The King James Bible is without contradiction.

OK great. The Word will stand up to fair scrutiny, otherwise I wouldn't have made the challenge. I also thought to myself, surely I could find contradictions, but I found that they were a result of using faulty corrupted versions or a misunderstanding of it. "This is adding things that the books do not say." The Bible isn't a book that contains 100% of every subject matter imaginable, as such a book could not possibly exist. It cannot possibly tell us every last detail we might want to inquire about. However, we can have a good idea as to what we could safely assume and seems reasonable enough to accept as a possible solution or answer to any subject matter contained that could have at first glance raise some questions. So what I'm getting at is for many cases you have to add in some thoughts if you hope to get to an answer. Anything less than that is to dismiss it prematurely and jump to conclusions. Don't fret though, I will not be presenting any far-fetched silliness that is nothing more than an excuse when it's clearly wrong. So let's get started. Luke is giving the physical ancestors (or in one or two cases a very close adoptive relation), while Matthew is most interested in showing that the father of Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David. The correctness of this view of the purpose and the meaning of each genealogy is confirmed by the fact that the genealogy in Luke begins at the end and works backward, whereas the genealogy in Matthew begins at the beginning. Where the point was to trace the actual descent of Joseph back to David that could be done by recording the tradition of the family as to his actual father, Heli, and the actual father of Heli, and so on up to Nathan the son of David. But where the point was to mention the successive heirs of the Davidic throne, it was natural to begin with David and work down. What then actually happened in the generations just before Jesus? Here is one possible scenario. And that is all we can do is offer plausible solutions since the actual facts are hidden from us. Matthew's genealogy Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Luke's genealogy Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Suppose that Eleazar, the legal heir of David's throne died without widow or son. Customarily a more or less close relative would be counted as his legal descendent and be said to have been "begotten" by him. Suppose also that Matthan is that relative and is the same person as Matthat (in Luke) with an alternative spelling. That would mean that Jacob and Heli are brothers. Then suppose that Jacob dies before he has sons. According to the custom of Levirate marriage (see Matthew 22:25) the brother of the deceased man is to marry and raise up descendants for the sake of the name of the dead brother. Thus Heli marries Jacob's wife and they give birth to Joseph, Jesus' father. In this way Joseph is the legal heir through Jacob's line, but the actual physical son of Heli. http://www.desiringgod.org... This is a perfect example of how something can appear to be in conflict but actually be 100% true. This is fun though, it makes me think about and look up different things a person might reference as an error or contradiction. I look forward to the remaining arguments. Also I reject the notion that you have any such "contradictions with reality/science" if you're using a fair interpretation. That can be the sequel to this debate if you like.