Importance of Geocentrism

[vossler]

TEs are always bringing up geocentrism as a hammer against a literal interpretation of Genesis. I submit that it is nothing but a red herring and has nothing to do with either a literal on non-literal interpretation of Genesis. My point is that no matter how you see the world, geocentric or heliocentric, the meaning or message that God intended us to know of the Scripture doesn't change. I was having a dialog with shernren on this very subject when the thread was deleted. Here is the last post on the subject, something I believe worthy of further dialog.

Below is shernren's post providing evidence of a change in meaning or message and my reply.

Originally Posted by shernren

Psalm 19:4b-5 (ESV):
In [the heavens] He has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.

According to the geocentrist interpretation:
- There is a dwelling place for the sun in the heavens.
- When the sun rises, it physically leaves this dwelling place. (It "comes out".)
- As the day passes, it physically moves. (It "runs its course with joy".)
- At night it returns to its dwelling place.

According to the heliocentrist interpretation:
- There is a place for the sun in the heavens;
- But the sun's rising has absolutely nothing to do with its leaving that place;
- The sun's passage across the sky has absolutely nothing to do with any physical movement of the sun;
- And the sun's disappearance at night has absolutely nothing to do with the sun returning to where it started.

Aren't these both diametrically opposite meanings? How can the geocentric and heliocentric views possibly mean the same thing?
​

My reply:

One thing I really have to compliment you on Tee is your ability to delve into Scripture (btw, in this regard you are much different than the typical TE) and pull out some interesting stuff. Yet, on the other hand by doing so you also can take the simple and make it far more complex than it ever was intended to be.

I have to admit, when TEs typically post their reasoning I'm usually cynical and not very receptive to what they are trying to say. There are many reasons for this but I admit this is wrong and that shouldn't be my first response. I'm trying to do better.

I was also quite pleased that you selected this Psalm because it is actually my favorite and I know it very well. That also presented somewhat of a problem because I had preconceived ideas implanted as to what it said and meant. So, rather than give my initial response to your hypothesis I thought I would run this by someone totally outside of the discussion, someone who I respected and thought highly of yet had no stake in the outcome. My wonderful wife. I asked her, who's admittedly more simple and less complex when approaching Scripture, to first read the entire Psalm and then comment on it. After that I asked her if the meaning of the Psalm might in any way be affected if she read it from a geocentric point of view. Without saying it, she looked at me as if I somehow had gone off the deep end for asking such a strange question. I explained to her how the verses in question, if interpreted differently like seeing them from a geocentric or heliocentric view, depending on your view, could possibly alter their meaning. She placated my request and truly tried to see both points of view but in the end she told me that I'm thinking into this thing far too much and not allowing the text to speak to me as God intended. Undeterred I continued to press her for an answer, and she finally told me the meaning didn't change whether it was geo or helio centric and she couldn't for the life of her understand how people could actually want to discuss this to that level. I smiled and thanked her.

Now as for my own assessment, well I was at first going just leave it at that and agree with her limited and somewhat shallow interpretation. But I also knew that would never suffice in our discussion, so I prepared something a little more verbose. But first I wanted to say you never truly answered the question. I wanted to know how the message or meaning from God could be altered by seeing a passage from a geo or helio centric point of view. Even in your example you didn't do that. Remember I wanted to know how God's message or meaning changes, not our interpretation of certain words or phrases. Your example didn't show how the meaning of this Psalm, what God intended for us to walk away with, changes depending on how you saw the relationship between the earth and the sun. Now if I'm wrong please correct me and please be specific showing how the meaning or message from God is altered by our viewpoint of geo or helio centricism.

Not to dismiss your example outright, because it does present differences, but I would submit that only the truly few would ever see them in any such way as you presented it. The vast majority would see this Psalm as the Hebrew poetry that it is, which is a form of parallel poetry. These first few verses of the Psalm are the natural revelation of God in the physical world in which we live. More specifically in your highlighted verses the role of the sun in our world. Then later in the Psalm they are contrasted to the special revelation of God in His writing or Word. In the verses you highlight we have the passage of the sun, likened to the bridegroom coming out of his wedding chamber or tent in the morning and how that power comes back each and every day maintaining life as we know it. In the later verses (special revelation) we see how God uses this as a metaphor to demonstrate how His Word is just like the sun, perfect and mighty to do everything He intends; how it is complete and endures just as the sun does. How desirable it is for life. So now matter how you see the sun, whether geocentric or heliocentric, this basic meaning never changes.

If that's the best you can do then I'm sorry, but like I said, whether we live in a geo or helio centric world is of no importance to how we are to interpret God's Word.

 

[Mallon]

My point is that no matter how you see the world, geocentric or heliocentric, the meaning or message that God intended us to know of the Scripture doesn't change.

And the point made by evolutionary creationists is that no matter how you see the world -- created in an instant 6,000 years ago or evolved over billions of years -- the meaning or message that God intended us to know of the Scripture doesn't change.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Going back to the Psalm in the Hebrew: the last part of that verse states :[He]Set [His] Tabernacle [in the] sun.
The sun does have a chamber to go out of, and it runs it's course/ races over it's thouroughfare/path/ highway. 1 Enoch describes the "portals" of the sun, for the seasons, which it comes out of.

The same Psalm is 18, in The Douay Rheims Bible, and verse says; 6 He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he [the sun], as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way:

The importance of the whole thing is that God says the sun and moon and stars have their courses/paths/highways, and that the earth is fixed. At least the earth is fixed in it;s place for now, until the tribulation, when it will be turned upside down and stagger and reel as a drunk [Isaiah 25]-but He promises to bear up the pillars of it [Psalm 75:2,3].
God says the sun runs it's course around the earth. We we have no authority to change the clear and plain statements He has made, through His prophets.
God made the earth the center of His universe, and set His created temple in His created sun, from where the inhabitants of earth are "like grasshoppers in His sight".

Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and YHWH heeded Joshua and the sun stood still for about a whole day.
In another passage, the sun went backwards for ten degrees, as a sign to Hezekiah.
In Another passage, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

In all passages, the sun always rises and sets, and it comes out of it's chamber.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

TEs are always bringing up geocentrism as a hammer against a literal interpretation of Genesis. I submit that it is nothing but a red herring and has nothing to do with either a literal on non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

It is not a red herring, Communism is the real read herring (sorry, movie reference). But it is still not a red herring. The question is, if you insist on reading Genesis as a literal account of creation, then why do you not insist upon reading the passages that imply that the sun goes around the earth as a literal account of how the universe works?

After that I asked her if the meaning of the Psalm might in any way be affected if she read it from a geocentric point of view. Without saying it, she looked at me as if I somehow had gone off the deep end for asking such a strange question. I explained to her how the verses in question, if interpreted differently like seeing them from a geocentric or heliocentric view, depending on your view, could possibly alter their meaning.

But the question is not whether your wife, or you, or I see a particular passage's meaning change when we view it from a heli or a geocentric perspective. The question is, what does the passage actually mean? What did it mean to those that read and heard it first? What do the actual words mean? And it is clear, that when we read the Bible this way, that the ancient Israelite people, like most (all?) people in the ancient world believed the sun to go around the earth.

Your example didn't show how the meaning of this Psalm, what God intended for us to walk away with, changes depending on how you saw the relationship between the earth and the sun.

I as not privy to the whole conversation, but it seems to me that the point was not (or at least should not have been) that the entire message changes, the point is that this Psalm, like many other passages, seem to convey a scientific idea that we know to be false and thus we cannot rely on the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge because God never meant it to be used in such a fashion.

So now matter how you see the sun, whether geocentric or heliocentric, this basic meaning never changes.

Correct, but the point is, if YECs view Genesis 1 literally, an obviously poetic chapter not meant to be taken literally but instead meant as a polemic against foreign gods that is arranged in a framework style poem, then why do they not take poems like this one as unequivacable 'proof' that the sun goes around the earth like pople did until the Scientific Revolution. You cannot have it both ways, either the Bible and specifically Hebrew poetry is a good way of learning science and thus the Universe was created in 6 days around 6,000 years ago with the sun going around the earth, or the Bible and Hebew potry is not a good way of learning science and we can get back to the scientific method and realize that, just like the fact that the sun does not go around the earth, the fact that the universe is older than 6,000 years is the only reasonable belief given teh evidence that we have.

 

[billwald]

According to Einstein, there are no preferred locations or directions in this universe. On the other hand, the math is easier if it is assumed that the earth travels in an ellipse around the sun. This is an old argument.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

According to Einstein, there are no preferred locations or directions in this universe. On the other hand, the math is easier if it is assumed that the earth travels in an ellipse around the sun. This is an old argument.

haha! It is funny because I was just wondering if someone was going to decide to bring this up. I am glad you did.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You cannot have it both ways, either the Bible and specifically Hebrew poetry is a good way of learning science and thus the Universe was created in 6 days around 6,000 years ago with the sun going around the earth, or the Bible and Hebew potry is not a good way of learning science and we can get back to the scientific method and realize that, just like the fact that the sun does not go around the earth, the fact that the universe is older than 6,000 years is the only reasonable belief given teh evidence that we have.

There is nothing scientific about heliocentrism. No one has proven God wrong, and you cannot demonstrate, scientifically, that He is wrong, from within your little fishbowl of existence. He looks down on earth from His temple set in His sun and all the inhabitants of earth are like grasshoppers, to his eyes; and yet silly men think that they can prove that His mighty Word is wrong! -silly!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".
The sun goes around the earth, just like God said, and the universe is about 6,000 years old -it can be dated in Jubilee years from the time Noah was told to preach righteousness and repentence to earth's inhabitants for 120 years, for Noah's age and the ages of all the patriarchs are given exactly, from the beginning, in the book of Jasher, and the prophesy of 120 years was double in meaning [Job 11:6], for the years of Adam: 120 years to the flood from then; and 120 Jubilee years [every 50th is a Jubilee, and counted from the beginning of creation, there are 140], until Adam is cut off, at the end of the 7,000 years of this present creation's appointed week of thousand year days.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

There is nothing scientific about heliocentrism. No one has proven God wrong, and you cannot demonstrate, scientifically, that He is wrong, from within your little fishbowl of existence. He looks down on earth from His temple set in His sun and all the inhabitants of earth are like grasshoppers, to his eyes; and yet silly men think that they can prove that His mighty Word is wrong! -silly!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".
The sun goes around the earth, just like God said, and the universe is about 6,000 years old -it can be dated in Jubilee years from the time Noah was told to preach righteousness and repentence to earth's inhabitants for 120 years, for Noah's age and the ages of all the patriarchs are given exactly, from the beginning, in the book of Jasher, and the prophesy of 120 years was double in meaning [Job 11:6], for the years of Adam: 120 years to the flood from then; and 120 Jubilee years [every 50th is a Jubilee, and counted from the beginning of creation, there are 140], until Adam is cut off, at the end of the 7,000 years of this present creation's appointed week of thousand year days.

First, Congratulations! (no, I am not being facetious). You are the type of YEC that I can really and truly respect. As I said in my last post, you cannot have it both ways, either the Bible is a science book and the universe is both young and the sun goes around the earth or it is not a science book at which time we need to rely on science to tell us these answers. The fact that you take the plunge truly is admirable. I respect the fact that you obviously have a high view of the sanctity of God's word. More importantly, you argue the argument to its logical conclusion. I really do respect this.

However, that being said, there are a few underlying assumptions in your post that I disagree with. First, it assumes that the Bible is trying to teach science instead of simply faith. Why do you say that the Bible is a science textbook? It seems to me that the Bible never makes this claim.

In regards to this...

There is nothing scientific about heliocentrism. No one has proven God wrong, and you cannot demonstrate, scientifically, that He is wrong, from within your little fishbowl of existence.

I question exactly what you mean about there being nothing scientific about heliocentrism. If you mean that the prevailing scientific view is no longer that the sun is the center of the universe then you are correct. If you mean that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the earth goes around the sun then you don't understand the science.

Certainly, you can believe that the data has been misinterpretted, or that the 'scientific data' from the Bible outweighs the scientific data that has been observed in teh world, but you cannot deny that there is, at the very least, a reasonable and scietific/mathematical reason to believe that the earth goes around the sun. Given the observable anomalies (the planets, the mass of the sun compared to the mass of the earth, etc.) it only seems logical that scientists would conclude that the earth revolves around the sun. Again, this doesn't necessarily make them right, there could be other data that they are unaware of etc., but you cannot deny that it is a acientific theory.

Second, heliocentrism does not prove God wrong. The fact that you have combined the statement a.) heliocentrism is not scientific and geocentrism cannot be proven wrong, with b.) you (being me) cannot prove God wrong, shows that you are setting up a straw man argument. Keep in mind, even if you do not agree with me, I do not think that the Bible is a science book, thus, those scientific things (which I believe to be incorrect) that are in the Bible like the idea that the sun goes around the earth are not (in my opinion) the opinions of God. Therefore, even if you disagree with this, I am not trying to prove God wrong, on the contrary, I am trying to read the evidence that he, in his infinite wisdom, left for us in the natural world about how the universe functions.

You are correct about the fishbowel though, we all do see things only dimly, however, God has granted us a few tools for our disposal. He has given the Bible so that we can learn to be saved and he has given science so that we can learn things like medicine and indulge our about the universe.

He looks down on earth from His temple set in His sun and all the inhabitants of earth are like grasshoppers

I am a little confused about why you believe that God's temple is in the sun. From where are you getting this?

and yet silly men think that they can prove that His mighty Word is wrong! -silly!

Again, I am not trying to prove God's word wrong, I am just recognizing it for what it is and what it is not, namely that it is not God's science book.

and the universe is about 6,000 years old -it can be dated in Jubilee years from the time Noah was told to preach righteousness and repentence to earth's inhabitants for 120 years, for Noah's age and the ages of all the patriarchs are given exactly, from the beginning, in the book of Jasher, and the prophesy of 120 years was double in meaning [Job 11:6], for the years of Adam: 120 years to the flood from then; and 120 Jubilee years [every 50th is a Jubilee, and counted from the beginning of creation, there are 140]

Yes, I am very familiar with Usher's dating scheme. Unfortunately, I don't believe that it does a proper job of interpreting the Bible.

 

[shernren]

Vossler, what does Psalm 19:4b-5 mean?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

First, Congratulations! (no, I am not being facetious). You are the type of YEC that I can really and truly respect. As I said in my last post, you cannot have it both ways, either the Bible is a science book and the universe is both young and the sun goes around the earth or it is not a science book at which time we need to rely on science to tell us these answers. The fact that you take the plunge truly is admirable. I respect the fact that you obviously have a high view of the sanctity of God's word. More importantly, you argue the argument to its logical conclusion. I really do respect this.

However, that being said, there are a few underlying assumptions in your post that I disagree with. First, it assumes that the Bible is trying to teach science instead of simply faith. Why do you say that the Bible is a science textbook? It seems to me that the Bible never makes this claim.
Thank you,
But what is it that keeps you from believing that God states facts and that those facts are the foundational truths for the universe He made?
As to "scientific method". We simply cannot test what God states as fact, by reproducing it. We're here, and we can't get out of here to be outside and to reproduce for ourselves what the infinite God did, in the beginning.

The only time anyone can see what God did, how He did it in the beginning will be when He melts the elements and reforms them, in the 8th day of creation. We will then "sing as sons of the New morning", with the angels, when He lays the foundation of the earth in the regeneration of it.


In regards to this...



I question exactly what you mean about there being nothing scientific about heliocentrism. If you mean that the prevailing scientific view is no longer that the sun is the center of the universe then you are correct. If you mean that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the earth goes around the sun then you don't understand the science.
There is no "thus saith Science" anywhere in the world. You can't go call on anything called "Science" and inquire of it. Science has no "words true from the beginning", because Science is not an entity.
There are fallible men who have theories, though; and their theories are always changing; and there is no concensus among them about anything at all.

Heliocentrism is a theory that is not proved, to the discredit of God's Word of His Oath, which He spoke and established His laws in the beginning, for His sun, moon, and stars. The Creator tells us that the sun goes around the earth on it's course, once, daily, according to the "Law of the Oath" which He established for it in the beginning.

Certainly, you can believe that the data has been misinterpretted, or that the 'scientific data' from the Bible outweighs the scientific data that has been observed in teh world, but you cannot deny that there is, at the very least, a reasonable and scietific/mathematical reason to believe that the earth goes around the sun. Given the observable anomalies (the planets, the mass of the sun compared to the mass of the earth, etc.) it only seems logical that scientists would conclude that the earth revolves around the sun. Again, this doesn't necessarily make them right, there could be other data that they are unaware of etc., but you cannot deny that it is a acientific theory.
Theory -yes. Proved -no.

Second, heliocentrism does not prove God wrong. The fact that you have combined the statement a.) heliocentrism is not scientific and geocentrism cannot be proven wrong, with b.) you (being me) cannot prove God wrong, shows that you are setting up a straw man argument. Keep in mind, even if you do not agree with me, I do not think that the Bible is a science book, thus, those scientific things (which I believe to be incorrect) that are in the Bible like the idea that the sun goes around the earth are not (in my opinion) the opinions of God. Therefore, even if you disagree with this, I am not trying to prove God wrong, on the contrary, I am trying to read the evidence that he, in his infinite wisdom, left for us in the natural world about how the universe functions.
He told us how it functions in the cycles, in 1 Enoch. Enoch was taken on a tour of the heavens and the earth, and was given the information about the cycles of the heavenly bodies, to record.

You are correct about the fishbowel though, we all do see things only dimly, however, God has granted us a few tools for our disposal. He has given the Bible so that we can learn to be saved and he has given science so that we can learn things like medicine and indulge our about the universe.

I am a little confused about why you believe that God's temple is in the sun. From where are you getting this?
My eyes were just opened, finally! I wanted to know where His created temple in His created heaven was, for years [I want to know lots of things about His creation], and the mystery was solved when reading 1 Enoch and coming to terms with the plain text of the Word -and a little help from the histories of the ancients.
I had always suspected Psalm 19:4 as it made no sense the way it is translated into English. When I finally got my eyes opened, I checked the original Hebrew wording of Psalm 19 and saw that indeed, He said "He set His temple in the sun".
Douay Rheims also translated the Hebrew to English as the Latin states it; and also, Isaiah 18:5 states -in Hebrew to English, literally- So YHWH said, I will take my rest/withdraw and consider/look down upon/scan intently from my dwelling place, the dazzling hot sun!.

In Enoch's vision he is taken into the heavenly temple:

And the vision was shown to me thus: Behold, in the vision clouds invited me and a mist summoned me, and the course of the stars and the lightnings sped and hastened me, and the winds in 9 the vision caused me to fly and lifted me upward, and bore me into heaven. And I went in till I drew nigh to a wall which is built of crystals and surrounded by tongues of fire: and it began to affright 10 me.

And I went into the tongues of fire and drew nigh to a large house which was built of crystals: and the walls of the house were like a tesselated floor (made) of crystals, and its groundwork was 11 of crystal. Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and the lightnings, and between them were 12 fiery cherubim, and their heaven was (clear as) water. A flaming fire surrounded the walls, and its 13 portals blazed with fire. And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire and cold as ice: there 14 were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold upon me.

And as I quaked 15 and trembled, I fell upon my face. And I beheld a vision, And lo! there was a second house, greater 16 than the former, and the entire portal stood open before me, and it was built of flames of fire. And in every respect it so excelled in splendour and magnificence and extent that I cannot describe to 17 you its splendour and its extent. And its floor was of fire, and above it were lightnings and the path 18 of the stars, and its ceiling also was flaming fire. And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and there was the vision of 19 cherubim.

And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so that I could not look 20 thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and 21 was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason 22 of the magnificence and glory and no flesh could behold Him.
The flaming fire was round about Him, and a great fire stood before Him, and none around could draw nigh Him: ten thousand times 23 ten thousand (stood) before Him, yet He needed no counselor. And the most holy ones who were 24 nigh to Him did not leave by night nor depart from Him. And until then I had been prostrate on my face, trembling: and the Lord called me with His own mouth, and said to me: ' Come hither, 25 Enoch, and hear my word.' And one of the holy ones came to me and waked me, and He made me rise up and approach the door: and I bowed my face downwards.

Also 1 Enoch chapter 71 has another entry of a visit to that temple in heaven.

John also describes the scenes Enoch saw, but Enoch saw them pre-incarnation and John saw them post incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension.

Paul says all nations once knew God and changed His glory to a lie and his image to that of the creature, in Romans 1. On that note of truth, one can see the core of the truth of YHWH and His heavenly temple in many ancient religions, YHWH means "Life/Breath", and Zeus, which is from the word for "life" was said to dwell in a rock crystal temple in the sun, by the Pythagoreans, according to Robert Temple, in the book, "The Crystal Sun", a book on the ancients' understanding of optics and light.

Enoch was shown the paths of the heavenly bodies and was given many things to say about them [and their parabolic meanings as related to human beings is interesting; Paul understood that, being a student of Enoch himself, and made remarks that show he did understand Enoch]. Enoch was also shown the size of the sun and the moon as equal: so the sun is not 870, 000 miles across [though the flames of the light it has gathered and refracted back out may reach to that far], and it is not a ball of gas, but is a Rock Crystal refracting "chandelier/menorrah" set in the heaven to gather in the light called "day" -which God created on day one- and He set the sun in the heaven to rule, or govern that "light". The sun is not the source of the light of creation. It serves as a heavenly menorrah, for the light of day one.




Again, I am not trying to prove God's word wrong, I am just recognizing it for what it is and what it is not, namely that it is not God's science book.
God's Words are true from the beginning, and when He speaks, a true scientist can take His words to the bank ,on any subject -and many have, as a search about the subjects can discover.
If the doctors attending George WA in his last illness had believed the Word of God, that "the life is in the blood", they would not have bled George WA to death, for instance.

Yes, I am very familiar with Usher's dating scheme. Unfortunately, I don't believe that it does a proper job of interpreting the Bible.
Usher did not have the advantage of the Book of Jasher, which has been available to the western world since the late 1800's, and so, though Usher did an admirable job, he missed Abraham's birth date and gave it as later -the info on that is here http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/real.htm.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Vossler, what does Psalm 19:4b-5 mean?

I'm not Vossler, but it means that YHWH set His tabernacle in the sun -and the sun rejoices to come out of his chamber daily, and to run in his pathway.

 

[shernren]

I just finished a national convention in which we stayed up until about 1 or 2am every night. You know how young people think they're invincible so I was brain-dead while reading this post for the first time.

I was having a dialog with shernren on this very subject when the thread was deleted. Here is the last post on the subject, something I believe worthy of further dialog.

Ahh, that's what happened to that thread. I'm honored that you think this is worthy of further pursuit.

Below is shernren's post providing evidence of a change in meaning or message and my reply.

Originally Posted by shernren

Psalm 19:4b-5 (ESV):
In [the heavens] He has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.

According to the geocentrist interpretation:
- There is a dwelling place for the sun in the heavens.
- When the sun rises, it physically leaves this dwelling place. (It "comes out".)
- As the day passes, it physically moves. (It "runs its course with joy".)
- At night it returns to its dwelling place.

According to the heliocentrist interpretation:
- There is a place for the sun in the heavens;
- But the sun's rising has absolutely nothing to do with its leaving that place;
- The sun's passage across the sky has absolutely nothing to do with any physical movement of the sun;
- And the sun's disappearance at night has absolutely nothing to do with the sun returning to where it started.

Aren't these both diametrically opposite meanings? How can the geocentric and heliocentric views possibly mean the same thing?
​

... In the verses you highlight we have the passage of the sun, likened to the bridegroom coming out of his wedding chamber or tent in the morning and how that power comes back each and every day maintaining life as we know it. In the later verses (special revelation) we see how God uses this as a metaphor to demonstrate how His Word is just like the sun, perfect and mighty to do everything He intends; how it is complete and endures just as the sun does. How desirable it is for life. So now matter how you see the sun, whether geocentric or heliocentric, this basic meaning never changes.

I'm glad you agree with me that the verses are about the passage of the sun. Let me quote the passage again, differentiating the described object and the metaphors used to describe it:

In [the heavens] He has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.

I would ask then: in a heliocentric world, in what sense is Psalm 19:4b-5 actually true? And if it is not true (that the sun moves, comes out, and runs its course with joy), what does that say about the rest of the psalm?

The common creationist argument goes that if Adam is figurative, and Christ is compared with Adam, then Christ must also be figurative. Very well then: if the passage of the sun is only apparent, and the glory of God's Word is compared to the passage of the sun, what does that say about the glory of God's Word? That it is also only apparent?

I think the underlying issue is that you have decided a priori that heliocentrism is compatible with the Bible. Having so decided, you then subconsciously reinterpret every verse you come across that isn't heliocentric so that it is compatible with your views, even if that sacrifices the plain meaning of the passage.

And if you think that is far-fetched, remember that it is the exact same thing that you have said happens to evolutionists every time they try to support their points with the Bible.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

@ Yeshuasavedme

Very interesting post. I am pleased to see that you are willing to delve into non-canonical books in order to assist you in your understanding of the Bible. I am familiar with Enoch and his explanation of the abnormalities of the sky (I had forgotten that he believed that God's dwelling place was the Temple).

Thank you,

You are welcome, and I really did mean my compliment.

But what is it that keeps you from believing that God states facts and that those facts are the foundational truths for the universe He made?

If God stated a fact, then I would believe it. However, I must reiterate, I do not believe that the Bible speaks to scientific truths. Are you familiar with the concept of Divine Accommodation? The basic idea is that God, being infinite, has to kind of dumb down ideas for us to understand them. This idea, at least at its heart, is quite obvious. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. so just by communicating with us, he is limiting himself and simplifying his communications so that we can understand it. Note, I am not saying that he is lying, just simplifying. God is always truthful, but like when we talk to a child we have to simplify our speech and our answers, God does the same thing.

Now, I believe vehemently (and this might be where we cannot reconcile our beliefs) that the Bible was primarily for the original audience. In other words, while we can use the Bible for truth (and we certainly should) it is important to always remember that truth is written in such a way as to be accessible for the ancient people. Since God's word is unchanging, in order for us to fully comprehend it, we must place ourselves into the shoes of the original audience. This does not mean that we cannot gain any truth from the bible outside of the original context, after all, the unlearned have just as much chance for salvation as the learned do.

Interestingly, this idea has been applied to Genesis 1 since at least the time of Augustine who admitted that it was impossible (at least for their current science) to tell whether the world was created in 6 literal days but that that was not the point of the story.

As such, we need to realize that the ancients did not have the same resources as we do. They did not have telescopes to see the stars, or flying machines to go to 'the ends of the earth', or calculus to make sense of the movements of the heavenly bodies. So, when God wanted to convey the eternal truth that he, not the rival gods of the land, had created everything that is in existence, he did not try to explain it scientifically, after all, his people had no concept of science, he explained it in such a way as to convey the real point, the point that is everlasting and is much more important than how God created the universe and that point is simply that he did. Genesis 1 can be summed up very succinctly and it has nothing to do with the length of creation: God, not the sun god, or the moon god, or the sea god, or any other 'god' that you (the Hebrews) might be aware of, created everything. In fact, God even created the very things that these gods are represented by, namely the stars, the sun, the moon, the sea, etc.

But don't worry, God was not unconcerned with how he did the deed. He left plenty of clues for us to discover that particular truth when the time came that his creation (us) was able to fully understand it. The Hebrew people were so ingrained in the surrounding culture (think all the times they abandoned God's truth for that of the other nations) that had Moses come off the mountain talking about how the sun was a huge ball of fire and the earth was round and it was going around the sun really fast and the sun itself wasn't stationary but was hurling through this thing called 'space' Oh and by the way if it were to go faster or slower it would actually change the rate at which time passes, the Hebrew people would have thought he was nuts and started worshiping Marduk (or pick your favorite ancient near eastern god).

As to "scientific method". We simply cannot test what God states as fact, by reproducing it. We're here, and we can't get out of here to be outside and to reproduce for ourselves what the infinite God did, in the beginning.

But again, you statement presupposes that God was trying to convey scientific truth through the Bible. Why would God give us minds if he did not want us to explore his universe both physically and experimentally?

Heliocentrism is a theory that is not proved, to the discredit of God's Word of His Oath, which He spoke and established His laws in the beginning, for His sun, moon, and stars. The Creator tells us that the sun goes around the earth on it's course, once, daily, according to the "Law of the Oath" which He established for it in the beginning.

I never claimed that these theories are infallible. Also, the fact that you mention that the theories are not proven shows that you misunderstand the point of science. You are correct, they are not proven, namely because science does not claim for itself the possibility of being able to prove anything. Like Socrates, the field of science believes that we can get closer to the truth by asking more and more questions, but we cannot ever prove that we have the truth. Gravity, a theory that we all depend on everyday, is not proven.

Theory -yes. Proved -no.

Again, no theory is proven.

My eyes were just opened, finally! I wanted to know where His created temple in His created heaven was, for years [I want to know lots of things about His creation], and the mystery was solved when reading 1 Enoch and coming to terms with the plain text of the Word -and a little help from the histories of the ancients.
I had always suspected Psalm 19:4 as it made no sense the way it is translated into English. When I finally got my eyes opened, I checked the original Hebrew wording of Psalm 19 and saw that indeed, He said "He set His temple in the sun".
Douay Rheims also translated the Hebrew to English as the Latin states it; and also, Isaiah 18:5 states -in Hebrew to English, literally- So YHWH said, I will take my rest/withdraw and consider/look down upon/scan intently from my dwelling place, the dazzling hot sun!.

The idea of accommodation would apply to the non-canonical books as well.

On that note of truth, one can see the core of the truth of YHWH and His heavenly temple in many ancient religions, YHWH means "Life/Breath", and Zeus, which is from the word for "life" was said to dwell in a rock crystal temple in the sun, by the Pythagoreans, according to Robert Temple, in the book, "The Crystal Sun", a book on the ancients' understanding of optics and light.

Ok, but why would this not be part of the lie that they changed the truth into?

Enoch was also shown the size of the sun and the moon as equal: so the sun is not 870, 000 miles across [though the flames of the light it has gathered and refracted back out may reach to that far]

But even here you are interpreting Enoch in light of scientific observations. [At least I think that] Enoch does not say that the flames of the sun extend to 870,000 miles, he says that the sun and moon are the same size. Therefore, you are actually doing the same thing that I am talking about.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the world is round?

If you do, then how do you reconcile that belief with the fact that it is Greccan mathematics and science (as well as the experience of going around the world and going into space and seeing its roundness) with the Biblical witness that the world is flat?

If you believe that the world is flat, as the bible says (though I would argue that this is accomodation) then how do you deal with the fact that I can circumnavigate a flat surface?

 

[juvenissun]

Psalm 19:4b-5 (ESV):
In [the heavens] He has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.

To me, the geocentrism issue is a non-issue.

The description in Psalm 19 is a "human-centric" view. It does not say anything about either geocentrism or heliocentrism. Use plain English, it simply says: "the sun rises and the sun sets". It describes the feature, it does not describe the mechanism.

The real positive significance of this seemingly geocentric description is: The sun runs for the benefit of human. So, it is right that it does not matter either way you see it.
------

Scientifically, where is this "tent" for the sun? To me, it is the orbit of the sun around the galactic center. Obviously, the tent is set at an excellent position.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

To me, the geocentrism issue is a non-issue.

The description in Psalm 19 is a "human-centric" view. It does not say anything about either geocentrism or heliocentrism. Use plain English, it simply says: "the sun rises and the sun sets". It describes the feature, it does not describe the mechanism.

The real positive significance of this seemingly geocentric description is: The sun runs for the benefit of human. So, it is right that it does not matter either way you see it.
------

Scientifically, where is this "tent" for the sun? To me, it is the orbit of the sun around the galactic center. Obviously, the tent is set at an excellent position.

There is no tent for the sun in that passage. "He set His tabercancle in the sun" is the translation of the verse.
Isaiah 18:4 a also supports the truth of His declaration of His temple/tabernacle "set in the sun".

koh YHWH 'amar shaqat nabat makown tsach chom 'owr.
So YHWH said, I will take my rest and consider [look down upon/scan intently] [from] My dwelling place/habitation, the dazzling hot sun.

From His tabercacle set in the sun, He looks down upon the inhabitants who are like grasshoppers in his sight.

His sun was set in the heaven on day four of creation week, to be a mennorah/chandelier, for the gathering in and refracting out of the light which He made on day one; and the sun was set to rule, or govern that light, which YHWH says that He governs from the beginning, in Job [He's the commander of the sun, riding in His chariot through the heavens, so to speak].
His sun is made of "tessellated" rock crystal, surrounded by colums of flaming fire, as Enoch reports it when he was taken there in the vision, in 1 Enoch chapters 14 and 71.

Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning/day/light since thy days; [and] caused the dayspring/dawn to know his place;
Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name YAH, and rejoice before him.

His sun runs it highway/path ordained for it from the beginning, coming out of it's portals in it's seasons [1 Enoch], faithfully, and never deviating; but once, God heeded a man, and the sun stood still for about a whole day.
Jos 10:13 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.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

All the talk on these boards is about the past, and men tell big elaborate untruths about what God has said He has done; but they forget that God has also told what He will yet do. They cannot keep the lie going backwards and forwards to make the Word of God say what they want it to say. If what God says does not matter about the past, to them, then what God says for the future is also denied by them -but what will they do when the future is fulfilled as prophesied?

For instance: the temple of God which is set in the sun will be opened in heaven and the Ark of the Everlasting Covenant which is set in the Holy of Holies there[which was made and set there to type the True Ark of the Everlasting Covenant of Life in the promised Atonement of the Lamb of God, as pr 1 Enoch and the OT and NT and Book of Jasher] will be seen, as a sign of His Truth. But what will the heliocentrists do when the temple in the sun is opened to their sight on earth?

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Also: when the angel stands in the sun in end of the future Tribulation, and calls for the fowls of heaven to come prepare for the feast of flesh of the slain on earth
[Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God]; then what will those do, who deny that God's Word is True from the beginning?

There won't be any more heliocentrism beliefs on earth by the inhabitants of it when a third of the stars are cast down to earth, and days and nights/ whole days, are shortened by one third of their time by the smiting of the sun. -Nope! no believers in heliocentrism will be around then! -but it will be such a time that that will be the least of their worries, who cannot escape the horrors on earth that will come when the world and it's inhabitants are dissolved [Psalm 75:2,3], and the world orders are changed to prepare it for the Millennial Sabbath of His Peace.
Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

What will they do when a great star called wormwood falls from heaven, and many men die?
Rev 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

All the talk on these boards is about the past, and men tell big elaborate untruths about what God has said He has done; but they forget that God has also told what He will yet do. They cannot keep the lie going backwards and forwards to make the Word of God say what they want it to say. If what God says does not matter about the past, to them, then what God says for the future is also denied by them -but what will they do when the future is fulfilled as prophesied?

For instance: the temple of God which is set in the sun will be opened in heaven and the Ark of the Everlasting Covenant which is set in the Holy of Holies there[which was made and set there to type the True Ark of the Everlasting Covenant of Life in the promised Atonement of the Lamb of God, as pr 1 Enoch and the OT and NT and Book of Jasher] will be seen, as a sign of His Truth. But what will the heliocentrists do when the temple in the sun is opened to their sight on earth?

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Also: when the angel stands in the sun in end of the future Tribulation, and calls for the fowls of heaven to come prepare for the feast of flesh of the slain on earth
[Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God]; then what will those do, who deny that God's Word is True from the beginning?

There won't be any more heliocentrism beliefs on earth by the inhabitants of it when a third of the stars are cast down to earth, and days and nights/ whole days, are shortened by one third of their time by the smiting of the sun. -Nope! no believers in heliocentrism will be around then! -but it will be such a time that that will be the least of their worries, who cannot escape the horrors on earth that will come when the world and it's inhabitants are dissolved [Psalm 75:2,3], and the world orders are changed to prepare it for the Millennial Sabbath of His Peace.
Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

What will they do when a great star called wormwood falls from heaven, and many men die?
Rev 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

Do you have any answers to my questions from above?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

@ Yeshuasavedme

Very interesting post. I am pleased to see that you are willing to delve into non-canonical books in order to assist you in your understanding of the Bible. I am familiar with Enoch and his explanation of the abnormalities of the sky (I had forgotten that he believed that God's dwelling place was the Temple).
In the writings of Enoch that we have available Enoch did not say that the temple of God that he visited in the vision was in the sun. YHWH said it in Psalm 19:4 -Psalm 18:6, in the Douay Rheims, and in Isaiah 18:4.
The Hebrew in those passages are clearly salm 19:4 "He set His tabernacle in the sun" Psalm 18:5 in DR translates it correctly; "He hath set His tabernacle in the sun"; and Isaiah 18:4; "I will take My rest and look downupon/scan intently from by residence/dwelling place, the dazzing hot sun"



You are welcome, and I really did mean my compliment.
You lied?


If God stated a fact, then I would believe it. However, I must reiterate, I do not believe that the Bible speaks to scientific truths. Are you familiar with the concept of Divine Accommodation? The basic idea is that God, being infinite, has to kind of dumb down ideas for us to understand them. This idea, at least at its heart, is quite obvious. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. so just by communicating with us, he is limiting himself and simplifying his communications so that we can understand it. Note, I am not saying that he is lying, just simplifying. God is always truthful, but like when we talk to a child we have to simplify our speech and our answers, God does the same thing.

Now, I believe vehemently (and this might be where we cannot reconcile our beliefs) that the Bible was primarily for the original audience. In other words, while we can use the Bible for truth (and we certainly should) it is important to always remember that truth is written in such a way as to be accessible for the ancient people. Since God's word is unchanging, in order for us to fully comprehend it, we must place ourselves into the shoes of the original audience. This does not mean that we cannot gain any truth from the bible outside of the original context, after all, the unlearned have just as much chance for salvation as the learned do.

You are misinformed about what Adam was created able to do:
Adam communicated with the Word of God in Person each evening, in the Garden of Eden, using the complete language and tongue that the Creator gave Adam to communicate with Him by. Adam understood his pre-programmed language and communicated daily with the Person of the Word, in the Garden. Adam kind is devolving since the fall.

Moses was learned in all the wisdom/science/learning of the Egyptians -and that was massive, after over a hundred years of Egyptian technological advancements under the rulership of Joseph, who died only 48 years before Moses was born -according to the Upright Record/the Book of Jasher [it took only 48 years for Israel to lose their beautiful homes and become enslaved by trickery, to the Egyptians -except the Levites never fell for the trick and did not become enslaved, as Jasher records].
YHWH spoke to Moses "mouth to mouth" and Mose saw the similitude of YHWH, the God of Israel, spending at least 80 days on Mount Sinai in His presense.



As such, we need to realize that the ancients did not have the same resources as we do. They did not have telescopes to see the stars, or flying machines to go to 'the ends of the earth', or calculus to make sense of the movements of the heavenly bodies.
The ancients had telescopes, atomic bombs, laser technology, communication by what we would call radio and TV, space travel, and many marvelous inventions that were taught them by the fallen angels and used for war and wicked rebellions against God. That's why God has set the world back by calamaties many times, and caused dark ages of information so that man could not destroy the earth and the seed who are destined to be born for redemption. We have never attained the hieghts of technology that the ancients did -and since so much of it was taught by the fallen angels to be used for the destruction of Adam kind [whom the devil hates], it is a good thing.
Rober Temple's The Crystal Sun tells of the ancients use of telescopes and their understanding of optics.
The ancient -pre-Hindu- writings called "Scripture" by them for centuries, tells of atomic warfare, space flight, and every kind of marvelous invention used in wars; like the ability of making their space ships invisibile to enemy ships and so on and so forth. The ancient Indians were writing papers on the splitting of the Atom four hundred years before th incarnation of God the Word.
You can begin a search of true artifacts and the history of the earth at this link -if you want to; http://www.s8int.com/


The idea of accommodation would apply to the non-canonical books as well.
God's list of "canon" includes not just the Scripture of Truth which He wrote in heaven, for the angels to read [as is mentioned in Enoch and in Jubilees, but also in Daniel 10:21, when the angel told Daniel; "I will show you what is written in the Scripture of Truth" and one binds with me in these things"; and the angle showed Daniel the contents of that Scripture of Truth which Daniel recorded in chapters 11 and 12], but His list of "Scripture" includes the writings of 1 Enoch [some of Enoch is lost to us at this present time, still]; for in Matthew and Luke, Jesus called Enoch Scripture
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

and there is no concensus on what a list of "canon" should be, among the Christians groups of the world- James, Jude, Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, John, Peter, Origen, Tertullien and Clement believed Enoch to be "Scripture", for all of them quoted it as fact and many of them called it by name, as Scripture. Paul used the writings of Enoch often in his teaching letters to the churches.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm -Canon, Whose Canon?"


But even here you are interpreting Enoch in light of scientific observations. [At least I think that] Enoch does not say that the flames of the sun extend to 870,000 miles, he says that the sun and moon are the same size. Therefore, you are actually doing the same thing that I am talking about.
Enoch's report of the size of the sun and moon being equal did not include the flames of fire which are about it -why should it? The [rock crystal[ sun is the same size as the moon, said Enoch, twice.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that the world is round?
Of course, because it is a sphere and a globe, in the Ancient Jewish writings.
...
There is no Scripture that says the world is flat. Zero, Nada, none!
The Jews called it a globe, a sphere, and Nebuchadnazzar ruled the entire globe, even all civilizations oon earth were ruled by Neb- who was called the "king of kings" by Daniel, and Daniel said that wherever men, beasts or fowl dwelt on earth, that Neb-ruled them. The Olmecs of Mexico had a glorious civilization in what is today Mexico, and they were in decline when Nebuchadnazzar ruled them, in the 6th century B.C.

 

[shernren]

To me, the geocentrism issue is a non-issue.

The description in Psalm 19 is a "human-centric" view. It does not say anything about either geocentrism or heliocentrism. Use plain English, it simply says: "the sun rises and the sun sets". It describes the feature, it does not describe the mechanism.

The real positive significance of this seemingly geocentric description is: The sun runs for the benefit of human. So, it is right that it does not matter either way you see it.
------

Scientifically, where is this "tent" for the sun? To me, it is the orbit of the sun around the galactic center. Obviously, the tent is set at an excellent position.

Juvie, this is the most sensible post I've seen from you in a long time. And yet I must ask: where does the passage ever say that it is spoken from a human perspective? And where does the passage itself warrant us to say that the sun does not actually move but only appears to move?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

You lied?

no, I really did mean my compliment. I am not entirely sure why you think I lied. I mean I disagree with you, but I have remained respectful saying over and over again that I appreciate your consistency.

You are misinformed about what Adam was created able to do:
Adam communicated with the Word of God in Person each evening, in the Garden of Eden, using the complete language and tongue that the Creator gave Adam to communicate with Him by. Adam understood his pre-programmed language and communicated daily with the Person of the Word, in the Garden. Adam kind is devolving since the fall.

Right, but we are not talking about Adam, we are talking about the post-Fall people. A people that still today have incomplete understanding.

Moses was learned in all the wisdom/science/learning of the Egyptians -and that was massive, after over a hundred years of Egyptian technological advancements under the rulership of Joseph, who died only 48 years before Moses was born -according to the Upright Record/the Book of Jasher [it took only 48 years for Israel to lose their beautiful homes and become enslaved by trickery, to the Egyptians -except the Levites never fell for the trick and did not become enslaved, as Jasher records].

First off, there is no biblical reason to believe that Moses was learned in all of Egyptian knowledge, second this still contradicts your idea. Supposing that Moses was learned in all of the science of Egypt, it is still worldly knowledge over God's knowledge (keep in mind that the Egyptians believed scientific ideas that contradict the Bible).

Also, he was talking to uneducated slaves so accommodation still would have been necessary.

The ancients had telescopes, atomic bombs, laser technology, communication by what we would call radio and TV, space travel, and many marvelous inventions that were taught them by the fallen angels and used for war and wicked rebellions against God.

Ok, wow. There is no reason to believe this, but let us assume that this is true. This science that the ancients had was pre-bliblical writing. My point has been that by the time that the Bible was written for the Israelites they did not know science, they had no way of understanding the scientific world. Had someone (including Moses) tried to explain that the world was round etc, that they would have thought he was insane and abandoned YHWH forever.

God's list of "canon" includes not just the Scripture of Truth which He wrote in heaven, for the angels to read [as is mentioned in Enoch and in Jubilees

Ummm... if you look at my post again I said I was glad that were reading non-canonical books. I used term 'canon' because that is what they are traditionally called.

but also in Daniel 10:21, when the angel told Daniel; "I will show you what is written in the Scripture of Truth" and one binds with me in these things"; and the angle showed Daniel the contents of that Scripture of Truth which Daniel recorded in chapters 11 and 12], but His list of "Scripture" includes the writings of 1 Enoch [some of Enoch is lost to us at this present time, still]; for in Matthew and Luke, Jesus called Enoch Scripture

Again, I am in full support of reading these books, this is another straw man. The question at hand is not whether these books are useful for understanding God, the question is whether the knowledge found in them have been accomodated. You have not given any reason that it should not.

and there is no concensus on what a list of "canon" should be, among the Christians groups of the world- James, Jude, Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, John, Peter, Origen, Tertullien and Clement believed Enoch to be "Scripture", for all of them quoted it as fact and many of them called it by name, as Scripture. Paul used the writings of Enoch often in his teaching letters to the churches.

Of course they used these books. I have not argued against this, and in other threads I have pointed this out. It is obvious that the NT writers and other early Christians used them. However, convention uses the words 'canon' and 'non-canon' I used them for ease. But again, the question is accomadation.

Enoch's report of the size of the sun and moon being equal did not include the flames of fire which are about it -why should it?

Because the flames are what we observe.

Of course, because it is a sphere and a globe, in the Ancient Jewish writings.

That is not true. The Bible repeatedly refers to the ends of the earth, the pillars holding the dome of the sky at the ends of the earth, etc. Again, I think this is accomadationism. But if you take these things literally then you have to believe in a flat earth.

List compiled from this site.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

And see this...

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

The Jews called it a globe

You need to substantiate this. Certainly most modern Jews believe this, but ancient Jews did not until they hellenized.

Nebuchadnazzar ruled the entire globe

No, he ruled the entire world, that is the entire known world (that is the Mesopotamian world).

The Olmecs of Mexico had a glorious civilization in what is today Mexico, and they were in decline when Nebuchadnazzar ruled them, in the 6th century B.C.

Ok, but in China the Zhou Dynasty was doing quite well. More to the point, the Olmecs were doing well until the 4th century BC.