Your second answer points to discrepancies among the various texts underlying the modern versions. Since all of the extant manuscripts have been carefully identified and cataloged, perhaps you could provide the names of the “accurate ones” along with an analysis regarding their superiority over the manuscripts that underly the King James version.

I appreciate your willingness to step in and share your understanding of the text. Thank you for taking the time to get involved. In the interest of truth, I would like to highlight a few minor problems with your explanations.

In your first answer, you stated that the genealogy in Matthew chapter one outlines Mary’s ancestry rather than Joseph’s. May I call your attention to verse 16?

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” (KJV)

How do you reconcile your statement that “Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father, that was Mary’s father,” with the verse that says Joseph is Mary’s husband?

Matthew’s genealogy was Mary’s history not Joseph’s and it did have 14 generations in the third list, Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father, that was Mary’s father (the name Joseph was just as popular then as it is now, if not moreso) and Mary was the link you were missing- that also explains the discrepancies in the two lists and it’s easily noticed when one realizes that Mary was mentioned in Matthew but not Luke and Matthew mentions various women in the lineage but Luke mentions various Josephs.  Any first year Bible student should know that and anyone who is sincerely seeking answers could have easily found that out.
 The reason Matthew intentionally skipped generations was to show that Jesus was Messiah by utilizing numerology which someone already attempted to elude to- ancient Jews highly appreciated numerology and symbolism and Matthew was making his intent 100% clear that Jesus was the long awaited Jewish Messiah, easily ascertained by realizing that this was the theme of the book of Matthew.

As far as the ages of the kings it was an obvious scribal error, which is why other ancient texts and various modern texts do not contain the discrepancies you found in the KJV. The scribes did a phenomenal job translating, but weren’t divinely inspired or inerrant and seeing as to the nature of the errors (8/18 and 22/42) it’s simple to discern that fact.  We know based in the texts and context that the ages in Kings were the accurate ones.

If you’re really seeking truth and desire to be enlightened try spending five minutes googling at the very least before coming to the errant conclusion that you’ve somehow (after thousands of years of debate) resolved something millions of intellectuals before you couldn’t prove to be contradictory.