| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
In 1995, Robert Baty learned that Trevor Major, at that time working with Bert Thompson with Apologetics Press, was going to have an article about Matthew Maury published by the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). Robert wrote to the editor of CRSQ, Eugene F. Chaffin, to clear up certain erroneous claims regarding Matthew Maury. (For example, unlike today's young earth creationists, Matthew Fontaine Maury respected the work of scientific investigation of the real world, as evidenced by his own well-respected work in the 19th century in meteorology and oceanography. Maury accepted the fact that the world has existed far longer than just six or ten thousand years. So why do young earth creationists hypocritically treat Maury like such a great friend to young earth creationism?) The letters that follow document Baty's correspondence with the CRSQ concerning this matter, and they provide information concerning a letter-to-the-editor under Robert's name that was published by CRSQ following the publication of Trevor's article but that was not in fact written by Robert. Letters |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/245 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 3:31 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #1 Because of the less than desired response from the Creation Research Society Quarterly [i.e. President Don DeYoung, Ph.D. (physics)], I thought it might be of historical relevance to post the record of my actual correspondence with the Society. Letter #1 follows my name below. As time allows I will endeavor to post the letters that followed. Sincerely, Robert Baty ########################## May 30, 1995 Creation Research Society Quarterly P.O. Box 969 Ashland, Ohio 44805-0969 Dear Quarterly, It has just come to my attention that you may be about to embark upon a blunder. I am referring to an article advertised as coming out in your June edition by Trevor Major of Apologetics Press regarding Matthew Fontaine Maury. Mr. Major's boss, Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Executive Director of Apologetics Press has been notorioius for promoting the "sick-bed, Bible-reading" myth (fable) regarding Mr. Maury. He has even claimed publicly that there is a statue of Mr. Maury with a Bible in one hand at the U.S. Naval Academy (of course, the statue with the Bible in "one outstretched hand" doesn't exist). I have tried for almost two years to get Mr. Thompson, Ph.D. and Executive Director of Apologetics Press, to retract the false history and science he has promoted regarding Mr. Maury. To date, my efforts have failed. It now appears that, as part of the coverup, Mr. Major is attempting to salvage Mr. Maury. See the latest edition of Reason & Revelation where Mr. Major has a similar article and cites his upcoming article in your publication as a reference. When his boss should have simply been admitting, explaining, and retracting his errors, Mr. Major is published without a hint of the fact that Bert Thompson and his paper are responsible, in large part, for misinforming the public. And you seem to now be a party to such political intrigue. I can't help but wonder whether these people realize that Matthew Fontaine Maury is on record as having said that the scriptures clearly indicate that the six days of the Genesis creation were not literal days. Wouldn't you guys condemn him, rather than "canonize" him, if he made that comment today?? I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU RECONSIDER, IF POSSIBLE, YOUR PUBLICATION OF MR. MAJOR'S ARTICLE. IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU FORWARD ANY SUCH ARTICLES TO ME FOR EDITORIAL COMMENT AND DOCUMENTATION (I DO NOT INTEND TO BOAST, BUT I HAVE CLEAR REASON TO BELIEVE I AM THE REASON FOR THE RENEWED INTEREST IN GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT REGARDING MR. MAURY, AND MR. MAJOR'S ARTICLES APPEAR CLEARLY TO BE PART OF THE CONTINUING COVERUP). Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/246 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 3:41 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #2 CRS Letterhead July 27, 1995 715 Tazewell Ave. Bluefield, VA 24605 Dear Mr. Baty, Thank you for your letter of May 30 regarding the article about Matthew Fontaine Maury. The letter was forwarded to me since I am the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). I have been receiving the publication entitled Reason and Revelation for ony about one year, and I am unaware of the factual errors that you mentioned. However, even if the allegations are true, that would be a matter for the folks at Apologetics Press rather than the Creation Research Society. We do have an article which passed peer review and is approved for publication in the CRSQ. The factual errors you referred to are not in the CRSQ article. The author of the article did not need to prodded to remove any such errors. The paper did not contain these errors even when I first saw it. Hence, your allegations are puzzling. I am curious, could you provide a citation of the work in which Maury said that the six days of creation were not literal days? I have personally seen the statue of Maury on Monument avenue in Richmond. A photocopy of it was pictured on the cover of the Sept. 1982 cover of CRSQ. From your letter I could not determine whether you were familiar with the Creation Research Society. Hence, I enclose a brochure. Best wishes. Sincerely, Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/247 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 3:55 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #3 August 8, 1995 Dear Mr. Chaffin; I thank you for your July 27 response to my May 30 letter about Matthew F. Maury. I trust that you will continue to be responsive and of assistance in getting this matter resolved. Surely, a man of your position is not unaware of the implications of my concerns. Enclosed is a transcription of the specific tale spread abroad by the executive director of Apologetics Press. I have listed errors I have found. It really shouldn't take two years to get a retraction. Perhaps you are familiar with the recent book by James Moore about the Darwin Legend. Maybe someone will have to write a book aout the Maury Myth before preachers stop misrepresenting him. It is my considered opinion that any materials offered by Apologetics Press regarding Mr. Maury should include their admission of error, explanation and retraction. They won't do it for me. Maybe you will have some influence. I rather think they would rather "bad mouth" me instead of meeting their simple, easy obligation in this matter. I have my own speculation as to why they refuse to do so and why, after writing to 50 or so preachers and churches for a little help, no one has provided me with a retraction from Bert Thompson or even his response to a request for a retraction. Now Mr. Major seems to wnt to cover the trail of deception concerning Mr. Maury and the true details of his life and enlist your support to do so A copy of my letter to Mr. Major is enclosed. In the list of questions is one citation, as you requested, concerning Mr. Maury's views on the days of creation. Of course, I have not heard a peep from Mr. Major. Do you thinkthe questions were too difficult? Your letter speaks of "the statue of Maury". You weren't at the Naval Academy when you saw it and you didn't see a bible in one hand, did you? My allegation stands unrefuted. Bert Thompson has claimed something exists which doesn't (among other errors). If he wants to explain the how's and why's of his misrepresentation of the Richmond statue (if that is what he claims he did), I would welcome it along with a complete retraction. Rather than you tell me about Mr. Major's article submitted to you, I would appreciate getting a copy from you. At least tell me if it is actually going to be published and when. Your expeditious attention to this matter and a speedy reply will be appreciated. Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/248 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 4:00 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #4 CRS Letterhead August 14, 1995 Dear Mr. Baty: Thank you for your letter of August 8 regarding the article about Matthew Fontaine Maury. The article is scheduled for the September issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). At this point I do not feel it would be proper for me to send you a copy. Your reference to the work of Diane Fontaine Maury Corbing (1888) is interesting. Would you be able to send a copy of the page in the book which gives copyright date, title, etc. and the page where you found the quote about the term "day"? I would be willing to consider publishing a letter to the editor about Maury's views on the age of the Earth. However, I wouldnot want the letter to mention Dr. Thompson's lecture, since that is not public domain at this point. Best wishes. Sincerely, Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/249 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 4:40 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #5 August 19, 1995 Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ Dear Mr. Chaffin: The enclosed copies from Ms. Corbin's book should satisfy your request regarding the reference I made concerning Mr. Maury. I am also enclosing copies from a lectureship book published in 1993 by the Portland, Texas church of Christ (Jerry Moffitt, editor). I refer you to the article by Nils Donnell (pg. 141). On page 152 Mr. Donnell recites a version of the "sick-bed, bible-reading" fable regarding Mr. Maury. AND WHAT IS HIS AUTHORITY?? None other than Bert Thompson. See footnotes #31, 48, & 49. As has been my experience with Bert Thompson, the church in Portland, Jerry Moffitt, and Nils Donnell have all refused to provide a correction, retraction of the fable. I am not sure how you define "public domain", but the tale is clearly in the public domain. Bert, as well as numerous other preachers, have claimed these errors orally and in writing. Bert, perhaps, more than anyone. Please let me know whether you think my request for a written retraction and explanation is inappropriate. The facts are not in dispute (Bert knows what he has done). I simply want a copy of the retraction/explanation to complete my files on this issue. Of course, the powers that be may find it appropriate to make further amends to correct th damage that has been done by promoting such things for so long. I will look forward to reviewing the article on Maury in your September publication. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/250 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 4:44 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #6 The following was a handwritten note that came to me (Robert Baty) on a card approximately 3 x 5 inches: ######################### August 22, 1995 Dear Mr. Baty: Thank you for the copies of the information about M.F. Maury. If it were the CRSQ, I would not expect a retraction to be printed in CRSQ for something printed elsewhere. Best wishes. Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/251 From: Robert Baty Date: Sat Feb 1, 2003 6:45 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #7 August 25, 1995 Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ Dear Mr. Chaffin: As a man whose name is often associated with "Ph.D.", I must credit you for being a man of some intelligence and education. For this reason I consider your snippet of August 22, 1995 as an insult to what little intelligence I have. There is no factual question regarding Bert Thompson's own published and professed telling of errors concerning Mr. Maury. The information I sent you was representative and hardly exhaustive. Bert could give you the exact references on where he told the tale and how many times he has published it. I have numerous references myself. I have simply asked Bert Thompson to retract his own misrepresentations. I cannot believe you cannot see this. However, your latest note suggests you may be willing, like Bert and his fellows, to coverup the error. That Bert Thompson, through his publishing company and Trevor Major in particular, has been able to get you to publish anything short of a public retraction is quite interesting to me. I will try again. Bert Thompson put that tale over one me personally in McLoud. In his materials I have (some purchased) he has repeated different versions of the tale. I have asked him personally for a retraction. DO YOU THINK SUCH A REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE? What do you suggest is necessary in order to get a retraction? Or, is there any admission necessary concerning the errors according to your own ethical standards? I suspect I have heard the last of you. I welcome a surprise and legitimate answer to my inquiry. Sincerely, Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/253 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 4:37 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #8 Having been denied a prepublication review of the Maury article by Trevor Major (Bert's A/P subordinate), I waited in anticipation of its delayed publication. After its publication, my correspondence with the CRSQ was renewed. The following is the first of that latter series of correspondence. The remaining correspondence will follow as I have time to make the transcriptions. Sincerely, Robert Baty # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # October 6, 1995 Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ Dear Mr. Chaffin, DISHONESTLY! An appropriate characterization of your handling of my inquiry regarding your publication of Trevor Major's coverup for his boss, Bert Thompson. Since Bert and Trevor have made the same and similar charges against me, I have no reservation in making this charge against you as a co- conspirator with Bert and Trevor. The facts, of course, will demonstrate who has properly characterized the other. I have read numerous claims of dishonesty made against "young-earth creationists" by their opposition. I now have the facts and specific, personal experience to demonstrate tat such claims can be substantiated. As I previously suggested, Trevor and Bert are obligated to simply admit and retract their efforts in promoting the Maury fable. I suppose that Trevor prides himself in "naming the names" of his fellows who promoted the fable. How conspicuous in his list is the absence of the name and details of Bert Thompson, the man who is, perhaps, responsible more than any in modern times for promoting the fable. Mr. Major's "hypocrisy" seems self-evident in the title he selected for his article and the acknowledgement at the end of the article. Why do you suppose there is no mention of the real stimulus and motivation behind his interest in Mr. Maury or recognition given to the one responsible for pointing out his boss's error in promoting the Matthew Fontaine Maury falsehoods? Perhaps you will remember the words of Rusch & Klotz, "...creationists do inestimable harm when erroneous material is presented as factual." I still welcome your efforts in trying to a obtain specific retraction for me from Bert Thompson. However, due to your past actions regarding this matter, I anticipate that you have closed your mind to the matter. Sincerely, Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/254 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 4:54 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #9 Having received no further replies from Eugene Chaffin, editor of the CRSQ, I thought to write to Pamela Chaffin who had been signing for the certified letters I had been sending to him. It did generate further exchange of correspondence between me and Eugene. Here's the letter to Pamela. Sincerely, Robert Baty # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # October 19, 1995 Pamela Chaffin Dear Pamela, Please advise Eugene that the obligation and responsibility for broadcasting misrepresentations is now his and that I, hereby, make demand upon him for a retraction and correction. Against advice, Eugene caused to be published in the September CRSQ a deception produced by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. The responsibility for correcting the errors noted below therefore resides with him and the CRSQ. Specifically, the article claims: "Lewis, at the very close of his biography, quotes a lengthy passage from the Richmond Times written by Virginia Lee Cox." "Lewis says nothing more about this story..." "Despite the apparent reliability of the source for a popular version of the Psalm 8 story (Lewis's quote of Virginia Lee Cox)..." If you will check this out, I am confident that you will find that C. L. Lewis didn't do what Mr. Major claims and the Psalm 8 legend "snippet" in the article produced in the book was inconsequential in space or the purpose behind the reproduction of the entire article. I think you will find that the publisher inserted that article in Mr. Lewis' book. Please have Eugene provide me with a copy of the official CRSQ response to my complaint and indicate when it will be published. Other problems with the article might be discussed, but I will await some indication of your further interest in this matter, if any. Your cooperation and that of Mr. Chaffin will be appreciated. Please respond by October 31, 1995. Sincerely, Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/255 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 6:36 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #10 The following letter from Eugene Chaffin, editor of the CRSQ, begins the renewal of our correspondence. Sincerely, Robert Baty # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CRS Letterhead October 23, 1995 Dear Mr. Baty: Editors of scholarly journals are under no obligation to answer letters which are written with the disrespectful tone which you have adopted. In the future I will ask you to refrain from addressing letters to my wife. You will address me as Dr. Eugene Chaffin. You and I are not on a first name basis. Between gentlemen, the use of certified letters is unnecessary. Your use of that device is repugnant. If you will adopt a civil tone, I might consider publishing a letter to the editor in which you point out what you believe to be the flaws in the article that appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). However, I will not allow you to use the CRSQ as a forum to attack the character of anyone including Mr. Major. I have a standing policy, similar to that of other scientific journals, that private communications and unpublished works may not be cited without permission of the author. Hence, under the circumstances, your criticisms should be confined to the published literature. Best wishes. Sincerely, Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/256 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 9:20 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #11 October 28, 1995 Editor, CRSQ 715 Tazewell Avenue Bluefield, VA 24605 If it is the case that you observe and practice personal, professional and "scholarly journal" ethics, it should be obvious that the response necessary to my letter of October 19, 1995 would have simply been to provide me with a copy of the official CRSQ correction to Trevor Major's misrepresentation of C.L. Lewis (or an appropriate citation where I could find it published). The response you did make is entirely consistent with my allegations that you have accepted the role of co-conspirator in Bert Thompson's effort to coverup his errors. To borrow a phrase from Bert and his apologists, you have wasted my valuable time. I fyou are not going to legitimately cooperate with my simple requests, I ask that you forward my correspondence to the president of your paper and ask that he provide an official response to my requests. In order to keep the record straight, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the quite unfortunate and evasive comments in your letter of October 23, 1995. Since you have acted the way you have and did not answer my letter of October 6, it was quite appropriate to ask assistance from a 3rd party. Pamela, who had been accepting your mail, was quite an appropriate choice. I would expect a gentleman to let her speak for herself if she thinks there has been some impropriety (are you familiar with Matthew 18:16)? Had you, Trevor, and Bert been responsive to my legitimate, albeit critical, inquiries, I would not have to use certified mail to insure my letters were being delivered. Trevor has not responded to any of my inquiries, and Bert actually refused my mail on one occasion and otherwise has refused to respond. What is truly repugnant and arrogant is your demand that I address you as "Dr." I can but wonder what idolizing you may have exacted from Bert and Trevor before agreeing to cooperate in their little coverup. I have no interest in trying to negotiate an acceptable "letter to the editor" with you. You and your cohorts at Apologetics Press know of your public misdeeds. This is not a difficult matter!! I have simply asked that copies of the requisite public corrections/explanations be provided to me. Since this is not being sent certified, I will expect some form of acknowledgement immediately. Sincerely, Robert Baty Just Robert Baty cc: Pamela Chaffin |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/257 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 9:21 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #12 CRS Letterhead November 1, 1995 Dear Mr. Baty: Thank you for your letter of October 28. I note that you have decided not to submit a letter to the editor. Your request concerning a need for a correction will be studied and taken under advisement. Best wishes. Sincerely, Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/258 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 11:53 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #13 November 7, 1995 Editor, CRSQ I appreciate your letter of November 1, 1995 wherein you indicate that your need to correct Mr. Major's misrepresentation of C.L. Lewis will be studied and taken under advisement. For the time being I accept the indications of good faith and apologize for the aggravation which may have prevented us from getting to this point earlier. It should be clear to you that my opinions in these matters would not be appropriate materials for your publication if reduced to a "letter to the editor". I am simply wanting to get official corrections to simple, factual errors (primarily from Bert Thompson, but now your publication due to your published article by Trevor Major, a close associate of Bert Thompson). Although I must assume you are, by now possessed of the facts of the case, I am sending you a copy of the excerpt from C.L. Lewis' book which supports my allegation that your publication has allowed Trevor Major to misrepresent C.L. Lewis. As you will see, the "Psalm 8 Legend" was an inconsequential part of the article which was added by the publisher and was not a part of the text of Mr. Lewis' book. As far as I could tell, Mr. Lewis himself never says anything remotely connected to the legend. As a scholar, surely you are aware that a reference such as this provides no basis for broadcasting the story as historical/scientific fact. Mr. Major's whining about documenting the story if he could just get access to original documents is pitiable. Why won't he and Bert Thompson just admit they have no legitimate basis for promoting this tale? I would still appreciate any effort you would make on my behalf to get Bert Thompson to officially retract his public promotions of this "fairy tale". I understand you are under no obligation to do so, but as a close associate of his and fellow publisher of his I would ask that you use what influence you may have to get him to provide what he is on record of claiming is appropriate in such situations. I thank you again for your efforts, and I will expect a followup to your November 1, 1995 letter giving the details of official correction to the error I have noted. Sincerely, Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/259 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 11:54 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #14 November 14, 1995 Dear Mr. Baty: Thank you for sending the copy of pages 250-251 from the C.L. Lewis book. I see no need for a correction based on what you sent. Mr. Major wrote: "Lewis, at the very close of his biography, quotes a lengthy passage from the Richmond Times written by Virginia Lee Cox." The words you highlighted on page 251 are "PUBLISHER'S NOTE." The note states that permission had been granted to print the portion of Miss Cox's description. It does not state that this portion was being printed in spite of the objections of Mr. Lewis. It merely states that the Times and/or Mrs. Cox had granted permission to print that portion. Normally, an author is consulted before additions are made to his/her book. Hence, I would say that the burden of proof is on you if you wish to imply that the quoted passage was inserted by the publisher without consulting Mr. Lewis. I see no need for a correction. Best Wishes. Sincerely, Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/260 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 11:58 am Subject: CRSQ Letter #15 November 19, 1995 Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ I was disappointed, but not surprised at your decision to let stand Mr. Major's misrepresentation of Mr. Lewis' biographical work concerning Matthew Fontaine Maury. I would like to ask one last favor of you in order that this matter be brought to some "closure" and that I make no mistake concerning your position. Please, SIGN AND DATE ONE COPY OF THE ENCLOSED PROPOSITION. Return it to me in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope. I can imagine no legitimate reason for you to deny this request. If you cannot bring yourself to do so, please forward the request to your superiors for official response. I have no intention to debate the point further with you. I just want a clear statement of the CRSQ position. Perhaps, someday I will have opportunity to review the publisher's rule book to which you have made reference. I would like to check out some of the things you have made reference to. Your reply by November 30, 1995 will be appreciated. I thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Robert Baty X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Enclosed Proposition: "Lewis, at the very close of his biography, quotes a lengthy passage from the Richmond Times written by Virginia Lee Cox." Creation Research Society Quarterly September 1995, page 86 Affirm:_____________________________ Deny:_______________________________ By: Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ Date:_______________________________ |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/261 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 12:20 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #16 OK, I guess you have been waiting for this one. In order to get the full effect, you need to imagine that the note following my name below was hand-written on a 3" x 3" yellow "Post It" and attached to the drafted letter which follows it. No letterhead, no signature (though it was apparently from Eugene Chaffin, the editor of the CRSQ). Sincerely, Robert Baty # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Mr. Baty: If you agree, please sign and date this letter and sent it back. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # "While I am not a member of the Creation Research Society, I read with interest the article about Matthew Fontaine Maury in the September, 1995 issue. I believe there are some errors in the article which need to be corrected. On page 86 the author wrote: `Lewis, at the very close of his biography, quotes a lengthy passage from the Richmond Times written by Virginia Lee Cox.' It is not correct that the author quoted Mrs. Cox; it was actually a publisher's note inserted in lewis's book (Lewis, 1927, pp. 251-252). The article does not explicitly state that Mr. Maury was a young earth creationist, but the fact that this story appears in the Creation Research Society Quarterly certainly gives that impression. That this is not the case can be seen from a book compiled by his daughter Diana Fontaine Maury Corbin (1888, pp. 158-160). The book contains on these pages a letter to The Southern Churchman written in 1855. Mr. Maury wrote: `I pass by the history of creation as it is written on the tablets of the rocks and in the Book of Revelation, because the question has been discussed so much and so often, that you, no doubt are familiar with the whole subject. In both the order of creation is the same. First, the plants to afford subsistence and then the animals, the chief point of apparent difference being as to the duration of the period between "the evening and the morning". "A thousand years are in His sight as one day", and the Mosaic account affords evidence itself that the term "day", as there used, is not that which comprehends our twenty- four hours. It was a day that had its "evening and morning" before the sun was made.'" References Corbin, D.F.M. 1888. A life of Matthew Fontaine Maury. Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington. London. Lewis, Charles Lee. 1927. Matthew Fontaine Maury: the Pathfinder of the seas. United States Naval Institute. Annapolis, MD. AMS Press, 1969 reprint. New York. Major, T.J. 1995. Honor to whom honor. . .Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873). Creation Research Society Quarterly 32:82-87 Signature:__________________________________________ Robert Lewis Baty Address I hereby grant the Creation Research Society the right to publish this letter. Signature:__________________________________________ Robert Lewis Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/262 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 12:27 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #17 November 29, 1995 Eugene F. Chaffin Editor, CRSQ I have signed your proposed "letter to the editor" and it is enclosed. I assume that your proposal, in response to my last request, includes your commitment to now publish the letter. I would hope that it would make your December edition. In any case, please let me know when it will appear so that I might be on the look out for it. Your effort is appreciated. This proposition, perhaps, indicates that you are more skilled in conflict management than has been exhibited by Thompson, Major and myself. Again, I thank you for your effort and extra effort in this matter. Sincerely, Robert Baty |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/263 From: Robert Baty Date: Mon Feb 3, 2003 12:29 pm Subject: CRSQ Letter #18 Listers, please note: Eugene Chaffin returned my last letter to me with the note following my name below hand-written in red below the text of that letter. Sincerely, Robert Baty # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Mr. Baty: The December issue is already being printed. I leave the scheduling to the Associate Editor, but I would guess that your letter would be in either the March or June issues. We have a backlog of letters already received. But we will publish it eventually. Eugene Chaffin Editor, CRSQ |