• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Jpark

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2008
5,019
181
✟28,882.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nope. 2 Peter 3:5.

The heavens that existed long ago.

don't they still exist today? Why say this?

It's also possible that a great portion of the waters which were above the expanse were used in the Flood, but not all of it.

I know for a fact that the Bible says there is a reservoir of snow and hail in heaven:

Job 38:22-23 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
Which I have reserved for the time of distress,
For the day of war and battle?

But what about water?
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem is not on the canopy, it is on the timing. AiG has a tremendous burden of the 6000 yrs time limit.

There are quite a few problems with the whole thing. First, there's the Biblical conflict with verses stating that the waters above still exist (whatever it refers to, whether it's cloud cover, or something outside of the Universe, etc.). Then, there's the fact that, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, you would end up with a tremendous greenhouse effect from a thick canopy. If it were thick enough to supply enough water to cover the Earth, then it would also probably make the planet uninhabitable. Even a thinner canopy would raise the temperature significantly. An orbital canopy made of ice would also generate a lot of heat when it fell, so that's not really an alternative, either. You can still believe that there was a canopy of clouds like you're suggesting (and many Old Earth Creationists in particular do), but the canopy theory is an explanation of the waters above the heavens and the Biblical Flood, and it doesn't really work out.
 
Reactions: Assyrian
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

No. It is not.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No. It is not.

Some people did use it as one. Immanuel Kant was apparently the first person to suggest it in the 18th century, and he suggested that it might be the waters above the firmament referred to in the Bible. Isaac Newton Vail, one of its supporters in the 19th century, was a Quaker who published a book called The Earth's Annular System; or, The Waters Above the Firmament, so he appears to have believed that there was a link, too.

I'm not sure if they developed the idea to account for the waters above or not, even though I kind of assumed that they did. In retrospect, since their ideas are quite complicated and appear to have developed from their understanding of the formation of the Earth (at least in Vail's case), it doesn't seem all that likely. I probably should have researched the topic better before I said that. Sorry about that. It still does seem to be a problematic idea, though, at least from a perspective where it still existed as a sizable canopy during the time when there was modern life on Earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

The water above is introduced in Gen 1:7. The idea of canopy is for Gen 7:11. Anyone wished to link these two together will have to interpret the whole Gen 1 in a special way. And it is quite difficult from any point of view.

Noticed that there are rivers in the Garden of Eden. If there are rivers on the surface, then it is not possible to have all, or most of, the water in the "above".

I don't need to link or quote any reference. The facts are recorded in the Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The water above is introduced in Gen 1:7. The idea of canopy is for Gen 7:11. Anyone wished to link these two together will have to interpret the whole Gen 1 in a special way. And it is quite difficult from any point of view.

I can see where you get that idea from. I view Genesis 7:11 in a less literal way, probably, since I believe that the opening up of the windows of heaven was poetic language for causing a tremendous rainstorm, but I don't see anything wrong with your understanding of it.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

I agree with what you said. So, where is the difference?
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree with what you said. So, where is the difference?

Sorry, I thought that you were reading it as saying something different. I don't really think that implies a global canopy, though.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I thought that you were reading it as saying something different. I don't really think that implies a global canopy, though.

Then you have problem. If not a global canopy, then how large was the canopy? Half global? or 1/4 global?

It is either a global one, or there is none.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm sitting here in Wales and a dark gray water canopy covers the sky. In Madrid there isn't a canopy at all, just clear blue skies.

See the weather map. It hows big the current "canopy" can be.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
33
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Then you have problem. If not a global canopy, then how large was the canopy? Half global? or 1/4 global?

It is either a global one, or there is none.

Well, I was saying that I don't think it necessitates a canopy at all, at least not of the type described in the canopy theory. An extremely powerful rainstorm wouldn't require a canopy of clouds that had existed since the creation of the Earth. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, a global canopy would make life on Earth either difficult or impossible, depending on how thick the canopy was.
 
Upvote 0

Lion King

Veni, vidi, vici
Mar 29, 2011
7,360
578
Heavenly Jerusalem- Mount Zion
✟10,388.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single


Dude, stop peddling such fables.
 
Upvote 0

tyronem

Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings
Jun 19, 2011
422
28
New Zealand
Visit site
✟23,242.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh yeah; more Bible verses to disprove other Bible verses!

If there were enough water vapor in the air to produce even HALF the water of the Flood as proposed by YECs, we would have drown by breathing because the air would have been saturated.

I think you misunderstand the biblical creationist position.

The fountains of the deep is where (we might as well say all) the water comes from.

The water canopy, be it ice, water, vapor, whatever, neatly provides a mechanism by where air pressure and oxygen can be concentrated in such a way as to provide the atmosphere necessary for large insect and plant growth. As well as other things such as snake venom becomes non-toxic at atmospheric pressures predicted by the canopy theory.

Cheers
 
Upvote 0