The first column (excluding the counting column) reaches 15. It is fair to assume that David isn’t to be counted in this column, which would make the count 14, as Mathew says. This means that David is to be counted at the start of column 3. Taking the same position for Jehoiachin, that he shouldn’t be counted at the bottom of the second, but only on the start of the third, gives the second column 14 too. That means that Jehoiachin is at the top of column 4. That still only leaves 13 in Column 4. Couldn’t Mathew count?

Why have I inserted the third column? The list of names that Mathew gives for Jesus’ ancestors can be found in 1 Chronicles 3. Apart from the fact that between Jehoram and Uzziah there are three Kings that Mathew forgets to mention:

10: The descendants of Solomon: Rehobo'am, Abi'jah his son, Asa his son, Jehosh'aphat his son,

11: Joram his son, Ahazi'ah his son, Jo'ash his son,

12: Amazi'ah his son, Azari'ah his son, Jotham his son,

13: Ahaz his son, Hezeki'ah his son, Manas'seh his son,

So, Mathews copying skills are as poor as his maths. Hardly the best start to the Inspired New Testament, major inconsistencies in the first 17 verses.

Now, lets look at the other genealogy of Jesus, remember Mathews list, by his own words contained ALL the generations (of course, apart from the ones he deliberately left out to get his numbers to almost add up). In Luke the descendants are listed like this:

I have assumed Neri to be at the time of the Exile, being the generation before Zerubbabel.

To examine these together makes for some interesting reading. They are the same from Abraham to Perez (a whole 5 generations, not bad!). Then Mathew says that Zerah is Hezrons father. Luke says this is Perez. Then Hezrons son in Mathew is Ram, whilst in Luke it is Arni. Assuming that Arni is another name for Ram, that still doesn’t explain Admin, the father of Ammin’adab, who is mentioned in Luke but not in Mathew. The list up to David is just about alright after that (again, making the assumption that Sala is another name for Salmon). As I quoted in the introduction 2 Peter 1:20 says "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.". The assumptions I make are my own interpretation. If I look at the face value of the first columns, then they are even worse.

It would be pointless to examine the next two columns name by name. They just do not agree at all. Am I expected to view this as ‘two different views of the same accident’? I don’t think this can be explained away as easily as that.