Ah, mere "songs" in the Bible, songs, which should not be interpreted literally? So maybe the Genesis is also an allegorical introduction to the Scriptures?
"And how do those verses say that the universe is geocentric?"
If the Earth is unmovable, and the Sun sets and rises, it implies that it circles the Earth.
"BTW, don’t scientists say *sunrise* and *sunset*? Don’t astronomers use the term *celestial shpere* when describing the heavens? Does that mean that they think the sun moves around the earth and that the earth in in the middle of a dome?"
My point exactly. We often abbreviate and simplify, but it does not mean these simplifications and abbreviations represent the whole and only truth. So abbreviates and simplifies the Bible, and you correctly argue that the Bible does it with respect to astronomy. Right? So why suddenly the passages which can be associated with biology are to be read literally?
Why would a narrative account be interpreted allegorically? Why would poetry be interpreted literally?
Have you no sense of grammatical style?
I take it then that you think that Abraham, Issac, and Joseph were also allegorical?
The Egyptians and the Middianites?
The cities of the plain?
If that is the criteria for interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis, then tell me why the rest of Genesis isn't interpreted allegorically, and how you make the distinction as to whether to interpret part of a book in one sense, and then change midstream and interpret it differently.
It’s not the topic at hand that determines how passages are to be read. It’s grammatical style.
Learn something about grammar, first.
Go easy on metmom. She said she never believed the moon revolved around the earth then tried over and over along with a couple of her geocentric buddies pretenting to be Eienstien’s to convince me that the moon and son revolved around the earth!