Canopy theory is dead

[philadiddle]

I just found this gem of a quote and despite how much I've heard the canopy theory discussed, I had never heard these verses brought up.

I just thought this was interesting enough to be post worthy. (I actually know people in real life who still hold to the canopy theory.)

From Biologos:

The T.K.O. of the canopy theory is the fact that according to the Bible those “waters above” and the firmament that holds them back were still considered in place during the time of King David, who wrote:

Psa. 104:2 stretching out the heavens like a tent. 3 He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters;
Psa. 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

​

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

 

[Mallon]

Argh! My faith!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Argh! My faith!

Take two Pauline epistles and call me in the morning.

 

[juvenissun]

I just found this gem of a quote and despite how much I've heard the canopy theory discussed, I had never heard these verses brought up.

I just thought this was interesting enough to be post worthy. (I actually know people in real life who still hold to the canopy theory.)

From Biologos:

The T.K.O. of the canopy theory is the fact that according to the Bible those “waters above” and the firmament that holds them back were still considered in place during the time of King David, who wrote:

Psa. 104:2 stretching out the heavens like a tent. 3 He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters;
Psa. 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

​

I thought you can read.

The canopy theory and the two verses of psalms you quoted are entirely two separated matter. People who wrote this were wrong. You are wrong by following up the argument.

 

[philadiddle]

I thought you can read.

The canopy theory and the two verses of psalms you quoted are entirely two separated matter. People who wrote this were wrong. You are wrong by following up the argument.

Please explain.

 

[juvenissun]

Please explain.

the canopy stuff is talking about the vapor in the atmosphere.

The water above is anything else.

They described two different situations at two different time. And there is no relationship between them.

And the two verses of Psalms are yet talking about something else.

Sigh!

 

[philadiddle]

the canopy stuff is talking about the vapor in the atmosphere.

The water above is anything else.

They described two different situations at two different time. And there is no relationship between them.

And the two verses of Psalms are yet talking about something else.

Sigh!

Genesis mentions the waters above the firmament (the heavens) and these waters are also mentioned in the time of king david. It seems to me that extra water in the atmosphere isn't differentiated in the creation or flood account.

But maybe I'm missing something so could you please explain a little bit further?

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis mentions the waters above the firmament (the heavens) and these waters are also mentioned in the time of king david. It seems to me that extra water in the atmosphere isn't differentiated in the creation or flood account.

But maybe I'm missing something so could you please explain a little bit further?

Think about the scale. The canopy is something on the earth for a short period of time. But the water above is about the universe and is something lasts a very long time. The water above does not collapse down to the surface of the earth.

 

[philadiddle]

Think about the scale. The canopy is something on the earth for a short period of time. But the water above is about the universe and is something lasts a very long time. The water above does not collapse down to the surface of the earth.

What verses do you use to infer that there was a canopy of water?

 

[juvenissun]

What verses do you use to infer that there was a canopy of water?

I am not particularly fond of the idea. No verse either. It was what people suggested to be the source of water from air, the 40-day rain.

Except one verse, which I am not sure where to position it: Gen 2:6.

Besides, we may learn a couple of lessons from planet Venus.

 

[philadiddle]

I am not particularly fond of the idea. No verse either. It was what people suggested to be the source of water from air, the 40-day rain.

Except one verse, which I am not sure where to position it: Gen 2:6.

Besides, we may learn a couple of lessons from planet Venus.

Do you support/accept the canopy hypothesis?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you support/accept the canopy hypothesis?

There has to be a vapor canopy in the early earth. That is out of the question. We know it collapsed. But nobody knows how.

At this time, I do not know how to fit all the pieces of understanding nicely to the creation account. I have a hypothesis. But it assumes to much and is probably not good.

So, at this moment, I can talk about details, but not the whole hypothesis.

 

[philadiddle]

There has to be a vapor canopy in the early earth. That is out of the question. We know it collapsed. But nobody knows how.

At this time, I do not know how to fit all the pieces of understanding nicely to the creation account. I have a hypothesis. But it assumes to much and is probably not good.

So, at this moment, I can talk about details, but not the whole hypothesis.

If you are still working it out then that's fair enough.

I'm wondering, what reason do you have for thinking there was a vapor canopy in the first place?

 

[juvenissun]

If you are still working it out then that's fair enough.

I'm wondering, what reason do you have for thinking there was a vapor canopy in the first place?

The earth was very hot right up to the surface everywhere. (so water could only stay in the air)

It is the assumption currently used for the very early earth. I did not spend time to consider this assumption at all.

 

[philadiddle]

The earth was very hot right up to the surface everywhere. (so water could only stay in the air)

It is the assumption currently used for the very early earth. I did not spend time to consider this assumption at all.

So you believe that the oxygen and hydrogen formed rain and fell to the earth over millions of years, just as the model for the old earth predicts? Or did you have something else in mind?

(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm taking the time to listen instead of just arguing )

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Not to break into the discussion too much, but I don't think that the canopy argument has gotten a lot of support from Young Earth Creationists for years. I know that at least AiG has rejected it pretty much completely because it contradicts Biblical passages like the one mentioned in the OP and doesn't really work out very well in computer models, either (too little water, too much heat, etc.). Arguing against it is kind of like beating a dead horse.

 

[juvenissun]

So you believe that the oxygen and hydrogen formed rain and fell to the earth over millions of years, just as the model for the old earth predicts? Or did you have something else in mind?

(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm taking the time to listen instead of just arguing )

Of course I noticed. It is my style of argument. Glad you are using it too. I don't necessary think it is listening. It is a way of arguing. Questioning pushes people to a specified corner. Many people, particularly young people, could not take 3 consecutive questions.

I said that we do not know how did the canopy collapse. It is reasonable to think that if the conditions were right, the canopy could collapse in a relatively short period of time, the 40-day sounds OK.

Once the canopy collapsed, then it is gone forever. But water on the earth could still be accumulated a little bit at a time for a long time. However, it would be very interesting to notice that the rate of accumulation will not be the same (could be dramatically different). Have you ever thought that how much water has been locked into continental rocks since the formation of continent? roughly 1% times the mass of all continental crust.

 

[juvenissun]

Not to break into the discussion too much, but I don't think that the canopy argument has gotten a lot of support from Young Earth Creationists for years. I know that at least AiG has rejected it pretty much completely because it contradicts Biblical passages like the one mentioned in the OP and doesn't really work out very well in computer models, either (too little water, too much heat, etc.). Arguing against it is kind of like beating a dead horse.

The problem is not on the canopy, it is on the timing. AiG has a tremendous burden of the 6000 yrs time limit.

 

[philadiddle]

Not to break into the discussion too much, but I don't think that the canopy argument has gotten a lot of support from Young Earth Creationists for years. I know that at least AiG has rejected it pretty much completely because it contradicts Biblical passages like the one mentioned in the OP and doesn't really work out very well in computer models, either (too little water, too much heat, etc.). Arguing against it is kind of like beating a dead horse.

Not on this board, on this board we still get people who push it.