In a message dated 12/31/01 3:57:30 PM, email@example.com writes:
<< Glenn -- I think it was Wally, not I, who made those points. The idea
>that Adam, as characterized in early Genesis, is a literal person, does
>not seem very likely to me -- probably because of my faith background.
>Arguments that he was a literal human always seem to me to be missing the
>place of the Genesis accounts, as well as not really very important. One
>needs to be much more a literalist than I to even take such arguments
>seriously, let alone ascribe to them any credibility.
Let me settle the question of who asked that Dick Fischer be given a hearing.
On Dec. 27, 2001 under the subject line of "Re: Exegesis or Eisegesis?" I
wrote << All Dick is asking, as I understand him, is for his historical and
anthropological research to be addressed in its own right. I agree with him.
His two articles are available on the website given above. Why doesn't
someone evaluate them in terms of the data and conclusions he presents rather
than whether his research agrees with one's favored theological theories?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 05:04:15 EST