Bible Cosmology — Is There Such A Thing?
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.
This event will be invariably brought up in any presentation of
"biblical Geocentrism," and many of them will smugly proclaim,
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
"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
Joshua 10 is not as much a friend to Geocentrism as many assume.
In fact, some of the most notable Geocentrism proponents will
concede this. We know the account, Israel was in battle with the
Amorites and the day was getting late, and Joshua prayed to the
Lord that the "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon,
in the valley of Ajalon." And they did stop! The day did not
progress for about another whole day. The issue concerning
Geocentrism is not did they appear to stop, but HOW did they stop.
Some of the more shallow Geocentrists will just repeat like a
"broken record," "The Bible says the sun stopped...The Bible says
the sun stopped...," but that is not all the Bible says here. The
Bible also says the sun and moon was to stop in specific places;
the sun UPON Gibeon; and the Moon IN the valley of Ajalon, and
there lies the dilemma. The Lord threw another monkey-wrench into
the Geocentrists hyper-literal desire for the passage by placing
figurative or phenomenological language right in the middle of it!
The sun did not rest absolutely and literally "upon Gibeon" and
neither did the moon literally dwell "in the valley of Ajalon."
Joshua's words are a clear figure of speech. This is such an
obvious figure of speech or instance of "perspective language"
that even one of the major "deans of Geocentrism," Gerardus Bouw,
acknowledges as much. Joshua 10:12 is such a snare to him that he
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
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
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
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
Also, the supposed quote from Jasher raises a significant problem
many Geocentrists have overlooked. It says, "So the sun stood
still in the midst of heaven." So the sun was in the midst or
middle of heaven? ("Midst" is most often defined as "the
middle" or in the "thickest part" of something. For instance, the
"tree of life" was in the midst or very middle of the Garden of
Eden" Gen 2:9, 3:3) The heaven the sun resides in is the second
heaven. That is, space or the visible material universe. So at
thousands or millions of light-years across, if the sun was in the
middle of it...it would be so far away it could not even be seen!
But more than that if the sun is in the middle of heaven that
would make it the center of the universe; the very concept the
Geocentrists claim for the earth!
Geocentrists. You cannot produce a single verse
that says the earth is in the midst, middle or center of
heaven (or anything else), but we can show you one that says
THE SUN IS in the midst of heaven, and it is in one of your
most key Geocentrism passages! Oh, the irony. The Lord must
have a sense of humor.
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.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the only other objects found
in the "midst of heaven" are angels that fly "through the midst
of heaven" (Rev 8:13), and that only stands to reason for an
angel coming from the third heaven. The angel would have to pass
completely through the second heaven to get to earth, thus
traveling directly through the midst or middle of it!
Furthermore, in the previous verse (Rev 8:12) an angel had just
smitten a "third part of the stars" which naturally reside in
the furthest extents of the second heaven. So trying to insist
that the "midst of heaven" just means somewhat "within heaven"
or "in part of heaven" is not taking the phrase literal because
the only other instances of the words refer to angels flying all
the way through it! Thus, taking the passages literally (and
comparing with other Scripture) means the sun in Joshua 10:13 is
in the midst or middle of heaven.
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
Ah, but that is just more poetic, figurative language placed in
the context to confound the poor Geocentrists.
What we do know is the sun and moon delayed their apparent course
through the sky. We can think of several possible methods: the
Lord stopped the sun and moon if they are moving; He stopped the
earth's spin if it is spinning; He matched the rotation of the
earth with the sun (or vice versa) so their was no apparent motion
between them; or the simplest way of all could have been He
simply stopped ALL motion in the universe!
Stopping all celestial movement everywhere actually
covers all the issues. The sun would stop, the moon would stop,
the earth would stop, and so with everything else, and when all
was started back up, everything would remain in perfect sync!
What is interesting with this method is even in a
Heliocentric system one can literally say the sun and moon
stood still! They would not be stopping in the way the
Geocentrist want to portray, but they would still be stopped and
thus the verse fulfilled. There goes another favorite Geocentric
Nevertheless, how the miracle occurred is irrelevant, but that
won't hinder the die-hard Geocentrist from insisting "The sun
stopped...the sun stopped...so it must have been moving before."
His selective hyper-literalism blinds him to all reason and
compels that automatic response.
Here is a silly observation as a break from some of
the doctrine you have been getting so far. Some shallow and
naive Geocentrists actually insist God couldn't stop the earth
from spinning (a hypothetical spinning to them), because if he
did, all the water would splash out of the oceans over the
continents, people would be thrown down and get hurt (or even
thrown off the earth into outer space), and all kinds of other
bad things would happen. How they make such asinine statements
with a straight face is a mystery. Is their allegiance to
Geocentrism so strong that they will even abandon reason? Are
they so married to Geocentrism that they have become theological
Only The Shadow Knows
Do these Geocentrists actually know what a miracle is? Well, if
not, a miracle is defined as a suspension of natural laws by the
Lord so He can do something supernatural. I know of no one who
denies the lengthened day of Joshua 10 as a miracle, so all of
this ignorant hogwash promoted by some Geocentrists about the
oceans splashing is pure nonsense. When the Lord performs a
miracle He takes into account all the ramifications He doesn't
want to occur and adjusts for them. So yes, of course, the Lord
could stop the earth from spinning with no undesired ill affects
as easy as He could walk on water without getting is feet wet.
The Geocentrists argument is like saying the Israelites could
not have crossed the Red Sea because their shoes and carts would
have been stuck in the mud. God not only parted the sea; He also
dried up the muddy sea bottom as well (Ex 14:16)! Nothing
escapes Him. One would think some people would eventually make
it out of third grade.
A similar event to Joshua's long day is the account of
Hezekiah's sign. One time king Hezekiah was sick and near death
and he asked the Lord to remember him. The Lord replied through
"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
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
And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he
brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone
down in the dial of Ahaz. (2Kings 20:11)
This sign is also mentioned in Isaiah chapter 38. Here it is the
Lord's own words recorded,
And this shall be a sign unto thee from the LORD, that
the LORD will do this thing that he hath spoken; Behold, I will
bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the
sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.... (Isa 38:7-8)
Much to the chagrin of the Geocentrists, notice the Lord does not
mention that He is doing anything with the sun. It is the "shadow"
that is the object in question. The Lord said He would move the
"shadow" in both accounts. How did He do this? No one knows. Here
the Geocentrists will interject the last part of Isa 38:8 where it
says, "So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was
gone down," but these are not the Lord's direct words. They
are the words of Isaiah, the narrator of his book and the events,
thus they are from man's perspective.
It would have been very easy for the Lord to say He was going to
move the sun...but He didn't. He left how He was going to perform
the sign ambiguous. Did He move the sun anyway? Maybe, or He may
have just moved the appearance of the sun in the sky in some way
by reflection or other means. Nevertheless, a prime opportunity
for the Lord to explicitly say He was going to literally move the
sun was passed by. Wonder why?
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
1 Chr 16:30 “Fear before him, all the earth: the world
also shall be stable, that it be not 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.
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."
Earth vs 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
Notice how the "kingdoms of the world," and thus people,
governments, cities, etc., are "upon the face of the earth." The
"earth" is the physical globe or planet itself while the "world"
is basically a social system of life and people (and all their
inventions) upon it. That is why John 3:16 says, "God so loved the
world," not that He loved the planet earth. Look at Psalm 24:1,
"The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the
world, and they that dwell therein."
The distinction here is clear. There is the "earth" and the
"world." Two separate concepts.
Here is another verse the Geocentrists need to explain from their
"literal" approach. Psalm 76:8 says,
"Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven;
the earth feared, and was still,"
Is the earth literally afraid? How can a inanimate planet fear?
Maybe they believe the earth is alive and conscious (while they
hug their trees)? Come on Geocentrists. Are you not going to take
this passage literally? Are you beginning to realize passages like
this expose your failings however your answer?
If you say the physical planet earth can have the emotion of fear
you will be seen as a new-age kook. If you say it is a figurative
statement meaning the earth will be quiet during the Millennial
period from all its earthquakes and tumult of the recent
Tribulation (what it actually is saying), you will not be taking
the Bible literally. If you say "earth" also represents the people
on the earth as well as the planet, then you have undermined your
whole stable or "stablished" argument. If it means people here it
can mean people anywhere.
It's time to obfuscate and equivocate again Geocentrists. You all
are masters of it.
Even though the terms "world" and "earth" usually refer to
different aspects of physical existence, they are very much joined
together, but the relationship is not equal. There can be no
earthly world without the physical earth, but there can be, and
was in Genesis 1, an earth with no "world." Ever since Adam the
earth has always had a world upon it, but not before. Therefore,
it is possible in certain contexts for the term "earth" to
represent the people of earth as well (Psa 67:7) but not the
opposite. If the planet earth stopped moving, of course, all the
people on it would stop moving as well. But if the "world" stopped
in some way, the earth would not have to stop at all. Suppose
everyone on earth could synchronize and stand still for five
seconds. Would the earth stop spinning. Nope. What if every thing
on earth died? The earth would chug along on its travels as long
as the Lord wanted.
Bouw in his book, A Geocentric Primer, while discussing
Psalm 93:1, tries to equate the world with the earth while at the
same time rightly saying "the Bible makes a consistent and
important distinction between the world and the earth." He agrees
that "world" refers to people and their worldly systems and
"earth" refers to the planet, and then he essentially undoes it
all by claiming the Bible "indicates that if it can be shown that
the world does not move, that then the earth does not move either,
and vice versa." As we saw above this is not the case at all. The
worldly systems can be completely dissolved and not affect the
planet earth at all.
Take a look at Noah's flood. The Lord completely gutted the then
existing worldly system and the earth itself didn't flinch. At the
tower of Babel the Lord confounded the existing one world system
so thoroughly that not a remnant of it was left. They all
scattered babbling strange languages, and the earth continued as
if nothing happened.
Bouw says when the Lord "stablished" "the world," He actually
stablished the earth also so it wouldn't move. As we have seen,
this is highly inconsistent and self-serving position. Has Bouw
forgotten about Mat. 12:32 where the Lord speaks about the "world
to come"? This present world will pass away during the Tribulation
and a new world will come with the Millennium, and the earth will
keep right on doing its day and night routine through it all.
Obviously, the term "world" can't mean "earth" just when one wants
it to. This is Bouw's very first Scripture in his book supposedly
indicating Geocentrism is scriptural, and He botched it bad.
(In Heb 1:2; 11:3 the term "worlds" [plural] is used.
There "worlds" refers to the universe as a whole. It is from the
same Greek word as "age." The Lord created all the worlds, both
physical and spiritual.)
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
"I have set the LORD always before me: because he is
at my right hand, I shall not be moved."
Obviously, "moved" doesn't mean David can't physically move or he
couldn't even breathe. "Not be moved" means he will not
waver off his course or direction; he will not be forced from his
current path of goodness and righteousness and be confounded (see
Psa 15:5; 62:6, Isa 50:7). And for you brethren with
"Originalitis," the same Hebrew word is used for "moved" in Psa
16:8 as used in 1Ch 16:30, Psa 93:1, and Psa 96:10.
Now as soon as we say this some Geocentrists will bring up a verse
like Zech 1:11 where it says,
"We have walked to and fro through the earth, and,
behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest."
But look at how the term "all the earth" is used. It is clear from
the context that "all the earth" refers to the people of the
earth. Remember, speaking of the earth can also speak of the world
(society) upon it if the context suggests it, as it does here.
They walked through the land or earth and found that the people
were at rest. They wouldn't have to walk anywhere if they were
saying that the physical planet earth was not moving. How does
walking around help one determine if the planet is moving or not?
(Note: Using difficult and obscure passages
like Zechariah chapter 1 to develop doctrine is a cultic
practice. Any Bible Believer who does so is at risk of harming
himself and the perception of the gospel among the lost.
Zechariah is one of the toughest books in the Bible to
understand. Why would anyone go there to try and prove a
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. Any of these could be the case, but there
is one other option that is not considered by either group.
First what is a "circle"? Webster says it is "a plane figure
comprehended by a single curve line, called its circumference." He
also defines it as a "compass" or "circuit." The Hebrew word
is "chug" (G2329) and is defined as a "circle, circuit, or
compass." The KJB uses the word "chug" only three times. Once
as "circle" (Isa 40:22), once as "circuit" (Job 22:14) and once
as "compass" (Pro 8:27), so its usage is quite clear.
"Circle" itself only speaks of the edge or perimeter; not what may
be inside it. To form a circle one uses a "compass" and moves
it through a "circuit" or path. Therefore the "circle of the
earth" could just as easily refer to the circuit of the earth as
it travels a path. Or in other words its orbit around the sun.
That the "circle of the earth" could be its orbit cannot be
disproven if you tried all night. Why? Because Isa 40 is another
place where the Scriptures are sometimes "poetic" or figurative.
Just in verse 22 the Lord is said to "sitteth upon the circle of
the earth," yet other passages says His throne is in heaven (Isa
66:1). The verse says the people of earth are like grasshoppers.
The passage is replete with figure and symbolism. How does the
Lord literally "sitteth upon the circle of the earth"?
(Maybe this is just another one of Bouw's "language of man"
passages and should be discounted!)
Since the passage is ambiguous and figurative the "circle of the
earth" could mean any of several things: the edge of the
globe, the edge of a disk, the circle of the horizon, the dome
of the firmament, or even a path or orbit the earth may move
along. Actually, the last one fits best when you consider a
circle comes from something moving in a circuit. You can't prove
or disprove any of them. One thing is certain, however, there is a
circle connected with the earth. The rest is pretty much
speculation until the Lord reveals more. It may be the Lord will
let it mean different things to people of different ages and
times. More on this later.
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 we have shown them to be flawed. Yes, they may come up with a
few more verses to try and "prove" their ideas, but they will
merely be used to bolster the same arguments we have already
addressed; either the sun and universe moves or the earth is
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
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
As we said at the start, it seems many believers don't realize a
lot can be gleaned from what the Bible doesn't say about a subject
nearly as much as what it does say. For instance, most don't
realize that the Scriptures never say that the earth is
within, surrounded, or contained in the heavens in any way.
(Some of you learned something right there.) Furthermore, it does
not say the earth is in the center, middle, or midst of any
heaven, firmament, universe or anything else. (there you
learned something, again.) All these Geocentrists talk about the
earth being the center of the universe, but there is not a passage
of scripture that even suggests that. The Bible ALWAYS says the
heavens are above the earth. And here is the "kicker," the earth
and the heavens are ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION SPOKEN OF AS
COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTITIES. One is never spoken of as part
of or contained in the other. So to try and use Scripture to
"prove" that the earth is sitting within or at the center of the
heavens is a clear "wresting" of the Bible.
What did the Lord do, forget to tell us those things? Did He not
know that man in the 21st century is going to be smart and
knowledgeable about science and the universe, and He needed to
make these things clear (I speak as a man). No, He didn't forget.
Apparently, He just doesn't care about relaying to us cosmological
details with His Scriptures. It is not that he is "dumbing down"
the Bible for man, he is just not much interested in spending
words talking about inanimate objects he created. He is interested
in the people on the earth; the world! The world is His
focus and the heavens were largely created to support the earth.
The term "Geocentric" would be a good term to show the Lord's
interest and focus on man on the earth, but it has been hijacked.
So your author has a term to signify God's true interest. He is
"Geofocal." One could also say "Anthrofocal," but Geofocal works
as well. God's focus, attention, and concern is on the earth
because of its human element, and that's completely without regard
to where it is in His physical universe. Man looks on the outward
appearance (physical); God looks on the heart. God is Geofocal.
(Its rather ironic that we had to
write two whole chapters on "Bible Cosmology" just to show the
Bible doesn't take a stand on it!)