Jimmy Akin is Misrepresenting the Question

DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses
Catholic Answers | 6 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB7b24UDOKA

0:07 Ideas proposed by sciences or ideas proposed by scientists?*

1:07 science has shown or scientists have pretended to show ... and how?*

1:29 Some scientists deny there is a privileged frame of reference in the universe.

Kantians.

It would be very correct if the universe were infinite. But if it's of finite extension, it has a periphery and therefore also a centre.

Infinity is an attribute of God and doesn't correctly even apply to extension.

1:57 If you take either the solar system as existing in the middle of nowhere, infinity on each side, and within it Heliocentrism to be true, the movements can be explained by masses acting in accordance with gravity and inertia. A very easy pick for an atheist.

If you take the universe to be finite and Earth to be its centre, the movements need explanations other than, perhaps in addition to, gravity and inertia of the involved masses.

Like, for the daily movement, God moving the visible universe (up to the fix stars) around us. Like, for other movements, angels moving individual non-Earth and non-stellar objects around the zodiac.

Like yesterday an angel moved Sun eastward and another one moved Moon eastward and they covered each other and God moved both so that Portugal saw a complete eclipse.

2:16 Based on how gravity works ... you mean in isolation from other factors?

Even for orbitting it has to interact with inertia.

Now, this orbitting of the barycentre, is it mightier than God, is it mightier even than an angel? No.

Ergo, the Geocentric and Theistic view is perfectly possible, unless you deny God and angels exist.

3:10 And you may notice that images of an athlete are very appropriate if an angel is moving the Sun.

For people who grew up with DC Comics, imagine Superman ... except the angel isn't overwhelmed by effort.

3:36 Would a mechanical account of how the world works be scientific if God as First Mover and angels as movers of celestial objects are correct observations?

"A scientific and mechanical account" as if they were synonyms sounds so DiaMat.

3:53 No, you have even missed C. S. Lewis and his observation on what poetry does.

It doesn't describe "our amazement" but the things that amaze us.

3:58 Praise is not necessarily non-literal.

If the thing you are praising is highly praiseworthy, its literal description may be praise.

4:12 Yes, look at its course ... not too closely into itself, obviously.

And note, the Geocentric view is exactly matching what you look, the Heliocentric takes some readaptation of it.

The readaptation isn't impossible. But is that enough to accept it?

4:37 I'm noting that King David is actually not praising God for having created the Sun in the past.

Verses 2 to 7 are all about what the heavens are doing right now ... precisely as Romans 1.

King David and St. Paul are both making the point that Sun and Moon to do this complex dance (as it is on Geocentric views) or if you prefer this violent dance, without dashing everything to pieces, have to be directed (in the present) by an intelligent mover. Whom everyone agrees to call God, to borrow a phrase from the Five Ways and most notably the First Way.

4:51 He is giving praise to God because he thinks ... rightly ... that his experience reflects how the universe really works.

You are pronouncing "based on his experience" as if it were at variance with how the universe really works or what he thought about it. Counterintuitive until proven ...

5:22 Phenomenological language is not merely about someone accurately describing what he sees.

If I do a car ride and find we pass 4 houses, but I actually missed 2 and there were really 6, "4 houses" would be phenomenological language.

But if I find we pass 4 houses and that is the actual number of houses, we don't call it phenomenological language.

In other words, the phrase implies some kind of inadequacy with things as we actually experience them.

5:44 A Geocentric would also say that "rises" is phenomenological.

The sun rises and sinks between two points of the year previously termed Solar Perigee and Apogee, and now mistermed Earth's Perihelium and Aphelium.

This doesn't change the view one has from each locality on earth that the Sun actually rises ... unless you are on a part of Earth where the Sun doesn't rise at a point of the year, which currently would be the case on the South Pole.

So, "rises" does not prove a box shaped universe. Or a Flat Earth. Either in itself or as intended by the inspired Psalmist.

6:53 No, the quote "the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was either not said by Caesar Baronius** or not said during the Galileo controversy or neither.

The letter to the Grand Duchess Cristina was by Galileo and he quoted "a high church man" without specifying his identity.

Caesar Baronius had died in 30 June 1607.

Now, Caesar Baronius was close to St. Philip Neri (confirmation patron of Tolkien, by the way), just like Johannes Emmanuel Veith was close to St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer. So, the test proposed is, a close associate of a saint would not be totally off on a question like this, and while Caesar Baronius certainly did NOT utter these words during the Galileo controvery, J E Veith actually did write a book, properly signed and printed in his name, promoting literal six days continuous with the creation moment, in polemic against Day Age and Gap Theories, which were also held by Catholics in this time.

How is it fine for you to quote Baronius against the Galileo verdict of 1633, while that is not a true quote truly in this affair, and not for me to quote the canonisation of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer in 1909 in relation to the PBC of that year, as proof the judge, a Day Ager though he was, not having intended or having had the authority to intend excluding Young Earth Creationism? Is misinformation holier than true information or is "modern science" (which you have called "science") a kind of judge above the magisterium?

---

* He used the formulation "ideas proposed by science" and "science has shown" ... ** Fully Latin: Caesar Baronius. Fully Italian: Cesare Baronio.