Bible contradiction concerning Joseph's ancestry?

Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Count the number of generations. What is translated Joseph the husband of Mary should read Joseph the father of Mary. Mary's father was name Joseph and so was Mary's husband.

Matthew is the ancestry of Mary, called the Regal ancestry. Jesus is a descended of King David.

Luke on the hand is the ancestry of Joseph, call the legal ancestry since Jesus is consider the son of Joseph according to the Roman census.

There are numerous achievable factors for the version: a million. Jacob and Heli may well be 2 diverse names for a similar man or woman. It grew to become into not unprecedented on the time for individuals to pass by using 2 names or to alter their call (as an occasion, Peter grew to become into initially Simon; Paul grew to become into initially Saul). human beings do a similar component right this moment. 2. The greek textual content cloth would not contain the be conscious "son of" in Luke. some advise that Joseph may well be Heli's son-in-regulation. I.e. Heli is Mary's father. 3. In Hebrew regulation if a guy died childless then his brother might marry the widow to furnish infants. Heli and Jacob might have been brothers, and one among them died. So Heli might have been the organic and organic father and Jacob the criminal father (or vice versa) 4. It grew to become into not uncommon for genealogies to pass a era. perhaps Luke skipped Jacob whilst Matthew skipped Heli. From a historians attitude those kind of diffused differences certainly boost the Bible's credibility, because it demonstrates that Matthew has not in undemanding terms copied his kinfolk tree from Luke or vice versa, so it shows they are assorted diverse attestations that are for the main area in contract.

The Bible is the work of man after all, its what you'd expect, after being interpolated for so many years, time and time again. there is no way such things can be attributed to the majesty of God almighty. congratulations you've found one of quite literally thousands of scientific, mathematical, and self contradictions of the Bible.

edit: theories of supposed translations and how one of them is Mary's genealogy are conjectural. Joseph is not the name of Mary, it's Imran. As for "Joseph the Carpenter" he is "supposed to" be the father of Jesus [Luke 3:23] Both of them clearly say "husband to Mary" one or the other does not say "father" and if they are I think those people who think they are right, should've written God's word since they are better candidates of knowing right from wrong.

"seek ye the truth and the truth shall set you free" John 8:32

"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not" John 8:45

Both could actually be true. depending whether you follow a first husband or second husband. For example In the story of Ruth we have the midianite who married an Israelite, but had no offspring. She then married Boaz as kinsman redeemer. The offspring in Israelite ancestry isn't necessarily considered the son of the second husband, but of the first. IF Matthew who wrote for the Israelite followed the first husband rule, and Luke the physician followed biological ancestry then both could conceivably be true.

One line is the line of Joseph the other is Mary's.

there are no explanations, but I am sure theists will come up with some.

you know:

"Its a mistranslation, it's taken out of context, you have to be a believer to believe" or other some such nonsense.

That is, if they bother to answer at all.