From: Dick Fischer (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 11:06:31 EDT
Hi Vicar, you wrote:
>I have to admit I prefer to be in the Anglican church with its Spongs than
>with a lost of Creationists who will excommunicate me if I suggest Adam had
>a navel (which of course he got because he was attached to his mother's
Did Eve have a navel too? Would you not consider the possibility that
perhaps Adam (and Eve) were naveless? Furthermore, I think that our
options are limited to either taking the Genesis story straight up, or
denying the story altogether. What you are suggesting is simply taking at
face value what you like and discarding what you don't.
Putting a navel on Adam (and Eve) is an accommodation to what we consider
to be reasonable. But since modern humans apparently arose in Africa it is
also unreasonable to place the garden of Eden next to the Tigris and
Euphrates. So the creation is rendered myth and the location is also myth.
Now we don't know where to stop. Where does myth dovetail into legitimate
history? Can you draw lines of distinction and tell who were the real
flesh and blood patriarchs and which ones were inventions?
In short, I believe you are on safer ground denying there was an Adam
completely rather than sticking a navel on him, and "voila" everything solved.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 23 2003 - 11:06:45 EDT