Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.utk.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 13 X-Admin: n...@aol.com From: keee...@aol.comnojunk (KEEEEKA) Newsgroups: alt.genealogy Date: 12 Mar 2003 19:41:16 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Oldest Genealogy? Message-ID: <20030312144116.05249.00000236@mb-fy.aol.com> A great deal of the genealogy back to Adam and Eve depends on the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible is fact, how can you use it as a source? Even if you do take the genealogy aspect of it at face value, how can you say it has any more validity than what we give (or *don't* give) to oral/family tradition today? K > Now if you believe in the >story of Adam and Eve, then this is where your genealogy ends. However, >let's say that I don't believe in this story, then were does my genealogy >turn from fact to legend?