> I can live with what you're saying, but I still understand there to have
> been a "list" which began with a literal Adam and included Enoch at some
> measurable distance down the line. I think it is a bit of a stretch to
> say that, since three generations were omitted in Matthew, therefore,
> Adam was only an allegory.
I don't know where you got the impression that I was implying that Adam
was only an allegory. I certainly had no such intention. I was merely
trying to point out that because of several cases of deliberate omissions
from genealogies in the Bible there are limitations to their use in
establishing exact chronologies.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395