Allow Religious Freedom so that Your Own is Not Curtailed!

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 11/08/2015 08:17.  Published Wed 12/08/2015 as “Right to religious freedom abused”.

Sir

On Sunday, EFF members went to the Soshanguve meeting of the End of Times Disciples Ministries, where they threatened the “Snake Pastor” and his followers, and burned the tent used by the church.  According to reports, SAPS members watched and did nothing.

It appears that the local EFF and SAPS members do not understand the concept of religious freedom in clause 15 of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Everyone has the right to practice their religion free of interference, if they do not break the laws of the country.

If the pastor is causing cruelty to animals, breaking the food health and safety regulations, or endangering the health or lives of his followers, then the law should be applied.  If the church is disturbing the peace, there are by-laws that should be enforced.

It is completely wrong for anybody to force their way into the gathering, threaten violence, and commit arson.  The EFF members who took part must be arrested and prosecuted, and buy a replacement tent.  The SAPS members who failed to act, must be disciplined.

The behaviour of other sects may seem barbaric and bizarre to you, while the brutal and strange practices of your own religion seem normal to you because you have grown up with them.

Oh, your religion has no such practices?

If you are a Christian, have you ever received Holy Communion?  You pretended to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ?  To me, this looks like ritual cannibalism.  If, outside of religion, your children made a game in which they pretended to consume human body parts, you would probably be horrified.

Various belief systems mutilate the genitals of children –and dignify it with the term “circumcision”.

A final example, one that causes untold harm, is when children, too young to think for themselves, are indoctrinated into a fear of Hell.  There is no evidence that Hell exists –-nor Heaven, for that matter.  Forcing irrational fears on children is child abuse.

You get away with these practices because they are part of your religion.  In return, you have to accept that other religions are allowed to practice theirs.

Thanks and RICKgards
Rick Raubenheimer

Atheism Produces Better Morality than Religion Does

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 22/12/2013 22:36, and published Mon 30 December 2013, minus the parts in blue, as “No atheist likely to become a suicide bomber”.

Justin Steyn (“Atheism has to come up with cogent concept of morality”, The Star,Letters, December 20) either didn’t read my letter (“Atheism is the most honest approach”, The Star, December 17) or, having read it, didn't understand it, or, having understood it, didn't believe it.

As I clearly said, few atheists say categorically that no gods exist.  We say that there is insufficient evidence to believe that gods exist.  Unlike the “faithful”, we are prepared to change our minds, given reasonable scientific proof.

Mr Steyn talks about forming a common consensus.  This indeed is what happens in science.  Based on experimental evidence, the vast majority of scientists agree on such things as heliocentric theory (the earth revolves around the sun), that HIV causes AIDS, and the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Notice that this does not happen in religion: There is no sign that religions are converging to a common understanding.  This is because religion ignores evidence.  This wilful blindness is even hailed as a virtue, as proof of faith!

We are simply talking about what is real.  We apply standards of rationality and evidence to most aspects of our lives: Why not to religion?

Mr Steyn believes that religion is necessary for morality.  He must have a low opinion of himself if he thinks he would behave immorally if God were not watching him.

However, he is wrong.  Humans have in-built morality, put there by evolution.  It should be obvious that a group will do better than an individual will, and that a tribe is more likely to survive if its members cooperate.

Statistics show that nations where atheism is highest have lower crime. Studies in the USA show that states with more religion also have more crime.  The percentage of atheists in prison is well below the percentage of atheists in the general population.

Humans are not the only moral animals either.  Chimpanzees, for example, show altruism and public service to members of their group.

In fact, it is religion that hijacks our morality and turns it to evil ends.    No atheist will stone you for collecting firewood on the Sabbath, or not being a virgin.  No atheist will murder a doctor for performing an abortion.  No atheist will blow himself and you up to get into heaven.

If we look at issues like contraception, abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, it is the atheists who adopt a “live-and-let-live” attitude, and the religious who are hell-bent on imposing their sectarian views on others.

The Star Letters Friday 20 December 2013

Agnosticism, Atheism, and Eusebius McKaiser

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Wed 04/12/2013 08:09, and published Tue 17 December 2013, minus the parts in blue.

Sir

I refer to Eusebius McKaiser’s column on Monday, December 2.

I agree with Eusebius on many things, such as the value of Sunday’s Conference “Thinking Things Through”, and that faith is an intellectual failure.  However, he, in contrarian fashion, also takes a swipe at atheists and maintains that agnosticism is the most honest approach.  I disagree.

Eusebius makes a distinction, between atheism, which he characterises as saying that there is no god, and agnosticism, which, he says, is not committing one way or the other.

Eusebius says that atheists baldly claim that god does not exist.  This is a “straw man” argument, beloved of Thabo Mbeki, where you misrepresent your opponent’s position to make it easier to knock down.

The word “atheist” comes from the prefix “a-” (not) and the word “theist” (a believer in a god or gods).  An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any gods.  The word “agnostic” derives from the same prefix “a-” and the word “gnostic”, meaning “having direct knowledge” (usually of god).  Few of us can claim to directly experience god, so the majority, theists included, are agnostic.

You will seldom find an atheist who says he is 100% sure that there is no god. Most follow the scientific method, which allows for error and correction. One can say with reasonable certainty that Odin, Jupiter, Allah and Jesus Christ do not exist, at least as described in their religious writings.  However, one cannot yet disprove the claim that a god set off the Big Bang and now lives in retirement on Betelgeuse IV, taking no interest in our affairs.

How, does Eusebius, as a professed agnostic, live in practice?

An agnostic has a dilemma. Should he give equal credence to all gods, and worship at church, mosque, synagogue and temple, just in case?

Even that may not be enough: Many Christian sects believe that the others are going to Hell.  Better to worship at all of them! The poor agnostic will have no time left for anything else!

Worse is to come. Different religions believe contradictory things. You cannot truthfully accept Jesus and still worship Allah.

There is only one option open to the reasonable agnostic and that is to disregard the lot.  This is what Eusebius does.  His behaviour is identical to that of the atheist. The only difference is in what he says.  "I am not sure if there is a god or not (but I am living my life as if there isn't)" vs. "I am pretty sure there is no god so I am living my life as if there isn't".

Which is more honest?

Thanks and RICKgards

Rick Raubenheimer
126 Kelvin Drive, Morningside, Sandton, Johannesburg, 2191.
Tel: 011 802-2685. Cell: 082 389-3482. E-mail: rick@softwareafrica.co.za

Time Changes the View of the Bible

After I sent yesterday's reply to the Bishop, The Star has published another response to my letter.  Would anyone else care to reply? starletters@inl.co.za

Bible Cannot be Reconciled with Science, and Must be Rejected

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Tue 22/01/2013 21:14.   

Sir

Bishop Moagi Khunou’s letter “Much agreement between Bible and true science” (The Star, January 21, copy below) is a classic piece on how religion deals with pesky facts.

First, if you don’t have a good response, denigrate your opponent’s views as “hackneyed and discredited” without refuting them.

Then, profess Special Knowledge.  Your opponent is deluded, as indeed are many Christians, but you know better.

In fact, denigrate anyone likely to disagree: They are “casual or simplistic minds”, not “serious students”.

Knock down some straw men and deliberate misunderstandings of your opponent’s position, throw in a few apparent “facts”, a casual lie like a deathbed conversion of Darwin, skirt around anything difficult, and you’re done –what could be easier?

Only a believer is qualified to criticise the Bible?  Hardly. Reading the Bible with an open mind is one of the surest routes to atheism

Let us confront what the Bishop avoided:

I was refuting Mr Lee’s claim that the Bible is “the infallible and inerrant Word of God”.  I showed that it is not inerrant (error-free) as it has serious mistakes, and not infallible (incapable of error) as it has been modified over time.  I said nothing about whether God personally wrote the Bible, one of the Bishop’s straw men.

There are plenty of professing Christians who believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, including about 30% of US citizens: They are called “Young-Earth Creationists”.  However the Bishop is welcome to believe that a Divine Space Opera took place between the first two verses of Genesis.

Let’s also ignore that in Genesis 1, God creates plants first and man last, after all other animals, but in Genesis 2 He creates man first.

What we can’t ignore is that in Genesis 1, God creates day and night on the first “day”, and then it was evening and morning (a literal day –not an “age”). Plants are created on the third day, and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.  Thus we have day and night proceeding before the creation of the sun.  The earth is supposedly older (much older, the Bishop claims) than the sun, which is itself two days older than Adam.  Please try to reconcile this with science!

The Bishop claims that there is agreement between the Bible and “true science”.  “True science” is a tautology: If it’s not true, it’s not science.  No doubt the Bishop only regards as true the parts of science that don’t contradict his myths.

There is a big difference between a Bible written by fallible men, and science done by fallible men.  Science is self-correcting.  Experimental results –facts– are checked against the proposed model.  There is stringent peer review.  Scientists compete for the best explanation that fits reality.  Hypotheses that do not work are discarded.

Religious books, on the other hand, are not rewritten when they prove inaccurate.  The believer is not encouraged to check that his beliefs match reality.  Instead he is called upon to believe ever-more absurd things in order to demonstrate his “faith”.

For example… If all the eight-million-odd species on earth were on Noah’s Ark and got off on Mt Ararat, isn't it strange that we find marsupials only in Australia?  The Bishop seems to believe that they ran and swam (or built boats?) all the way there without any being left behind!  Continental Drift, coupled with evolution, is a much sounder explanation.

Note how the Bishop skirts the genealogy of Jesus.  “The Saviour had to be born in the house of David” –what nonsense is this?  Does the Bishop know how babies are made?  Matthew 1-16 deals only with the male line: Either Joseph is Jesus’s genetic father, in which case Jesus is the “son” of David, the “son” of Abraham –but not the Son of God– or, if God inseminated Mary, then Jesus can be claimed as the “Son of God” but he has no family tree, and the “prophecies” are false.

Of course the Bishop has no answer to the 500-year difference between the conflicting so-called genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.  If God “inspired” Matthew and Luke, he “inspired” at least one of them to lie.

We can find biblical phrases that can be shoe-horned into agreeing with modern science after the fact.  Nevertheless, the Bible has been used, and continues to be used, to suppress science and human rights.  One thinks of church persecution of Galileo and Copernicus, the “Creationism” rampant in the US, and persecution of gays in Africa.

According to Wikipedia on “Deathbed Conversion”, Charles Darwin did not “surrender to the wisdom of God in the end”.  Deathbed conversion stories should be taken with a pinch of salt.  It is claimed that Christopher Hitchens too had a deathbed conversion: He called for a priest, and converted him to Atheism.

The Second Coming of John Lee

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Mon 07/01/2013 09:32.  Published minus the parts in blue [plus parts in red] Monday 14 January 2012 as “Bible is contradictory, a product of fallible men”.

I refer to John Lee’s letter “Nobody will determine end of days, only God” (The Star, Monday January 7 2013).

Mr Lee needs to check his assumptions.  The Bible is not “the infallible and inerrant Word of God”, as he believes, and one can prove this easily.

First proof - objective reality: The two creation myths in the Bible are both wrong. They can in no way be reconciled with the true age of the earth as corroborated by many scientific methods.  The tale of Noah’s ark begs the question: How did all the kangaroos get to Australia and the llamas to Peru?

Second Proof - logic: A document that contradicts itself cannot be true.  The self-contradictions in the Bible are many and well-documented.  Among the more glaring ones are [Such as] the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.  From Abraham to David the records agree.  From David to Joseph there are serious discrepancies.  Luke has 40 generations between the two; Matthew has 25, a difference of about 480 years.*

Matthew 1 starts “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham”.  When he gets to Jesus in verse 16, he contradicts himself, saying “…Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus”.  The original writer of the book of Matthew probably had Joseph as the father of Jesus.  A later writer then grafted in the “Son of God” myth, apparently not realizing that if God was the father of Jesus, then Mary’s cuckolded husband Joseph and his entire descent were irrelevant.

Third proof – the Bible has changed: Since Mr Lee has internet access, he should look up the book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart D. Ehrman, and the web site www.codexsinaiticus.org which deals with Codex Sinaiticus, the "Sinai Bible".  The latter is over 1600 years old and includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. It differs substantially from modern Bibles, and from slightly younger versions like Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.  There are literally thousands of differences, many minor, some major, between these early versions of the Bible and the one Mr Lee reads.  How can something that appears in so many different versions be infallible or inerrant, let alone the “Word of God”?

The Bible is, simply, [It is] the work of fallible men who knew very little about the universe and explained it as best they could to try to control their followers.  We know better now.  Second Comings, Revelations, Heaven and Hell are just lies to scare the faithful.

*Footnote: I have set up a spreadsheet comparing the Old testament, Matthew 1, and Luke 3's genealogies of Jesus.  e-mail me if you'd like a copy.

---

Mr Lee's Letter:

We are not meant to know! Let superstition and ignorance prevail!

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 15/07/2012 12:34, published Tuesday July 17 (minus the parts in blue) as “Archaic logic makes little sense”.  Dr Levin’s original letter is below.

Sir

Amazing how even a breakthrough like the discovery of the Higgs Boson can be spun in favour of superstition by proponents like Dr A. M Levin (“Accept what we are meant to know”, in The Star, Thursday July 12).

Contrary to what Dr Levin may think, we know a considerable amount about the “how” of the universe: Much more than was known by the authors of the bible.

As to “why” the universe exits, it is a meaningless question, based on an assumption that there must be a reason for everything.  This sort of thinking caused men to invent gods in the first place.

If we had meekly believed that we were “not meant to know” things not “revealed” in scripture, we would still accept plagues and natural disasters as punishments from the gods.  Instead, vaccination and weather forecasts save lives uncounted; billions live longer, healthier and happier lives than ever before in history.

                                              

It is sad when educated people like Dr Levin (who seems to be a medical practitioner), in professions based on science, nevertheless try to retard progress with outdated and discredited texts like the bible.

If Dr Levin wants to quote Deuteronomy, would he also like us to not eat rabbit, pork or calamari (Deuteronomy 14:7-10), or stone to death non-virgin brides (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), or make rape victims marry rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), or prevent banks charging interest (Deuteronomy 23:19)?

An Atheist Against Religious Intolerance

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Sat 07/01/2012 21:13, not published, and Sun 08/01/2012 17:55 to The Times, Johannesburg (who published most of it the next day).

As an atheist, I would like to record my strongest condemnation of the Christmas bombings of churches in Nigeria, now followed by a fatal attack on a northern Nigerian church.

While I don't think religion is a good idea, I –alongside most atheists– believe in religious freedom: People have the right to practice whatever creed they wish, as long as they obey reasonable laws (including that they don't coerce others).

Religion should be allowed to wither and die under the spotlight of reason and science: Never by intimidation.

The use of force by people like Boko Haram who believe their religion supports violence, should be opposed by all decent atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and even followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Star's Great Creationism Debate

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 24/05/2011 20:46 – Published with minor changes and minus the parts in blue, as “Gaping holes in creationists’ argument” on Mon May 30, 2011.

 

The Creationism Debate of Thurs May 19 2011 needs a whole page of rebuttal, which the Editor is unlikely to give me, but here goes:

Dr AM Levin makes a creditable attempt to reconcile the Creation myth with what happened according to science.  He interprets the "days" of creation as mapping to various geological eons.

For him these are not literal days but "ages".

However he misses a vital point: For each "day" the bible repeats "And the evening and the morning were the n-th day" (in those days, and still in Jewish tradition, the day was taken to start at sunset).

These were meant to be understood as literal, 24-hour days, not symbolic ages.  Or what are "evening and the morning" symbolic of?  

If we are to take the bible as symbolic, perhaps the gods of the bible are also intended to be symbolic, rather that actual existing entities?

Ron Schurink wants us to believe that modern civilization has a debt to monotheistic religion, i.e. Christianity.

We can debate whether Christianity, with its three gods that somehow get shoe-horned into one, is really monotheistic.

However there are two genuinely monotheistic superstitions, namely Judaism and Islam, which he totally forgets.  Both developed high cultures, as did the non-monotheistic superstitions of the east.

History shows that Christianity vehemently opposed scientific progress as far as possible, and its remaining centres of power still do so, as in the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception.

Leon du Toit raises the hoary red herring of the missing links in the fossil record.

It is difficult for us as humans, with a lifespan of the order of 100 years, to understand a hundred times a hundred times that, i.e. a million years.  For anything to survive that long is amazing.

Fossils do not form easily: They need very specific conditions.  So, the fact that we find fossils at all is remarkable.  To find a complete record is well-nigh impossible.  

As Richard Dawkins has wittily pointed out, when a fossil is found that fits neatly into the gap between two others, the creationists are very happy, because they now have two gaps to complain about instead of one!

The case of the eye is another one that Dawkins has dealt with more than adequately.

To inadequately summarise a whole chapter, would an awareness of light in certain cells give the animal an advantage?  Obviously yes.  

That individual would then be more likely to survive, breed, and produce more offspring.  The rare mutations that produced better vision would be favoured, and would propagate.  

As to partially-developed eyes, the eye is a soft structure not preserved, like bones, in fossils.  

However, throughout the animal kingdom today we find eye-like structures in various stages of development: All the way from mere sensitivity to light, through to the eyes of the eagle.

Finally, du Toit says that we have not yet been able to synthesise life.  True.  How long have we been at it, and how long did it take evolution?  Nature, experimenting on a huge number of whole planets, took billions of years –so at least give the scientists a few thousand!

Religion = Slavery and Conflict. Atheism = Freedom.

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Mon 18/10/2010 23:30

Elise D van der Pijl (Star Letters, October 10 2010) does not believe that the followers of what she calls "God's Word" over the centuries have been mislead by myth.  Arlene Chaperon (also October 10) is offended and maintains the Bible is the Word of God.

Indeed, over much of recorded history, mankind has believed in gods.  Not just one god.  Hundreds.  With divergent points of view.  Which, if any, was right?

If you are a Christian and believe that Christ is "the light, the Truth, and the way" and that no man comes to the Father but through him, you aren't allowed to believe with the Muslims that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.  Your three gods are also inconsistent with the Jewish belief that "the Lord our God, the Lord is One".

Yes, there is a slight-of-hand by which Christians claim a three-is-one god, to appear monotheistic, but I have yet to find one who will lend me three hundred Rand and accept repayment with one hundred since three equals one.

If you are a Christian, a majority of the world's population thinks you are wrong.  A Muslim? The majority of the world disagrees with your beliefs.  Likewise for Hindus, Jews, Pastafarians*, name any superstition you like.

How come you had the luck to find (usually to be born into) the one true religion, and everyone else is headed for damnation?

Why is it that no religion's followers are blessed more than those of any other?  How come your reward comes only after death, unverifiable by any objective means?

It is more likely that all religions are false; political creations used to manipulate the gullible.

Van der Pijl and Chaperon have personal relationships with their god.  People of religions around the world commune in many ways with their diverse gods.  This can involve altered states of consciousness of all sorts.  Trances, self-hypnosis, mass hysteria, etc. seem very convincing to the participants.  They show what the human physiology is capable of.  And how powerful self-delusion and wishful thinking can be.  They do not prove that there is a god.

Reality check: If gods, capable of creating the universe, exist and want contact with us, why do they not manifest in physical form?  Why not have residential and postal addresses, telephones, e-mail, and Facebook pages?  Where are their superhuman ambassadors to the UN and the nations?  Surely this would settle the controversy?

No.  If superior beings exist, as yet undetected by science, they do not seem concerned about our welfare nor care whether we worship them or not.  Stop living in fear of myths, and start living a life of freedom!

* Pastafarians = The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Not to be confused with Rastafarians.

Contradictions in Jesus's "Genealogy" show the Bible is False

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 05/10/2010 22:38

Sir

This letter is addressed to those who still believe that the Bible is the infallible, divinely-inspired Truth.

Please read Matthew 1.  It starts with what the author claims is "the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham".  He traces the male descent from Abraham to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".

Now see Luke 3:23-38, which traces the male line in reverse from Joseph back to Adam.

Luke and Matthew use opposite directions so they are difficult to compare, but if you sort their lists (or ask me for the Jesus spreadsheet) and then try to align them, some glaring differences emerge:

From Abraham to David the records agree.  From David to Joseph there are serious discrepancies.  Luke has 40 generations between the two; Matthew has 25, a difference of about 480 years.  Of the names between David and Joseph, only two match exactly, and two approximately.

You don't have to be a judge or a policeman to know that, if two people give you seriously conflicting accounts, one of them is wrong.  Or both.

So, if God inspired Luke and Matthew to write these lists, He's a liar.  Or maybe they weren't that inspired.

Worse is to come.

Remember, Matthew proclaimed "the genealogy of Jesus Christ", supposedly showing his descent from David, in fulfilment of prophecy.  But wait a minute: Isn't the Christian myth that God made Mary pregnant with Jesus?  Well, yes, Matthew later admits that Joseph was only the husband of Mary, not father of Jesus but just the cuckold who was conned into raising another's child.

With no genetic link between Joseph and Jesus, both genealogies are pointless.  Why have them at all?  To mislead the gullible?

Perhaps the original versions did have Joseph as Jesus' dad.  Then later editors grafted the "son of god" story in from older legends, but could not deal with the obvious contradiction.

Too bad that, to them, Mary was only a woman and not worthy of her own genealogy –even if she was left as the only link between Jesus and the human race!

Is this part of the Bible true?  Logically it can't be.

Can the Bible then be the Word of God?  Only if He is very confused...

_______________________________________________________________________

Spreadsheet (contact me for a copy on Excel):

The Table below compares the Genealogy according to Luke 3, Matthew 1, and Genesis 5 &11.  The column headed "Match" indicates whether the names match (most don't). The last two columns estimate the number of years from Adam to Jesus according to Like and Matthew, giving a difference of 15 generations and around 500 years!

By Luke 3:23-38				by Matthew 1				by Genesis 5 & 11			Age at
Verse	Gen	Name	Generations		Name	Match?	No.	Verse	Name		birth of son
38.3		God.
38.2	1	Adam				Yes	1	5.1	Adam		130	130
38.1	2	Seth				Yes	2	5.3	Seth		105	105
38	3	Enos				Yes	3	5.6	Enos		90	90
37.4	4	Cainan				Yes	4	5.9	Cainan		70	70
37.3	5	Maleleel				Approx	5	5.12	Mahalaleel		65	65
37.2	6	Jared				Yes	6	5.15	Jared		162	162
37.1	7	Enoch				Yes	7	5.18	Enoch		65	65
37	8	Mathusala				Approx	8	5.21	Methuselah		187	187
36.4	9	Lamech				Yes	9	5.25	Lamech		182	182
36.3	10	Noe				Approx	10	5.29	Noah		500	500
36.2	11	Sem				Approx	11	5.32	Shem (& Ham, and Japheth)		100	100
36.1	12	Arphaxad				Yes	12	11.10	Arphaxad		35	35
36	13	Cainan			Genesis 9:18   ...and Ham is the father of Canaan.
35.4	14	Sala				Approx	13	11.12	Salah		30	30
35.3	15	Heber				Approx	14	11.14	Eber		34	34
35.2	16	Phalec				Approx	15	11.16	Peleg		30	30
35.1	17	Ragau				NO	16	11.18	Reu		32	32
35	18	Saruch				Approx	17	11.20	Serug		30	30
34.4	19	Nachor				Approx	18	11.22	Nahor		29	29
34.3	20	Thara				Approx	19	11.24	Terah		70	70
34.2	21	Abraham			Abraham	Yes	20	11.26	Abram	$	100	100
34.1	22	Isaac			Isaac	Yes			Isaac	#	60	60
34	23	Jacob			Jacob	Yes			Jacob	@	30	30
33.4	24	Juda			Judas	Approx			Judah		30	30
33.3	25	Phares			Phares	Yes					30	30
33.2	26	Esrom			Esrom	Yes	$ -Genesis 21:5				30	30
33.1	27	Aram			Aram	Yes	# - Genesis 26:26				30	30
33	28	Aminadab			Aminadab	Yes	@ - Ages from here				30	30
32.4	29	Naasson			Naasson	Yes	on are estimates.				30	30
32.3	30	Salmon			Salmon	Yes					30	30
32.2	31	Booz			Booz of Rachab	Yes					30	30
32.1	32	Obed			Obed of Ruth	Yes					30	30
32	33	Jesse			Jesse	Yes					30	30
31.4	34	David	1	1	David	Yes					30	30
31.3	35	Nathan	2	2	Solomon	NO					30	30
31.2	36	Mattatha	3	3	Roboam	NO					30	30
31.1	37	Menan	4	4	Abia	NO					30	30
31	38	Melea	5	5	Asa	NO					30	30
30.4	39	Eliakim	6	6	Josaphat	NO					30	30
30.3	40	Jonan	7	7	Joram	NO					30	30
30.2	41	Joseph	8	8	Ozias	NO					30	30
30.1	42	Juda	9	9	Joatham	NO					30	30
30	43	Simeon	10	10	Achaz	NO					30	30
29.4	44	Levi	11	11	Ezekias	NO					30	30
29.3	45	Matthat	12	12	Manasses	NO					30	30
29.2	46	Jorim	13	13	Amon	NO					30	30
29.1	47	Eliezer	14			NO					30
29	48	Jose	15	14	Josias	Approx					30	30
28.4	49	Er	16	15	Jechonias	NO					30
28.3	50	Elmodam	17		(in Babylon)	NO					30
28.2	51	Cosam	18			NO					30
28.1	52	Addi	19			NO					30
28	53	Melchi	20			NO					30
27.4	54	Neri	21			NO					30
27.3	55	Salathiel	22	16	Salathiel	Yes					30	30
27.2	56	Zorobabel	23	17	Zorobabel	Yes					30	30
27.1	57	Rhesa	24	18	Abiud	NO					30	30
27	58	Joanna	25	19	Eliakim	NO					30	30
26.4	59	Juda	26	20	Azor	NO					30	30
26.3	60	Joseph	27	21	Sadoc	NO					30	30
26.2	61	Semei	28	22	Achim	NO					30	30
26.1	62	Mattathias	29	23	Eliud	NO					30	30
26	63	Maath	30	24	Eleazar	NO					30	30
25.4	64	Nagge	31			NO					30
25.3	65	Esli	32			NO					30
25.2	66	Naum	33			NO					30
25.1	67	Amos	34			NO					30
25	68	Mattathias	35			NO					30
24.4	69	Joseph	36			NO					30
24.3	70	Janna	37			NO					30
24.2	71	Melchi	38			NO					30
24.1	72	Levi	39			NO					30
24	73	Matthat	40	25	Matthan	Approx					30	30
23.2	74	Heli	41	26	Jacob	NO					30	30
23.1	75	Joseph	42	27	Joseph	Yes					30	30
23	76	Jesus	43	28	Jesus*		Number of years (Luke vs Matthew)				3696	3216
Difference:				15	generations						480	yrs

*Matt 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".  No genealogy is given for Mary. So descent of Jesus is not known, only his "step-father".