Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith

[Von_Smith]

Hi Von Smith,

Fair enough but the quote says the firmament showed its handy work. What handy work would that be then?

The Creation, maybe?  Everything that God has made?  I'm pretty sure that the author of Psalm 19 wasn't referring to a moon hoax, and I seriously doubt von Braun and his loved ones thought he was.  So regardless of whether the decision to put "Psalm 19:1" on his tombstone makes sense to you, there does not seem to be any basis for connecting it with a moon hoax.  You need a better argument. 

Surely somebody putting this on their own gravestone would consider the implications and meaning of the phrase. This is a man who died 6 or 7 years after he sent man to the moon and these are thoughts he found the most important to convey to others on his tombstone. It's mind boggling.

  A man fascinated by space all his life quoting a Bible verse that mentions the glory of the heavens to allude to that life's work?   Seems the very opposite of mind-boggling to me.

It is akin to Bin Laden converting to Catholicism on his death bed.

No it isn't.  von Braun's upbringing was Lutheran, and the Psalms are a part of that religion's canon.

Von Braun's epitaph says the firmament did its job. Full stop.

Again, unless you are suggesting that David was in on the moon hoax, or that von Braun thought he was, no it doesn't.  At this point you are simply making stuff up.

[JayUtah]

Again, unless you are suggesting that David was in on the moon hoax, or that von Braun thought he was, no it doesn't.

IIRC "firmament" stopped meaning an impassible barrier in Judaism around the third or fourth century BCE.  The notion that a Lutheran is going to interpret it that way in 1977 is ridiculous.

[raven]

I've seen better logic from Adam West's Batman, jr Knowing.
My reading is of someone with a Christian background and perhaps faith chose it to talk about knowing a creator being through their creation, specifically the sky and space. Rather fitting for someone whose most famous life's work involved space, no?

[twik]

Hi Onebigmonkey,

Von Braun choose an apt bible verse for his tombstone? Then surely you don’t know the Bible well. The term “firmament” I believe is only mentioned 14 times in the entire Bible. It’s means a protective dome over earth that is impenetrable. The verse he choose out of the entire Bible states the firmament did its job. How is this remotely apt for a man who supposedly spearheaded a manned journey through this supposed dome? It makes absolutely zero sense.

jr Knowing, do you believe there is a "firmament" around the earth that is an actual protective dome? Otherwise, your stance makes no sense.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Von Smith,

You do realize Lutheranism (Von Braun's upbringing) is based on a doctrine of justification in which the words of the bible are the sole basis of truth. They take the words literally in the bible as gospel. This is how this religion came about. If anything, a Lutheran would view the word firmament in the literal sense.

Twik, no I don't believe there is a firmament. But why does that mean my stance makes no sense?  What I am saying is it makes little sense that the architect behind the manned trips to the moon would choose to use an epitaph on his tombstone that suggests the firmament did its handy work? That is what makes zero sense. 

[JayUtah]

If Jr Knowing's argument is that von Braun simply meant to refer to the archaic notion of the firmament as an actual solid dome, then he doesn't need to maintain a belief in it or even argue that von Braun believed it.  It would be like me referring to Cerberus; the mythical connotation may be all I need to make my point without outright expressing an actual belief in a giant three-headed dog.  We all know what the reference means.  The difference, of course, is that Cerberus -- even as a myth -- is a pretty locked-down concept.  What "firmament" means to people who read the Bible has changed quite a bit over the years from its archaic meaning, and has even lately acquired a number of poetic or symbolic meanings.  To affirm, with no evidence whatsoever, that a certain person (now beyond our reach) must have intended only one of these meanings is irrational.

And if you want to perpetuate a debate forever without any sort of resolution, that sort of circumstance is ideal.  Jr Knowing is now in the hogs-heaven (or hogs-firmament) of conspiracy claimants.  Regardless of the actual title of this thread, he's successfully changed its subject to one that can be debated ad nauseam without any hope of a factually-supported resolution.  The only way to resolve this conclusively would be to peek into the mind of a man who's been dead for more than forty years in the hope of determining (or refuting) what he was thinking at the time he chose the verse.  The "debate" now is just endless second-guessing, assumption, and supposition on both sides.  He has thoroughly rebuffed any attempt to bring the debate back to questions that can actually be resolved, or even questions that bear the slightest resemblance to the original topic.

If you want evidence that he's not interested in a serious debate, there it is.

[Jason Thompson]

What I am saying is it makes little sense that the architect behind the manned trips to the moon would choose to use an epitaph on his tombstone that suggests the firmament did its handy work? That is what makes zero sense.

I repeat, von Braun's tombstone says absolutely nothing about the firmament. It simply says "Psalms 19.1", and there have been many, many translations of that verse of the the Bible that do not use the word at all, nor say it did any kind of job. Either prove which translation is actually being referred to or concede that you have nothing to hang your argument from at all.

[JayUtah]

If anything, a Lutheran would view the word firmament in the literal sense.

But is that how Lutherans actually interpret that verse?  Are you a Lutheran?  If so, are you a Lutheran theologian?  Here is an exegesis of Ps 19 written by a Lutheran seminary professor.  https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=2297  Reconcile it with your claim.

You keep trying to substitute supposition for fact.  Long before there were Lutherans, the Jews stopped reading that passage the way you insist it should be read.

...that suggests the firmament did its handy work?

No, that's not what the verse says.  It's a standard parallel construction, indicative of Hebrew poetry.  (I studied Hebrew and the Old Testament with a rabbi.)  The first phrase, "The heavens (shamayim) tell the glory of God" is meant to be paralleled by the second phrase, "The firmament displays his (i.e., that of God) handiwork."  The structure is even a bit chaismic.  It plays loosely with Hebrew grammar to put "heavens" at the front of the first phrase and "firmament" at the end of the second phrase, with "glories of God" transpositionally parallel to "his handiwork."  This particular structure is why some English translations (especially the one Haydn used) are awkward.

There is no correct reading of the verse that equates to "The firmament did its job."

That is what makes zero sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense, so long as one isn't bound to your torturous interpretation.

[JayUtah]

...that do not use the word at all,

The verse actually uses both Hebrew words that refer to the sky.  Only one of them -- the one in the second phrase -- connotes a solid dome.  The other, in the first phrase, translates loosely as "sky water."

...nor say it did any kind of job.

There is no correct reading of that verse in which the second phrase translates to "The firmament did its job."  That is completely incorrect.

[Jason Thompson]

And in any case this is simply jr obfuscating and trying to turn this into some kind of philosophical debate now he has been shown utterly incapable of engaging in the discussion on any technical grounds. Desperate attempts to make the reality of Apollo hinge on actually debatable aspects rather than technical stuff he is way out of his depth on.

Of course I'd love to be proved wrong and have him go back and address the huge galring elephant in the room that is his claim about LM instability....

[JayUtah]

[N]ow he has been shown utterly incapable of engaging in the discussion on any technical grounds.

Fixed that for you (FTFY).  His arguments are all the same.  He tries to bluff his way through subjects he clearly has no competence in, expects the audience to accept his made-up nonsense as an inviolable premise, then flies into a flurry of social engineering when he's invariably corrected.

Of course I'd love to be proved wrong and have him go back and address the huge galring elephant in the room that is his claim about LM instability....

...without simply restarting the argument from the beginning as if the intervening 35 pages never happened.  That, in my mind, is what hammers the nail in the coffin of his supposed sincerity.  He just wants a sort of performance art that results in him thinking he's Really Smart.  If it runs into the weeds, just start it over again.

[Von_Smith]

Hi Von Smith,

You do realize Lutheranism (Von Braun's upbringing) is based on a doctrine of justification in which the words of the bible are the sole basis of truth. They take the words literally in the bible as gospel. This is how this religion came about. If anything, a Lutheran would view the word firmament in the literal sense.

No, that does not follow.  Sola Scriptura /= literalism.  And I highly doubt that Werner von Braun believed in a solid firmament.   

Your entire line of argument here is based on supposition, and poorly-informed supposition at that. 

[JayUtah]

And I highly doubt that Werner von Braun believed in a solid firmament.

No, and it ultimately doesn't matter because Jr Knowing is simply speculating why von Braun chose that verse for his tombstone.  He can't seem to tell the difference between inference and fact.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jason/Jay/ Von Smith

Don't want to belabor this point, but Lutheran's at the time used the King James version of the Bible. It explicitly uses the term Firmament. (New Revised standards version also used now, still Firmament) And yes, I am not inside Von Braun head but, to me, Psalms 19:1 makes for an unusual epitaph.

And if Armstrong wants to rattle on about some "truth's protective layer". So be it. But don't be dismissive that it doesn't mean much. Particular in a world where "God" and "truth" are interchangeable for so many people. He said we need to remove ONE of "truth's protective layers'. Pretty specific I would say.

[JayUtah]

Don't want to belabor this point, but Lutheran's at the time used the King James version of the Bible.

Irrelevant.  The original Hebrew doesn't say what you insist it says.

but, to me, Psalms 19:1 makes for an unusual epitaph.

And your opinion means absolutely nothing.  It's based on a Bible exegesis that's as piss-poor as your attempts at science, and a stilted set of assumptions and supposition that makes you look extremely desperate.  It is evidence of exactly nothing.