Biblical contradictions.

[Mousetrap]

If the words in that book don't mean the things that they say.   Then why believe any of it?

If any word in any book does not believe what you think it did, due to you not knowing what it said?
Is the book true?
Or are you wrong

[Mousetrap]

Who cares if it's twelve or seventy or 1700? They ain't here now.

Exactly.

Not a strawman. We were the ones proposing that a test is necessary to prove the Bible's claims. The fact that you didn't claim that there was is irrelevant. The fact that you can't or won't submit to the test is simply too bad for you, because it automatically means that your claims are not scientific.

Then again, it there was a test in the Bible to test if Christians are worshiping the truth, it will not be the one you talk about.
Simply because that test is not a test, but gifts that Jesus gave to his disciples in person.
...So...a test you devided that is not a test is a ...
STRAWMAN!!!

Bullshit. Your whole argument about the veracity of the bible as an account of the beginning of the universe or life is completely interpretation.

But then again, you forget that you had an interpretation which you used as evidence of the Biblical inaccuracy!
I simply showed you that what the Bible say is not what you said.
Actually, what the Bible say is what Kant wrote, which was what scientists found true as they discovered one after the other scientific fact that correlated with the Nebular theory.
You see, your interpretation..., my interpretation and what science found on our interpretations, made the Nebular theory and the Bible the victor.
Sorry for your defeat.

I agree it doesn't say that, but what is left unsaid is that if you are not a big-D Disciple, then those gifts will not follow. If god or Jesus Christ could do it once, either could do it again. So goes the Christian mindset.

And all I say is that what you refer to has nothing to do with a so called test to see if God exists.
It is a Straw-man which atheists concocted, in an attempt to sooth their conscience.
You will not believe the disgust i find with atheists when I challenge them on the "Christian test".
Muslims love to use this too, and when they realize I actually proved that they are wrong, their faces display utter disappointment when they learn that their bigest piece of evidence was actually burned out straw now reduced to ashes.
I love this argument.

You can keep repeating that line but it won't make it any more true. There is actually a wealth of evidence and scientific principles that prove the case of the hot proto-earth, and none of the scientific discoveries you have posted actually proves your case. The only thing it shows is lack of imagination.

And all I will do is to refer back to the fact that science now discovered that the proto-planets was not any thing close to a Hadean existence.
Many Astro physicists  and Geologists are now engaging into studies on a cool and wet formation of the planets.
Check here=So, the Earth was wet in the beginning, sorry!

[Mousetrap]

Nullgod contradiction # 248

Yes
Gen 4:12
Quote
When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
No
Gen 4:17
Quote
And Cain knew his wife; And she concieved, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
[note: fugitives and vagabonds don't build cities]

Ok, so lets see what this so called contradiction is as Atheists wants Christians to believe.
In Gen 4:12 God says that Cain will never settle down.
In Gen 4: 17 it says that Cain built a city and named it after his son.

Duh?
Where does it say Cain settled down?
He built a city, and became almost 1 000 years old, so how does the atheist conclude that Cain settled down.

Oh, I missed out on the argument again.
They added the words"...[note: fugitives and vagabonds don't build cities]..."
Now I get it!

No, it is still an assumption!
A man who founded a city, and named to his son, will not be someone who settled in that city.
If Cain settled there, he would have surely called the city after himself.
How many cities on earth was founded, and the founder's name was used? Many.
In South Africa many cities was founded by the Voortrekkers, and named after them.
Not one named it after their child!

Therefore, the Atheist again had to put a "Note" into the Bible to show a contradiction.
Straw-man!!!

[aitm]

I figured it out!
He's playing a prank on you!

Ole god did a lot of that pranking....especially on his followers..always took them three times to beat the enemy. But hey, what says great and almighty god like letting 2/3rds of your followers die before you finally beat them infidels eh?  And he wonders why the jews were so hard to convince.....

[Hakurei Reimu]

Then again, it there was a test in the Bible to test if Christians are worshiping the truth, it will not be the one you talk about.
Simply because that test is not a test, but gifts that Jesus gave to his disciples in person.
...So...a test you devided that is not a test is a ...
STRAWMAN!!!

You are very quick to use that word. Christians have claimed that they would be able to pass the poison test and that doing so proves the truth of the Bible. That they are mistaken in that notion does not make it a strawman. That we turn around and pose the challenge to you does not make it a strawman either, because it's not actually a serious challenge we expect you to take up, but a demonstration that you cannot demonstrate that any part of the Bible is true, and you know it.

I don't care where the test comes from. If it comes from the Bible, cool. If it doesn't, okay. Show that some test (not necessarily this one) really indicates that the Bible is true, then do it. If you can't come up with a test, then I don't see how I should credit the Bible with any more truth than the Quran, the Rigveda, or Harry Potter.

But then again, you forget that you had an interpretation which you used as evidence of the Biblical inaccuracy!

I base my rejection of the Bible on the biblical adherents' continued inability to make their Bible square away with what science has discovered about the world, or indeed any verifiable claims at all past anything that would be mundanely possible. Except in its most mundane facts, accessible to the people who wrote it, there is not one demonstrated truth in the Bible. Your god is no use to me unless he's going to magic me up a sandwich.

I simply showed you that what the Bible say is not what you said.

And when you did that, it's STILL wrong.

Actually, what the Bible say is what Kant wrote, which was what scientists found true as they discovered one after the other scientific fact that correlated with the Nebular theory.

Your version of the nebular theory ignores the conservation of energy. If that's Kant's version, that doesn't change the fact that it ignores conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is a big deal. In the model you presented, matter simply accreted onto the earth without heating up, which means that untold millions of Joules of gravitational potential energy simply up and cease to exist.

No, that's not something that's going to be believed by any serious (that is, non-crank) physicist.

Even when the nebular theory was live, the Earth after being accreted was thought to be a hot, molten ball of magma for this very reason. You simply can't get that much matter from such a sparse thing like a nebula into something as compact as a planet as fast as it was thought to occur without it heating up. You just can't do it. The sun is thought to have ignited nuclear fusion from just such a process, with inner core temperatures of millions of degrees. The planets are going to experience a lesser version of this.

Immanuel Kant didn't know about energy. He was not a physicist but a philosopher. The first modern use of energy appeared not long after he died. Not knowing about the conservation of energy and the mechanical equivalent of heat is not his fault. In modern day, any theory will have to conserve energy to be seriously considered.

You see, your interpretation..., my interpretation and what science found on our interpretations, made the Nebular theory and the Bible the victor.
Sorry for your defeat.

Except that it's not you who decides my defeat, pumpkin. Science decides my defeat, and it is not on your side. If your "interpretation" is making energy disappear, and it appears that it does, it's not going to be thought true by any serious scientist.

You also talk about the nebular theory as if your theory is the only one in existence that involves a nebula. While the solar system did form from a nebula, when I, or anyone else, say that your nebular model is dead, they don't mean the solar system didn't form from a nebula, but rather the nebula didn't form as you describe. Your model ignores the input of the nascent sun into the system, the importance of an early generation of protoplanets, and to the subsequent formation of the rocky inner planets. Your nebular theory does not take into account the gravitational potential energy that will certainly cause coalescing planets larger than Mercury to inevidably heat up to the melting point of rock, and past the vaporization point of water. Your nebular theory makes a vastly different prediction about the composition of Earth than what we find. The protoplanetary disk, with planetesimals, melt-induced protoplanet differetiation, and an inner system depleted of its volitiles by an igniting sun (called the Solar Nebular Disk Model) is the only one that explains all the features we find in the solar system.

Kant's nebular theory is dead. Your nebular theory is dead on arrival. It doesn't look anything like the modern theory.

And all I say is that what you refer to has nothing to do with a so called test to see if God exists.
It is a Straw-man which atheists concocted, in an attempt to sooth their conscience.

If anything, it's Christians who "concocted" this particular test. Nobody ever told them to play with venomous snakes or drink poison. They do it anyway, and they die. We wish they'd stop, for they are needless deaths.

You will not believe the disgust i find with atheists when I challenge them on the "Christian test".

We only "challenge" you because we know you won't do it. If we did, we'd ask you to seek mental help instead.

Muslims love to use this too, and when they realize I actually proved that they are wrong, their faces display utter disappointment when they learn that their bigest piece of evidence was actually burned out straw now reduced to ashes.
I love this argument.

Yeah, but it won't work and doesn't work on us. In truth, my preparation of the test won't even get this far, or I would hand you an unpoisoned cup (because I've lied about the contents of the cup), which I would reveal should you actually be stupid enough to drink (by drinking it myself), and advise you to seek mental help. The point of the demonstration would be that faith won't save you and you know it.

If you acknowledge that, then this test isn't for you.

And all I will do is to refer back to the fact that science now discovered that the proto-planets was not any thing close to a Hadean existence.
Many Astro physicists  and Geologists are now engaging into studies on a cool and wet formation of the planets.

Name some. Name an astrophysicist who says, in a peer review paper, that the Earth formed as a wet ball. Not, "There was a period of time in the past that the Earth was cooler than we thought," but, "The Earth was never in a molten state, and its consistency was that of mud through its accretion, with liquid water and all that implies." Find that, and you might have a leg to stand on, and I'd be very interested in such a paper because it would actually involve some really cool science (like where all the gravitational potential energy from accretion went). Until then, it's just your trying to use the scientific literature as a ventriloquist dummy.

Check here=So, the Earth was wet in the beginning, sorry!

I still see your lips moving. We've been over the zircons, and they do not imply what you want them to imply because there's a good 100 million year gap between the coalesence of the Earth finishing and the formation of those zircons, and that time is plenty enough for Earth to cool to ordinary temperatures complete with liquid water.

You have taken an article intended to communicate that the Earth became very Earth-like during the early Hadean and took it to mean that the Earth was very Earth-like throughout all of the Hadean, and before the Hadean. No, the data doesn't show that. The news article linked is not a peer-review article, and as such, it has taken a few liberties to drum up interest, and I suppose that's worked. The peer review article linked is much more circumspect.

Hell, given that a zircon has to FORM in magma (they form in melts, and their melting point is around 2500 °C), is proof enough that your mud ball earth has quite a bit missing from it.

So far, you are acting to type, even down to reiterating old, discredited lines of argument and misrepresentation of the real science, as well as not addressing serious problems in your own model, despite your crowings of "knowing the science." If you think that any matter can fall from several planetary radii away onto even a small planet without picking up a lot of kinetic energy that turns into heat energy upon impact, then no, you don't know the science.

[Mousetrap]

Actually, what the Bible say is what Kant wrote, which was what scientists found true as they discovered one after the other scientific fact that correlated with the Nebular theory.

Your version of the nebular theory ignores the conservation of energy. If that's Kant's version, that doesn't change the fact that it ignores conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is a big deal. In the model you presented, matter simply accreted onto the earth without heating up, which means that untold millions of Joules of gravitational potential energy simply up and cease to exist.

Val Dusec will tell you exactly how Kant influenced Orsted, Maxwell, Colderidge, Thomson and many more.

Val Dusec also made a nice study on what you claim I am telling lies about.
Thomas Sherman have the exact same research.

I do not think you knew about these facts where Kant influenced them on Conservation of Energy!!!.

No, that's not something that's going to be believed by any serious (that is, non-crank) physicist.

...and you are, due to total ignorance, incredibly in error.
The laws of 'Conservation of Energy', 'Chemical electrical relation', and 'Electro Magnetism'; was all discovered due to these scientists who postulated on Kant's work!

How does it feel to be check mated with the knowledge that all the science you know came from a man who read it from the Bible and started to think about what it said?
The more you acuse me of not knowing science ond its foundations, the more you display your ignorance to the fact that what you believe science teaches, is not what science says!

The same goes for you and the Bible.
You think you know what it says, yet every thing you speak from it is in error!

Even when the nebular theory was live, the Earth after being accreted was thought to be a hot, molten ball of magma for this very reason. You simply can't get that much matter from such a sparse thing like a nebula into something as compact as a planet as fast as it was thought to occur without it heating up. You just can't do it. The sun is thought to have ignited nuclear fusion from just such a process, with inner core temperatures of millions of degrees. The planets are going to experience a lesser version of this.

And again.
When the Sun was still forming it would not have shined at all!
When it did start to ignite due to Nuclear fussion, it did so very "DIM'.
By that time the planets already formed into spheres.
Only lateron would the Sun gradually increase in its intensity.
So, what you want is to have an earth still in a nebulous cloud, and the Sun shining at its present state with the planets forming thereafter.
Totally wrong pal!

Immanuel Kant didn't know about energy. He was not a physicist but a philosopher. The first modern use of energy appeared not long after he died. Not knowing about the conservation of energy and the mechanical equivalent of heat is not his fault. In modern day, any theory will have to conserve energy to be seriously considered.

And hopefully you read what Kant documented that gave rise to Colderidge et al who then discovered conservation of energy on Kant's thoughts.
You see, to discover some fraction of science, one needs to have an idea and a 'A, Ha moment'.
It then opens up a world of insightful ideas and once you tested these thoughts, or Theories, then it becomes a Scientific fact.

Now, let us reason about the Nebular theory, a wet and cold Earth, Conservation of energy, Electro Magnetism and so on...
When Kant spoke about it in a very simplistic way, it became the source of inspiration to very intelligent people who developed science as we know today.

Theory became fact, and we have the world we live in today.

However, when Darwin came up with his Evolutionary theory, there was no scientific backup, and it remains a theory.
Now we have people who claim to be descended from apes who think it is the best proven scientific discovery ever.

Do you see the difference?
Theory, Brilliant human intelligence, experiment, and it results into scientific law.
Theory, Darwin ape mentality, pack-mentality arguments to force everyone to think Evolution is fact, zero experiment, and it remains a Theory.

Do yourself one favor.
Go and read what Kant said, and stop to pretend you know...

[Jason78]

If any word in any book does not believe what you think it did, due to you not knowing what it said?
Is the book true?
Or are you wrong

If the information in the book is wrong.   Then the book is wrong.

I don't have to interpret my car manual.    When it says a bolt needs to be tightened to 60nM that's precisely what I set my torque wrench to.

[Baruch]

If the information in the book is wrong.   Then the book is wrong.

I don't have to interpret my car manual.    When it says a bolt needs to be tightened to 60nM that's precisely what I set my torque wrench to.

Well then, you would be justified worshipping your car ;-)

[Jason78]

Well then, you would be justified worshipping your car ;-)

Oh ye who go about saying unto each thy car "Start ya bastard":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
Yea, verily, thy clutch shalt be ground as if between two stones.
Shall the angry gods cast thy transmission onto the tarmac?
Surely, thy tyre shall be put out with a sharp stick!
Even unto the ends of the earth shalt thy engine splutter and cough
Unto the land of the scrapyard shalt thou be sent at last.
Surely thou shalt repent of thy cunning.

[Hakurei Reimu]

<snip big fat huge red herring posturing bullshit>

Do yourself one favor.
Go and read what Kant said, and stop to pretend you know...

Dearheart, you've either conveyed Kant's theory accurately (if not precisely), or you haven't. If you haven't, we're done, because the version you relay to me isn't Kant's after all and you have misunderstood the very theory you think confirms your Bible, which doesn't bode well for your argument. If you have, then I don't have to go to Kant because you have relayed his theory accurately. Either way, I don't have ot reference Kant. It's the concept that is important, not the man.

So far, you have relayed a hypothesis that doesn't seem to conserve energy. I don't really care if Kant really was the source of inspiration for the conservation of energy or not, because the full postulate was only verified after his death, and couldn't have been complete until thermodynamics was developed as a theory and the role of heat was realized â€" a theory spurned by the development of the steam engine. It doesn't matter if Kant did know about conservation of energy, really; the only thing that matters here is if Kant's nebular hypothesis conserves energy. Again, it's the scientific concept that matters, not the man.

The way to resolve this is precisely the way you have not done so: you must go into Kant's nebular hypothesis and show us where the energy goes. Where do all the megajoules of gravitational potential energy that an infalling parcel of matter must pick up on its way down the gravity well of even a protoplanet, a stage and process the Earth must go through on its way to reaching its present size? It doesn't matter how smart Kant was, if his nebular hypothesis doesn't jive with the well-confirmed observation that the energy from falling down the gravitational potential manifests itself as heat upon impact, it's wrong.

It's a genetic fallacy to conclude that because the conservation of energy derives from ideas from Kant, that Kant must have had the full concept in his head and applied it in any particular hypothesis of his authorship. Just because Kant was toying with some concepts that lead to the conservation of energy doesn't mean he appreciated the full scope of such thoughts, or would acccept them as true once developed. Einstein never thought that his photoelectric effect and his concept of the quantum would lead to Quantum Mechanics, and his aminosity towards the theory is well-documented.

And furthermore, your assertion that conservation of energy somehow came from Kant is not even true. Primitive concepts of energy were kicking around as early as 1676 when Gottfried Leibniz postulated a quantity we would later call "kinetic energy" as the vis viva of a physical system, competing with Newton's conservation of momentum as the vis viva. The Bernoullis used what we would later call "energy" to characterize hydrodynamic systems in 1715 (before Kant's birth). Work carried out by Émilie du Châtelet in 1722 with cannonballs showed that Leibniz's vis viva was quite relevant to physics. We skim along, noting on the way that engineers found Newton's momentum inadequate to fully explain motion and used Leibniz's vis viva as well, and that whether it was truly conserved a bone of contention in physics until it gradually dawned on physicists that heat was indeed another form of vis viva, and work by Count Rumford's 1798 observations in boring cannons gave weight to heat being a form of vis viva, and that it seemed to be conserved and quite quantifiable. Finally, Leibniz's vis viva began to be referred to as energy and its details smoothed out by the development of thermodynamic theory, beginning in 1824 by Sadi Carnot. In 1837, Karl Friedrich Mohr gave the earliest statement of the conservation of energy in words, though not the term. Hermann von Helmholtz, based upon the work of Joule, Carnot and Clapeyron (and not Kant), published his theories of energy in 1847 in his book Über die Erhaltung der Kraft and from this publication the general acceptance of the conservation of energy originates, and is given its modern name by Rankine in 1850. The notion that Immanuel Kant was somehow responsible for this multi-century foment in physics (beginning before Kant was even born) is particularly bizarre.

Once more, it's the concept that's important, not the man. I don't care if Kant came up with some primitive notion of energy conservation; I want to know if his nebular hypothesis follows the modern conservation of energy, and conserves energy in all its known forms. Show that it does, and you might have something of value more than your empty crowings of premature victory.

And keep in mind, modern iterations of Kant's nebular hypothesis does have the Earth being initially hot from the accretion of matter, gas or solid. For you to have your muddy earth, you need to account for where that heat energy went.

When you can show calculations showing where all that energy went, then you can pretend to know the science better than I do.

[Mousetrap]

Dearheart, you've either conveyed Kant's theory accurately (if not precisely), or you haven't.

Once more, it's the concept that's important, not the man. I don't care if Kant came up with some primitive notion of energy conservation; I want to know if his nebular hypothesis follows the modern conservation of energy, and conserves energy in all its known forms. Show that it does, and you might have something of value more than your empty crowings of premature victory.

And keep in mind, modern iterations of Kant's nebular hypothesis does have the Earth being initially hot from the accretion of matter, gas or solid. For you to have your muddy earth, you need to account for where that heat energy went.

It does!
Actually, what physicists use as their scientific facts on the composition of the Solar System and Universe, was all due to the work of Kant!
Do not try to turn it around by even attempting to discard this knowledge.
the simple fact of Kant is that he studied the Bible, found the Nebular theory, wrote it in his Universal history of the Heavens, which was the foundation and building blocks of where science obtained much of their successes.
As time progressed, scientists did not know the origins, or they obscured their findings because it was very "Biblical" in nature, and as more and more discoveries was made on the composition of our Earth, Sun etc., atheists thought they could prove the Bible wrong with an incorrect interperetation of Genesis.

Guess what?
They did not know the history of what they proposed as evidence against God, originated from the Bible.

Now, you have been going on. and on, and on... about the Hadean epoch where you demand that the Earth was one helfire and not a cool and wet entity.

And I showed you how many scientists are now working in this field discovering that Kant was correct...the Bible was correct.

Do you want to know the real reason why you need to continue your rethoric?
Because in your quest to disprove the Wet young earth, you know that science is against your claims, and if this is the case!!!

You will have to admit that the Bible knew about the creation of the Universe, and science is proving the Bible correct!

I dont have to twist and change, nor do I have to give you any mathematics on anything.
If Scientists are discovering that the Hadean epoch is incorrect, and a wet Earth correct;
Then You will have to admit that the Bible is correct!!

I love it whan an atheist kicks and scream when they learn about this.

Calm down pal.
Go and read Kant.
It wont hurt you.

[Hydra009]

It does!
Actually, what physicists use as their scientific facts on the composition of the Solar System and Universe, was all due to the work of Kant!

This may be the craziest thing you've said so far.

Do not try to turn it around by even attempting to discard this knowledge.

A strange request.  Handing someone garbage and then demanding that they don't throw it away.  Not everyone's a hoarder like you, ya know.

[Mousetrap]

This may be the craziest thing you've said so far.

Nope.
I also remarked on the high cognitive abilities of atheists this morning.

[Mike Cl]

Nope.
I also remarked on the high cognitive abilities of atheists this morning.

How would you know since you don't have any.

[Mousetrap]

Nullgod "So called" contradictions
Well, lets see if this contradiction by the atheists, is one to use to see if the Bible can be discarded due to this error.

Jesus had 2 different genealogies in the NT, another one in the OT

320. Three different genealogies of Jesus:

A) Mt 1:6-16
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

B) Lk 3:21-31
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,
Which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Amos, which was [the son] of Naum, which was [the son] of Esli, which was [the son] of Nagge,
Which was [the son] of Maath, which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Semei, which was [the son] of Joseph, which was [the son] of Juda,
Which was [the son] of Joanna, which was [the son] of Rhesa, which was [the son] of Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel, which was [the son] of Neri,
Which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Addi, which was [the son] of Cosam, which was [the son] of Elmodam, which was [the son] of Er,
Which was [the son] of Jose, which was [the son] of Eliezer, which was [the son] of Jorim, which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi,
Which was [the son] of Simeon, which was [the son] of Juda, which was [the son] of Joseph, which was [the son] of Jonan, which was [the son] of Eliakim,
Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,
Which was [the son] of Jesse, which was [the son] of Obed, which was [the son] of Booz, which was [the son] of Salmon, which was [the son] of Naasson,
Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda,
Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Thara, which was [the son] of Nachor,
Which was [the son] of Saruch, which was [the son] of Ragau, which was [the son] of Phalec, which was [the son] of Heber, which was [the son] of Sala,
Which was [the son] of Cainan, which was [the son] of Arphaxad, which was [the son] of Sem, which was [the son] of Noe, which was [the son] of Lamech,
Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

C) 1 Chr 3:10-16

And Solomon's son [was] Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,
Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,
Amon his son, Josiah his son.
And the sons of Josiah [were], the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

Ok, for now I will discuss the 2 genealogies of Jesus in the NT.
This is one of the greatest propaganda used by Muslims to prove that the Bible is wrong, because the NT has 2 different ancestry recorded for Jesus.
Zakir Naik used this to great amusement of his audience against William Campbell when he showed this contradiction.

I was amazed that, even Christians, did not see what the Bible says about Jesus' 2 different genealogies.
But allow me to show you the atheist error.
The Bible verses says:

Mat 1:16  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 

Luke 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 

I immediately saw the words "as was supposed", and became suspected on why these words was "added" into the verse.
This is something not to allowed, except as an explanation to a Greek word difficult to translate.
I then went back to the Greek, and literal translations to find out what is going on there.
Then I discovered something that realy proven to me how poor we perceive, not only the Bible, but simple daily encounters, with little logic.
I include this verse as explanation to show everyone what the Bible actually say.

And He/, •Jesus, when beginning~, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law[enomizeto]~) of Joseph, of •Eli,

The Bible says that Joseph was the "Lawful Father by law!", and this clearly shows that in Luke, the genealogy of Jesus through Mary is recorded!

This is crucial if one consider that YHWH told Eve that salvation will come from her seed!
Not only was Joseph the stepfather of Jesus, but Jesus did not have a human father, and it unravels incredibly beautiful when the atheist presented this contradiction so I could learn this fact hidden for almost 2 000 years!

I thank the whole world's atheist community, for the assistance they supplied in teaching me the depth the Bible holds which very few people experienced so far.
You guys are doing a great job in concocting straw men, and I love to observe these creatures closeby and fills with joy when I discover your corruption.

Just think, you never knew that Jesus had 2 grandfathers!
Perhaps because you were born miraculously without a father, and have only one grand dad, might be the reason for your misunderstanding of scripture!

I love this!