RE: How to interpret Adam

From: <>
Date: Fri Feb 27 2004 - 08:56:39 EST


Thanks for the clarification. It is very difficult to identify
light-hearted sarcasm in e-mail conversations. (There's no body language,
wink, or grin to let the reader know that's what it is). We need to be as
clear as possible about use of that device. Obviously, if I spent lots of
time each day studying the posts, I could make out the intended meanings.
But we need to realize that many of us on the list don't have that kind of
time; we want to keep tabs on the conversations but all we have time for is
a quick read-through most of the time. It's better to just stick the point


                      Dick Fischer
                      <dickfischer@eart To: "ASA" <>
            > cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: RE: How to interpret Adam
                      02/26/04 09:03 PM

Douglas wrote:

      Your sarcastic tone recently on this list has made it very confusing
      understand what you are arguing for or against. Please be more
      straightforward and gracious in your posts. I think Guy was asking
      honest questions here.

I absolutely agree, and I sincerely hope no one construed my light hearted
comments as any kind of ridicule. This is tough stuff, I readily admit,
and all I try to do occasionally is lighten the air. I do make every
effort to avoid criticizing anyone (well, except Glenn). But some methods
of explanation should just appear so off the wall on the face of it that we
ought to be able to narrow the field to a smaller number of possible

What I propose is simple enough. Adam appears to have been a historical
personality. Ditto Noah. If that is true, it forces us to rethink some of
our theological dogma. Further, if we can get off the blocks with a good
start in Genesis it might carry over to the rest of the Old Testament and
on into the New.

       Isn't he (and all of us) better served by you (and
      all of us) being more clear about our perspective before unloading a
      of arguments one way or another? For example, I still can't figure
      what your fundamental stance is about the Hyers article, etc.
      you do not like his article, but is that because you do believe in an
      historical, literal Adam? Why not give a more clear introductory
      in the form of "In my own view, I believe that the evidence is
      strong for an historical Adam that it is not necessary or warranted
      unload the Creation story of all historical fact" or something like

You say it as well as I could say it. If you will permit me to borrow your
sentence, I would say, "In my own view, I believe that the evidence is
sufficiently strong for an historical Adam that it is not necessary or
warranted to divest the Creation story of its historical integrity." Not
any better than the way you said it, it just states my position closer to
the way I perceive it.

Again, my apologies for any perceived levity at somebody else's expense.
(Like my above comment about Glenn, for example.)

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Fri Feb 27 08:59:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 27 2004 - 08:59:13 EST