Ask, Seek, Knock

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The site offered no proof. It was simply asserted. As far as I can tell, it's just an ad hoc (made up) hypothesis thought of merely to solve a contradiction.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm
On this web site we have the instructions to the Jews on how genelogies were to be recorded.

"Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

This says nothing about not explicitly saying that a genealogy was traced through the mothers line. You're wanting to have us believe that they would name the father even though they were tracing it through the mother's line which you haven't presented any evidence of.

The whole page reeks of circular reasoning. It can summed up with "The bible is inerrant so these two genealogy aren't in contradiction. One must be tracing the mother's line so lets make up stuff and twist the text to read it as the mother's line."

This is the worst part of the article:

So in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. This shows that Heli would be the blood father of Mary, and the father in law of Joseph. Even though the name of Mary is not listed, in order to comply with Jewish custom, it is certainly implied.

Oh, it's "certainly implied" is it? Only if you assume inerrancy (in trying to redeem inerrancy which is circular).