[PatrickHenry]

If you can be that loose in your interpretation of the clear wording of the geocentric passages, when the bible says over and over that the earth does not move and it clearly says the sun does move around the earth, then you can also get a bit more realistic about Genesis. Evolution theory has as much factual support as the solar system theory. Scripture can be read to accommodate both theories. There is no reason to be a literalist about creationism and then abandon literalism when it comes to the solar system.

[DannyTN]

It's "relative" and from Earth's perspective, those scriptures were not supposed to be a scientific treatese on how God made the Sun rise in the morning and set in the evening. Only that He did.

From Earth's perspective the Sun does make a circle around us, even if it is due to the earth's spinning and not from the sun orbiting the earth. It's in the east, then overhead, then in the west and then behind the planet.

The point of those scriptures is that God did those things, not how he did them. Reading into those scriptures "how" is error.

Can you make the sun come up in the morning, move across the sky, set in the evening, and come back up in the morning? No.

Can you hang a planet in a stable orbit? No.

Can you make a planet? No.

Can you tilt a planet? No.

Can you promise that day and night, and summer and winter will remain as long as the planet remains? No.

God can and did. That's the point of those scriptures, not how He accomplishes that.

I don't buy that evolution theory has as much factual support as the solar system theory. Is it possible we are being too literal when we assume a day is a 24 hour time period, or that God couldn't accomplish a billion years of evolution in a 24 hour time period and therefore did create the earth and life in 7 days but still used evolution? It's possible, but I don't believe it, because I think there is scientific evidence that points away from evolution.