So on one hand we have two distinct lineages for Joseph and choose to consider it an adoption, while on the other hand we can interpret it as him being the in-law.

For some reason you insist on considering it an adoption and the genealogies a contradiction.

Whereas using the in-law interpretation, which makes much more sense given the importance of Mary as the virgin mother of Christ and hence the importance of a genealogy on her side, we get a matching picture.

I mean the answer is really obvious. I'm sorry. It's just not a contradiction at all. On one end it's Joseph's true lineage, on the other it's Mary's. Simple shit.

Bullshit. ultima could very well be right about Joseph's genealogy being a contradiction, but there is overwhelming support that he is wrong.

No this again is just bias.

There is no bias. Science seeks to eliminate bias and has a complete lack of agenda. If you are right about the genealogy then I'm sure theologians have figured this out and hold that as the current theory. But they got there without assuming the Bible is right, or having any kind of religious beliefs affecting their assumptions.

And that's why I asked you, evolution true or false. You will find many people claiming that Evolution is an absolute truth, don't start limiting this kind of conviction to religion. That would be total hypocrisy.

We only see conviction when people feel threatened. People claim there are certainties so they don't show weakness. People who claim scientific theories are certainties either don't understand them or are deliberately misrepresenting themselves to defend their point. I imagine this applies to the Bible as well. At this point very few people believe the Bible word for word, but many pretend they do to defend their religion.

hahahaha what a funny man. I would like to see him debate real historians. Any ignorant person can be on fox news I guess (both of them).

Don't forget that the Romans wrote the Bible and they were inclined to make themselves the good guys. It's ridiculous to think that Pontius Pilate was somehow forced by Jews to crucify Jesus against his will. In reality the Romans didn't care about Jesus' religion, there were hundreds to thousands of different religions in the Empire at that time, but Jesus was a threat to the state because he taught that he would create God's kingdom on Earth and be King, a direct threat to rebel against his Roman rulers. So the Romans dealt with him like they did with all other threats to the state, made an example of him and crucified him.

I have read the bible almost cover to cover, and have gone over contradictions. It is my personal opinion that for almost every contradiction, there is a tangible explanation. There are only few questions I truly wrestle with in my own faith and yes some came from skeptics.

I am not afraid to challenge my religion or my religious beliefs. I just don't see why I have to lose high-ground for something I consider true by virtue of an overwhelmingly convincing explanation.

I have been properly challenged in my faith. But many times I have seen people throw "Contradictions" only for them to amount to nothing when digging into proper studies of the questions.

As for evolution, I see the complete opposite. The creationist community is offering important arguments to the theory, yet the first reaction people have is to spit on the challenges. People pretending evolution to be sacro-sanct truth, people considering me an idiot simply because I wasn't in any way convinced by it. Stuff like the graph you posted basically a self-inflating glorification of "data". It's often not science, it's storytelling.

That's my honest opinion about it.

I'm too tired of you repeating your (a lot of times incoherent) arguments to say anything about Herod. How do you explain Luke's presentation of the census.

You may think we just went over it, but you did not show that it wasn't a contradiction.

That's not a satisfying explanation. Even if it were, it does not explain that in one case Judas buys a field with his money, in another he's so remorseful that he throws the money in the temple, and the priests use the money to buy a field.

It's more like this: on one hand we have the words of the book, on the other your explanation that is clearly not conforming with the words of the book. Which do we take? I'm sorry, if you're allowed to change wording at will, then you can make anything seem plausible. I brought up the adoption tradition because you made it seem like Joseph would've been a stranger to Jesus, and Joseph's lineage would not transfer down to Jesus; this is simply false by Jewish tradition.