Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith

[jr Knowing]

Jay,

However smart you may think you are, you don't have a good understanding of theology. Firmament is actually derived from the Hebrew word Raqia found in the Hebrew Bible. And that translates into the Greek word stereoma which means a firm or solid structure.

[JayUtah]

However smart you may think you are, you don't have a good understanding of theology.

Nonsense.  I noticed you haven't bothered to reconcile your claims of Lutheran belief with what Lutheran theologians actually say.  That's because you can't.  You don't have the faintest clue what Lutheran belief or exegesis is regarding "firmament."  Instead you continue to rely on gaslighting and bluster.  You're wrapped up in your own little world where you're always right, regardless of what the facts say.

Firmament is actually derived from the Hebrew word Raqia found in the Hebrew Bible. And that translates into the Greek word stereoma which means a firm or solid structure.

As anyone could have found out by going to Wikipedia.  Except that you have a problem linguistically between the concepts of "derived from" and "translated as."  But because you're fixated on "firmament" and pay zero attention to the rest of the verse, strophe, and chapter of Ps 19, you still have no clue what's being said or why.  You don't actually read Hebrew and you have zero understanding of the poetic forms used in Psalms and how they would affect the meanings of words used in them.

Here is the analysis I already gave.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1603.msg50033#msg50033

You've ignored it entirely because you can't answer it.  Dig into it.  Show me where I'm wrong, with your extensive "knowledge" of theology and Biblical exegesis.  Put up or shut up.

You think the phrase translates as, "The firmament did its job," which the sentiment your argument requires to make any sort of sense regarding what you're trying to pin on von Braun.  But -- again -- because you don't actually read Hebrew and don't actually know theology, you can't grasp just how factually wrong you are.  As I said, I studied Hebrew and the Old Testament with a rabbi.  You got your divinity degree from Google.

[Von_Smith]

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.

...which renders the passage in question as:  "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork" (or some variant thereof, depending on the exact version).  Nothing about the firmament having "done its job".  I'm pretty sure that the translators of the KJV didn't intend to say anything about a moon hoax, either, nor that von Braun thought they did.  So what exactly is the basis for your interpretation?

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.

OK, so it's unusual.  Maybe even distinct and unique.  But how does that support your contention about how he meant to send some coded message to the world that he'd tricked them, that the firmament had "done its job" of helping him conceal a moon hoax?  That he used his epitaph on the headstone his family and friends would come to pay their respects to just to say:  "My biggest accomplishment was a lie, and you all bought it, neener neener?"

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.

You haven't made any case that it means anything.  Do you even know what an argument is?  All you've done on this point is make unsupported (and as far as I can tell, unsupportable) pronouncements about what these random phrases must have meant to the people who used them.

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.

But the issue isn't what "truth" means to "so many people"; it is what Armstrong was referring to when *he* said it.  And God, in most people's conception, neither has nor needs "protective layers" so your exegesis is silly on its face, to say nothing of fanciful and unsupported.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jay,

I read your link to the commentary of the Lutheran professor's thoughts on Psalms 19:1. Which part of his comments conflict with what I am saying? He uses the firmament interpretation and says it is like "plexi-glass dome" covering earth.  And to many, if not most, Lutherans, live their lives on a doctrine of Justification in which the literal words of the Bible are the sole basis of truth. (I minored in Religious studies as an undergrad) 

Oh and there is that word again, truth. God, Bible, truths, all one in the same. (at least to many) It makes you wonder what Armstrong was trying to say. He says that if we can remove "ONE of truth's protective layers... there are places we can go beyond belief".  Huh? What are truth's protective layers and what specific one is he talking about? To me, he is either talking about the firmament or he is suggesting a certain truth is being withheld from the public and that truth needs to be made known in order for us as a civilization can progress "to places beyond belief". Of course this is just conjecture on my part. What is certain Armstrong felt he had to make his point cryptically for whatever reason.

[Von_Smith]

Jay,

However smart you may think you are, you don't have a good understanding of theology. Firmament is actually derived from the Hebrew word Raqia found in the Hebrew Bible. And that translates into the Greek word stereoma which means a firm or solid structure.

OK, so what?   Lots of words derive from other words that have very little to do with their current usage and meaning.  It is simplistic and wrong to think you can construe a modern speaker's meaning from an etymology.

[JayUtah]

Which part of his comments conflict with what I am saying?

Where he points out that the firmament is not impermeable and where he introduces his discussion of the second strophe by labeling the previous strophe as metaphorical.  Why would you then claim that Lutherans must interpret v. 1 literally?  The two key concepts in your desired exegesis were directly contradicted by a Lutheran.

Lutherans, live their lives on a doctrine of Justification in which the literal words of the Bible are the sole basis of truth.

No, you confused literalism with sola scriptura.  Luther advocated a natural reading of the Bible, but understood that turns of phrase, figures of speech, and so forth would be encountered and were not to be taken literally.  Hebrew poetry is nothing but figures of speech.

Further, the Jews themselves abandoned the literal interpretation of רָקִיעַ in about 300 BCE.  Your stilted examination of this cosmological concept doesn't even have one solitary interpretation in Judaism, much less Christianity.  Further, Luther specifically introduced the psaltery by saying the psalms should have a distinctly Christian interpretation, by which he meant in light of the New Testament.  By the common era, no such interpretation of "firmament" prevailed.

It makes you wonder what Armstrong...

Look how eager you are to change the subject.  Let's stick with von Braun, Lutheranism, and Hebrew poetry for now.  You were all excited to school me from Wikipedia about the Hebrew underpinnings of "firmament."  I devoted a fair amount of analysis to the textual apparatus that -- in this verse -- equates רָקִיעַ with שָּׁמַיִם.  That's not a literal equation, of course, but merely one that works here to create the poetry.  That's why the actual Lutheran author I cited (not a self-proclaimed religious-studies minor) can accurately describe the usage here as metaphorical.

And predictably you left out the most important part of the analysis.  You keep insisting on translating וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו, מַגִּיד הָרָקִיעַ as (loosely) "The firmament did its job."  That is not at all what the sentence says.  But that is the meaning it has to have in order for you to pin nefarious intent on von Braun, so that's the meaning you give it -- grammar and structure be damned.

Now go back and try again.

[Von_Smith]

Hi Jay,

I read your link to the commentary of the Lutheran professor's thoughts on Psalms 19:1. Which part of his comments conflict with what I am saying? He uses the firmament interpretation and says it is like "plexi-glass dome" covering earth.  And to many, if not most, Lutherans, live their lives on a doctrine of Justification in which the literal words of the Bible are the sole basis of truth. (I minored in Religious studies as an undergrad) 

...in which case you know that the last sentence is rubbish.  Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as literalism.  Nor is it a doctrine that the Bible is the "sole basis of truth", only that it is the sole basis for the *rule of faith*, which is not the same thing.

[jr Knowing]

You guys are getting mixed up. Sola Fide, Justification of Faith alone. And for Lutherans (unlike some other religions), it is the Bible and only the Bible which forms the basis of this faith. And for the majority of Lutherans they take a literal view of the teachings of the Bible.

[JayUtah]

And for Lutherans (unlike some other religions), it is the Bible and only the Bible which forms the basis of this faith.

And that's not literalism.

And for the majority of Lutherans they take a literal view of the teachings of the Bible.

Except where it's inappropriate to do so, such as when the usage is a poetic turn of phrase.

My, my, how far we are from photographs of lunar regolith and spacecraft stability.  You can't talk about the actual facts of the Apollo missions so you've shuttered yourself behind a vague, pontificatory fairy tale of what secret messages Wernher von Braun must have left on his tombstone.

[Von_Smith]

You guys are getting mixed up. Sola Fide, Justification of Faith alone.

Sola fide and Sola scriptura are two different things.  As are Sola scriptura and literalism.  *You* seem to be the one getting things mixed up. 

And for Lutherans (unlike some other religions), it is the Bible and only the Bible which forms the basis of this faith. And for the majority of Lutherans they take a literal view of the teachings of the Bible.

citation needed

[JayUtah]

You guys are getting mixed up.

No, we aren't.  You're trying to tell us what you think Lutheranism is.  But I get a different story from actual Lutherans who aren't on a mission to discredit a historical event with it.  Further, you're still assiduously avoiding your made-up translation of the second phrase in Ps 19:1.  You know, the sentiment that forms the front line of your attack on von Braun.  While you wind yourself up trying to play theologian (as badly as you played engineer), the Hebrew words still don't say "The firmament did its job."  Are you going to fix that, or shall we just assume you realize that it's fatal to your argument and are going to keep pretending your mistake never happened?

[JayUtah]

Sola fide and Sola scriptura are two different things.  As are Sola scriptura and literalism.  *You* seem to be the one getting things mixed up.

He blithely bluffed his way through aeronautical engineering.  Then he bluffed his way through ballistics and soil mechanics.  Then he bluffed his way through image analysis.  Why shouldn't we expect him to bluff his way through theology and exegesis as well?  He hasn't made a single argument yet that isn't based on bluster, bluffery, and gaslighting.

[jr Knowing]

Yes Jay the firmament did (was or is) doing it's job. God, by his handywork, had ensured it was in place full filling God's intended purpose.

[JayUtah]

Yes Jay the firmament did (was or is) doing it's job. God, by his handywork, had ensured it was in place full filling God's intended purpose.

No, that's not what the verse says.  Try again.

[onebigmonkey]

The modern translation of the psalm does not say that the firmament 'did' its handiwork. It says 'shows his handiwork'  -  the pretty stars in the sky. Your choice of one word completely skews your interpretation. Is that deliberate?