Jesus farfar?

v16 og Jakob til Josef, Marias mand. Hun fødte Jesus, som kaldes Kristus. mat 1
v23 Jesus var omkring tredive år, da han begyndte sit virke. Han var, mente man, søn af Josef, som var søn af Eli, luk 3

´
....Ham træmanden Joseph, han fik sgutte nogen fornøjelse, kun ulejligheden og udgiften ved opforstringen - Næ næ det var Helligånden der havde lagt brødet i ovnen hos Maria, som Den god Træmand jo bare måtte finde sig i.....så det kan allerhøjesdt blive til en form for en PAPPAPAPAPA........(som vores små prinser muligvis skal udtrykke sig! ;-)
Med venlig hilsen
jalmar

v6 haren, for den tygger ganske vist drøv, men har ikke spaltede hove; den skal I regne for uren; 3 Mos 11

Mens vi prøvede fange den, tænkende jeg, hvor hulen da.
I sundfloden skulle man indfange alverdens fugl, hvorfor kan jeg ikke fange den fandens undulat oppe i vores træ.
Og så er vores krokodille ikke engang sluppet fri ;o)
Boning

Hvis den skal have striber,
v39 Når dyrene så parrede sig foran grenene, fik de stribet, spættet og broget afkom. 1 Mos 30

Nu er grenene sløret ;o)
Boning

v22 Det er ham, der troner over jordens flade,
men alle dens beboere er som græshopper;
han spænder himlen ud som et slør,
breder den ud som et telt til at bo i. Es 40
Så vil du se at jorden er flad, det er sandt fordi det står i bibelen "SS"

v14 Da sagde Gud Herren til slangen:
»Fordi du har gjort dette,
skal du være forbandet
blandt alt kvæg
og blandt alle vilde dyr.
På din bug skal du krybe,
og støv skal du æde,
alle dine dage. 1 Mos 3
De spisser kun sand "SS"

Ja, det er jo noget værre noget, når der ikke er styr på genealogien. De to genealogoer i Mattæus og Lukas afviger ikke kun på dette punkt - de er nemlig helt forskellige. Nogle har foreslået, at den ene er Josef's genealogi (han var trods alt stedfar), medens den anden er Maria's genealogi.
Set med mine øjne er den slags spørgsmål ligegyldige - vi har ikke i dag en kinamands chance for at regne ud, hvorfor de to genealogier er forskellige. Men det behøver altså ikke være en fejl - de kan begge være rigtige, da man havde andre traditioner for genealogi dengang end vi har i dag.

Men det ser jo faktisk ud somom Haren tygger drøv, så det troede man altså den gang.... (min datters kanin ser forøvrigt også ud somom den tygger drøv).

Jeps - det var verdens første eksempel på systematisk genmanipulation. Helt ærligt, hvad havde du ellers forventet af en fortælling fra Bronzealderen?
Men deres fejlopfattelser og kreative fantasi siger jo ikke noget om, hvorvidt Gud findes eller ej.

Du tror, jeg ved hvad det er du snakker om, så tager du fejl, jeg synes bare det er humoristisk, hvad det er du skriver, og regner med det er hvad du gør.
Hvis ikke, så beklager jeg.
For mig er bibelen stadigvæk et recept bog.O)
Boning

Nu skal de gamle snart i seng
Vi snakkes
Boning

v22 Har du været ved sneens forrådskamre,
har du set haglenes forrådskamre? Job 38
jeps, det forråd har jeg også set på grønland.
men du har ret, man kan nem komme til at tage fejl.

http://debat.sol.dk/show.fcgi?category=6&conference=217&posting=1084556
Synes du det er meget underligt, at Bibelen er fyldt med videnskabelige fejl? Dine forestillinger er garanteret også fyldt med videnskabeligt tvivlsomme forestilinger.

Jeg vil gerne kommentere dig senere i dag.
Kosmos

Det er de færreste dyr der kan leve af planteføde alene. Alle dyr har brug for specielle proteiner og vitaminer som planter ikke kan lave. Samtidig indeholder planter cellulose der er svært at nedbryde. Køerne lever kun af græs. Og de klarer det problem ved at tygge drøv. Når en ko tygger drøv lader den mikroorganismer (bakterier) nedbryde planterne inde i nogle af dens maver (vommen og netmaven). Koen lever så både af planterne - og af de proteiner og vitaminer som mikroorganismerne består af.
Haren er faktisk også en slags drøvtygger - selvom den klarer det på en lidt anden måde end køerne. Haren spiser sin mad to gange. Første gang løber maden ind i harens blindtarm der er ret stor. Her findes en masse mikroorganismer. De nedbryder maden ved en forgæringsproces. På den måde bliver planterne omdannet til næringsstoffer som haren selv kan udnytte. Samtidig formerer mikroorganismerne sig og vokser. Derved danner de proteiner og vitaminer som ikke findes i planterne.
Haren tømmer nu blindtarmen - og laver små harelorte. De små harelorte består af maden og mikroorganismerne. Så spiser haren de små harelorte igen - lige når de kommer ud. Sluger dem - ned i maven igen. Nu kan haren optage alle proteinerne og vitaminerne, for nu er de blevet givet fri. På den måde får haren alle de proteiner og vitaminer som den skal bruge, selvom den kun spiser planter.
Man har lavet forsøg, hvor man forhindrede haren i at æde sine egne harelorte. Resultatet var at haren døde i løbet af 8 dage!
Hele artiklen om haren kan læses her:
Haren er drøvtygger.
http://www.skoveniskolen.dk/default.asp?m=10&a=124
Kosmos

man kan ikke tage fejl.
Kosmos

Hvordan narre man et får? og hvilket får?
http://jacob.sheepregistry.com/descrip.htm
Kosmos

http://www.math.aau.dk/~fajstrup/UNDERVISNING/KORTPROJEKTIONER/NOTER/UTM_PROJEKTIONEN_AAU2003.pdf
men vi ved, hvordan jordens flade ser ud, altså overflade. Den er lige og krum
Kosmos

ED's critique of the first part of Bob's article: Bob says, "it is enough..." Enough for someone like Bob apparently. But how is tasting "air" the same as tasting "dust?" And does Bob wonder or ask why the serpents are tasting the "air?" And does Bob expect everyone who reads his article to believe as he does that the words "eat dust" in Genesis 3:14 were placed there to demonstrate God's advanced knowledge of herpetological behavior to people living 2,500 years later? Why did God say that serpents "eat" rather than "taste" the dust? (The word, "taste," is more precise and would have demonstrated "greater knowledge.") And, wouldn't the gain of a "super tasting" skill be viewed as a "blessing" rather than a "curse?"
Speaking of the "tasting" ability of snakes, Dr. William R. Teska, a biology professor at Furman University who specializes in snakes informed me that snakes "taste" both dirt and air to navigate. However, other senses, like sight, sound, smell (in some species), and heat sensing (in vipers), probably play even more important roles in their navigation. Moreover, some snakes live in lakes or even oceans, and could hardly be described as "dust eaters." Others live high in the branches of tree-canopied rain forests, and seldom if ever rub their bellies on the ground and "eat dust." Besides, virtually all animals "eat" or swallow "dust" or dirt, either voluntarily or accidentally. So, Bob's "apologetical belief" that the Scriptures must jive with modern herpetological science is based on selectively emphasizing only some herpetological observations, ignoring others, viz., stretching the meaning of an obvious literary put down to mean something "scientific sounding," i.e., "tastes" the air. Such a method of defending the Bible's truth and accuracy is fallacious in the extreme.
Furthermore, like all "Bible believers," Bob only takes seriously and scientifically the passages he wants. For instance, a mere 13 verses away, Gen. 3:1 states, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [the serpent] said to the woman [it spoke]..." To the best of my knowledge herpetologists have not proven that "the serpent is more crafty than any beast of the field," neither have they discovered a talking serpent. Such descriptions make Genesis read more like a fable from Aesop than the "truth."
While I'm discussing the tale of the poor cursed serpent, I should add that there isn't the slightest evidence that the "serpent" had any connection with "Satan." That's a later Christian invention. "Satan" is not even mentioned in the whole book of Genesis, not when Cain kills Abel, nor when the "whole world" turns away from God prior to "the Flood," nor at "the tower of Babel" incident, which also "displeased" God. No mention of "Satan" anywhere. (Of course regardless of the fact that Genesis nowhere mentions "Satan," Christian apologists still have no trouble finding "Satan" wherever and whenever they need to. In fact they find "Satan" lurking behind everything going on in the world today, and of course also find him hiding inside that serpent mentioned in Genesis, except they do not want to take seriously every verse concerning that serpent, namely that "Satan" was "craftier than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made," and "Satan," was "cursed more than any beast of the field, more than all cattle...to go upon his belly and eat dust all the days of his life."
It's plain to see there is no mention of "Satan" in the original Hebrew fable***, just a "crafty talking serpent," whom Yahweh curses by washing its mouth out with dirt for the rest of its life - a fable in the most Aesopian sense of the word.
***And why indeed, with an event of such incredibly monumental significance as the "war in heaven" between God and the fallen angels (that Milton wrote of so eloquently), why did neither the authors of the creation stories, nor later editors of Genesis think to mention such a "war" even though they were allegedly inspired by God to write their "God's eye view" of "the beginning" of all things. Neither did the author of Job (with his "God's eye view" of matters) in which he saw "Satan" entering God's holy court unmolested, mention any such "war." Satan back then was just God's chief accuser, a sort of heavenly D.A.
Even the earliest reference in the Bible to a fall of "Lucifer" isn't speaking of Satan, but the word "Lucifer" was a loan word referring to an ancient god of a rival culture. Only after a period of centuries in the development of Hebrew religious conceptions did people start talking about "Satan's" "fall from heaven," and make him "prince of this world," "prince of the power of the air," etc. In fact, the intertestamental Book of Enoch is the first to eloquently explain "Satan's" "fall from heaven," before even the N.T. mentioned such a thing. (The Book of Enoch also explained other things as well, to the great embarrassment of whomever connected the name of a revered Biblical patriarch with a collection of utter nonsense. Oh, and the Book of Enoch and Jude's endorsement of a direct quotation from it, attributing it to "Enoch, the seventh from Adam," is yet another source of embarrassment for "Bible believers." It's interesting that the intertestamental Book of Jubilees circa, 200 B.C. was the first to mention the biblical patriarch "Enoch" as a writer of many books, and soon after that or perhaps contemporaneously with that, the earliest writings attributed to "Enoch, the seventh from Adam" began appearing, various portions of them dated anywhere from 150 B.C. to the late first century A.D., and later collected into what is now known as 1st Enoch.)
Kosmos