RE: [asa] No Adam?

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Tue May 05 2009 - 12:43:51 EDT

You also couldn't have read "FORD" (and then others) without lots of prep work too, such as singing the "ABC's" to learn the alphabet... what sounds letters make, etc. Some words are sight-read, others sounded-out. So it wasn't a binary on/off to read/can't-read. Yes- a sudden awareness of something, but it was just a glimpse of what reading would become for you.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of John Burgeson (ASA member)
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:53 AM
To: Merv Bitikofer
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] No Adam?

A fair analysis. I had no intention of suggesting that my experience
was normative. It is just one of my memories from about 75 years ago.

I'm sure I read "better" now than then -- but not with greater sense
of accomplishment!


On 5/5/09, Merv Bitikofer <> wrote:
> John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>> On 5/2/09, Merv Bitikofer <> wrote:
>> "But it would be impossible and useless for us to identify the day and
>> hour that this "switch" happened and we became literate."
>> It might be "useless," but I can clearly remember that day and hour.
>> It was late evening; I was riding in the back seat as my parents drove
>> home. We passed the Ford dealer and I spelled out the sign -- F O R D
>> -- and ask dad what it said. When he told me it was like a veil being
>> lifted! Letters spelled out real words, and I could decode them! I
>> made a real pest of myself on the rest of the way home! I could read!
>> I have never quit!
>> Burgy
> Yes, but I pretty strongly suggest that you weren't reading at the level
> you are now on that very next day! Nevertheless, your reply illustrates
> something at play here: our propensity or need to "nail things down"
> and commemorate those important milestones as it were. Think how
> important it is to some Christians to be able to recite day and hour
> when they became saved. They resist or set aside the notion that there
> may have been any progression or process involved because they/we all
> are more comfortable functioning as binary thinkers. We celebrate a
> birth"day" even though we were quite alive the day before and
> incrementally progressing there for around nine months before that. But
> a trip down the birth canal is a significant event and as good as any to
> choose for documentation purposes. But my point is that these are
> conveniences for the sake of our own thought processes about the world
> and not necessarily accurate reflections of reality. We want to think
> of "one" Adam and "one" fall event that neatly happened at one time
> because that is easier to process, relate theological truths about,
> etc. I think it a valid form of accommodation. Hence the wrestlings of
> others here over "just who was the first" to be this or do that. They
> may be missing the point that the historical accommodation shouldn't be
> the focus of the theology --particularly not after it is recognized as
> accommodation. This only gives others unnecessary grounds for
> dismissing it.
> --Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 5 12:44:28 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 05 2009 - 12:44:29 EDT