Original sentence: All the above passages make sense if the Bible writers were simply treating the earth as a convenient reference frame, just as we do today with speed limits and words like "sunset".Most creationists (and even non-creationist astronomers and physicists) think that the geocentic v geokinetic debate is a storm in a teacup, because it is merely a question of reference frames.Of course, many Bible scholars believe that the language of these passages is consistent with the scientific belief that the perceived motion of the Sun and Moon results from the rotation of the Earth, i.Sir Fred Hoyle also affirmed that neither is "right" or "wrong" but just a matter of which reference frame is most convenient:.The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ....These can even be called "literal" uses of the terms, in the sense of easily understood, unambiguous and everyday expressions.Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.it is the phenomenological language we use today
Edited sentence: Of course, many Bible scholars believe that the language of these passages is consistent with the scientific belief that the perceived motion of the Sun and Moon results from the rotation of the Earth