Ken Ham and CMI refuted about Geocentric Question by The Principle

At least Daily Beast says so.

I posted the link under one of theirs which is good, according to the following line of comments:

Creation Ministries International (status on their FB page)

It seems the only time Christianity makes the news is when there is a discovery which might change the way early Christianity is viewed. A few years ago, the lead codices made headlines, with breathless exclamations that these may be the earliest Christian documents. When a fragment of an alleged fourth-century Coptic text was announced that put the words “My wife … ” in the mouth of Jesus, it took only days for it to be named “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”. [13]

Archive - September 2012
Did Jesus have a wife?
by Lita Cosner
Published: 26 September 2012 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/gospel-jesus-wife

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, sometimes otherwise too:

‘The Principle’: Geocentrism is What Real Biblical Literalism Looks Like
Karl W. Giberson, 04.10.14 (10-IV-2014)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/10/the-principle-geocentrism-is-what-real-biblical-literalism-looks-like.html

Creation Ministries International

Hans-Georg: Per our rules, we don't allow links outside of creation.com (post hidden) [8]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, you have at least seen the comment.

You seem also to have hidden my comments on the video on tracing the nations back to the Tower of Babel. Less clear why, since either most or all of them were in fact without exterior links.

I was not advocating there were sources of present day mankind besides the sons of Noah. I was saying your acceptance of a Byzantine Historian from 10th or 11th C AD cannot qualify in itself as an independent evidence for nations starting out around Tower of Babel or birth of Peleg, since he like us was a Bible believer.

I was also not advocating that people having memories of previous lives or having sighted ETs should be encouraged to take this as truth on face value. I was saying they had a test which someone unaware of the demon could take for a valid one, and they could be deluded by demon without being in any way pathological. Which is another story. Not for Raelianism, but against Psychiatry.

And as obviously, I did not post the link to discredit literalism as such, but the take that Geocentrism does not belong to it, but to Paganism.

However, if anyone thinks a Flat Earth belongs to it, I have two answers.

1) Pope St Zachary was not condemning Ferghil from Ireland - Bishop of Salzburg - for Global Form of Earth as such, but for a supposed belief in people walking against us who were supposedly according to his reasoning about the eventuality not descending from Adam. All men are from Adam was his point, not a flat Earth. And I say "he was condemning" because he never actually did it.

Catholic Encyclopedia > A > Antipodes
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm

2) The Flat Earth map which is round does not have four corners.

On a Globe, the Old World has roughly four corners, with England and Australia as two cut off corners and the other diagonal being from Cape of Good Hope to Sachalin/Japan. The rest would include antipodes, but the people coming from Adam and Noah and from our part of the world, and it would also include most countries they walk on as being a kind of Island World, an Earthsea if you like, but not with Ursula Le Guin's Metaphysics. Exorcising a demon is not done by baptising it with one's name. That scene was Freudian more than metaphysical. You can ask Gabriele Amorth for details about real exorcism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi
St Leo I
11-IV-2014