bible has no siginficant contradiction in it

id pick something more blantantly wrong. i'm sure folks have noticed the discrepancies between the two geneologies for as long as the bible as existed, something like that. it's known that some geneolgoies do not include all persons in the line. like how we see lines back to adam yet we can extrapolate that if adam was one of the first men, depending on how literal you are with that, that it'd be a lot longer than exists. that was common practice with geneologies. also, they say that the matthew geneology was for mary or david, and the other geneology was for the other. or if the genelogy is backwards, that only means they are counting it differently. not sure if i made too much sense, but here's mroe on the geneology issue. ------------------- When one places the two genealogical lists side by side, several factors become immediately apparent that combine to dispel the appearance of conflict. Genealogies Chart Click for Larger Image (132 Kb) First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression "begat;" Luke used the expression "son of," which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew"s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon"s brother, Nathan. A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel"Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of the maternal line as the daughter of Heli. The reason Joseph is said to be the "son" of Heli (Mary"s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of "son." Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 ("begat" had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used "son""e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man"s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father"the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42). Notice carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and, therefore, of David"s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew"s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus" legal right to inherit the throne of David"a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David"a point that could not be established through Joseph since "after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ"s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah. ---------------------------- i would find another contradiction. i always kind of like the "no one has ascended to heaven" which was said after it's said that elijah was taken into heaven. a couple ways you could approach that, is to say it's too literal "no one", kind of like the "all have sinned" yet jesus didn't. another si to say the play on works between ascended and taken makes a difference. it could be seen as a cop out, both the genology and this last example, but i'd feel better about something more obvious. i can actually get behind the idea there's a lot of historical factual issues with trying to trace back to adam, as if there was only one man who existed, the first man. we'd have to i think assume he wasnt the first man, just teh first thatwas counted etc. i'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, just that there's more to it than you are putting forth, and i'd like something more solid.