Maybe I discussed that passage from Paul; if so, I don't remember. All too often people read something, imagine they know what it means, and then never question themselves about it again. I read a passage that seems to say Jesus rode two animals and scratch my head -- that's the picture I'm imagining. When I read a passage that says one, again I scratch my head. Is it one or two? I could imagine God says it's both. Then I cling to that when one or the other needs to cast down.
While there are "added" passages in the Bible, most of what look like contradictions can be explained. Things can be sorted out.
I brought up the matter of Jeconiah and how none of his sons would sit on the throne of David. No one had an answer for how Jesus could be descended from him. I think I found a very good answer. I didn't come up with myself but found it by searching. I "imagined" something when reading that passage and "forgot" something else. When I found the answer, I realized I had "imagined" something -- thinking I knew what that passage meant when I did not.
I think there is a good explanation too on why Matthew omits three generations. (I don't have an explanation yet for the other one he omits.) If someone is "imagining" that Matthew is concerned only with a list fleshly ancestors of Jesus, the whole thing falls apart. Joseph was not his father according to the flesh since Mary was a virgin. People who say they believe the Bible is the "literal" truth are apt to read that list and think it means earthly things -- how men had sons after the flesh. If I can admit that perhaps my imagination was wrong with thinking it a list of how men had sex with their wives to produce sons, maybe I can come to the spiritual meaning, the real truth. The clues are there -- it should be impossible to believe what some believe. When the Bible says things that seem absurd or impossible, that is often a clue to give those passages a spiritual meaning.
I can tell you what I believe about those if you like. You're free to accept or reject my explanations, but I don't think it's safe to look at that list and say, "It looks absurd, but it must be true" without seeking an explanation. It does look absurd. It is absurd if we don't find what it means spiritually but want to insist on giving it the physical meaning in our imagination. Indeed it is false in historical terms, but it's true in spiritual terms. People reduce it to a meaningless list of people without any spiritual meaning, disobeying Paul:
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
I think the explanation about Jeconiah is beautiful. It explained for me why he was on that list. Should I give it? At first glance, it looks impossible since he was told none of his offspring would sit on the throne of David and then we're told in Matthew he was an ancestor of Jesus. What we "imagine" about those passages could be wrong; and I say people are too apt to think their imaginations are right and then they can embrace contradictions and absurdities. That's why I object to people who call themselves "literalists" -- they think the first meaning that appears in their minds must be right.