Moon Landing Hoax

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have looked at what you posted and I don't agree with you. Science and God are opposite sides of the same coin. We can not read the OT while assuming they had the same understanding of science as we to do today. TO do so is ludicrous. We must understand how ancient people would have viewed and event and then understand their observations against what we know today. Your view requires a cognitive dissonance that I don't believe God ever intended. God created the physical laws that govern how the universe operates. Being created in His image, we can learn to understand those laws and use them for our benefit. There is nothing wrong with coming to understand a passage of scripture a little better by applying what we know today to what is recorded in scripture. Whether the sun stopped or the Earth stopped, God's accommodation is the same.

Quite simply you deny the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. That has been my point all along.

Given your view one thing is certain, you will never be able to say with any degree of certainty that anything is true on the basis that the Bible teaches it while you allow that the Bible accommodates its teaching to the mistaken notions of men. Your doctrine of inspiration is not orthodox so long as you do not consider the suppression of the penmen's errors to be an active part of it. This view is akin to baldly stating The Holy Spirit didn't know whether the Earth rotates or not when He inspired this passage. You will simply never know what is absolute truth and what is mere accommodation. Like the liberal, the canon of reason is required to distinguish where Scripture speaks truth and where it accommodates error.

Here you affirm that the narrator's lack of knowledge found its way into the text of Scripture. Every orthodox exposition of the doctrine of inspiration includes within it an affirmation that the errors of the penmen were suppressed. I don't need to know the single true interpretation of every passage in order to affirm the doctrine of plenary inspiration.

Orthodox Christendom affirms God is wise enough to know that if He accommodated errors there would be no way for believers to know when He was telling truth and when He was accommodating error, to the point there could be no certainty about any fact. God is the vantage point in Joshua 10. He answered His servant's prayer. If God was simply accommodating Joshua's misconception, then who knows what is true!

First you imply the Joshua 10 account was a matter of accommodating misconception. Now you are hinting that it utilizes figurative language. Well, the figurative language angle is clearly negated by the fact that Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still, and God answered the prayer in terms of the sun standing still. There are no figurative markers in the text. And, finally, it is clear that external considerations raised by secular science are being thrust upon the interpretation of the text.

Everything advanced in the discussion to date indicates the "misconception" that the people thought in terms of the sun moving. But they can hardly be called as reliable witnesses to the occurrence of a work which transcends nature when they can't be trusted to know the way nature ordinarily works. The text in question does not pertain to different perspectives in a narrative, but to narration. To claim there is inspired and uninspired speech in the narration is to claim that the penmen were not fully inspired. To cast doubt on the narration of these is to cast doubt on the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

The text is also obviously challenging our assumption that the earth revolves around the sun. Why are we at liberty to disregard this challenge? And if we can disregard this challenge, why could not Joshua's contemporaries disregard certain things which would have challenged them? In the end, we would end up merely reading assumptions and challenges into the text rather than simply reading the text as it stands.

Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make it say something other than what it says.

AMR

 

[Tyrathca]

Yes, it starred a doctor who has been on TV a long time.

Doctor who? I can't find his name referenced anywhere...

 

[User Name]

This is where you error.

This is where you err.

 

[Mocking You]

Doctor who? I can't find his name referenced anywhere...

The name has been whispered once or twice...

 

[CabinetMaker]

Quite simply you deny the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. That has been my point all along.

I don't deny it at all. I understand it differently than you. I see its inspiration as no less inspired because of my understanding of science. More so, in fact.

Given your view one thing is certain, you will never be able to say with any degree of certainty that anything is true on the basis that the Bible teaches it while you allow that the Bible accommodates its teaching to the mistaken notions of men. Your doctrine of inspiration is not orthodox so long as you do not consider the suppression of the penmen's errors to be an active part of it. This view is akin to baldly stating The Holy Spirit didn't know whether the Earth rotates or not when He inspired this passage. You will simply never know what is absolute truth and what is mere accommodation. Like the liberal, the canon of reason is required to distinguish where Scripture speaks truth and where it accommodates error.

The Holy Spirit knew exactly how the solar system works. The Holy Spirit also knew that to an observer on Earth, the sun stopped moving in the sky. Were I to pray that prayer today I would also pray to stop the sun as it is the sun the appears to move to me. The actual mechanics of the miracle make it no less miraculous. My position as an old Earth creationist, heliocentric solar system has never called into question any truth of the bible. I have no doubt that God created everything. I believe that His act of creation took longer. And the detail of that creation as revealed by science truly astounds and humbles me.

Here you affirm that the narrator's lack of knowledge found its way into the text of Scripture. Every orthodox exposition of the doctrine of inspiration includes within it an affirmation that the errors of the penmen were suppressed. I don't need to know the single true interpretation of every passage in order to affirm the doctrine of plenary inspiration.

The man wrote what he witnessed. He had no way to know whether the Earth or the Sun stopped so he made no error.

Orthodox Christendom affirms God is wise enough to know that if He accommodated errors there would be no way for believers to know when He was telling truth and when He was accommodating error, to the point there could be no certainty about any fact. God is the vantage point in Joshua 10. He answered His servant's prayer. If God was simply accommodating Joshua's misconception, then who knows what is true!

I don't see this as God accommodating an error. No error was made. An observation was recorded. It sounds to me that the Orthodox understanding is limiting God to what they want God to be.

First you imply the Joshua 10 account was a matter of accommodating misconception. Now you are hinting that it utilizes figurative language. Well, the figurative language angle is clearly negated by the fact that Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still, and God answered the prayer in terms of the sun standing still. There are no figurative markers in the text. And, finally, it is clear that external considerations raised by secular science are being thrust upon the interpretation of the text.

And to the observer on Earth, the sun stood still. We use the same figurative language today. A heliocentric understanding of the solar system does not change any of the meaning of Joshua 10, it merely provides to us a different understanding of the mechanics. The miracle of the sun standing still in the sky remains miraculous. It could not have happened without God's intervention.

Everything advanced in the discussion to date indicates the "misconception" that the people thought in terms of the sun moving. But they can hardly be called as reliable witnesses to the occurrence of a work which transcends nature when they can't be trusted to know the way nature ordinarily works. The text in question does not pertain to different perspectives in a narrative, but to narration. To claim there is inspired and uninspired speech in the narration is to claim that the penmen were not fully inspired. To cast doubt on the narration of these is to cast doubt on the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

The heliocentric model was not determined until telescopes had been invented. Since the people at the time of Joshua did not have telescopes, how could the possibly have known how the solar system actually works? There is not one place in scripture where God lays out the working of the solar system. You use verses like Joshua to attempt to claim that the Earth is at the center but the passage does not support that view exclusively. People interact wit the world based on what they see. Wee see the sun move across the sky. It takes a telescope and some very smart men to learn that that apparent movement is caused by the Earth rotating, not the sun moving.

The text is also obviously challenging our assumption that the earth revolves around the sun. Why are we at liberty to disregard this challenge? And if we can disregard this challenge, why could not Joshua's contemporaries disregard certain things which would have challenged them? In the end, we would end up merely reading assumptions and challenges into the text rather than simply reading the text as it stands.

That the Earth orbits the sun and revolves on it axis is not an assumption. It is a fact confirmed by the physical laws that God imposed upon His creation. As science, the study of God's creation, reveals things about that creation, it must square with scripture. Your view puts God's revealed creation at odds with scripture by forcing on to God's revealed creation a constraint that cannot be justified.

Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make it say something other than what it says.

AMR

Why do you say that our understanding of the sciences is unproven? We have been to space. We have sent probes to deep space. We have measured and tested out theories and proven that they are indeed an accurate model of the solar system. Why do you say they are not?

 

[CabinetMaker]

The name has been whispered once or twice...

There is one book hidden deep within a large and well guarded library where his name might also be written. Maybe.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't deny it at all. I understand it differently than you.

I am averse to making heliocentric and geocentric views exclusive of one another. As I have noted, scientists use both views for different purposes. My only concern is to see the Bible interpreted in its own right, and not have spurious astronomical theories thrust upon it.

I haven't said the heliocentric model is not correct but have noted the two should not be placed in competition with each other. Astronomy is an ever advancing science. What appears contradictory today may be harmonized tomorrow with the unveiling of new discoveries. Any scientist worth his salt acknowledges this.

To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. Christian scientists should be wary of reading the Bible like science or science like the Bible. We expect non contradiction in the Bible because it is a closed canon. What it says it has always said and will always say. Science is an open canon. It has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The dogmatic statements made in favor of absolute heliocentricity in this thread are simply unscientific, to say the least.

I am simply allowing the Bible to say what it says. The passage obviously does not teach us physics, astronomy, or any other science; but the passage makes a statement about the sun, that it ordinarily moves, and that a miracle occurred when it (the sun) stopped moving. Nevertheless, the Bible is true in all that it teaches us, including matters of science, faith, and our rule of life. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever-advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make the Bible say something other than what it says.

You continue to rely upon what the penman of Joshua knew or did not know. Every exposition of the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration in Christian orthodoxy includes within it an affirmation that the errors of the penmen were suppressed. This point is not open to debate, despite your attempt to do so. Better that you study the doctrine more thoroughly and not just wave it off as a matter of disagreement. The community of saints, taking into account the full counsel of Scripture, has spoken on the topic hence we should tread carefully when we set about to pitch a tent outside the camp.

I have laid out my position herein, which is exegetical and not relying upon what scientific models may claim. The Bible describes reality as it really is. Models crafted from observation are just that. No one disputes that the models may work here and there, but these models are not objective facts. And when these models contradict the plain reading of Scripture they must be recognized as so. Persons wanting to quote Newtonian physics and declare them "natural laws" should remember Newton was trying to understand how God works, not vise versa.

The exegesis I have provided describes objective reality from God's vantage point. If we do not derive our basic understanding of cosmology from the Bible then we have no right to impose our views on the biblical text. The exegesis so provided is not assailable by importing allegory, figurative language, hyperbolic speech, ignorance, and so on into a plainly narrative passage. Per this woefully liberal view, one may as well claim today's science explains our Lord's walking on water and declare it to be nothing more than He was stepping on rocks or frozen water and the observers as well as the Gospel penmen of the account were ignorant of the matter. Such is the slippery slope of admitting error into the mind of the inspired penman of Holy Writ.

I do not expect to rehabilitate you of your liberal view, rather only expect to demonstrate the folly of how these sort of views dilute the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible and lead to all manner of error in doctrine. I will leave off discussing the topic any further and thank you for your time and effort.

AMR

 

[CabinetMaker]

I am averse to making heliocentric and geocentric views exclusive of one another. As I have noted, scientists use both views for different purposes. My only concern is to see the Bible interpreted in its own right, and not have spurious astronomical theories thrust upon it.

I haven't said the heliocentric model is not correct but have noted the two should not be placed in competition with each other. Astronomy is an ever advancing science. What appears contradictory today may be harmonized tomorrow with the unveiling of new discoveries. Any scientist worth his salt acknowledges this.

To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. Christian scientists should be wary of reading the Bible like science or science like the Bible. We expect non contradiction in the Bible because it is a closed canon. What it says it has always said and will always say. Science is an open canon. It has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The dogmatic statements made in favor of absolute heliocentricity in this thread are simply unscientific, to say the least.

I am simply allowing the Bible to say what it says. The passage obviously does not teach us physics, astronomy, or any other science; but the passage makes a statement about the sun, that it ordinarily moves, and that a miracle occurred when it (the sun) stopped moving. Nevertheless, the Bible is true in all that it teaches us, including matters of science, faith, and our rule of life. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever-advancing scientific explanations on the Bible and make the Bible say something other than what it says.

You continue to rely upon what the penman of Joshua knew or did not know. Every exposition of the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration in Christian orthodoxy includes within it an affirmation that the errors of the penmen were suppressed. This point is not open to debate, despite your attempt to do so. Better that you study the doctrine more thoroughly and not just wave it off as a matter of disagreement. The community of saints, taking into account the full counsel of Scripture, has spoken on the topic hence we should tread carefully when we set about to pitch a tent outside the camp.

I have laid out my position herein, which is exegetical and not relying upon what scientific models may claim. The Bible describes reality as it really is. Models crafted from observation are just that. No one disputes that the models may work here and there, but these models are not objective facts. And when these models contradict the plain reading of Scripture they must be recognized as so. Persons wanting to quote Newtonian physics and declare them "natural laws" should remember Newton was trying to understand how God works, not vise versa.

The exegesis I have provided describes objective reality from God's vantage point. If we do not derive our basic understanding of cosmology from the Bible then we have no right to impose our views on the biblical text. The exegesis so provided is not assailable by importing allegory, figurative language, hyperbolic speech, ignorance, and so on into a plainly narrative passage. Per this woefully liberal view, one may as well claim today's science explains our Lord's walking on water and declare it to be nothing more than He was stepping on rocks or frozen water and the observers as well as the Gospel penmen of the account were ignorant of the matter. Such is the slippery slope of admitting error into the mind of the inspired penman of Holy Writ.

I do not expect to rehabilitate you of your liberal view, rather only expect to demonstrate the folly of how these sort of views dilute the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible and lead to all manner of error in doctrine. I will leave off discussing the topic any further and thank you for your time and effort.

AMR

What you see as dilution based on a personally chosen orthodoxy I see as enrichment based on God being revealed in His creation.

 

[Mocking You]

I will leave off discussing the topic any further

Praise the Lord!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wing nuttery just keeps getting better:

http://gizmodo.com/these-pluto-truthers-insist-nasa-images-are-fake-1717828679

:AMR:

AMR

 

[The Berean]

This filmmaker is BRILLIANT!!!! The deadpan delivery is hilarious! :rotfl: He discusses how the Apollo missions could not have been faked because the video/film technology to fake a lunar landing did not exist in 1969.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a36702/was-the-moon-landing-fake/

.

 

[Lon]

LOL! Did you know you can 'see' American flags on the moon through a good telescope?

You can see the lunar buggy too.

:doh:

 

[Daniel1611]

LOL! Did you know you can 'see' American flags on the moon through a good telescope?

You can see the lunar buggy too.

:doh:

Are you being facetious? I hope so because you cannot see the lunar rover or the flag on the moon through a telescope. The moon landing hoax is propped up by lies and misinformation like this that people are too brainwashed to Fact check.

 

[rocketman]

Are you being facetious? I hope so because you cannot see the lunar rover or the flag on the moon through a telescope. The moon landing hoax is propped up by lies and misinformation like this that people are too brainwashed to Fact check.

:kookoo:

 

[The Berean]

The images of the Apollo missions are the hoax. If we did go to the moon on a manned space craft, it did not happen with the Apollo missions.

We are told from NASA Apollo went to the moon. And there is the hoax. Those images are done in a studio somewhere.


I have no issue with pluto, mars, or any other unmanned space craft. I do see images of GPS satelites right before the VAB,of course this assumes the source is trust worthy. Not debating that here.

Why haven't you commented on the Nasa engineer admitting they have not figured out how to get a human safely through the VAB?

NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts

The title you gave this video is a complete lie. Have you even watched this video? At no time does the engineer in the video "admit" they can't get past the Van Allen Belts. In fact he says the opposite.

 

[The Berean]

:kookoo:

:kookoo: indeed. The filmmaker goes to great lengths to show why it was impossible to FAKE the Moon landing with 1969 video/film technology. I really like his point about how today we are amazed by Hollywood level special effects technology but in 1969 film special effects technology was very limited and crude. Just watch the typical sci-fi film of that era and compare it to any big budget sci-fi film today. There is no comparison.

 

[Lon]

Are you being facetious? I hope so because you cannot see the lunar rover or the flag on the moon through a telescope. The moon landing hoax is propped up by lies and misinformation like this that people are too brainwashed to Fact check.

I didn't say a land-based telescope. Is there a denial we have 'any' satellites in orbit?

Are all satellite photos suggested as hoaxes from every country???

That'd be an elaborate hoax of nearly impossible proportions. Is that what is being suggested?

 

[Daniel1611]

He

:kookoo:

I didn't say a land-based telescope. Is there a denial we have 'any' satellites in orbit?

Are all satellite photos suggested as hoaxes from every country???

That'd be an elaborate hoax of nearly impossible proportions. Is that what is being suggested?

I'm suggesting that if you search Google for telescope pictures of the lunar rover or flag, or type in "can you see flag on moon with telescope?" Result after result says there are no telescopes that can see these. So you're just saying things that are not true to support some hoax with hopes that no one will do a simple Google search.

 

[The Berean]

The filmmaker brings it home with this amazing comment about the Moon landing deniers.

Once you're forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic. It demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know.

 

[Daniel1611]

The filmmaker brings it home with this amazing comment about the Moon landing deniers.

Once you're forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic. It demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know.

That is what America has. Faith in the moon landing because of some dubious black and film clips. That's the only "proof" there is.