The Firmament of Ice and the Water from the Great Flood

This relates to Hydroplate Theory in that the earth was solid land before the flood but the surface of the earth ripped apart and water, under pressure from the tides caused by the sun and the moon, shot 20 miles into the atmosphere. The firmament as a canopy of water is more difficult to show but clearly something happened that the lifespan of man was shortened. Of course, man has a limited future physically because the transmission of DNA, as time goes by, becomes more and more flawed and thus man is weakened. So I personally believe that the earth is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, as I am not sure that Usher was correct in the time from Adam to Noah since all evidences were destroyed except what Moses reported and the question becomes how literal was Moses?

 

I've heard of the Ice Canopy Theory. Interesting.

HankD

 

I think it's a bit more plausible, and less offensive to common sensibilities, that our solar system passed through an ice meteor cloud--the presence of which has been proved by NASA scientists. One can determine the time between Adam and Noah, because the lineage lists when each one was born, how old he was when his son was born, and how long he lived.

Trying to base modern conclusions purely on biblical research is not what God desires. We can use science to validate biblical events. If the solar system passed through an ice meteor cloud, there would be a great flood, because water exists as liquid at the temperature of the earth. Closer to the sun the meteors would vaporize. Further away they would remain ice.

When the solar system completed its transit through the meteor field, the rain would stop, and the excess water would slowly be blown off by solar wind. Presently, each year 45 billion tons of water enters the atmosphere from space. Just a bit more than that is blown into space by solar wind (particle wind). But if there was a lot of extra water, the atmosphere would be thinner, and more water would be blown off.

 

Well, I have addressed the problem about the time between Adam and Noah in a thread below on the antiquity of man. Needless to say, that subject is hotly debated. One genealogy given for Jesus is that He is the son of David the son of Abraham so there is no way to calculate time on that one. The flood would have destroyed all evidence before Noah so it can be assumed that Moses was dealing with some sort of traditional information, perhaps in writing and having had to have come from Noah at one time, no?

As for the canopy over the earth, I think that comes mostly from the Talmud, but I am not sure.

Hydroplate theory does not need a canopy apparently because it postulates that the land was established on the deep, which eventually tore open the crust and forced water 20 miles into the air. Something happened as a result of the flood because the life span was reduced about 90%.

 

I still think biblical explanations need to be reconciled with scientific fact and common sense. Otherwise it's little more than superstition.

 

So what is the Scriptural basis for the idea of a canopy before the flood?

 

I believe Noah knew his own lineage from memory, so he carried that knowledge in the ark. Noah probably also knew the story of creation from memory. So, that part of the Bible can be attributed to the verbal tradition. Who actually first wrote it down no one knows, because only those who spoke the word are recorded. The identity of the scribes mostly remains obscure.

 

Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham organization) seems to have discarded the canopy theory as impossible:

"Currently, the pitfalls of the canopy model have grown to such an extent that most researchers have abandoned the model. For example, if a canopy existed and collapsed at the time of the Flood to supply the rainfall, the latent heat of condensation would have boiled the atmosphere! And a viable canopy would not have had enough water vapor in it to sustain 40 days and nights of torrential global rain."

The Collapse of the Canopy Model

 

Waiting for the Word of God to be corroborated by the scientific methods of man is a serious blunder. God said what He meant, meant what He said and did not author confusion. Trying to explain the supernatural using terms of the natural is an absurdity. Truth is Truth whether we believe it or not.

We are in the midst of secular humanism. Man thinks he can be God. Satan has that problem too. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Exactly where does the word of God teach that there was a canopy--I have asked this question twice before I think.

 

True, God's Word is God's Word. It need not be questioned. But God wants man to gain understanding. God does not desire that man be intentionally ignorant. From the beginning of time man has explained the unexplainable in terms of God. This is good, because it opens the mind to truth.

By following the absolute moral code imposed by God, man can remain free from sin and therefore open to truth. But being open to truth implies invention and discovery that will advance man's understanding of his environment. Gravity is non-biblical, as is electricity, but God doesn't want us to ignore those things.

If we know better we can do better. The danger arises in interpreting scripture in a literal sense with scientific validity. God does not speak to His people in terms of what they cannot comprehend. He speaks in terms man can understand. Ancient man had a much different view of creation than modern man does.

What would have happened if God told the ancient Israelites about microorganisms? They probably would have disbelieved, because to them it was incomprehensible. So, God simply laid down a series of laws that were largely to protect the Israelites from pathogenic illness, and He demanded that they follow those laws.

There were plenty of examples of what happened to those who failed to follow God's laws. Loathsome illnesses, epidemics, horrifying deaths! Now we understand about microorganisms. Consequently, we have municipal sanitation, refrigeration for food, antibiotics, vaccines, and water purification; all of which are as God desires for mankind, and all of which are non-biblical!

Burying our heads in the sand isn't going to work! Ancient people believed that water remains in the sea because the gods of the air are victorious over the demons of the deep! Otherwise, the water would rush forth onto the land and drown everything! Ancient man also had no understanding of air as being something. Therefore, he didn't understand wind.

Consequently, ancient cultures attributed moving air masses to God's presence. Now we have proof that these ancient notions are less than accurate, and we have analyzed our environment in a quest to superior understanding.

In John 21:11, the Apostles caught 153 fish. Does that mean literally 153 fish? No! The famous Greek philosopher, Aristotle, had written in his History of Animals that there were a total of 153 species of life in the sea. He stood on the shore of the Mediterranean (then know as the Great sea) and counted every different species he could observe!

So, the 153 fish has a much greater meaning than if we assume it means literally 153 fish. It means, "Men from every tribe, nation, nationality, and ethnicity." Which has a much superior meaning than if it refers to some actual number of fish! So, not only does literal interpretation degrade the true meaning of scripture, it also requires intentional ignorance, and it's the bastion of those who believe the Holy Bible is the only book one must learn to gain understanding.

I don't know how to break it to some of those here, but the Holy Bible is not meant to be a compendium of all knowledge. Still, the entire Bible is without flaw. It's just not literally correct in every instance. I asked one person, "Why is petroleum not in the Bible?"

He said, "Because it's man-made."

I said, "That makes no sense, because petroleum is not man-made, and there are man-made things in the Bible!" Science and reason are permissible. It's only when we abandon righteousness that we get into trouble. It may make some people feel secure to think that scripture means exactly what the dictionary definitions of the words mean. But we really lose a lot of the true meaning in that process.

And it's an excuse for laziness. In this day and age every ancient text known in available in full-text, translated into English, on the Internet! Look at some of them! The Bible will become much clearer.

 

If Quaker Isaac Vail originated the canopy theory in 1874, then it is a modern theory and should be subjected to modern scientific analysis, no?

 

Every theory should be at least be subject to common sense.

 

The most accurate literal translation of the Hebrew word רָקִ֖יעַ [raqia] found in Genesis 1:6 is 'firmament'.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [AV1873]
​

More recent translations often use the word 'expanse' to bring the text more in line with a modern understanding of the cosmos.

Then God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water." [CSB]
​

Commenting on the word, firmament John Walton, in the first chapter of his book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, writes:

"Our first proposition is that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their "scientific" understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that the stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further that the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these way, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking." (Walton, p. 14)
​

Young-earth creation scientists have used the literal translation to hypothesize a firmament composed from ice.

Rob

 

I think that the late 19th century postulated the theory of the canopy and it spread throughout the USA but I believe that Young Earth Creationists have now discarded it for scientific reasons but not everyone has accepted the new science that a canopy would have been impossible.

 

The biosphere is a canopy of sorts. One of the biggest technical considerations in space exploration is life support. We have spent a lot of effort and funds on dealing with ozone and CO2 in our canopy.

It will take special canopies to colonize Mars--the present atmosphere will not support we earthly mortals--over 7 billion and rising exponentially. We are stuck--there is only one remedy: Jesus, The Christ, Son of The Living God.

The next major celestial event: Jesus is coming back. We will not have to worry about life support. I wonder how many T-shirts will sell for that one?

Are we ready?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I think that you have a good idea of selling T-shirts!

 

I like what Deacon quoted from John Walton. Much of the Bible's scientific inaccuracy can be attributed to ancient man's understanding of creation. It wasn't until the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church started the University system, that scientific discovery began.

The Church proclaimed that scientific fact must be based on rational analysis of repeatable, controlled experimental evidence; without reliance on purely mystical criteria. That was the beginning of scientific method. Galileo was criticized because he taught in a Catholic University, but his theories could not be proved, though he proclaimed them to be scientific fact.

He turned out to be mostly correct, but he was in error on several important points, mainly that the sun is stationary. But academics of today use the Church's rejection and persecution of Galileo as a means to hijack scientific method and to exclude God from society.