1. I disagree. Though you may doubt the existence of a literal Adam, it seems far fetch, biblically, that he didn’t exist. It is actually easier to argue that he did then he didn”t. It is true that many people try to interpret ancient history as if they were written by 20th century scholars. However, to say that there is doubt in a literal Adam is far-fetched.

    1. Paul D.

      Let’s see here: a 2,500-year-old modification of a Mesopotamian creation myth featuring a man whose name is “human” and a woman whose name is “life”, and it’s far-fetched to assume that this is a mythical origins story rather than literal history?

      I guess all those geneticists and archaeologists are just wrong then. All tens of thousands of them.


    2. “However, to say that there is doubt in a literal Adam is far-fetched.” HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      Pure gold.

  2. Larry Valin

    Haftarah for past Sabbath in which Torah sidrah was about Jethro-Job? It was Isaiah’s call in the year that Uzziah died.


    Gene’s chronology has 748 BC year of Uzziah’s death. Jesus died 30 AD. 777 years apart.

    Uzziah was leper.

    Gospel for today.

    Mark 1.40-45 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

    See previous posts pertaining to E.W. Faulstich’s chronology work.




    1. Why? I mean, does this pertain to the actual argument that taking a ‘literal’ approach to Scripture is the right one?

      1. Larry Valin

        E. W. Faulstich’s chronology is strong evidence to refute those that would undermine (literal) truth of the Bible.
        “Adam was born 3/24/4001 BC.”
        “Two days earlier earth, moon, mercury, venus, and mars were in 343 degree geocentric alignment.”
        His books are available free through his website for postage.

        I believe Adam, Andrew, Uzziah, Isaiah and Jesus were real persons.

        Was first disciple Andrew a real person? I have made etymological link for Andrew to Adam. Gospel of John seems to have Genesis template.

        Andro(ADaM)gens helps make men.


        1. Larry, um, I don’t how to tell you this, but that stuff is bunk. Wait… maybe I do. Yup, that stuff is bunk.

          1. Larry Valin

            Could you be more specific? Especially about the chronology part?

            The other is my musings. It does seem like there is some connection between Adam and Andrew.

            I am mainly trying to make people aware of Gene Faulstich’s chronology work.

          2. Attempting to do ‘chronology’ with Scripture is bunk in the first place. The Universe wasn’t created 6000 years ago, and neither was the world, etc…

  3. Larry Valin

    So what do you do with chronology that is there?

    Why does it mention the year that Uzziah died as well as many other chronological references?


    1. Larry, ANE chronology is not exactly like ours. Note the differences between Kings and Chronicles. Further, not the fact that men seemed to live a very long time to fill in the gaps, so to speak.

      We shouldn’t continue to read Scripture like it was written by the modern Western historian.


    1. Larry, this stuff is bunk. You would do better reading good scholarship instead of someone who starts with the desired result and works backwards, applying to Scripture his own facts.


  4. Larry this man is not a born again follower of Jesus. he trusts in his own “intellect” not the Word of God.


Leave a Reply, Please!