Re: Who wrote, Dick Fischer deserves a hearing?

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Tue Jan 01 2002 - 13:38:23 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Skeptical Inquirer magazine : September 2001 : Design Yes, Intelligent No"

    Thanks Bob,

    I ("Wally") get blamed for enough already :-)..

    Wally wrote:

    > In a message dated 12/31/01 3:57:30 PM, 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.
    > > >>
    > ASAers,
    > Let me settle the question of who asked that Dick Fischer be given a hearing.
    > I did.
    > 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?
    > >>
    > Bob

    Walt Hicks <>

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 10:33:31 EST