No. That's debated even among mainstream scientists. Newton, who invented the theory, ended up rejecting it, saying that he was extremely dissatisfied with the theory.
Does the timing of the moon not actually line up with the tides? I don't live by the ocean, so I wouldn't know.
Note how he doesn't say worlds, or planets, but lights for the purpose of time-keeping, the seasons, etc.
All good points made by you, but I have a few counter thoughts.
Here's some quotes from the MHFM article I posted a while ago.
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893: “… the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost ‘Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable to salvation’ [St. Augustine]. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly comes from the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] reminds us – ‘went by what sensibly appeared,’ [Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 70, a. 1, ad. 3] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”
Moreover, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes (while quoting St. Thomas) that the sacred writers accurately expressed “what sensibly appeared.”Josue 10:12-13 – “Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.”
Everyone who was present at this miracle would have seen the same thing according to external appearances: the sun and the moon stood still and did not go down. But, as Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, in accurately reporting this miracle and what occurred according to external phenomena, they did not “seek to penetrate the secrets of nature”; that is to say, the sacred books didn’t seek or intend in this area to explain whether this external appearance was because the sun actually stood still or was created because the Earth actually did. Even today astronomers will speak of the sunrise at Philadelphia.Thus, even if the geocentric view of the universe is not correct, these passages of the Bible do not in any way detract from the power, the historical truth, or the accuracy of Sacred Scripture in all aspects of its teaching; for what is recorded is exactly what was observed according to external phenomena (as a result of a miracle of God), without penetrating into the reasons for the creation of these external phenomena.
In a FE we have a definitive direction for up, and down; rather than the illogical assertion that there is no true up or true down; or that water can curve around a spherical object; or that there's some mysterious "force" or "curving of space-time" that strongly affixes some objects to a surface, but fails to affix some weaker objects, etc.
I don’t see how water curving around a giant sphere can be so hard to understand. And I don't think gravity's affect on air or whatever weaker objects is clicking in your mind. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Interesting video, I’ll look for myself with my telescope. 2 possible explanations come to mind: 1)faulty pixels can show stars, though he said he was using film, and I’m not familiar with film defects, 2) remember that video I posted of a guy shining a laser through a solid ball? As strange as it seems, both the math and the actual experiment proved light can do such strange things. Maybe it does the same with stars behind the moon, which are too dim to see during a full moon. A very sensitive light sensor might be able to pick up the difference between what is moon and what is star. That is an experiment I’d like to see. Then the star pattern could be matched up with the real stars when the moon moves out of the way.
The brightness of the moon I would assume is due to our distance from it, making our angle to the reflected light such that it is dead on at us. I think it is just a common property of light that should be relatively easy to prove on a smaller scale. Remember, it looks bright at night, not when its relatively weak light is overpowered by a sunny sky and our adjusted day vision.
I don't know how to make the image smaller so you have to click on it to see the right side. 
The globe is glossy or polished smooth, the moon is far from smooth allowing it to scatter light much better. It's like how a light bulb filament or a candle flame is visible through clear glass or plastic, but the whole light fixture dome will light up if it is frosted glass or white plastic. Another example would be the silver reflective lines on road worker's safety vests vs how a mirror reflects light. I think it is just a common property of light that would allow a sphere moon to appear as it does.
Topic: Dr. John D destroys the Globe (Read 8051 times)