The "Bulletin of the Tychonian Society" number 40 (September 1985) quotes Professor Harold Armstrong: "It has struck me that there is some Scriptural evidence for a geocentric cosmology, and moreover that it favours the Tychonian, not the Ptolemaic model. <> It is this. Genesis 1:16 says that the greater light, which everybody, I think, grants to be the Sun. was to rule the day. The Hebrew word is the ordinary word used to state, e.g., that a king rules over a country; and the same is true of the Greek of the Septuagint. But what, in this context, is the day? 1:5 says that it is the light. In other words, it is day wherever it is daylight, and that applies to interplanetary space. Even out beyond Pluto it is daylight; the light from the Sun there is still much stronger than that which we receive from the full Moon here on Earth. How, then, does the Sun rule all of this territory? To rule a territory could mean to control what happens there. The Sun, then, controls what happens in interplanetary space; the motion of the planets. It controls also the motion of irregular or occasional objects there, viz: comets, meteoroids and, nowadays the occasional rocket. In other words, the motions of these things are ordered to the Sun. So (by hindsight) that could have been deduced from Scripture. The Ptolemaic theory, then. misses noticing the action of the Sun (although, of course with the epicycles, etc., the motion can be represented as close as desired); and the older theory in which the planets were embedded in revolving crystal spheres missed the point farther <>In saying, then, that the motion of the planets is ordered to the Sun, the Tychonian theory is saying the same as the heliocentric theory; in fact, I suppose, it is partly heliocentric. So none or the observed motions is any proof for a wholly heliocentric theory, against the Tychonian one. However, these arguments would not give Scriptural support to a completely heliocentric theory For the lesser light, which, I think, almost everyone takes to be the Moon was to rule the night. Now according to the heliocentric theory, and the interpretation adopted, the Sun would be ruling both day and night; for in controlling the motion of the Earth it would be controlling the motion of the dark side as well as that of the light one. But the Tychonian theory does not encounter any such difficulty. Incidentally, the common theory nowadays is not the Copernican theory, nor the Keplerian. It is the Newtonian. For neither Copernicus nor Kepler really described the state of affairs all that well. It was not until Newton made it possible to consider the perturbations, the effects of one planet on another, that the theory could be really satisfactory. But, then. the statement often made. that the heliocentric theory is so much simpler than the geocentric, is false. For when the perturbations are adequately taken into account, the theory is as complicated as the geocentric ever was with its fullest glory of epicycles, etc....". To which Dr G.Bouw adds: "It is the second to last paragraph which contains a most subtle observation, one alluded to in Bulletin number 39. The point here is that since the night-side, along with the day-side of the earth both orbit the sun in the heliocentric framework, the sun can be said to control and thus to rule the night as well as the day. This runs contrary to Genesis 1:16. Figure 1 shows the case from an heliocentric perspective, showing the night as the cone of the earth's shadow. This is how as night is commonly conceived in scientific circles. You'll note that the cone "orbits" the sun during the course of the year and so can be said to be controlled by the gravitational field of the sun. Figure 2 gives the Tychonic view where the cone of night is simply seen to rotate around the earth with the same period as the sun (in this case rotation is ignored so that the period is one year). Again, this is a very subtle point and will take a bit of concentrated effort on the part of the average reader to grasp, but once understood it is very compelling".