Appendix a
A Geocentrist's Questions Answered

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 five questions, none of which they can answer.

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


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 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.
  1. Where in the Bible does it state that the earth is in the center or middle of the heavens or universe?
  2. Where in the Bible does it state the earth is contained in or surrounded by the heavens or universe?
  3. Where in the Bible does it definitively say the earth is motionless?
  4. Where in the Bible does it say the moon's light is actually reflected sunlight?
  5. Where in the Bible does it say that the moon orbits or circles the earth?
This is enough. They won't be able to answer any of them. 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. This fact of omission alone proves the Bible does not make any definitive claims of cosmology or the absolute movements of any celestial bodies.