CathInfo.com

This same website has a very good image (NOT TO SCALE!!!) showing how the various parts of the sun, sunshine, moon, shadow and earth are made comprehensible. This is for illustration purposes, and not intended to depict the accurate sizes of these entities. There is no way to depict this stuff accurately by scale. No way whatsoever.

Glad that you are mentioning the above. Since there is no way to accurately depict this stuff, then I can't be expected to accept it. However, a flat earth can be depicted, going by the ancient Hebrew concept of the earth. 

.
MY "heliocentric system?" When did I say I agree with that? Don't bother looking because I never said I support it. You and others keep accusing me of that but it's a good example of your continual misrepresentation of all kinds of things. As often as I have explained this and that, you keep getting it wrong. Why should I keep trying? It's like beating a dead horse.
.
The simple reason that accurate scale is not shown is that you wouldn't be able to see anything. The sun would be a dot on one side of the page and the earth and moon would not be visible on the other side of the page. So how can a picture that doesn't show anything be of any help? The size of the sun, moon and earth are exaggerated so that you can SEE SOMETHING and the parts of the subject can be identified. Just because the reality is so distant and the parts would appear so small on the page does not prove they're not possible. If you tried to accurately depict the size and parts of an oxygen molecule on the page there would be nothing to see, because the nucleus would be tinier than a speck, and the electrons would be so small for any ink quantity to depict. Does that mean oxygen does not exist? Try showing a SCALE IMAGE of a person standing in New York City, and another person standing in Washington D.C., with the distance between them according to real scale.

I hadn't realized that you are not a supporter of Heliocentrism. Sorry about that.

As to the other issue, the inability to show an accurate depiction of the supposed scale of the earth and moon in relation to the sun, well, this issue isn't the same thing at all as not being able to depict an oxygen molecule. We cannot, of course, see molecules at all with the naked eye. We can, however, clearly see the sun and moon.

It isn't reasonable, IMO, to think that the sun is so far away from the earth that it can't possibly be depicted accurately in a drawing of any kind whatsoever.

And we have Sacred Scripture on our side.

Sadly, Neil doesn't think he believes in the heliocentric system, but he in fact, does.  He switched the places of sun and earth, because earth doesn't move, according to Catholic teaching and scripture...or rather, because the Robert Sungenises of the day say it is this way.  Against scripture, he thinks earth is a ball.  Naturally, as you already pointed out, such a silly notion doesn't work because we know that the sun, moon and stars are in the firmament, with the waters above that, and that this dome is a like a tent that covers the earth.  His model cannot reflect scripture in any way, shape or form.  The dome would have to be at least 93,000,000 miles away in order to house the sun!  Not to mention up isn't up anymore, the horizontal horizon isn't level anymore, and water sticks to the outside of the earth ball while people walk upside down relative to each other--a notion condemned by the Church.  Neil seems to think that NASA lied about the orientation of the earth, lied that it moves, but they didn't lie in claiming it is a ball. Very strange.    

I wonder if one of the main reasons that some geocentrists insist that the earth is ball, is that all of the other observable planets are balls, and it would just be weird if the earth were flat, and not like all the others. And it IS a bit weird, to be sure, but then again, why shouldn't the earth be different than those other lifeless planets?

Why shouldn't our planet be different? That's what I would like to ask Neil next. Our planet has to support life, and a lot of it - from humans, to animals, birds, insects, plant life, etc. 

As you said....the dome of the earth would have to be 93,000,000 miles away, in the system that Neil envisions and believes in, and that's not imaginable by any scale; it doesn't work. Though perhaps Neil (and Sungenis?) don't believe that there's such thing as a dome.

Perhaps geocentrist ball-earthers believe that Sacred Scripture is wrong - that Genesis is wrong, or that is has been wrongly interpreted. But of course we are allowed to interpret it literally. To say that it can be mortally sinful to believe in a flat earth defies logic and scripture.