Revelation, Evolution and You.

[mark kennedy]

I am not sure that this does not belong in the Expostion forum but I have a couple of reasons I descided to post it here. Firstly, I consider theology to be a science, a nobler if less pragmatic one then empirical science, but a science none the less. Evangelical theology in its essense believes that all thinking begins and ends with the Scriptures and that they are completly reliable and relavant to all facets of human reason. This relates to several aspects of modern empirical thought and Christian theism, namely: The Flood, uniformatarianism, revelation and their relation to the Creationist/evolution controversy.

The Antidelving Period-Genesis Chapters 1-7​

Chapter 1-The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days: 1st day-The separation of light from darkness. 2nd day-The separation of waters above the firmament (celestial and atmospheric heavens) 3rd day-The dividing of the waters into one place (seas), causing the appearance of dry land (earth), resulting in the genesis of seed bearing plants (grass, herbs, fruit trees…etc.). 4th day- The dividing of the lights in the firmament (heavens), and thus, dividing the day from the night. 5th day-The emergence of sea creatures of and birds multiply after ’their kind’ and fill the earth and seas. 6th The genesis of living creatures from the earth ; cattle, creeping things and beasts (predators).

Chapter 2-With that the heavens, the earth and all that host of them are finished in their vast array. The Seventh Day (Sabbath) was marked by the ‘plants of the field’ and ’green herbs’ (cultivated plants) had not grown even though the wild grass, trees and other plants were watered by a ’mist’ of some kind, there had not been any rain. The expressed reason for this was that, ’there was no man to till the ground’ (cultivate the wild plants). Most likely this is a reference to the 3rd day when the seed bearing plants were first created. Man is created from the dust of the earth to tend to a garden God planted, ’Eastward in Eden’. Two trees were planted there; one that bore the fruit of life and the other bore the fruit of death. Man (Adam) was made from the earth (dust) to cultivate the earth and woman (Eve) was made from the Man to help him.

Chapter 3-The Serpent ’shining one’ with his cunning and subtle deception entices them into partaking of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What they were tempted with was a carnal, selfish, earthly wisdom (the application of experiential knowledge) that manipulated their natural thirst for learning. God was already nurturing this basic human need by teaching them from nature (Gen. 2:18-20). The Scriptures make a sharp distinction between carnal wisdom and spiritual wisdom. It contrasts godly fear with selfish impulses, (Proverbs 1:7 vs. 1:31), faithfulness with foolish infidelity (Song of Songs 8:6,7 vs. Prov. 9:13-18), heavenly with demonic wisdom (James 3:13-16 vs. 3:17-18) and worldly values with God’s perfect righteousness (Matt. 7:13,14 vs. 7:15-20). This contrast is the most important in all of Scripture.

Chapter 4-The violence that would eventually result in the Deluge (cataclysmic global flood) had its genesis is in the jealous rage of Cain that marked the first murder of the righteous by the wicked. Cain brought sacrifices from the ground that had been cursed as a result of Adam’s sin. Abel brought a sacrificial lamb. Even though the Scriptures are silent as to why the sacrifice of Cain was unacceptable, why he murdered Abel is stated in no uncertain terms (Genesis 3:5,6; 1 John 3:10-12). Cain is cursed to wander the earth since the earth would no longer ’yield its strength’ (Gen. 4:12). God’s gracious protection of Cain from the people who would undoubtedly have taken vengeance on him for this unspeakable act became a rationalization of violence (Gen. 4:23,24). How ironic that God’s prevention of bloody vengeance became a justification for revenge. This is the mark of reprobate perversions of God’s Word (1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Tim 2:14-19) .

Chapter 5-The Genealogy from Adam to Noah has a number if interesting points to consider. First of all the length of the life spans was close to 1,000 years in some cases (Methuselah was 1,960 years old when he died; Gen 5:27). Methuselah was the son of Enoch who may well of been taken bodily into heaven similar to the way Elijah was (Gen. 5:24; 2 Kings 1:1-12). Elijah and Enoch are thought to be the two prophets in Revelations who prophecy for 3 ½ years (the first half of the Tribulation Revelations ch. 11:3). They are killed and then resurrected just prior to the vials of wrath . The vials of wrath mark the completion of God’s wrath on the Dragon aka Satan’s final expulsion from heaven in Revelations 12, the rise of the Beast of the sea (the Antichrist), and the beast of the land (the False Prophet) and the harvest of the earth (Grapes of Wrath) in Revelation 13 and 14. The vials of wrath in Revelations 15 and 16 result in the fall of Babylon the Great in Revelations chapter 16-19 and the coming of Christ ( Rev. 19:11-21 et al).

Chapter 6-When mankind had began to multiply the sons of God began to take the daughters of men as wives and begat a race of half-men half demon offspring called the Nephilim. These unnatural offspring where legendary in their exploit’s (Gen. 6:4) and quite literally the stuff of myth and legend. They represent both occultic (secret, mysterious, mystic) false prophecy (2 Peter 2:1-5; Jude 6) and the demonic host released from the abyss at the fifth trumpet of the Tribulation (Rev. 1-12). Whether or not you take this literally, one thing is clear, the judgment of the Flood, the rise of demonically inspired false prophecy, the rise of bloody violence and the wrath of Revelations are inextricably linked. (2 Peter 3:1-13), and the final judgment will not be with water, but fire.

Chapter 7-The world before the Flood was different in that people lived as much as ten times longer. One explanation for this would be the canopy theory, as it has come to be known as and what follows is an excellent discussion of this expositive doctrine, common in evangelical theology. The quote is from Dr. John MacAurther and is offered as a post script without further comment. “A reference to the pre-flood world order (Gen. 3:6)This world included the physical arrangement with the canopy above and the waters in the underground reservoirs, rivers, lakes and seas below, and the heaves in the middle. The pre-flood world, sheltered from the sun’s destructive ultraviolet rays, and with a gentle climate without rain, storms, and winds, was characterized by long life of humans (Gen 5) and the ability of the earth (like a green house) to produce extensively. The second divine cataclysm that defeats the idea of uniformatianism was the universal flood which drowned the whole earth and altered the originally created world order…clearly, by those two great events, it is clear that the world is not in a uniformatarian process.” (John MacAurther Study Bible not on 2 Peter 3:6, page 1958)

 

[gluadys]

One of the things that always bugs me about such a commentary is the lack of clarity in differentiating between what the text says and what the commentator believes it means. I think you have done better than most at keeping this distinction marked. But there are still a few items I would quibble with.

The Antidelving Period-Genesis Chapters 1-7​

Chapter 1-The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days: 1st day-The separation of light from darkness. 2nd day-The separation of waters above the firmament (celestial and atmospheric heavens) 3rd day-The dividing of the waters into one place (seas), causing the appearance of dry land (earth), resulting in the genesis of seed bearing plants (grass, herbs, fruit trees…etc.). 4th day- The dividing of the lights in the firmament (heavens), and thus, dividing the day from the night. 5th day-The emergence of sea creatures of and birds multiply after ’their kind’ and fill the earth and seas. 6th The genesis of living creatures from the earth ; cattle, creeping things and beasts (predators).

2nd day: what the text says is that God created a firmament to divide the waters so that some are now above the firmament and some below it. It also says that God called the firmament "sky" (aka "heaven"). You have placed the firmament between the atmosphere and what you call the "celestial heavens" (what do you mean by this term? inter-galactic space?) This does not correctly mark the distinction the text is making. True, the atmosphere is below the firmament. But the firmament is not below the "celestial heaven". It IS the heavens. (sky" and "heaven" are the same term in Hebrew. And the biblical text specifically says the heavens were created v. 1. The second day depicts this creation. v. 8 "And God called the firmament Heaven.")

Chapter 2-With that the heavens, the earth and all that host of them are finished in their vast array. The Seventh Day (Sabbath) was marked by the ‘plants of the field’ and ’green herbs’ (cultivated plants) had not grown even though the wild grass, trees and other plants were watered by a ’mist’ of some kind, there had not been any rain. The expressed reason for this was that, ’there was no man to till the ground’ (cultivate the wild plants). Most likely this is a reference to the 3rd day when the seed bearing plants were first created. Man is created from the dust of the earth to tend to a garden God planted, ’Eastward in Eden’. Two trees were planted there; one that bore the fruit of life and the other bore the fruit of death. Man (Adam) was made from the earth (dust) to cultivate the earth and woman (Eve) was made from the Man to help him.

No tree in the garden was said to bear the fruit of death. The tree is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Is it the fruit that causes death or disobedience to God's command that causes death?

If it is disobedience which is the source of death (and that is the usual theological understanding) then the fruit itself is not the source of death. So it should not be referred to as such. The fruit does confer what it is said to confer: knowledge of good and evil. (3:7)

Chapter 3-The Serpent ’shining one’ with his cunning and subtle deception entices them into partaking of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What they were tempted with was a carnal, selfish, earthly wisdom (the application of experiential knowledge) that manipulated their natural thirst for learning. God was already nurturing this basic human need by teaching them from nature (Gen. 2:18-20). The Scriptures make a sharp distinction between carnal wisdom and spiritual wisdom. It contrasts godly fear with selfish impulses, (Proverbs 1:7 vs. 1:31), faithfulness with foolish infidelity (Song of Songs 8:6,7 vs. Prov. 9:13-18), heavenly with demonic wisdom (James 3:13-16 vs. 3:17-18) and worldly values with God’s perfect righteousness (Matt. 7:13,14 vs. 7:15-20). This contrast is the most important in all of Scripture.

Your second statement is pure commentary, not derived from the text. The text does not say they were enticed by "application of experiential knowledge". It says they were enticed by the desire to be as wise as God. (v. 5) And the specific focus of this wisdom is not technology and experiment, but knowing good and evil. Moral not scientific wisdom. Now scientific and empirical knowledge may come with this wisdom as well, but the up-front focus is moral.

Chapter 4-The violence that would eventually result in the Deluge (cataclysmic global flood) had its genesis is in the jealous rage of Cain that marked the first murder of the righteous by the wicked. Cain brought sacrifices from the ground that had been cursed as a result of Adam’s sin. Abel brought a sacrificial lamb. Even though the Scriptures are silent as to why the sacrifice of Cain was unacceptable, why he murdered Abel is stated in no uncertain terms (Genesis 3:5,6; 1 John 3:10-12). Cain is cursed to wander the earth since the earth would no longer ’yield its strength’ (Gen. 4:12). God’s gracious protection of Cain from the people who would undoubtedly have taken vengeance on him for this unspeakable act became a rationalization of violence (Gen. 4:23,24). How ironic that God’s prevention of bloody vengeance became a justification for revenge. This is the mark of reprobate perversions of God’s Word (1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Tim 2:14-19) .

You correctly state that the reason God had no regard for Cain's offering is not explicitly stated. There is much speculation, but people should remember that lacking a specific statement, there is only speculation. I am a little concerned, however, that in the previous sentence you imply that the source of Cain's offering (the ground which was cursed) is a reason for its rejection. I do not think that can be so as the fruits of the ground are elsewhere commended and even commanded as sacrifices.

I have heard it said----and this is speculation too---that Cain's offering is only "the fruit of the ground" and not the "first fruits" of his crop, while Able brings "the firstlings" of his flock. And that this may be part of the reason Cain's offering was disregarded. For in the Mosaic law, the first-fruits of both field and flock belong to God.

Chapter 7-The world before the Flood was different in that people lived as much as ten times longer. One explanation for this would be the canopy theory, as it has come to be known as and what follows is an excellent discussion of this expositive doctrine, common in evangelical theology. The quote is from Dr. John MacAurther and is offered as a post script without further comment. “A reference to the pre-flood world order (Gen. 3:6)This world included the physical arrangement with the canopy above and the waters in the underground reservoirs, rivers, lakes and seas below, and the heaves in the middle. The pre-flood world, sheltered from the sun’s destructive ultraviolet rays, and with a gentle climate without rain, storms, and winds, was characterized by long life of humans (Gen 5) and the ability of the earth (like a green house) to produce extensively. The second divine cataclysm that defeats the idea of uniformatianism was the universal flood which drowned the whole earth and altered the originally created world order…clearly, by those two great events, it is clear that the world is not in a uniformatarian process.” (John MacAurther Study Bible not on 2 Peter 3:6, page 1958)

"the heaves in the middle"?

I think it very important to stress that the canopy theory is pure speculation, not only scientifically, but biblically as well. Nothing in scripture supports this theory.

The idea that the sky is not something tangible which one could touch if one was close enough, is a concept that was not even conceived of before Copernicus published his theory of heliocentricity in the 16th century.

Changing the concept of "sky" or "firmament" to a "water canopy" is an interpretation which tries to meld modern science with the text of scripture, but in doing so, it denies the actual literal text.

Similarly, some modern translators of scripture modernize the meaning of "firmament" by translating it as "expanse". That's ok as a "dynamic equivalent" rendition. But it is not a literal translation. "Firmament" with its implication of firm solidity is much closer to the literal meaning.

And, of course, dictionaries also give "expanse" as a meaning of "firmament" today, since it does refer to the sky, and in our conception of the universe today, the sky is an intangible expanse, not a tangible ceiling.

But the literal meaning of the text is "sky" or "heaven" (in hebrew these are the same word) as conceived of before the Copernican revolution--namely as a solid supporting structure.

Modernizing the meaning to fit today's scientific conceptions is ipso facto moving to a non-literal meaning.

And just as it doesn't work biblically, it doesn't work scientifically either. Such a water canopy would not produce a gentle climate, but one hot enough to boil sand. It is probably the evidence that this is an unavoidable consequence of a water canopy that has led many creationist theorists to abandon this idea.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's "Antediluvian". "Antidelving" would mean opposition to digging holes.

Other than that, what Gluadys said.

 

[mark kennedy]

One of the things that always bugs me about such a commentary is the lack of clarity in differentiating between what the text says and what the commentator believes it means. I think you have done better than most at keeping this distinction marked. But there are still a few items I would quibble with.

Not everything was understood, the specific point of the verse below is with regards to Christ. I think we have progressed somewhat beyond the understanding of the ancient Hebrews concerning primordial conditions as well. Thats really what I am getting at but I didn't want to get into it if no one showed an interest.

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."
(1 Peter 1:10-11,The King James Version,1769)

2nd day: what the text says is that God created a firmament to divide the waters so that some are now above the firmament and some below it. It also says that God called the firmament "sky" (aka "heaven"). You have placed the firmament between the atmosphere and what you call the "celestial heavens" (what do you mean by this term? inter-galactic space?) This does not correctly mark the distinction the text is making. True, the atmosphere is below the firmament. But the firmament is not below the "celestial heaven". It IS the heavens. (sky" and "heaven" are the same term in Hebrew. And the biblical text specifically says the heavens were created v. 1. The second day depicts this creation. v. 8 "And God called the firmament Heaven.")

Actually the reference to 'celestial heavens' is a contrast to '...darkness was upon the face of the deep...' (Gen 1:1). The picture I am getting is that the atmosphere was thick and did not have clouds floating in the upper atmosphere and no light peirced the darkness. When the firmament was seperated not only was the water below and water above seperated, the stars became visible. Thats all I was really saying there, now the word for heaven may mean sky in certain contexts but I dare say they did not make the distiction between atmosphere and outer space.

No tree in the garden was said to bear the fruit of death. The tree is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Is it the fruit that causes death or disobedience to God's command that causes death?

Now that was me useing a little poetic licence, I'll show you what was going through my mind when I wrote this. I used to play around with little rhymes that help me in my Bible study"

God planted a garden eastward in Eden,
were the trees that bore life and death grew.
But the serpent decieved Eve and they both ate,
and died from the good and evil they knew​

I called it lyrical paraphrasing and its just a play on words.

If it is disobedience which is the source of death (and that is the usual theological understanding) then the fruit itself is not the source of death. So it should not be referred to as such. The fruit does confer what it is said to confer: knowledge of good and evil. (3:7)

Like I elaborated in the OP the object here is a kind of wisdom/knowledge that is discernably different from God's wisdom and revelation. What I am concerned with here is not the chemical composition of the fruit or even the explicit behaviour of Adam and Eve. What I had in mind was epistomology, more on that later.

Your second statement is pure commentary, not derived from the text. The text does not say they were enticed by "application of experiential knowledge". It says they were enticed by the desire to be as wise as God. (v. 5) And the specific focus of this wisdom is not technology and experiment, but knowing good and evil. Moral not scientific wisdom. Now scientific and empirical knowledge may come with this wisdom as well, but the up-front focus is moral.

You make the distinction I was most interested in so if I might be allowed to offer some of the semantics I was going over at the time. I hope you will forgive the length of the quote but there is a reason I think this is crucial. What I am trying to get a handle on is Scientific duality (subjective/objective) reasoning, I think there is a sense that transends them both. At the same time I am struck with the distinction between spiritual and earthly wisdom. Notice the use of physical sense as instrumental in the ability to know. Then check the distinction made at the bottom of the quote with regards to knowledge of evil. I simply think this is too important to give a quick once over.I highlighted the points I think are important.

"nakar (5234), “to know, regard, recognize, pay attention to, be acquainted with.”# “… he did not recognize him” (Gen. 27:23: RSV). The basic meaning of the term is a physical apprehension, whether through sight, touch, or hearing. Darkness sometimes makes recognition impossible (Ruth 3:14). People are often “recognized” by their voices (Judg. 18:3). Nakar sometimes has the meaning “pay attention to,” a special kind of recognition: “Blessed be the man who took notice of [KJV, “took knowledge of”] you” (Ruth 2:19, RSV).
yada (3045), “to know.” Essentially yada> means: (1) to know by observing and reflecting (thinking), and (2) to know by experiencing. Noah “knew” the waters had abated as a result of seeing the freshly picked olive leaf in the dove’s mouth; he “knew” it after observing and thinking about what he had seen. He did not actually see or experience the abatement himself In contrast to this knowing through reflection is the knowing which comes through experience with the senses, by investigation and proving, by reflection and consideration (firsthand knowing). synonymous parallelism with “hear” (Exod. 3:7), “see” (Gen. 18:21), and “perceive, see” (Job 28:7) In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the tree whose fruit if eaten would give them the experience of evil and, therefore, the knowledge of both good and evil. Somewhat characteristically the heart plays an important role in knowing. Israel (Deut. 8:5)
“know,” by experience (Gen. 42:33) knowing which one learns, Cain did not “know” he was Abel’s keeper (Gen. 4:9), a witness either sees or otherwise “knows” (by being told), (Lev. 5:1). “acknowledge” (Deut. 33:9) and “learn” (Deut. 31:12-13). Thus, little children not yet able to speak do not “know” good and evil (Deut. 1:39)."

(W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words )

You correctly state that the reason God had no regard for Cain's offering is not explicitly stated. There is much speculation, but people should remember that lacking a specific statement, there is only speculation. I am a little concerned, however, that in the previous sentence you imply that the source of Cain's offering (the ground which was cursed) is a reason for its rejection. I do not think that can be so as the fruits of the ground are elsewhere commended and even commanded as sacrifices.

Actually, what I think is that a sacrifice must be the very best (firstfruits, firstborn, without blemish...etc.). The thing is I don't think Cain gave his best and he knew exactly what the reason was that God rejected his sacrifice. Of course had he not he could have asked and he never did. I think this goes back to original sin that has been thought to be a prohibition against knowlege itself when the Scriptures are clear that not only Adam and Eve were learning, Cain 'knew' more then he admitted as well. I have burned up enough bandwidth on this point, I'll elaborate further if you are interested.

I have heard it said----and this is speculation too---that Cain's offering is only "the fruit of the ground" and not the "first fruits" of his crop, while Able brings "the firstlings" of his flock. And that this may be part of the reason Cain's offering was disregarded. For in the Mosaic law, the first-fruits of both field and flock belong to God.

I suspect that an offering without blemish was next to impossible or just not worth the trouble for Cain. Whatever the condition of the fruit, Cain was capable of offering an acceptable sacrifice.

"the heaves in the middle"?

That's the heavens in the middle (pardon the typo), most likely a reference to the expanse between the surface and the clouds. Basicly what he is saying is at the time there was more cushion between the sun and the surface.

I am going to skip the quote of the post here since I think you have completly missed the point here. The canopy theory is contrasted with uniformatarinism. Here is the rest of the quote and while it may well be speculation, then so is a lot uniformatarianism and evolution for that matter:

"According to Genesis 7:11ff.,the flood occurred from two directions: first, the bursting open of the sources of water below as the earth cracked open and gas, dust, water, and air burst up; then came the breakup of the canopy when hit by all that upward flow, which sent the water from above crashing down on the earth. The deluge was so cataclysmic that the inhabitants of the earth were all destroyed except 8 people and a representation of every kind of animal. Clearly, by those two great events, it is clear that the world is not in a uniformitarian process."

There are other reasons why the modernist view of the Genesis account is suspect. As far as this being inconsistant with both science and the Scriptures, that point has yet to be demonstrated. For one thing the canopy is not a roof, its a covering. This concept is as viable as the one offered in uniformatarianism and is anything but contrary to Scripture.

Its been a pleasure as allways.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

It's "Antediluvian". "Antidelving" would mean opposition to digging holes.

I stand corrected, I just couldn't remember for sure, thanks.

 

[gluadys]

Not everything was understood, the specific point of the verse below is with regards to Christ. I think we have progressed somewhat beyond the understanding of the ancient Hebrews concerning primordial conditions as well. Thats really what I am getting at but I didn't want to get into it if no one showed an interest.

Yes, but the fact that we know more about primordial conditions than the Hebrews did does not change the meaning of the text as they wrote it. The literal meaning is the meaning according to the understanding of the author and his/her first audience.

When we amend that meaning to accord with our more advanced understanding, we are re-interpreting the literal meaning to make it fit our world-view. So we are no longer accepting the literal meaning as factually correct. Instead we apply it figuratively to what we believe is factually correct.

Actually the reference to 'celestial heavens' is a contrast to '...darkness was upon the face of the deep...' (Gen 1:1). The picture I am getting is that the atmosphere was thick and did not have clouds floating in the upper atmosphere and no light peirced the darkness. When the firmament was seperated not only was the water below and water above seperated, the stars became visible. Thats all I was really saying there, now the word for heaven may mean sky in certain contexts but I dare say they did not make the distiction between atmosphere and outer space.

Well, you are still altering the text. According to the text there were no stars to be visible until the 4th day, 2 days after the firmament was made to separate the waters. I agree the Hebrews did not make any distinction between the atmosphere and outer space. They had no concept of outer space. I was asking if that is what you meant by celestial heavens.

Now that was me useing a little poetic licence, I'll show you what was going through my mind when I wrote this. I used to play around with little rhymes that help me in my Bible study"

God planted a garden eastward in Eden,
were the trees that bore life and death grew.
But the serpent decieved Eve and they both ate,
and died from the good and evil they knew​

I called it lyrical paraphrasing and its just a play on words.

Great to see you use a literary term correctly!

What I had in mind was epistomology, more on that later.

[snip]

Then check the distinction made at the bottom of the quote with regards to knowledge of evil. I simply think this is too important to give a quick once over.I highlighted the points I think are important.

Thus, little children not yet able to speak do not “know” good and evil (Deut. 1:39)."

(W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words )

Yep, I think that is precisely the point.

Actually, what I think is that a sacrifice must be the very best (firstfruits, firstborn, without blemish...etc.). The thing is I don't think Cain gave his best and he knew exactly what the reason was that God rejected his sacrifice. Of course had he not he could have asked and he never did. I think this goes back to original sin that has been thought to be a prohibition against knowlege itself when the Scriptures are clear that not only Adam and Eve were learning, Cain 'knew' more then he admitted as well. I have burned up enough bandwidth on this point, I'll elaborate further if you are interested.



I suspect that an offering without blemish was next to impossible or just not worth the trouble for Cain. Whatever the condition of the fruit, Cain was capable of offering an acceptable sacrifice.

No, that's fine. We are thinking along the same lines here. I agree, Cain knew more than he was letting on. Not that that is in the text. We are both interpreting here.

I am going to skip the quote of the post here since I think you have completly missed the point here. The canopy theory is contrasted with uniformatarinism. Here is the rest of the quote and while it may well be speculation, then so is a lot uniformatarianism and evolution for that matter:

I know that is the point he wants to make, but that consideration was completely irrelevant to the biblical writer who was not dealing with such questions. The writer describes God making a firmament which is named sky/heaven. To the writer, what is a firmament? What is the sky/heaven? Other scriptures making the same reference, as well as non-biblical "scientific" literature of the time are quite clear that it was neither a gaseous atmosphere, nor a liquid watery canopy. It was a solid material.

(In the Ptolemaic concept which was the accepted concept of most of the Christian era, sky/heaven is made of a series of hollow crystalline spheres set one inside the other, with the earth at the very centre of the inmost sphere.)

The waters above the firmament are not suspended above the atmosphere. They are held in place by the firmament itself. This is the literal biblical understanding of the nature of the sky/heaven as it was for all the ancient near east. www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl1.htm

So where is the biblical support for a water canopy? That idea is totally modern. And it is entirely speculative, conforming neither with scripture nor with science, even though it bills itself as a harmonization of both.

"According to Genesis 7:11ff.,the flood occurred from two directions: first, the bursting open of the sources of water below as the earth cracked open and gas, dust, water, and air burst up; then came the breakup of the canopy when hit by all that upward flow, which sent the water from above crashing down on the earth. The deluge was so cataclysmic that the inhabitants of the earth were all destroyed except 8 people and a representation of every kind of animal. Clearly, by those two great events, it is clear that the world is not in a uniformitarian process."

Of course, he is also missing the point of uniformitarianism by confusing it with gradualism. Uniformitarianism simply means that the laws of nature are stable through all of time (because that is how God made them). So when we observe the operation of the laws of nature today, we can rely on them working in the same way yesterday and tomorrow as well.

It does NOT mean that everything happens slowly or that no catastrophes ever happen. It does mean that things which do happen slowly today (like the weathering of rock by blown sand, or the laying down of varves in a lake) also happened slowly in the past. But it also means that things which happen suddenly and catastrophically today (earthquakes, volcanoes, flash floods, meteor impacts) also happened suddenly and catastrophically in the past.

Uniformitarianism does not oppose the idea of a global flood or any other catastrophe. But it does expect geological evidence consistent with the occurrence of the catastrophe. It is the failure to find any geological evidence consistent with a global flood that falsifies that interpretation of Genesis 6-8, not the concept of uniformitarianism per se.

There are other reasons why the modernist view of the Genesis account is suspect.

And yet you want to espouse a highly suspect modernist view of Genesis like the water canopy?

As far as this being inconsistant with both science and the Scriptures, that point has yet to be demonstrated. For one thing the canopy is not a roof, its a covering.

And that is precisely why it is not scriptural. A literal, biblical firmament IS a roof. Or at least a tent. Psalm 104:2

I am taking a few days vacation next week. I'll try to respond more fully to your recent posts on the "Golden Rule of the Creationist" thread then.