Re: In defense of Paul Seely

Ted writes:
> Just as I am not impressed with the gymnastics that YEC's
> typically display when they say that that the Bible DOES teach the earth's
> sphericity but does NOT teach that the earth is at rest. There is just no
> coherence on that line of argument.

Every YEC argument I have read that claims that the Bible teaches the
earth's sphericity explains away the "plain sense" and clear meaning of the
Hebrew word "chugh." This word never means "spericity," and every ancient
and modern translation since the mid-sixteenth century I have consulted
(save one) translates it with the world "circle," which is its meaning ("a
circle drawn with a compass"--see Wm. Blake's drawing of God drawing the
circle of the earth with a great compass). A circle is no more a sphere in
Scripture than it is in geometry. See my article, which I've referred to
before on this list, in PSCF, "Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?" in
which I offer a comprehensive linguistic analysis and survey of
translations, and in so doing show that some specific YEC claims are not
only groundless, they also violate the semantic domain of the word itself--a
sin against Scripture that, I have to say, I believe they commit frequently:
www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html .

In insisting that the Bible contains modern scientific knowledge (e.g.,
spherical earth) or theories (e.g., expanding universe), the YECs wrench
passages out of their context and impose upon them meanings they clearly do
not have, and this in my view does a great disservice to the Bible.

Bob Schneider
Received on Tue Jun 6 14:05:51 2006