To a protestant your question is offensive and really backs them into a corner. It would have been even more crippling if you used the "Word of God" instead of inspired. Here you are forced to place foot in mouth. I am a Roman Catholic and this area is of much confusion to protestants as well as agnostics, in dealing with discrepensey's in the Bible. You have to know the history of Christianity to understand. There are three pillars of faith and I will state them here and if you want to learn more read the Catecisim of The Catholic Church. The three are 1. Holy scriptures 2. Oral Tradition 3. Magisterium (Apostalic succesion). One of these can not stand without the other two. All three have to exist together for the fullness of the faith to be. Like the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No where is there one with out the other two being present. This is why solo scritora is not the way it was ment to be. If the Bible is a matter of personal interpretation why are there so many different churches in the phone book claiming to be the only church preaching the truth? Because there is no oral tradition, or Apostalic sucssesion. Only one Church has had the fullness of the faith in an unbroken chain for more than 2000 years.

"ANSWER TO MR. MATTHEW'S ANSWER" Why should I--as you put it--"PLACE FOOT IN MOUTH" if all I've done is ask a question which points out to an obvious contradiction found in a book which has been loftly touted as the "Unequivocal", "Irrefutable", "Unquestionable", "Unimpugnable", "Incontrovertable", and "Infallible" "inspired" or "revealed" word of God? Why should the Protestant, Catholic, Adventist or any other of the many Christianity's byproducts should have a beef with my question which only reflects--as yourself put it--"and area of so much confusion"? If there's only one God--a premise all of you seem to agree upon--and (He) is not the author of confusion, contrversy, and contradiction, as it's been said, why a simple question should vex them and "back them into a corner"? Dr. W. Graham Scroggie, head of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE in Chicago, and one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world answered when he was asked the question "IS THE BIBLE THE WORD OF GOD?" He said: "The Bible is human, though some, out of zeal, which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men , were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men...". Another erudite Christian scholar, Mr. Kenneth Cragg--the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem--says in his book "THE CALL OF THE MINARET" on page 277 "...Not so the New Testament...There's CONDENSATION and EDITING; there's CHOICE, REPRODUCTION and WITNESS. The Gospels have come trhough the MIND OF THE CHURCH BEHIND THE AUTHORS. They represent EXPERIENCE and HISTORY..." And no Mr. Matthew, those are not my words(questions). Intersting enough, the Protestants accuse you, the Catholics, of having in the RCV(Roman Catholic Version), "seven(7) extra books" which they call them the "APOCRYPHA" and very contemptuously claim those books should haven't been there. Then you, the Catholics, in turn, acusse the Protestants of "expunged" seven books out of their Bible. Wait a minute, I've got more for you. The publishers(Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (refering to the RSV, or Revised Standard Version) IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS. But then after they so grandiosely blow their own horns in an attempt to convence the gullible purchaser that he's backing the right horse, then they blow their own cover: "...YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS...THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION..." This Bible--the word of God--was first published in 1611 then revised in 1881, then brought "up-to-date", (RSV) in 1952, then re-revised again in 1971. Why so many revision of what is supposed to be the WORD OF GOD? If GOD said it why HIS word should be revised? "...If any man shall add to these things(or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (REVELATION 22:18-19). I'm not done yet. I'll wait for your reply.

One is his geneology through his mother and the other is the record through his 'father' Joseph, marking him as an heir of David from both lines officially.

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. Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19. Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke. We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander. There is a chart that shows the shows a parallel of Genesis, Ruth, Matthew, and Luke in the book "Insight on the Scriptures" but I can not get it to copy in the same format. 1 At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus’ maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line. 2 Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiah’s death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.—1Ch 3:17-19; Ezr 3:2; Lu 3:27. 3 Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri.—1Ch 3:17; Lu 3:27. 4 The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

It is often assumed that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary and the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph. I have three problems with this:- 1. Luke's gospel clearly states that this was Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's. 2. The whole point of the genealogies in the gospels is to prove that Jesus was the inheritor of the throne line of David as was his father before him. Mary's genealogy was totally irrelevant to this purpose. 3. As Mary had a cousin who was married to a priest, the likelihood is that she was from the tribe of Levi, since priests could only marry into the tribe of Levi. There would be a good theological reason for this being the case too, which I am not going into here, because it is not pertinent to the question. There is another explanation for this, which I find much more satisfying, and that is that Matthew, whose theme was the kingship of Jesus, gave his dynastic genealogy, while Luke who was more interested in Jesus, the man, gave his actual family line descent from David. The law was that when the line was interrupted through lack of sons or whatever, a near relative could continue the line. Something similar can be seen in the British royal family, for example the Hanover dynasty, which passed from father to son from George 1st to George 4th and then started passing from brother to brother, eventually ending up with a niece, Queen Victoria. George 1st was, incidentally, the son of a cousin of the last monarch of the Stuart dynasty. So there are a complete list of descendants from a dynastic point of view, but they are not necessarily descendants from a family point of view. David's line went in a father to son descent through Solomon until the first exile to Babylon, when King Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah) was deported by King Nebuchadnezzar after being king for only three months. The throne was then held by two of his father's brothers, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah until Zedekiah rebelled and the second exile occurred. Jehoiachin had a number of sons, some of them born in Babylon, and was regarded as the king of Judah by the Babylonians. When the Jews returned from exile with Ezra the prophet, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel came along too and appears to have been recognized as governor in some shape or form, although we read little about him. It seems that he is also known by his Babylonian name of "Sheshbazzar". Because he was the recognized leader in the Davidic line he is referred to as a son of Jehoiachin in Matthew's genealogy. Luke traces his family descent back to Nathan, one of David's sons. Some of the other differences can be attributed to differences in names. For example, "Matthan" and "Mathat" are probably the same person. For the rest of the differences, the explanation could be that Matthew limited the generations in Jesus' dynastic line to only fourteen between Jehoiachin and Jesus. Luke may have deliberately chosen others who were left out of Matthew's genealogy to give a fuller picture. It was quite normal to include only a selection of the generations in a family line in those times. Why would Luke have wished to include a family descent genealogy when Matthew had the dynastic genealogy? Two reasons, probably. Firstly he was interested in Jesus the man rather than Jesus the King and would want to trace his actual descent from David. Secondly, in Jeremiah 22 vs 24-30, Jeremiah makes a number of prophecies regarding Jehoiachin while he was still king. Firstly, that he is to be exiled to Babylon, never to return. Secondly, that no son of his would ever sit on the throne of Judah. Luke would wish to make it clear that this prophecy had also been fulfilled in that the royal line after Jehoiachin had been continued, not from one of his sons, but from a descendant of David through Nathan, one of Solomon's half-brothers.