Another look at the moon landing.

[ozso]

Yep, internet is great! This forum is also "internet".

Not sure why you are waiting when I already answered you. So, to repeat it:

Any good Bible dictionary. If you want specifically the author of the one I own in print, then Adolf Novotný:

Adolf Novotný – Wikipedie

cs.wikipedia.org

You will need to use English automatic translation of the site.

Regarding English bible scholar, John Walton:

Neither is on the list of the foremost theologians or bible scholars. If it was legitimate orthodox teaching you'd be able to point out a few well known names. But it's not, is it? Whenever someone posts something obscure like this, I'm always interested in who first propagated it and what it's known as. It's usually called "______ism" and was popularized by so-in-so. And in most cases the origin dates to the 19th century.

 

[trophy33]

Neither is on the list of the foremost theologians. If it was legitimate orthodox teaching you'd be able to point out a few well known names. But it's not, is it? Whenever someone posts something obscure like this, I'm always interested in who first propagated it and what it's known as. It's usually ______ism popularized by so-in-so. And in most cases it always dates to the 19th century.

Suit yourself. You are moving the goalpost. First you wanted names, now you want them to be on some specific list... I am not interested in this game.

 

[ozso]

Suit yourself. You are moving the goalpost. First you wanted names, now you want them to be on some specific list... I am not interested in this game.

The first time I asked, I stipulated someone well known. I might get around to listening to Walton. And I might even like what I hear. But to be blunt, your presentation has been sloppy. It leaves one with more questions than answers and lots of objections. And replies like "go get a dictionary" and "go look it up on Wikipedia" doesn't explain anything. I know what it is generally speaking, which is an attempt to harmonize scripture with secular science as I said before. The youtube video description states just that.

 

[trophy33]

The first time I asked, I stipulated someone well known. I might get around to listening to Walton. And I might even like what I hear. But to be blunt, your presentation has been sloppy. It leaves one with more questions than answers and lots of objections. And replies like "go get a dictionary" and "go look it up on Wikipedia" doesn't explain anything. I know what it is generally speaking, which is an attempt to harmonize scripture with secular science as I said before. The youtube video description states just that.

But I do not have any obligation to dance as you whistle and search for all details, citations, names or sources for you and according to your requirements, just because you are not satisfied with the ones I gave you. I am not even obligated to have the best ever answer to all questions you can possibly have.

Yes, "use a Bible dictionary, read wikipedia" are good enough answers. Start there. Wikipedia has citations, references in the bottom of the page, even the "Further reading" section:

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ozso]

But I do not have any obligation to dance as you whistle and search for all details, citations, names or sources for you and according to your requirements.

I gave you some of my sources or names that came to my mind and the rest of the work is on you.

Yes, "use a Bible dictionary, read wikipedia" are good enough answers. Start there. Wikipedia has sources in the bottom of the page:

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem is that you've been dancing around the whole time.

 

[trophy33]

The problem is that you've been dancing around the whole time.

And these constant comments of yours are good for what? You want me to work for you? Pay me, then. You provided nothing, the whole time.

 

[Apple Sky]

But I do not have any obligation to dance as you whistle and search for all details, citations, names or sources for you and according to your requirements,

Hmm, this is exactly what you guys wanted me to do.

 

[Strong in Him]

Hmm, this is exactly what you guys wanted me to do.

Yes. If you are saying that NASA, the 12 astronauts who have walked on the moon, the moon rocks etc that they collected and photos that they took, the interviews that they gave, the scientists, journalists, and the USSR are lying; colluding in fake expeditions and so on - you have to produce evidence.
You are dismissing ALL these people as liars - what was the term, "deluded freemasons"? - so prove it.

 

[Apple Sky]

You are dismissing ALL these people as liars - what was the term, "deluded freemasons"? - so prove it.

The Bible proves it all, for the last time, they can't get though the firmament.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Bible proves it all, for the last time, they can't get though the firmament.

The Bible doesn't prove it all.

It does not say that the firmament is solid - like we have a dome of glass/ice suspended in the sky over us.
In Genesis 1:6 several Bibles have the word "expanse". A footnote in the New English Translation says:

The Hebrew word refers to an expanse of air pressure between the surface of the sea and the clouds, separating water below from water above. In v. 8 it is called “sky.”sn An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome. For a detailed study of the Hebrew conception of the heavens and sky, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 37-60.

The sky may have seemed like a glass dome; it doesn't say that it was.

So to say that, a few thousand years later, rockets would not have been able to break through a glass dome, which the Bible doesn't even say is there; is nonsense.

 

[Apple Sky]

In Genesis 1:6 several Bibles have the word "expanse".

Check out Aerogel.

Why is the sky blue? What is the firmament made out of? What is the dome above us? The answer may be something known as aerogel.

A strong clear super substance that can stand a phonominal amount of heat & hold a phonominal amount of weight & is so durable you could make suit out of it.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Luke 8:17

 

[Strong in Him]

Check out Aerogel.

Why is the sky blue? What is the firmament made out of? What is the dome above us? The answer may be something known as aerogel.

And aerogel is not even remotely mentioned in Scripture.
So you are contradicting your own statement that "the Bible proves it all."

I have just quoted a source which says that the Hebrew word means "an expanse of air."
Genesis was written in Hebrew.

 

[Apple Sky]

And aerogel is not even remotely mentioned in Scripture.
So you are contradicting your own statement that "the Bible proves it all."

I know it's not, I didn't say it was

 

[Strong in Him]

I know it's not, I didn't say it was

No, but you said "the Bible proves it all."
Then when I said that many Bibles have the word "expanse", and the Hebrew word means an expanse of air, you started talking about a substance called aerogel.

 

[Apple Sky]

No, but you said "the Bible proves it all."

And it does.

The rabbis viewed the heavens to be a solid object spread over the Earth, which was described with the biblical Hebrew word for the firmament, raki'a. Two images were used to describe it: either as a dome, or as a tent.

King James Bible
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[Strong in Him]

And it does.

The rabbis viewed the heavens to be a solid object spread over the Earth,

It doesn't matter how the Rabbis viewed the firmament, the Bible does not say that God created it to be a solid, dome like object.
The Hebrew word means "expanse of air".

 

[Apple Sky]

It doesn't matter how the Rabbis viewed the firmament, the Bible does not say that God created it to be a solid, dome like object.
The Hebrew word means "expanse of air".

The KJV says, 'firmament' meaning raki'a, so I'll stick with my preferred Bible which is the KJV.

 

[Strong in Him]

The KJV says, 'firmament' meaning raki'a, so I'll stick with my preferred Bible which is the KJV.

The KJV is not the original Hebrew.
And it still doesn't say this firmament is a solid dome.

 

[Apple Sky]

The KJV is not the original Hebrew.
And it still doesn't say this firmament is a solid dome.

That b/c it's not solid, the firmament has a strong protective layer that domes the earth & the sun, moon & the stars are within.

 

[trophy33]

Hmm, this is exactly what you guys wanted me to do.

Thats true, but in a different context. You did not give us wikipedia, university professors, mainstream text books about astronomy/physics and we did not deliberately say "nah, we just do not like that, find more sources according to our specifics".

Your "proofs" were always either misunderstandings, out-of-context citations, sometimes even just pure inventions (lies). Your models of the flat earth do not work and contradict each other, you dismiss the evidence we gave for the globe, without any rational reasoning, you blame and accuse tons of people of absurdly expensive and unpractical crimes against humanity, basically (without any proof), you targeted specific people (like astronauts or English royal family), again without any proof etc.

And the sources you use are without any credibility - memes, "jokes", individual youtubers without education and similar.

Regarding the Bible, you use it inappropriately, for areas it does not belong to. And with a specific view of inspiration that does not work, even if just applied to other places in the Bible.