It's not just either/or, it's both/and. Scripture reveals to us truths on many levels.  Stars are likened to priests and consecrated people, but stars are also physical things. If Scripture says a star come down to show the place where baby Jesus lay, you can be sure a star came down and did just that. No doubt there are analogies as well. Same with stars falling from the sky.  If people reduce everything to the allegorical and skip the literal, what would scripture have to offer except some cryptic message strictly for the learned and subject to interpretation contrary to the literal? God works with allegory and types not to confuse but to support the literal and to clarify.

.
We don't have to ignore the literal meaning of Scripture to appreciate its allegorical meaning.
.
The Apocalypse of St. John is written in a manner that is not meant to be literally understood as much as it is allegorical. Perhaps you're not familiar with apocalyptic prophesy. That has something to do with us calling this the Book of the Apocalypse. It says the dragon's tail drew the third part of the stars from heaven and cast them to the earth. Do you suppose that means there is a great red dragon flying around up there, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems with a magnet for a tail, drawing stars around like iron marbles? It SAYS "drew" them and "cast them to the earth" you know. Or maybe it means that the dragon's tail drew one-third of EACH star and cast THAT to the earth.
.

Since Neil has said in the past that he's a geocentrist, I'd like to see him explain how he reconciles geocentrism with modern science, since modern science does not believe in geocentrism. Modern science is staunchly heliocentric.

As a global geocentrist I should like to answer the above question. 'Modern science' has, since 1905 at least, admitted relativity. In other words it admits the universe could be geocentric or heliocentric.

What people believe it is does not change the position of 'modern science.'

Finally, just to show how NASA operates, here is an interesting letter:
Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Lincolnshire, England.
 
‘Sir, ... One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival [and success] depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed Earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the Earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.  Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’

When it comes to working out eclipses etc., according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is the geocentric reality mathematics that is used. But watch how they again play mind-games when admitting this:

‘For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the Earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’--- Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869).  

One obscure letter does not prove that modern science has admitted relativity. Does this letter really represent all of modern science everywhere? Please show scientific journals that say that everyone in the science field believes that the universe could be geocentric. And then you would have to show how this has trickled down to the average person. I don't know of anyone outside of this forum who believes in geocentrism (of course there is Robert Sungenis). The children are still taught heliocentrism in public and religious schools.  

Evidently, the way in which you have reconciled geocentrism with modern science is to believe that modern science is open to the idea that the universe can be geocentric. Evidently, 'modern science' itself hasn't got the memo yet.

You just quoted Bertrand Russell,  well-known atheist & occultist, as proof of relative motion.
There is no relative motion.
Earth does not rotate.
You cannot contradict the Bible which says earth does NOT move.

For Neil Obstat: thought you might like to see this awesome new global map from NOAA.
.
https://weather.com/news/trending/video/noaa-provides-incredibly-detailed-animation-of-the-ocean-floor