We haven't seen that at all, although you've said it several times. The topic was previously discussed in exchanges with Lous Asbach, but I'll do another post on the topic soon.

essay wrote: Now let's look at the very first chapter of the New Testament:

: Here Matthew solemnly presents Jesus' family tree, all neat and orderly, with 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 more from David to the Exile, and 14 more from the Exile to Jesus. Why this symmetry? Matthew doesn't say. Perhaps it's because in Hebrew, the name DVD has a numerical value of 14, but that's only a guess. In any case, he then lists 14 generations from Abraham to David inclusive, 14 more from Solomon to Jehoiachin inclusive, and 13, yes, only 13, from Shealtiel to Jesus inclusive.

: Going back to the first group, Matthew has Amminadab as the grandson of Hezron thru Ram, but Luke in his list of 57 - count 'em - 57 generations from Abraham to Jesus inclusive, has Amminadab as the great-grandson of Hezron through Admin and Arni. Could Matthew have erred? Could Luke have boobooed? Impossible, you say.

: Let's look at the next group: Matthew has Jehoiachin as the son of Josiah. But Jehoiachin is the grandson of Josiah (1 Chr 3:15-16). And Matthew has Uzziah as the son of Jehoram. Whoa, Nelly! Uzziah is not the son, not the grandson, not the great-grandson, but the GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON of Jehoram (1 Chr 3:11-12).

: So, the final total is: 15 + 18 + 13 generations, nowhere near the 14 + 14 + 14 claimed. So much for the Bible as 'truthful' history. Hopefully Matthew was better at counting money.

: So we see in the very first two chapters of the OT and the very first chapter of the NT that the Bible is not a science book, not an accurate history book, but rather the story of two great world religions and how they view man's relationship with God - and what a story it is!

It is good that you allude to Matthew's counting of money, as that aspect of his life experience is reflected in several aspects of his writing. It is easy to see his interest in tallying figures in the way he lists the ancestry of Jesus. We have in effect three columns of 14 each. Certainly Matthew is using a literary device in constucting the list this way. There is no fraud or error involved. The genealogy of the Davidic line, at least down to Zerubbabel, was well known, we have it in our Old Testament and temple lists undoubtedly included other names Matthew lists. This was a genealogy of intense interest to the Jews of the first century. Matthew was however making some particular points with his abbreviated genealogy. He let's us know at the outset that his particular interest in the book is to show Jesus' position in terms of David and Abraham (1:1). The fact that he lists David before Abraham tells us for the beginning that Matthew is especially interested in Jesus' right to be king, the fact that he lists Abraham shows us that he is not presenting Jesus as merely the king of the Jews, because the promise involved all nations. He also stresses this with his mention of five women (including Mary), each of whom was of questionable repute in some way, but with the inclusion of women Matthew has varied from ordinary generation by generation Biblical genealogy lists.

Matthew calls Jesus the "son of David, the son of Abraham" in his opening statement. He skipped a few generations in that statement, of course, but it is for emphasis on the kingship and the promise. He further emphasizes the Davidic aspect by referring to "king David" in 1:6. In his conclusion of the listing (1:17), Matthew emphasizes Abraham and David, and also the exile. He had already done this within the listing in 1:11 when he made a summary statement, omitting Jehoiakim but highlighting the exile to Babylon. The exile to Babylon was very important in Matthew's reckoning, because the Davidic dynasty ended there, put on hold until the Messiah came. So it is true, Matthew has used a literary device to form three symmetrical lists that emphasize the promise of the seed, the kingship of David, and the end of the kingdom of Judah. We know where he has abbreviated, because we have the Old Testament lists that he also had. A literary device for emphasis does not contradict inspiration or innerancy, nor does it conflict with history. There are other abbreviated genealogies in the Bible, and we know they are abbreviated because of other material also in the Bible. A somewhat similar treatment occurs when we look at Ezra's ancestry, recorded in Ezra 7:1-6. Ezra was not himself a high priest, but his genealogy begins here with his forbear Seraiah who was the last high priest to serve before the Babylonian captivity, about a hundred years before Ezra was born, and dovetails with a list found in 1 Chronicles 3:27-41.

Matthew's list was about inheritance, and he began with Abraham. Luke's list was about human descent, hence the beginning (or conclusion) with Adam. It has been generally thought that while Matthew reports the legal heritage of Jesus as the legal son of Joseph, the husband of Mary, Luke reports the physical side of his parentage through Mary's paternal line. Otherwise, Luke's statement (a disclaimer) about Jesus' paternity in 3:23 makes little sense. Since they are dealing with Joseph and Mary, Luke and Matthew have completely different lists of names from David onward, because they are working with two different sons of David. It is interesting that Luke includes a name (Cainan, 3:36) found in the Septuagint version but not the Masoretic text.

Regarding the question of "Admin and Arni" in Luke, that is a textual question. Several modern versions do include those names instead of the single name Ram. The NIV notes them in a footnote. However, neither name is found anywhere else, and neither is in the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts (which have Ram). Also, the Greek word "arni" is a very close shortened form of the Greek word for "ram." This is not Luke's problem, but most likely a copyist's error that has become a problem of modern textual sholars (critics) relying too heavily on a few Alexandrian manuscripts.

essay wrote: I will spare you all of the other errors, contradictions and inconsistancies. The main thing is that these do not make the Bible one millionth of one percent less interesting, less important, less authoritative to those who know its true origins and its true history.

I don't think you have a list that includes anything I haven't looked at before. I've read the books, I've listened to the lectures, I've considered the approach and the evidence, and I return again and again to the same conclusion. Paul said it in Romans 3:4. Also, in fact, I'm quite sure you consider the Bible much less authoritative than I do. If the Bible is essentially a humanistic product, then it is humanistic in authority and in interpretation. If it is a divine communication, then carries an entirely different weight of authority. Advice or requirement? Good idea or fundamental truth? Necessary information or one of many alternatives? If God cannot communicate truth about the birth, heritage and mission of Jesus, then why suppose he has communcated truth about anything else? The difference in perspective makes quite a difference in approach.

essay wrote: If you'd like to present your own reconciliation of Genesis 1 and 2, and of Jesus' geneaology, comparing Matthew and Luke with the OT records, I'd really like to read it. This applies to caf or any other visitor to this forum who would like to join the discussion!

I wouldn't even begin to use the word reconciliation here. However, I will post some thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 a little later, though I admit I have little expectation of convincing you with anything I present.

essay wrote: As for the role of the Church, I will gladly discuss that as soon as time permits, unless of course I'm told not to return like another poster here was recently told. Having read that dismissal, I've not sure to what extent contrary or contrasting views are welcome here.

I can't imagine how you'd think different views or even arguments are simply dismissed. Responded to and discussed, certainly, but you surely haven't experienced or observed abrupt dismissal or exclusion of "contrasting views."

Rom 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
"THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED." NASU