toward His conception (Rom 1:3, etc.), however, her case deals with the "mystery of godliness" and cannot be proof for the rest of humanity. Nevertheless, one dilemma the male seed propagation proponents could never adequately answer was, "Why do daughters often look like their mothers?"

The simple fact is the Bible is not speaking about absolute biology in these "seed" matters any more than it is speaking about absolute cosmology when it says the sun sets or the earth doesn't move. However, if the Hyper-Literal geocentrists were consistent they would claim something like,

"Since the Bible says throughout only a man can provide the "seed" and "beget" a child or heir, and the woman, which is called a "helpmeet" only helps by "bearing" it; and apart from the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ no woman is ever said to have a seed until after the man supplies it to her; and since male seed propagation was the prevailing biological view on human reproduction for thousands of years and it correlates perfectly with the guilt of Adam passing only through the male, we challenge the current claim that the female contributes in the conception of a child and contend that our view is just as valid as the modern "scientific" view.

"All the "scientific proofs" made by biologists and doctors claiming a woman has an "egg" which carries 23 chromosomes of DNA molecules and the male "sperm" carries the same amount, and that when the two are joined they produce a new child with the full human compliment of 46 chromosomes, thus sharing traits of both parents, are completely unscriptural and unproven. We will not concede to this "mutual conception" conspiracy; we choose to believe the Bible."

As ludicrous as they are, these statements would not be any more outrageous than their fanciful claims for geocentrism.

King James Cosmology

5a
Why is the Bible Sometimes Ambiguous?

A Reason for Ambiguity

From the beginning of the treatise we mentioned how certain accounts in the Scriptures are ambiguous, obscure, and somewhat vague. Of course, this is by design. Concerning our topic, the creation account is in some ways obscure and indistinct; the descriptions of the heavenly bodies are partial and inexplicit; plus the motions of the same bodies are described from a worldly and human perspective. Instead of using clear and precise terms and descriptions of what He has created and how creation behaves, the Lord has spoken primarily in ambiguous generalities. Why is this?

Modern believers, even Bible Believers, can't seem to keep from judging or evaluating everything, including the Scriptures, by the measure of their own knowledge and revelation. We examined how both natural and moral truths were revealed to man progressively: a little at a time. Not only were relatively unimportant matters like creation and the motions of the heavenly bodies ambiguous, even critical doctrines like salvation and redemption were revealed piecemeal. Even Jesus Christ's very own disciples did not know the actual reason He came to earth (Matt 16:22). They thought His primary purpose was to become the King of Israel, but we now know His first coming was to purchase man's redemption: to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).

One key reason the Lord was ambiguous with some of His words was since He was determined to reveal many truths progressively, He could not be specific with details He was not ready to yet reveal. In Genesis chapter 1 the Lord just gives a skeleton account of his six days of creation. He does not explain HOW He created anything or detail the motions or inner workings of any created thing, whether animate or inanimate. He does not explain the motions of the heavenly bodies any more than He explains the workings of the human body. He simply states that HE created everything that exists and then moves on. It wasn't until over 4000 years later that the Lord revealed it was specifically the 2nd person of the Godhead, the Word, who was the person who actually did the creating (John 1:3).

The ingenuity of the Lord's account of creation and other physical processes (like the flood) is in how it does not contradict any truth He would allow man to discover throughout the coming ages. The Lord knew man would one day realize the earth was not flat, and so He was careful to not say anything in His Scriptures that would dogmatically declare it was flat. It was not important to Him whether the people He was speaking to at the time thought the earth was flat or not. He allowed them to believe something that was not actually true because it served His purpose, and He had not made a definitive statement about it either way. His words accommodated belief in a flat earth but they did not REQUIRE a flat earth.

The same can be said concerning geocentrism. The Lord knew the initial tendency of man would be to believe the earth was stationary and the heavenly bodies moved above it. This was the natural conclusion of people on earth trying to assess their situation. He also knew that over the centuries and millennia He would allow man to discover more about His creation, including observations that challenge man's previous beliefs. As we detailed in a previous chapter, it took over 5500 of the 6000 years of recorded history for man to conclude the earth was not fixed in place and actually moved around the sun. And as with the flat earth belief, the Lord allowed man to believe the earth was motionless and His words in the Scriptures accommodated that belief without explicitly requiring it.

Thus, one key reason for the Bible's ambiguity is it allows the Scriptures to accommodate believers of all ages who have varying degrees of revelation.

Is the Bible Yea, Nay, or No Comment?

The understanding of this ambiguity reveals an interesting truth from the Scriptures: they simply do not make any definitive statements concerning ANY cosmological system! Does the Bible in anyplace absolutely state that the earth is flat? No. Does it state the earth is round or a globe? No. Does it anywhere dogmatically proclaim the earth is stationary and motionless? No. Does it unequivocally demand that the sun and stars move around the earth? No. The simple fact is the Bible does not take a position on these things. Not the shape of the earth, not the "cosmology" of the sun and stars, and not what circles or orbits what. And since it does not make any specific and dogmatic statements, neither does it disallow any of these cosmological models!

Geocentrism is not "wrong" according to the Scriptures, but neither is heliocentrism. A flat earth is the most compatible with the Bible's terminology, but a global earth is by no means disallowed. A "firm" sky or "firmament" is in no way rejected by the Scriptures, but neither is an "atmosphere" or "space." The Scriptures accommodate all positions. Who knows, the Heliocentric system adhered to by nearly all today may still not be the best representation of reality. The Lord may reveal some other natural facts in the future that may put heliocentrism on its head. Nevertheless, again, the simple and clear fact is the Scriptures do not make any definitive statements concerning ANY cosmological system!

The only dogmatic statement we can make on this issue is the Bible does NOT make any dogmatic statements on this issue

Other Areas of Ambiguity

Not only is the Bible ambiguous concerning physical things, it is also quite vague concerning many spiritual matters. Take for instance a person's soul and spirit. What exactly is the difference between them according to the Scriptures? What exactly is a spirit and how does it interact with a soul? We know they are divisible (Heb 4:12), but exactly how? Each person has a soul but what precisely is it? Ask a dozen "scholars" and you will get a dozen answers. The Bible give us very few details about the soul and spirit yet they are the most important parts of our being! We know they exist and are real, but what they really are and how they work is not revealed. The spirit is likened to wind or air (John 3), and the soul is known as the immaterial part of man. But is not the spirit immaterial as well? Some of the ideas we have today about these unseen things may be as "off the mark" as man's past views of the seen or physical things.

Another area of possibly even more ambiguity is the Bible's references to time, eternity, eternal life, everlasting life, and the like. What do we really know about eternity as apposed to time? Essentially nothing. The Bible doesn't explain eternity at all and basically refers to time in the linear fashion we all experience. What does it mean when the Bible says God "inhabiteth eternity" (Isa 57:15)? No one really knows. Yes, some have fancy ideas about time and eternity like saying eternity is an eternal "now," but they didn't get that from the Scriptures. Most of the ideas people have about eternity came from the Greek philosophers.

Possibly, in some way the Lord may reveal more about these unseen, unknown, spiritual things in much the same way he revealed more of the workings of the visible, material part of creation. Thus in a similar way the current vagueness would have served its purpose: allowing the Scriptures to accommodate believers of all ages who have varying degrees of revelation.

Ambiguity Accommodates the Faith of All Generations

As we have detailed above the key reason for the Bible's ambiguity on various "scientific" subjects is it allows the Scriptures to accommodate believers of all ages who have varying degrees of revelation. The geocentrist will often say in this regard, "Why didn't the Lord just start off in Genesis saying the earth was spinning and the sun, moon, and heavens were not and be done with it?" The answer is "Who knows?" Yes, he could have said that if He wanted, but apparently He doesn't much care about such things at the moment. Actually, the Lord did not reveal anything new of the physical reality to the Old Testament saints that they did not already learn by observation or know previously unless it was for judgment as in Noah's case (told of then unknown rain/flood). Just imagine what it would be like if the Lord wrote a chapter that revealed and explained a bunch of scientific truths no one knew? It would be fascinating and wonderful for believers, but many wouldn't believe them unless "science" came to agree also. Nevertheless, if science later confirmed a truth first revealed in the Scriptures, then that would PROVE the author of the Scriptures was God (or at least a more knowledgeable being).

To the natural man this would seem like the perfect method for God to reveal Himself: just reveal some provable facts man does not yet know and that would prove He is there, but there are multiple reasons why the Lord may not want this to happen. One is it would pretty much destroy faith. Hebrews 11:3 says,

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The Lord has His program with man so wrapped up in faith that He didn't even reveal enough physical truths to conclusively prove creation! Supernatural creation MUST be believed by faith. Many Christian scientists would like to be able to prove absolutely that God created creation, but they can't. God Himself restricted His revelation to hinder those proofs. He wants people to believe Him for what He says and promises by faith, not for what He can show them or physically do for them! Remember all the huge crowds Jesus could assemble when He was feeding them with "free" food? They could SEE something supernatural occur, but they were only in it for their belly. When the food stopped they left (John 6:66).

Since God's whole program with humanity revolves around faith, if he had revealed that the earth spins and revolves around the sun (if that is what it does) then the revelation would have been counter to unaided human observation and could have brought untold complication and confusion to His agenda of faith in His word. Therefore, instead of revealing unknown physical facts, He simply revealed what man could accommodate at the time and let the future generations adapt. His program had much more important objectives to accomplish.

Another reason the Lord may not have wanted to reveal certain physical truths at or near the beginning would be to keep man from exploiting them. Remember at the tower of Babel where the Lord said, "and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do"? Maybe once certain physical facts were confirmed, man would use them to build their one world "New World Order" long before God wanted. Nevertheless, God did not reveal any physical truths in His word beyond the knowledge of those He directly spoke with or to, and to claim that He should have is extremely conceited and presumptuous.

Divine Accommodation

"Divine Accommodation" is an often misunderstood term. Some may use it to explain away practically every truth in the Bible by claiming the Lord is essentially speaking in the Bible in an allegorical manner: nothing should be taken literally. Of course, this is nonsense. "Divine Accommodation" simply means,

"it is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to."

Or to make it even simpler, man cannot know anything about God unless God reveals Himself to him in a manner he can receive and understand. In essence God's revelation (both natural and spiritual) is the "accommodation of Divine truths to human minds."

Essentially everything God does to reveal Himself is an accommodation. We mere humans cannot comprehend the infinite, so God gave us a revelation using something He created man to utilize—words. Does the triune God of eternity need words to communicate with Himself? Hardly, but man needs them and thus the Lord made them and uses them to relay information to man, and as a result we have the God given Scriptures.

Even the creation account is an accommodation. Does it take an infinite, omnipotent God six days to create the heavens and earth? Of course not, but He did it in six days to show man various things He wanted revealed. As we detailed in an earlier chapter God further accommodated man by describing Himself as having traits of men, i.e. "arms," "hands," "face," etc, so man could identify with Him. However, the greatest accommodation by far and the one closest to God's heart was His very own incarnation to become a man Himself! He "took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phi 2:7). He actually came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3). That is the epitome of accommodation and condescention: God becomes the very thing He wants to communicate with and reveal Himself to. Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9) thus with Christ man can see precisely what God is like (Heb 1:3). Paul even suggests that believers today should follow God's lead and accommodate other people for the sake of the gospel. He said,

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Nevertheless, there is a limit to to divine accommodation. Some contend God will even accommodate man to the point of confirming as true something that man believes which is not true. This is completely false. The Bible is clear, God "cannot lie." The veracity of God and His Scriptures is a constant theme in the Bible and if God would somehow violate this principle, it would impugn His integrity and the trustworthiness of the Scriptures themselves. However, as we have seen, using figures of speech and relative language is NOT deceptive or untrue. The Scriptures use them all the time. Terms like "sunrise," "sunset," and even the rain falling "down" (Job 36:27, etc.) is all relative, perspective language that is perfectly acceptable and even used between members of the Godhead.

King James Cosmology

5b
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 we 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.

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 groups 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."

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.

Note: 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 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 in their position is manifest 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."

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 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.

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 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.

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 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."

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.

King James Cosmology

Appendix a
A Geocentrist's Questions Answered

By
Timothy S. Morton

Your author was given these questions (found here) by a Bible Believing geocentrist during and online debate concerning geocentrism. Even with only a quick glance one can see supposition, assumption, and sadly a lack of scriptural integrity in the questions. They are desperate attempts by desperate people trying their best to legitimize a fringe doctrine.

Lists of questions such as these invariably represent the best arguments proponents of any cause can muster. When one examines the deficient nature of these questions he will soon realize geocentrism has no sound Scriptural basis at all.

At the end we will present the geocentrists with a few of our own questions, none of which they can answer in support of their view.

For a much fuller treatment of these issues see the authors book, King James Cosmology.

TEN QUESTIONS FOR HELIO-HEADS

1. Since the Bible suggests a geocentric earth from the beginning (the earth is not moving, but the Holy Spirit, which apparently preceded the sun as the earth's light source is moving upon the earth's face in Gen 1:2), and the sun was not created until the 4th day, when in the Bible did the earth start spinning in place and revolving around the sun?

Look at the astonishing amount of assumption, speculation, leading statements, and scriptural abuse in that single question!

Where in Genesis 1:2 (or all of Genesis for that matter) does it say the earth is not moving? It doesn't. Where does it say that the Holy Spirit is the "earth's light"? It doesn't. Third, where does it say in Genesis 1:1-3 that the light God created is shining on the earth? It doesn't. And where does it say that the Holy Spirit is moving upon the "earth's face"? Again, It doesn't!

This is utterly amazing. The questioner makes four "matter-of-fact" statements and all are pure invention! The Bible says none of these things. It says the "Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." It nowhere states these waters must be on the earth. This is merely assumption trying to pass as fact. The "deep," which can describe waters above the earth, is the immediate context.

Concerning the question "When in the Bible did the earth start spinning in place and revolving around the sun?", how about this question "Where in the Bible does it say that the firmament starting spinning and also oscillating up and down (to create the seasons)?" Ah, nowhere. Whatever motion there is in the universe, God had to initiate it. With the very first question the geocentrists show the extreme scriptural weakness of their position and desperation of their claims.

2. How can the non-moving earth and moving light of Genesis 1 be "phenomenological" when no human was making the observation? The only one there was God, who is giving the account?

Again, the question ASSUMES the earth is not moving and the light is! There is no statement in the Bible that proves either. This shows the true nature of geocentrism, it is based on assumption, speculation, supposition, and opinion; not on clear, definitive statements in the Scriptures.
As to saying God was the one making the observation (implying all the statements must be from His perspective in the third heaven), what does that prove? Nothing. He wrote the Scriptures for OUR (man's) learning (Rom 15:4) thus He would naturally explain matters in a way man can understand. If God revealed things as HE ACTUALLY knows them, we could not comprehend them at all (Isa 55:8-9).

3. If the obvious geocentric passages are "phenomenological" (perspective, appearance), how do we know when God is speaking absolutely? When the Bible says Jesus walked on water, how can we know He wasn't just standing in shallows but it "appeared" to observers that He was walking on the water? Is it possible to know which passages are absolute and which are phenomenological, or is the whole Bible uncertain in that regard? If we appeal to other verses we think are figurative to justify taking all the geocentric verses figuratively, how long until we make the entire Bible allegorical?

How do we know when God is speaking absolutely...read the Scriptures man! The context and knowledge of who is speaking and being spoken to will reveal how words are to be taken. The example of the Lord walking on water is given as if what the Bible says about it is in doubt. There is no doubt. Sure, many today do not believe in miracles, but the problem is with them, not with what the Bible is actually saying. There is no doubt to anyone who reads the Bible that the Scriptures clearly present Christ as truly walking on water. "Standing in shallows..." are you kidding? Peter SANK in the same water Christ walked on (Mat 14:30)!

Geocentrists and others often use this "all or nothing" approach. They try to tie their weak doctrines to sound Bible doctrines hoping to give their claims legitimacy. It won't work; a child can see through it. Highly desperate tactics.

4. If we can take "the sun arose" figuratively, how can we argue with evolutionists and atheists who take "the Son arose" figuratively? If we render large parts of Genesis as figurative, how can we criticize Bible deniers for doing the same thing?

Because the Bible presents "many infallible proofs" (Act 1:3) that Jesus Christ literally and physically arose from the dead! "Sun" and "Son" are two completely different words. Yes, the sun can be a TYPE of Jesus Christ, but this does not make them the same. Furthermore, even sensible geocentrists realize the sun doesn't literally "rise" or "set" on the earth. They know it is shining on some part of the earth all the time. This question suggests there is no figurative language in the Scriptures which is pure, ignorant nonsense.

Also, concerning types, does not the questioner realize one can NEVER prove doctrine about the anti-type from its type? If so, one could prove Jesus Christ was married and had children! His types did (Isaac, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, etc.). Think about this before you try to reverse types.

(This is a contrived argument. Your author has never heard or read of an atheist using it.)

5. If the sun "standing still" in Joshua 10 was really due to the earth stopping spinning, what caused the moon to "stay" in the same passage? The stopping of the earth would not account for that. Does the scripture say anyone saw the sun stand still (observed the appearance), or does it state that the sun did stand still whether anyone observed it or not?

Claiming the earth stopped spinning in Joshua chapter 10 was the cause of the long day is just more speculation. There are many ways the Lord could have performed the miracle. The easiest may be He just stopped all celestial movement in the universe. The moon stopped, the sun stopped, the stars stopped, the earth stopped, EVERYTHING stopped. That way all the heavens would stay in sync for the "restart." The truth is no one knows HOW the Lord performed this miracle (and it was just that, a miracle, thus any "laws" of motion or physics were suspended and all undesired effects accounted for).

Joshua 10:14 states, "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man," and what the man requested was, "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon" (Jos 10:12). So the Lord answered Joshua's prayer, and from the perspective of Israel the sun did stand still "upon Gibeon" and the moon "in the valley of Ajalon." Thus the passage does say, "and he said in the sight of Israel." Did the questioner think no one would read the text?

6. If the wind and water do the actual moving in Ecc 1, why doesn't the sun? All three are described that same way. If God was speaking so ancient man could understand better, why would He do so only for the geocentric passage, but not for the wind currents or hydrologic cycle, which ancient man also didn't know?

"Which ancient man also didn't know"? In Ecclesiastes 1:5-7 Do you think Solomon was so ignorant he did not know the wind "whirleth about continually" and returns? He didn't know that "rivers" run into the sea but it doesn't fill up, etc.? These are all obvious observations from the human perspective of a man "under the sun." The same with the sun rising and going down. From the human perspective it does appear to move, much like "rivers" appear to "flow."

To clarify for the geocentrists who confuse water for "rivers," rivers themselves don't move. It is the water in them that moves. The Jordon river in Israel has stayed in the same location on earth ever since the flood. It has always been between the sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea and has not moved from there one bit. Also, there can be dry rivers without any water in them at all, just like the brook Cherith in Elijah's day (1Ki 17:7). It is the same for a "road." Roads literally don't "go" anywhere; they stay where they are.

It is clear from the context with the term "rivers" Solomon is actually referring to the water that normally flows in rivers, but, again, in a strict, literal sense a river does not move. geocentrists do have a time with words, don't they? If they say in response, "Solomon was using the word "rivers" in the common manner all people use it," they would be correct, and that is the way he used the words "sun" and "wind" as well.

7. What would be so difficult to understand about heliocentrism if it was true? Why would God have to cloak the truth?

God didn't "cloak" anything. He is simply mentioning things from an earthly, human perspective. This is no different than Him explaining Himself by saying He has arms, hands, eyes, feet, tattoos, wings, and feathers when He is actually a spirit.

Apart from the judgment of the flood where God revealed there would be rain from the sky, He does not normally directly reveal unknown natural truths to man. It does not serve His purpose.

(With words like this geocentrists are putting themselves in a hard place by charging God with folly if geocentrism is false.)

8. How can the earth fit the analogy as God's footstool and resting place and the earth as where He sits in Isaiah if it is spinning at 999 mph hurling through space at 66,600 mph?

You call Isaiah 66:1 an analogy and still try to make a literal application? The passage is simply saying, using figurative and even hyperbolic language, that the Lord encompasses all of creation, both heaven and earth. As for God's footstool as a "resting place," how is it any different if the reverse is true and the earth is stationary and the heavens are spinning 999 mph as geocentrism claims? Would not the "throne" be spinning with it? Of course, the effect would be the same.

9. Is there any reason to believe heliocentricity other than because modern science says so? If so-called science didn't say so, is there any clear biblical reason to believe it? Can anyone make a real scriptural case FOR heliocentrism (not just by rendering the geocentric verses away)?

No one can make an absolute scriptural case for or against heliocentrism, geocentrism, or any other cosmological system. Although the Bible uses geocentric language, because that is the perspective of man, it by no means makes definitive, absolute statements proclaiming it as fact. The Bible takes no absolute position on cosmology or the motions of heavenly objects. geocentrists see heliocentrism as their nemesis, but heliocentrism may not be the last word on the true nature of the universe anyway. There may be yet undiscovered facts the Lord may let man find that would supplant heliocentrism as it is understood today.

10. If God wanted to convey a geocentric system, how could He have conveyed it any plainer than He already has in the Bible? Conversely, if God wanted to convey a heliocentric system, couldn't He have made that MUCH plainer? Couldn't God have said "the earth stopped spinning", or "the earth spun backward" instead of "the sun stood still" and "the sun went backward"? If God could say the sun moved in a circuit, why couldn't He say that about the earth? Those things would not have been any harder to understand.

"How could He have conveyed it any plainer than He already has in the Bible?" You have got to be kidding! 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. Again, He simply does not take an absolute position on "cosmology" in His Scriptures. As for conveying a "heliocentric system," He didn't wish to convey any system. He just spoke as man sees things. In fact, He doesn't seem to care what people think about the true motions of the heavens. That is not His focus.

Speculating on what the Lord COULD have done is a futile venture. What is important is what He HAS done and revealed through Scripture and Nature. Much can be learned from what He doesn't say as well as from what He does say. When one learns to embrace the Bible's ambiguity instead of shun it, he learns a great lesson.

Some Questions for Geocentrists

Now we'll offer a few questions for the geocentrists. If they cannot answer them conclusively from Scripture then your author's claim that the Bible does not insist on any cosmological system is vindicated.

Where in the Bible does it say "earth" is a planet or celestial body?

Where in the Bible does it state that the earth is in the center or middle of the heavens or universe?

Where in the Bible does it state the earth is contained in or surrounded by the heavens or universe?

Where in the Bible does it definitively say the earth is motionless?

Where in the Bible does it say the moon's light is actually reflected sunlight?

Where in the Bible does it say the moon orbits or circles the earth?

The geocentrists won't be able to answer any of these. Actually, the Bible ALWAYS speaks of the heavens and earth as being completely separate entities. They are NEVER spoken of as one being part of or contained within the other. The thought that the earth resides in or is surrounded by the heavens is completely foreign to the Bible, yet this belief is a main tenet of both geocentrism and heliocentrism.

These facts demand the global geocentrists answer these follow up questions as well,

If you believe earth is a planet or celestial body, why do you believe so? 

If you believe earth is surrounded by the universe or heavens, on what do you base your claims?

If you believe the moon's light is reflected sunlight, what causes you to believe that?

If you believe the moon orbits a planet or global earth, why do you believe that?

Send me your answers and we'll discuss them if you wish, morton@bibleanalyzer.com.