[_ Old Earth _] "...a canopy of water in the air, before the flood..."

[Orion]

Here's something that I have to wonder about. Hovind and others believes that there was a canopy of water above that blocked out harmful rays. A thick layer of ice that increased pressure and levels of oxygen. You lived longer, didn't wrinkle, could run further, etc. . . . . . sounds good, right?

If you have a thick layer of ice, . . . .wouldn't that greatly obscure star light, and especially how clear you could see them?

 

[wavy]

I would ask those people what happened to that 'water canopy'.

 

[Orion]

That's what created the 40 days of rain for the flood.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

That's what created the 40 days of rain for the flood.

That and the the floodgates of the deep. But see if you can point out any verses about stars before the flood.

 

[Orion]

The water from beneath would have just bubbled out and wouldn't be a "rain".

How much would they be seen. . . . in order to have "lights in the firmament", besides the sun and moon?

 

[Dunzo]

If such a canopy did exist, life would not be able to exist on earth (far too hot), and the pressure would multiple by 64 times. Yes, 64. I believe Hovind says it's 2, but we all know how credible he is.

HINT: Not very.

 

[Orion]

If such a canopy did exist, life would not be able to exist on earth (far too hot), and the pressure would multiple by 64 times. Yes, 64. I believe Hovind says it's 2, but we all know how credible he is.

HINT: Not very.

How would we know how much more pressure (or even heat) would be generated by such a layer of ice around the planet? How can anyone know what it would be like? If it is a solid layer of ice that surrounds the globe, how would air pressure be higher just because of that layer? I would think that, if it is solid around the entire globe, it would be structural unto itself not needing the support of anything but it's curved surface. I'm talking structual integrity of that particular shape.

I would actually consider this "water canopy" as less of a perfect sphere and more like "rings of Saturn".

It's all speculation since there could never be any way to know such a canopy ever existed (outside the scriptural text).

 

[jwu]

I would think that, if it is solid around the entire globe, it would be structural unto itself not needing the support of anything but it's curved surface. I'm talking structual integrity of that particular shape.

It would crumble under its own weight. Ice melts at sufficient pressure.
Moreover, what would keep it in place, instead of crashing down on one side? After all, it would have to move in the exact same trajectory around the sun as the earth does, but that canopy would be subject to other external forces (solar wind, asteroid impacts) than the earth inside is.

How is the kinetic energy released in the fall of the water accounted for? That would have released so much energy that it would have boiled all the water, there wouldn't have been any liquid water reaching the ground as the temperatures rose way beyond 100°C. No-one, not even people on an ark would have survived being steam-boiled.

And where did the water supposedly go?

 

[Orion]

I am not saying that I believe there was such a canopy. I'm just discussing all the theories and considering possiblities.

For those that believe in the world wide flood, the world was mostly land with smaller areas of water. . . . probably around 80% land and 20% water. Most of this water was under the crust and it was forced out, collapsing a good chunk of the land to where we now have the ocean floor.

So, the majority of the water came from underground. The rain that fell for 40 days and nights was just a small part of the overall volume of water.

As for this canopy of water collapsing under it's own weight, it may not have been something solid, but even in a gas state. Again, it isn't something that can be proven and I don't know of any other ancient texts that talks about "waters in the heavens". Unless we read too much into it and it was just refering to clouds. :roll:

 

[Vic C.]

In another thread in another forum here, we were discussing how water vapor in the atmosphere affects global warming trends. So in some ways, it (the canopy) is a feasible concept, even in today's day and age.

Maybe in God's timing, this somewhat newly-formed canopy formed from His creation was used to HIS advantage. This rain and subsequent flooding set off a chain reaction of evaporation/condensation/precipitation not known to man until then... and continues to this very day.

:smt102

...and then Man created the umbrella. :-D

 

[wavy]

That's what created the 40 days of rain for the flood.

Exactly my point. Now on to the next question:

Why does this psalmist believe the supposed 'water canopy' still exists?

Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens! (Ps.148.4).

 

[wavy]

That and the the floodgates of the deep. But see if you can point out any verses about stars before the flood.

They are stated to give light upon the earth when God first created them (Gen. i.17). That didn't happen until after the 'water canopy' fell?

 

[wavy]

I am not saying that I believe there was such a canopy. I'm just discussing all the theories and considering possiblities.

For those that believe in the world wide flood, the world was mostly land with smaller areas of water. . . . probably around 80% land and 20% water. Most of this water was under the crust and it was forced out, collapsing a good chunk of the land to where we now have the ocean floor.

So, the majority of the water came from underground. The rain that fell for 40 days and nights was just a small part of the overall volume of water.

There's no evidence for any of this.

As for this canopy of water collapsing under it's own weight, it may not have been something solid, but even in a gas state. Again, it isn't something that can be proven and I don't know of any other ancient texts that talks about "waters in the heavens". Unless we read too much into it and it was just refering to clouds.

One must be willing to understand the cosmology of the Hebrews. The upper waters were not clouds. That would be 'reading too much into it'. Indeed, that's plain anachronism, since it was after mankind discovered that clouds were made of water vapor and/or ice crystals that the upper waters were interpreted to be clouds.

The Hebrews wrote about an ocean above the firmament (a solid object) because they believed it was the source of rain which fell through window openings, as Gen. xii.11 makes clear. The sun, moon and stars were still visible because they were beneath the water.

 

[dad]

Here's something that I have to wonder about. Hovind and others believes that there was a canopy of water above that blocked out harmful rays. A thick layer of ice that increased pressure and levels of oxygen. You lived longer, didn't wrinkle, could run further, etc. . . . . . sounds good, right?

If you have a thick layer of ice, . . . .wouldn't that greatly obscure star light, and especially how clear you could see them?

I also believe that there was water up there before the flood. Whether a canopy, partial canopy, or ring(s), something like Saturn, who really knows? A partial canopy would allow starlight in at times. Rings also would do the same.
I don't buy into the cosmic ray shield bit. Who says there WERE harmful cosmic rays at the time?? But, as I see it, the only way any water could have been up there, enough to flood earth, was for there to have been different laws.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

but we all know how credible he is. HINT: Not very.

Well, debate is all well and good but I don't appriciate it when people use character attacking in order to disprove a theory. If you're going to be scientific then leave people's character alone. Hitler believed 2+2=4, I guess you don't believe that either.

 

[Dunzo]

but we all know how credible he is. HINT: Not very.

Well, debate is all well and good but I don't appriciate it when people use character attacking in order to disprove a theory. If you're going to be scientific then leave people's character alone. Hitler believed 2+2=4, I guess you don't believe that either.

Oh, I'm only attacking his credibility because all of his other claims are downright rubbish. The water canopy claim is no exception.

Also, I'm glad you just compared Hovind to Hitler.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

Also, I'm glad you just compared Hovind to Hitler.

So much for being unbias in our examinations.

 

[Orion]

One must be willing to understand the cosmology of the Hebrews. The upper waters were not clouds. That would be 'reading too much into it'. Indeed, that's plain anachronism, since it was after mankind discovered that clouds were made of water vapor and/or ice crystals that the upper waters were interpreted to be clouds.

The Hebrews wrote about an ocean above the firmament (a solid object) because they believed it was the source of rain which fell through window openings, as Gen. xii.11 makes clear. The sun, moon and stars were still visible because they were beneath the water.

I agree. When we have a group of people who didn't have the ability to know pretty scientific facts, you will find some pretty strange beliefs. Many cultures and religions have fallen victim to this, and I'm sure the average Hebrew person did as well.

Trying to understand things, being inspired by what they saw, writing in poetic language, all of these things (and probably more) can come from a misunderstanding of the natural world.

 

[Orion]

One thing you can say about Hovind. . . . .he DOES speak as though he has an authority on the subject. He can be convincing to many people. However, I'm sure that he does have some faulty information that he gives in his lectures, but there may be a lot of it that has merit and may even be more true than what is normally believed in the scientific community.

 

[jwu]

As for this canopy of water collapsing under it's own weight, it may not have been something solid, but even in a gas state.

In that state however it would increase the atmospheric pressure.