You are exactly right, but not in the way you think. The Hebrew text indicates no elapsed time between verse 1 and verse 2 in Genesis 1. Verse 2 begins with a conjunction which shows that verse 2 is part of the same thought as verse 1. There was no gap between verse 1 and 2 in which millions of years and a satanic flood can be inserted.

Exactly! Any minute Robert will launch into a diatribe about how Australia is populated by criminals and how one should never get into a land war in China. Anything to keep from discussing the evidence with you. Merry Christmas, Prophet.

Sorry, my mind is on other things. The title of Boyd's book is "Letters from a Skeptic." (Chariot Victor Press) May the good things you seek be yours this holiday season.

Skep (if I may use the familiar form), you may be interested in a book that does include real letters from a skeptic. Dr. Greg Boyd exchanged letters with his father Edward Boyd as the latter tried to understand God and the Bible. Greg responded with respect and compassion to his father's skeptical questions. I think you would find some answers therein and enjoy the tone as well.

Come on, Robert, they are STILL waiting for you to discuss evidence and Einstein. Instead, you sift through my previous posts looking for something to post against me. Seems if you were SERIOUS about having a discussion, YOU WOULD DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND EINSTEIN, instead of trying to distract people from your ineptitude by trying to paint me in a bad light. Sadly, it seems you are out of...more

Come on, Robert, they are STILL waiting for you to discuss evidence and Einstein. Instead, you sift through my previous posts looking for something to post against me.

Seems if you were SERIOUS about having a discussion, YOU WOULD DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND EINSTEIN, instead of trying to distract people from your ineptitude by trying to paint me in a bad light.

Sadly, it seems you are out of options. You are like Vizzini in the Princess Bride: the choice has been put to you, but you don't know what to do, so you stall and stall by talking about anything but the evidence. You think it makes you look smart, but everyone sees through your charade and laughs.less

You are right to say there were plants before man. Gen. 2:5 is only talking about cultivated plants, as the second half of the verse makes clear. Hebrew verbs get their tense from the context. Genesis 1 forms the context in which Genesis 2 must be understood. Therefore, most translators use "had planted" in 2:8 and "had formed" in 2:19. Thus the two accounts are complimentary: Genesis 1:1-2:4a ...more

You are right to say there were plants before man. Gen. 2:5 is only talking about cultivated plants, as the second half of the verse makes clear.

Hebrew verbs get their tense from the context. Genesis 1 forms the context in which Genesis 2 must be understood. Therefore, most translators use "had planted" in 2:8 and "had formed" in 2:19. Thus the two accounts are complimentary: Genesis 1:1-2:4a gives the overview of creation week, while the rest of Gen. 2 gives a close-up of Day 6.

No one can argue otherwise from the text of Genesis itself. Those who say otherwise do so in an attempt to force the Bible to harmonize with the current scientific paradigm.less

Robert, you don't need to beg me to come back. I'm just going to check in and see if you've answered Prophet yet about your proof that things are older than 6000 years. Or if you've answered Idoubtit8o about Einstein. Seems like you've got lots of 'splainin' to do before you need to worry about me. You can't use me as a distraction any more. You always insist on doing things in order (like someone...more

Robert, you don't need to beg me to come back. I'm just going to check in and see if you've answered Prophet yet about your proof that things are older than 6000 years. Or if you've answered Idoubtit8o about Einstein. Seems like you've got lots of 'splainin' to do before you need to worry about me. You can't use me as a distraction any more. You always insist on doing things in order (like someone died and made you boss). Sorry, it's your turn to do things in order: answer the fundamental questions already asked you, then we can talk about Fosl.less

You've got a mighty fast mouse there, Robert. When my screen refreshed, it said this comment was posted "0 minute ago" yet it already had an Agree (1) below it. Isn't it funny how that happens over and over again, and there's nobody active on this page who agrees with you. Weird.... LOL

Ok, you want to pretend I don't understand Fosl. Explain this then: "As you say, soundness the question. In particular the truth of the first premise." Sound like he's saying you have not proven the soundness of your first premise. If he's wrong, show us how you've proven it. Fosl: "You're going to have to appeal to matters beyond this argument to settle things. For example, you're likely t...more

Ok, you want to pretend I don't understand Fosl. Explain this then: "As you say, soundness the question. In particular the truth of the first premise."

Sound like he's saying you have not proven the soundness of your first premise. If he's wrong, show us how you've proven it.

Fosl: "You're going to have to appeal to matters beyond this argument to
settle things. For example, you're likely to have to settle the
question: Does empirical evidence defeat Scriptural evidence or
otherwise theological evidence (revelation, for example)."

That's exactly what Idoubtit8o has been asking you to prove, so he's saying the same thing as Fosl. And you still have not proven your point to either of them.less

All of this has been pointed out to RLBaty before. At this site you can read how he shopped around his GRAS from one professor to another, looking for approval. - http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/gras.html#12561 Even when he got approval, he tried to pin them down further, to make them say RLB is correct in his premises. All replied it is VALID; several pointed out it is NOT SOUND, such a...more

All of this has been pointed out to RLBaty before. At this site you can read how he shopped around his GRAS from one professor to another, looking for approval. - http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/gras.html#12561
Even when he got approval, he tried to pin them down further, to make them say RLB is correct in his premises.

All replied it is VALID; several pointed out it is NOT SOUND, such as Peter Fosl who said:

(begin quote)
From: Peter S. Fosl
To: Robert Baty
Subject: Re: A little context, FWIW!

Date: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:57 AM

Hey Robert,

Thanks for the context.

I'll be pleased to add my professional voice to the issue and assure
anyone willing to listen that it's a valid argument.

A straightforward modus ponens.

As you say, soundness the question. In particular the truth of the
first premise.

The second premise is pretty uncontroversial.

Regarding the first premise, a material implication can be true
under two circumstances: (1) if the antecedent is false; and (2) if
both antecedent and consequent are true. A material implication is
false when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.

In this case, it seems pretty uncontroversial that the antecedent
(which is the same as the minor premise) is true. So, the question
becomes whether the consequent is also true. And, of course, that's
where the controversy lies. Is the text wrong? How can we decide?
One thing's for sure, however, this argument doesn't decide it. It's
logically possible that the antecedent is true but the consequent
false. That is, it's logically possible that empirical evidence
shows that the world is more than a few thousand years old but that
the empirical evidence is wrong or misleading.

You're going to have to appeal to matters beyond this argument to
settle things. For example, you're likely to have to settle the
question: Does empirical evidence defeat Scriptural evidence or
otherwise theological evidence (revelation, for example).
(end quote)

So you are all just banging your heads against the wall. Bobby Lou is not going to change or admit he has NOT proved his premise about empirical evidence of object more than several thousand years old.less

Here is the post and web site where I read it. I don't know the author, but I wondered if this is RLBaty's denomination. (begin quote) Jay Guin, on March 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm said: Here’s the story. And it’s true. Many years ago, a friend was complaining to me about his home congregation. They refused to build a kitchen or a fellowship hall, basing this on 1 Cor 11, where Paul asked, �...more

Here is the post and web site where I read it. I don't know the author, but I wondered if this is RLBaty's denomination.

(begin quote)
Jay Guin, on March 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:
Here’s the story. And it’s true.

Many years ago, a friend was complaining to me about his home congregation. They refused to build a kitchen or a fellowship hall, basing this on 1 Cor 11, where Paul asked, “Don’t you have homes in which to eat and drink.” (I’m quoting from memory, because I’m typing at the Orlando airport waiting on a plane.)

Being the smarkaleck I can be, I asked, “Do they have a water fountain? It says ‘eat or drink.’!”

So on his next trip home, he made the argument. And they took out the water fountain!!

When he next saw me, he was astounded and upset. I said, “Look. If it makes the building ‘unholy’ to have a water fountain, surely having a restroom does so all the more!”

My friend said he was through arguing with the elders, as he couldn’t risk facing his friends while being blamed for the removal of the restrooms.

Some years later I heard about another church that had reached the no-water-fountain conclusion, perhaps from the same sarcastic conversation. I have no idea how many churches have removed their water fountains because of my small aleck remark.

We are indeed a peculiar people.
(end quote)
https://jayguin.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/reflections-on-a-disfellowshipped-reader/less

Would this be the same denomination that teaches: - no salvation without water baptism? - no mixing of instruments and voices? - that failure to condemn someone you believe is sinning is a sin in itself? - that have pulled water fountains out of their church buildings because there are no water fountains in the churches in the New Testament? (Meanwhile they ignore that Christians didn't have b...more

Would this be the same denomination that teaches:
- no salvation without water baptism?
- no mixing of instruments and voices?
- that failure to condemn someone you believe is sinning is a sin in itself?
- that have pulled water fountains out of their church buildings because there are no water fountains in the churches in the New Testament? (Meanwhile they ignore that Christians didn't have buildings for their churches until the fourth century?)

Is that the one?less

RLB stated: "Maybe you should get "Mathetes" to do some research on Goldsmith. While "Mathetes" record isn't all that good, if he keeps trying he just might improve some of his research skills." LOL. I've done more real research than you've dreamed of. Looking around your web site AFTER YOU INVITED US THERE is not "secret research" - it's just a way of amusing myself by looking at your egotisti...more

RLB stated: "Maybe you should get "Mathetes" to do some research on Goldsmith. While "Mathetes" record isn't all that good, if he keeps trying he just might improve some of his research skills."

LOL. I've done more real research than you've dreamed of. Looking around your web site AFTER YOU INVITED US THERE is not "secret research" - it's just a way of amusing myself by looking at your egotistical rants. I know I shouldn't laugh; it's not nice to laugh at the mentally challenged.less

Did you see it, everyone? Bobby and I are the only ones active here, and within 3 minutes of his posting, he already had 1 "Agree." Any guesses who gave it to him? Anyone...? Anyone...? Have a good night, Bobby. I'm going home. Chuckling.

ginas, you said: " The world -- including many Christians -- knows better and is moving on without you." 1. The world is not our standard; God and His Word are. 2. "including many Christians" Nah, there are more Christians who say homosexuality is sin than those who say it is not. But even if most Christians agree that homosexuality is not a sin, since when are we called to follow the majori...more

ginas, you said: " The world -- including many Christians -- knows better and is moving on without you."

1. The world is not our standard; God and His Word are.
2. "including many Christians" Nah, there are more Christians who say homosexuality is sin than those who say it is not. But even if most Christians agree that homosexuality is not a sin, since when are we called to follow the majority in our beliefs?less

Wow, it just gets better on Baty's little web site: (begin quote) I think I previously indicated that if Goldsmith wanted to negotiate for a concurrent discussion of our respective arguments that he was welcome to engage that discussion. I don't think he ever did. I'm still amenable to such a course, but Goldsmith will have to demonstrate a little good faith and take the initiative if tha...more

Wow, it just gets better on Baty's little web site:

(begin quote)
I think I previously indicated that if Goldsmith wanted to negotiate for a
concurrent discussion of our respective arguments that he was welcome to engage that discussion. I don't think he ever did.

I'm still amenable to such a course, but Goldsmith will have to demonstrate a
little good faith and take the initiative if that discussion is ever going to be
produced.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
(end quote)

You don't think Goldsmith ever negotiated for a discussion?!?! Dude, he's been calling on you to discuss your GRAS vs Einstein for a couple of days now! We've all seen the evidence - it's written in the posts below. What a windbag you are! LOLless

Oh, this is a hoot! Baty just can't help himself. Here's his latest post about me: (begin quote) Re: Christian Post's blind hypocrite, "mathetes", returns to take a cheap shot! Part of the hypocrisy currently being demonstrated by "Mathetes" is his attempt to suggest that one cannot properly quote relevant excerpts from a source and then comment thereon; further demonstrating a lack of r...more

Oh, this is a hoot! Baty just can't help himself. Here's his latest post about me:

(begin quote)
Re: Christian Post's blind hypocrite, "mathetes", returns to take a cheap shot!

Part of the hypocrisy currently being demonstrated by "Mathetes" is his attempt
to suggest that one cannot properly quote relevant excerpts from a source and
then comment thereon; further demonstrating a lack of reasoning skills.

I'll patronize the blind, Christian Post hypocrite further and post the
following full text of one of his recent messages (go to the link to follow all
the exciting new banter about that dinosaur depiction at that southeast asian
temple):
(end quote)

Not enough room to slander on CP, so he goes back to his little web site and makes himself sound so righteous. LOLless

"self-made man" Prophet, my father used to always warn my brother and I about that. He said, "The self-made man only shows the dangers of unskilled labor."

When I brought it up as evidence that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time, several regular posters who favor an old earth said that it was a drawing of a mythical animal, same as the minotaur in Crete or the stylized dragons of China. The problem with the "mythical animal" view is that there exists in another part of this temple complex a whole area with nothing but mythical animals; there...more

When I brought it up as evidence that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time, several regular posters who favor an old earth said that it was a drawing of a mythical animal, same as the minotaur in Crete or the stylized dragons of China.

The problem with the "mythical animal" view is that there exists in another part of this temple complex a whole area with nothing but mythical animals; there are NO real animals in that part of the temple. ONLY real animals are found in the part of the temple where this rondel is located; these depict animals commonly found in the area, such as monkeys, pigs, roosters, water buffalo, and this stegosaurus. Obviously the native people knew the difference between make-believe animals and the real animals found in the neighborhood.less

Yes, it is. At Angkor Thom, Cambodia. National Geographic even did a story on the temple complex, but of course they left out that carving, because it would be evidence that the whole "dinos died out 250 million years ago" paradigm is wrong. Anyone looking at the roundels of any of the other jungle animals would immediately recognize them as accurate representations of animals living in the jun...more

Yes, it is. At Angkor Thom, Cambodia. National Geographic even did a story on the temple complex, but of course they left out that carving, because it would be evidence that the whole "dinos died out 250 million years ago" paradigm is wrong.

Anyone looking at the roundels of any of the other jungle animals would immediately recognize them as accurate representations of animals living in the jungle ca. 1200 A.D. – the pig looks like a pig, monkeys resemble monkeys, etc. So here’s a roundel bas relief of an animal almost exactly as it is shown in paleobiology books today: large body, small head, row(s) of plates along the dorsal ridge. Only one animal has ever existed that resembles the bas relief: the stegosaurus. See for yourself at http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit87.html. I don’t understand how anyone can say it’s not evidence. It’s the 1200 A.D. version of photographic evidence that would be admissible in court.

Here’s what Wiki says in its article on Angkor Thom: “What one sees are roundels depicting various common animals—pigs, monkeys, water buffaloes, roosters, snakes—and what appears to be a dinosaur! There are no mythological figures among the roundels, so one can reasonably conclude that these figures depict the animals that were commonly seen by the ancient Khmer people in the twelfth century.”

I hope that mini-essay edifies. God bless.less