Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

[stan1953]

There's no explicit mention of a canopy in the Bible. Even Henry Morris would have admitted that. It's simply a theory to show how God may have brought things about.

you cited Gen. 1:6-8 as well as Genesis 7. Again, the biggest problem exegetically is the fact that the firmament or expanse is said to contain the sun moon and stars. Thus they would have to be below the canopy to be contained within this expanse of the atmosphere. What I think happened (and most creationists now agree) is that the entire space of the cosmos was stretched out on day 2. The waters left below were used to make the land and sea, and the waters above, still up there, are apparently still up there at the edges of the cosmos. Again, secular scientists are now saying that there are vast reservoirs of water in deep space, visible with telescopes. And they now believe water apparently play a significant role in the creation of the universe.

The windows of heaven mentioned in Gen. 7 are just clouds. Clouds often are described with metaphors in the old testament—jars of heaven, doors of heaven, etc.

The canopy theory was definitely a reasonable attempt at explaining the evidence, by 2 of the greatest creationists ever, it just fell short. Morris and Whitcomb were very humble guys, and were never dogmatic about their theory.

Then again, I could be wrong. Just say'n.

Gen 1:6-8
“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”

[/URL][/IMG]

Please don't speak for most creationists and not corroborate your assertion.

 

[Calminian]

Gen 1:6-8
“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”

[/URL][/IMG]

Please don't speak for most creationists and not corroborate your assertion.

Actually I do speak for just about all of them on this issue. AiG, CMI, ICR (who actually employs Humphreys). The canopy theory is just about obsolete. You just don't find current creationists holding that view.

Here's a good article by Paul Taylor from Creation Today (Eric Hovind's ministry): EXPLAINING THE FLOOD WITHOUT THE CANOPY

I'm not trying to be offensive, just stating to you what virtually all creationists believe today. Now there may still be pockets of creationists that still hold to it, but they're few and far between.

Now, BTW, the hebrew words there are shamayim (heaven) and raqiya' (expanse). It just so happens that raqiya' was named shamayim.

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

The heaven is the firmament, and the firmament is what God called heaven. And heaven is very clearly described in the O.T. as and open expanse that contains the clouds, sun, moon, and stars. Looking at your diagram above, it's very clear the sun moon and stars are not in your version of the expanse.

There's some corroborating data. Do with it what you will.

I'll post Paul Taylors conclusion here to his article, as I think it's very descriptive of the difficulty creationists have having letting it go. It wasn't easy for me to let it go.

EXPLAINING THE FLOOD WITHOUT THE CANOPY

Conclusion

It has been hard for many modern creationists to let go of the vapor canopy theory. Dr. Carl Wieland expressed this emotional difficulty, in answering a critic on the Creation Ministries International website. While showing why the canopy theory does not make sense, Dr. Wieland admitted, “Having lectured using the ‘canopy’ idea many years ago, I can certainly understand its appeal. Emotionally, it was hard to ‘let go.’”7 I had similar emotions. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the canopy theory was not Scripture, but rather a scientific model to aid our understanding. Scriptural analysis and modern scientific understandings both show that the canopy model is not necessary. It seems today that the effects, for which the canopy theory was developed to explain, are actually better explained by other means.​

 

[stan1953]

Actually I do speak for just about all of them on this issue. AiG, CMI, ICR (who actually employs Humphreys). The canopy theory is just about obsolete. You just don't find current creationists holding that view.
Here's a good article by Paul Taylor from Creation Today (Eric Hovind's ministry): EXPLAINING THE FLOOD WITHOUT THE CANOPY
I'm not trying to be offensive, just stating to you what virtually all creationists believe today. Now there may still be pockets of creationists that still hold to it, but they're few and far between.
Now, BTW, the hebrew words there are shamayim (heaven) and raqiya' (expanse). It just so happens that raqiya' was named shamayim.
Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.
The heaven is the firmament, and the firmament is what God called heaven. And heaven is very clearly described in the O.T. as and open expanse that contains the clouds, sun, moon, and stars. Looking at your diagram above, it's very clear the sun moon and stars are not in your version of the expanse.
There's some corroborating data. Do with it what you will.
I'll post Paul Taylors conclusion here to his article, as I think it's very descriptive of the difficulty creationists have having letting it go. It wasn't easy for me to let it go.
EXPLAINING THE FLOOD WITHOUT THE CANOPY

Conclusion
It has been hard for many modern creationists to let go of the vapor canopy theory. Dr. Carl Wieland expressed this emotional difficulty, in answering a critic on the Creation Ministries International website. While showing why the canopy theory does not make sense, Dr. Wieland admitted, “Having lectured using the ‘canopy’ idea many years ago, I can certainly understand its appeal. Emotionally, it was hard to ‘let go.’”7 I had similar emotions. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the canopy theory was not Scripture, but rather a scientific model to aid our understanding. Scriptural analysis and modern scientific understandings both show that the canopy model is not necessary. It seems today that the effects, for which the canopy theory was developed to explain, are actually better explained by other means.​

Not from where I'm sitting and you still haven't corroborated your assertion that you do. Is there a poll I'm not aware of?
Most of those I know support what Gen 1:6-8 teaches. It's in God's word so I believe it. I don't know of Paul Taylor and
Dr. Wieland is ONE man. Paul Taylor makes assumptions and assertions without ANY corroboration. A few men with unknown pedigree when it comes to Biblical understanding is NOT my idea of vastly representing the majority of creationists.
You are more than welcome to show where he or any others have properly exegeted scripture to show their POV.
Mr Taylor sounds like a man who is more influenced my some modern scientific theory than he is by the Bible. Most Christians, hence most creationists, are not.

 

[Calminian]

Not from where I'm sitting and you still haven't corroborated your assertion that you do. Is there a poll I'm not aware of?
Most of those I know support what Gen 1:6-8 teaches. It's in God's word so I believe it. I don't know of Paul Taylor and
Dr. Wieland is ONE man. Paul Taylor makes assumptions and assertions without ANY corroboration. A few men with unknown pedigree when it comes to Biblical understanding is NOT my idea of vastly representing the majority of creationists.
You are more than welcome to show where he or any others have properly exegeted scripture to show their POV.
Mr Taylor sounds like a man who is more influenced my some modern scientific theory than he is by the Bible. Most Christians, hence most creationists, are not.

Stan I've made the case over and over strictly from the Bible. It's a very simple one. The Bible says the sun moon and stars are in the firmament. They are hosts of heaven (Deut. 4:19). Thus it cannot merely be atmospheric, as the sun moon and stars are clearly not in the atmosphere.

This is a very simple exegetical case. It has nothing to do with scientific theories. I can't imagine how you got that from the article I posted. This is a case directly from the Bible and the Bible alone.

 

[stan1953]

Stan I've made the case over and over strictly from the Bible. It's a very simple one. The Bible says the sun moon and stars are in the firmament. Thus it cannot merely be atmospheric, as the sun moon and stars are clearly not in the atmosphere.

This is a very simple exegetical case. It has nothing to do with scientific theories. I can't imagine how you got that from the article I posted. This is a case directly from the Bible and the Bible alone.

The Bible says in Gen 1:14-15:
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so."

Lights, not the actual physical stars and planets. He made it so the light from those stars and planets could shine through the water. Otherwise anything thicker than 200 meters would not allow those lights to shine through.

 

[Calminian]

The Bible says in Gen 1:14-15:
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so."

Lights, not the actual physical stars and planets. He made it so the light from those stars and planets could shine through the water. Otherwise anything thicker than 200 meters would not allow those lights to shine through.

The problem is, that would mean that God only recently made their light. But that cannot be true, if what Moses said was true.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them​

To make your theory work, you would have to then say that the sun moon and stars are actually not in the heavens, and that only their light is. But this flies in the face of how Moses viewed them.

Deut. 4:19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven...​

In your view, the sun moon and stars are not the hosts of heaven, they're above the heavens.

Joshua disagreed with you also:

Josh. 10:13...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven....​

Isaiah too:

Is. 13:10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light;..​

Creationists are not dumping the canopy theory because they are giving into science. They're dumping it because the biblical evidence is not supporting it. The Bible says the sun moon and stars are in the heavens. I believe it. Thus I can't limit the firmament to merely the atmosphere.

 

[stan1953]

The problem is, that would mean that God only recently made their light. But that cannot be true, if what Moses said was true.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them​

To make your theory work, you would have to then say that the sun moon and stars are actually not in the heavens, and that only their light is. But this flies in the face of how Moses viewed them.

Deut. 4:19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven...​

In your view, the sun moon and stars are not the hosts of heaven, they're above the heavens.

Joshua disagreed with you also:

Josh. 10:13...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven....​

Isaiah too:

Is. 13:10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light;..​

Creationists are not dumping the canopy theory because they are giving into science. They're dumping it because the biblical evidence is not supporting it. The Bible says the sun moon and stars are in the heavens. I believe it. Thus I can't limit the firmament to merely the atmosphere.

Moses wrote Genesis along with the next 4 books in the OT. I see no contradictions at all. The light from the stars including our own sun was on day one, day two was when God separated the water from on the earth from the water above the sky by making the sky. Day four was when He caused the lights to shine through the water canopy. What Moses wrote in the other scriptures you show occurred AFTER the flood when all that water came down and contributed to the great flood.

 

[Calminian]

Moses wrote Genesis along with the next 4 books in the OT. I see no contradictions at all. The light from the stars including our own sun was on day one, day two was when God separated the water from on the earth from the water above the sky by making the sky. Day four was when He caused the lights to shine through the water canopy. What Moses wrote in the other scriptures you show occurred AFTER the flood when all that water came down and contributed to the great flood.

But even canopy theorists would disagree with you on this. Certainly Henry Morris and John Whitcomb would. No need to take a poll, as they've made their views well known. They believe scripture when it says God made the sun on moon on day 4. Light was made on day 1, but the luminaries (sun moon stars) were made on day 4.

That whole part about God merely making the light shine through on day 4 is nowhere in scripture. Moses and all the others biblical authors would disagree.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that the firmament was just a canopy of some sort, but that's not the biblical definition. God called the firmament, the heavens (shamayim). There's a one to one correspondence. The firmament is an expanse—the very same expanse that is called heaven. God called the gathered waters, seas, the dry ground earth (land), and the expanse the heavens (which contains all the hosts of heaven).

What I'd like you to understand about the canopy theory, is that it's purpose was to provide some scientific support to the biblical record. It's merely a scientific model. But unfortunately, over the years, creationists (even those who once strongly supported it) have seen very little scientific support come from it. It doesn't help with the lifespan issue, as this article and creation.com points out.

Running out of puff

It was a man-made theory, meant to correspond to the biblical record that just couldn't be reconciled with the Bible. The events in Genesis 1:6-8 don't fit. Now one could still believe there was a canopy over the earth at that time, there's just no specific biblical reference to it, and no particular scientific support for it (frankly, I'm really just interested in the former).

I'm not trying to dictate to you what to believe, there's just another side to it I want you to know about.

Here's another good article from Answers in Genesis, but the basic points are going to be the same in all, which I've pretty much summed up.

Feedback: The Collapse of the Canopy Model

 

[NannaNae]

what if like in REV the seals and the trumpets are only the laws and proclamations of the events coming..
.. and what if he didn't make stars twice.. but the first few days he make the laws and proclamations of light and life . Laws that He would work with in to create sun and stars , moons, wood and animals .
because I know God is not a Genie He is Genius . but He says he is lawful and builder and a creator.. Now a builder first takes a piece of wood and knows the laws of that wood to make a board, takes boards then make a house.
He doesn't make the wood something else . He works with the laws of wood.
maybe he had to makes laws first to create physical things, don't you think ?

 

[NannaNae]

I like the Vault or the vault of Salt theory personally!

 

[stan1953]

But even canopy theorists would disagree with you on this. Certainly Henry Morris and John Whitcomb would. No need to take a poll, as they've made their views well known. They believe scripture when it says God made the sun on moon on day 4. Light was made on day 1, but the luminaries (sun moon stars) were made on day 4.
That whole part about God merely making the light shine through on day 4 is nowhere in scripture. Moses and all the others biblical authors would disagree.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that the firmament was just a canopy of some sort, but that's not the biblical definition. God called the firmament, the heavens (shamayim). There's a one to one correspondence. The firmament is an expanse—the very same expanse that is called heaven. God called the gathered waters, seas, the dry ground earth (land), and the expanse the heavens (which contains all the hosts of heaven).
What I'd like you to understand about the canopy theory, is that it's purpose was to provide some scientific support to the biblical record. It's merely a scientific model. But unfortunately, over the years, creationists (even those who once strongly supported it) have seen very little scientific support come from it. It doesn't help with the lifespan issue, as this article and creation.com points out.
It was a man-made theory, meant to correspond to the biblical record that just couldn't be reconciled with the Bible. The events in Genesis 1:6-8 don't fit. Now one could still believe there was a canopy over the earth at that time, there's just no specific biblical reference to it, and no particular scientific support for it (frankly, I'm really just interested in the former).
I'm not trying to dictate to you what to believe, there's just another side to it I want you to know about.
Here's another good article from Answers in Genesis, but the basic points are going to be the same in all, which I've pretty much summed up.

Again I'm not concerned with a "theory". God's word says what it says. We either accept it or don't.
Here is a link with the NIV and KJV side by side. You show me WHERE it says anything about a physical sun. moon or stars. It says LIGHT. Obviously not the light He created in day one when He created the universe, but after day two when he made the water canopy that not only diffused daylight but made all lights in the night invisible.
I understand what you are doing, and I'm just showing you that the other sides POV is flawed because they start with flawed understanding of what scripture is telling them.

 

[NannaNae]

well I think was salt and water and it was also part of the salt covenant. they have actually found salt and water up there around the earth.


the bible talks about a salt covenant.
yet I have never seen anything that really explain that concept very well.


salt was both our protection from decay and certain bacteria and viruses and our demise because salt causes our cells to age and arteries to harden .

so the salt covenant may have something to do with living better but a shorter time.

and it may have had to do with noah's offspring and seed..
and maybe inheritances ..


Lev 2:13
And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Num 18:19
All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever: it is a covenant of salt for ever before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.

2Ch 13:5
Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?

how it has to do with David's kingdom .. except that salvation comes by davids kingdom..
I think the salt canopy has some strange connections to what is called the salt covenant. which was pictured long before king David or the holy spirit ..

so I do really suspect that canopy created out of protection is now what kills us in 70 years not 700+.

 

[Smidlee]

Moses wrote Genesis along with the next 4 books in the OT. I see no contradictions at all. The light from the stars including our own sun was on day one, day two was when God separated the water from on the earth from the water above the sky by making the sky. Day four was when He caused the lights to shine through the water canopy. What Moses wrote in the other scriptures you show occurred AFTER the flood when all that water came down and contributed to the great flood.

I thought the whole idea of having light appear before the sun,moon and stars is to refute the idea we are the creation of the stars ..... the exact same idea scientist hold today. Who didn't know the light of the day came from the sun in Mose's day? The scripture were meant to contradicted man's idea of origins from the very beginning. In the computer age we now have a greatly understanding of information. We can easily program software to have night /day without a sun.
Science tries to explain origins by matter and energy only while the scripture makes it plain that God spoke ( information) the world into existence. Science points toward the idea of a mindless universe create the mind while creation points toward a material-less mind create the universe. Exactly as pointed out in the Matrix movie this universe is not the "real" reality but the greater reality is God which is Spirit.

By the way light as we know it is also information as it only exist in our minds. The sun doesn't actually give off light but electromagnetic waves. The same as microwave ovens, cell phones,radio & TV stations,etc. All the "colors" we see are the product of our brain ... information.

 

[NannaNae]

smidlee that was interesting! I bet you like V ( Immanuel Velikovsky)
Athiest and scientist sure do hate V type of concepts of a electric universe.. he sure was on to something though.
electric universe velikovsky - Google Search

so because you like the ideas behind the Electric universe.
so I thought you might appreciate this story.
when I was 12-15( about 40years ago ) I had the dream of the stars falling from the sky , but though at first it looks like stars/ comets and meteors , they were not stars but were electro magnetic balls.
I suspect in that dream that man had( destroyed the earth) by collapsed the atmosphere and the balls were proof of friction of the collapsing magnetic energy left in and around the world . this magnetic energy somehow made electric ball lighting or something very similar is the best I can describe it . now the only scientist that ever explained anything even kind of close to what I saw was V. so I like his theory best so far also.. because he is hte only one that can explain what I saw and know is true.

Since the moon has already hit us and that didn't collapse the atmosphere it is NOT going to be wormwood or( or Carbon rotf )that collapses the atmosphere ....

so maybe it has to be- uncreated - by something man does .

might I suggest maybe sound or something similar in waves of sounds of some kind created laws of creation.. and maybe sound of vanity and or cellphones and radio and tv and cable , internet and face-book and some noisy straw that will break that camels back..

trumpets heard around the world - YouTube

will somehow uncreate our atmosphere and somehow our vanity starts undoing creation at least the air and warmth and water parts... I don't know for sure it is sound / Noise that does it . but that is what I suspect it is for now.

I just recently decided it might be noise that undoes at least some of the earth and this creation and I am seriously considering going amish- like in a very short time . or maybe cranking it up!

( but he does say he will destroy those who destroy the earth). Rev 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
so i'm not sure I can crank it up.

so you can pray about that .

but that dream I had when I was a kid proved what you are saying about this whole thing being of electrical laws is probably true!

 

[stan1953]

I thought the whole idea of having light appear before the sun,moon and stars is to refute the idea we are the creation of the stars ..... the exact same idea scientist hold today. Who didn't know the light of the day came from the sun in Mose's day? The scripture were meant to contradicted man's idea of origins from the very beginning. In the computer age we now have a greatly understanding of information. We can easily program software to have night /day without a sun.
Science tries to explain origins by matter and energy only while the scripture makes it plain that God spoke ( information) the world into existence. Science points toward the idea of a mindless universe create the mind while creation points toward a material-less mind create the universe. Exactly as pointed out in the Matrix movie this universe is not the "real" reality but the greater reality is God which is Spirit.
By the way light as we know it is also information as it only exist in our minds. The sun doesn't actually give off light but electromagnetic waves. The same as microwave ovens, cell phones,radio & TV stations,etc. All the "colors" we see are the product of our brain ... information.

I have no doubt that ALL God created was NOT reactionary or spur of the moment. God had a plan and it did NOT only include the first 6 days. Imagine, if you will, that God put every scenario into play in His mind before He put it into being. He knew ALL that would happened and His plan accounted for everything He knew(foreknowledge) would happen. God no doubt had Moses write exactly what was needed for that time. He knew that down the road men would understand those concepts as being for the day and not today.
I don't agree with your POV of the sun, because there is a fusion that happens in ALL stars.

 

[Calminian]

Again I'm not concerned with a "theory". God's word says what it says. We either accept it or don't.

Exactly. And the canopy theory, as just about all creationists now admit, is nowhere to be found in Genesis or the rest of the Bible. The concept over reached beyond what the text could sustain.

Here is a link with the NIV and KJV side by side. You show me WHERE it says anything about a physical sun. moon or stars. It says LIGHT. Obviously not the light He created in day one when He created the universe, but after day two when he made the water canopy that not only diffused daylight but made all lights in the night invisible.

Actually it's more descriptive in Genesis. It calls the sun the greater light (not just any light). But even if you want to try to opt out on that on a technicality I cited to you scriptures all over the O.T. that use the word sun, moon and stars and speaks of them being in the heavens (which is the name God gave to the firmament).

Gen. 22:17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven....

Deut. 1:10 The LORD your God has multiplied you, and here you are today, as the stars of heaven in multitude.

Deut. 4:19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven

Deut. 17:3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,

Josh. 10:13....So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven

2Kings 23:5 ...and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.

Is. 13:10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not give their light;
The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
And the moon will not cause its light to shine.

Jer. 8:2 They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, ...

Joel 2:10 ...The heavens tremble;
The sun and moon grow dark,
And the stars diminish their brightness.

Neh. 9:23 You also multiplied their children as the stars of heaven,...​

So I'll quote your rule back to you. Either you believe those verses or you don't. The rest of the Bible makes it clear your alternative interpretation of the greater and lesser light in Genesis cannot be accurate.

In your model the sun moon and stars are not in the heavens. That model is unbiblical. You found a technicality to hide behind, but didn't check with what the rest of the Bible had to say.

Per your own argument, either you trust the whole Bible or you don't.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,...

 

[stan1953]

Exactly. And the canopy theory, as just about all creationists now admit, is nowhere to be found in Genesis or the rest of the Bible. The concept over reached beyond what the text could sustain.

Not from where I sit, and you have NOT proved that assertion. It is clear IN the scripture itself.

Actually it's more descriptive in Genesis. It calls the sun the greater light (not just any light). But even if you want to try to opt out on that on a technicality I cited to you scriptures all over the O.T. that use the word sun, moon and stars and speaks of them being in the heavens (which is the name God gave to the firmament).

It doesn't say sun, it says light. Of course the sun would be the greater light. You may want to read up on light in the ocean and how black it is at the bottom. There are three levels where light gets less and less visible.

So I'll quote your rule back to you. Either you believe those verses or you don't. The rest of the Bible makes it clear your alternative interpretation of the greater and lesser light in Genesis cannot be accurate.
In your model the sun moon and stars are not in the heavens. That model is unbiblical. You found a technicality to hide behind, but didn't check with what the rest of the Bible had to say.
Per your own argument, either you trust the whole Bible or you don't.

ALL the verses you quoted are AFTER the flood so they are irrelevant. When those verses were written there was no canopy. Remember Moses wrote Genesis so when he did there was no canopy either, but He obeyed God and wrote what he was inspired to. Those who use so-called scientific presuppositions to read the Bible are tho ones that don't believe it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Exactly. And the canopy theory, as just about all creationists now admit, is nowhere to be found in Genesis or the rest of the Bible. The concept over reached beyond what the text could sustain.

Except for the text:

International Standard Version
The Creation

1In the beginning, God created the universe.a 2When the earthb was as yet unformed and desolate, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded in darkness, and while the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters, 3 God said, “Let there be light!” So there was light.

4 God saw that the light was beautiful.e He separated the light from the darkness, 5 calling the light “day,” and the darkness “night.” The twilight and the dawn were day one.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a canopy between bodies of water,i separating bodies of water from bodies of water!” 7 So God made a canopy that separated the water beneath the canopy from the water above it.n And that is what happened: 8 God called the canopy “sky.” The twilight and the dawn were the second day.

(1:6,7,8 Or an expanse)

9Then God said, “Let the water beneath the sky come together into one area, and let dry ground appear!” And that is what happened:r 10God called the dry ground “land,”s and he called the water that had come together “oceans.” And God saw how good it was.

 

[gluadys]

Except for the text:

International Standard Version
The Creation

1In the beginning, God created the universe.a 2When the earthb was as yet unformed and desolate, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded in darkness, and while the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters, 3 God said, “Let there be light!” So there was light.

4 God saw that the light was beautiful.e He separated the light from the darkness, 5 calling the light “day,” and the darkness “night.” The twilight and the dawn were day one.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a canopy between bodies of water,i separating bodies of water from bodies of water!” 7 So God made a canopy that separated the water beneath the canopy from the water above it.n And that is what happened: 8 God called the canopy “sky.” The twilight and the dawn were the second day.

(1:6,7,8 Or an expanse)

9Then God said, “Let the water beneath the sky come together into one area, and let dry ground appear!” And that is what happened:r 10God called the dry ground “land,”s and he called the water that had come together “oceans.” And God saw how good it was.

"Canopy" is simply the English word chosen by the ISV translators for the Hebrew 'raqia'. And it is an outlier translation--which renders its accuracy suspect. More common terms used by translators are "expanse" "firmament" "vault" "dome".

Not saying "canopy" is a wrong choice, but one cannot build an argument about what 'raqia' really means on a translator's option.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Calminian View Post
Exactly. And the canopy theory, as just about all creationists now admit, is nowhere to be found in Genesis or the rest of the Bible. The concept over reached beyond what the text could sustain.

"Canopy" is simply the English word chosen by the ISV translators for the Hebrew 'raqia'. And it is an outlier translation--which renders its accuracy suspect. More common terms used by translators are "expanse" "firmament" "vault" "dome". Not saying "canopy" is a wrong choice, but one cannot build an argument about what 'raqia' really means on a translator's option.

So you agree that canopy can be found in the Bible. Fine.
Good work.