The Division of the Waters

WORD DIGGER
On the second day of the Genesis creation narrative, the Lord God divided the waters:

Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

We naturally understand the waters which are under the firmament to be the earth's Seas. But where are the waters that are above the firmament?

Young Earth Creationists have used this passage to theorize that the waters above the firmament was some form of "water canopy" just above the earth's atmosphere which was responsible for the waters from the "windows of heaven" of Noah's flood and which also acted as a shield facilitating the long life spans of people before the flood.

There is no question that people between Adam and Noah lived very long lives, just as our Bible says. But the concept of a "water canopy" is, when examined in light of the other verses of the Genesis days, not a scriptural reality.

Genesis 1:7 (quoted above) says:
... the waters which were above the firmament....

We need to see how the Bible defines as the height of the "firmament" to see the error of the "water canopy" concept.

Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

This verse begs the question: If the Bible says that the sun, moon, and stars were "in" the firmament, and Genesis 1:7 said there were waters "above" the firmanent, then those waters were not down anywhere close to the earth's atmosphere, they were placed above the stars and galactic clusters of the universe, indeed above the universe, above the visable heavens. And the Spirit confirms this elsewhere in the Scriptures:

Ps 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

Much more could be said on this subject, but for the purpose of Scripturally debunking the "water canopy" theory, the Scriptures speak for themselves on that matter.

Also note two additional things:
1. God does NOT say it "was good" after the activity of the second day. It certainly fell within the composite "very good" declaration at the end of the six-days of work, but the activity of that, particular, day was not good, but necessary.
2. Notice that the earth remains flooded at the end of the second day. The dry land was not caused to appear until the third day's work.

The second day saw the mass of waters of the deep divided and the universe in the firmament established between the waters below and the waters above. This made a defined, unbreachable partition between the first two heavens, 1=the atmosphere and 2=outer space, and the third heaven (See 2 Cor 12:2) where the throne of God is.

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

The YEC's canopy theory just does not hold water.

BILL D BETZLER
My proposition is that science could prove that God existed, but doesn't have the ability.

The evolutionists tell me that science deals only with natural phenomenon. Hence, anything spiritual or supernatual is out of the scope of science. OK.

My logical gauntlet only asks science to prove natural phenomenon, which in turn leads to the conclusion that God is the Creator and that Genesis is literal.

The Bible verses: Gen.1:6-10.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Now science can observe and verify that we have a Heaven, seas, and dry earth.
What most people miss is that there are waters above the firmament. The cosmos is in a water bubble.
Now, since only the God creator could know this, Science can prove or disprove the Bible creation story by observing whether or not we are indeed in a bubble. They have already proved that the first three items are true.
Heaven, seas, earth.

But alas, science cannot yet see that far.

Also see Proverbs 148:4 "...ye waters that be above the heavens."
Also this would explain were God got the water when He opened the "windows of heaven" at the time of the flood.


PSALM145 3
Many creation scientists believe there was a canopy of water in vapor form around the earth before the flood. I agree. This would help to explain why people lived so long back then. The vapor would've blocked out harmful radiation and provided increased atmospheric pressure which has been shown to be good for the human body.
Also, I've read that astronomers have found huge blocks of ice and rock floating around in outer space. So, yes there is still water above the firmament in ice form.


HELEN
Hi Bill,
If you have a Concordance, you will note, if you look up the word 'heaven' or 'heavens' that there are three in Hebrew usage, just as there are in English:
1. The heavens where the birds fly and where rain comes down from. Our atomosphere.
2. The heavens where the stars are. The cosmos, or 'outer space'.
3. The heaven which is God's Throne, or 'heaven' as we think of it theologically.

I have a feeling you are pretty strong on Russ Humphreys' white hole cosmology, as he is the only one I know who has seriously put forward the concept of the separated waters surrounding the entire universe. We will have no way of knowing that one until we are with the Lord!

But there is also something else to think about.

First, that which heavens the waters were separated to be above is not explicitly mentioned. HOWEVER, Genesis is written for men to understand God's work, and is written from the point of view of how we would see things from on earth (any other viewpoint would not be comprehensible to most men at most times in history).

The actual fact is, that earth is the only known planet anywhere in the cosmos with the atmosphere we have, which sustains life. The setting up of this atmosphere may have actually required -- or at least been facilitated by -- some kind of vapor canopy in the past. I think it would not be down where the clouds we see are now -- this is only a very low section of our entire atmosphere. But above the stratosphere are several hundred miles of something called the 'thermosphere' which can get thousands of degrees hot and where, in some of the cooler sections, water droplets are still found.

The official explanation for these droplets is that the earth is constantly being bombarded by ice particles from outer space.

Which is a nice way of circumventing any possible biblical explanation....

At any rate, "Psalm 145:3" is quite right about the use of the vapor canopy to prevent a lot of UV radiation from reaching the earth's surface and causing the mutational damage we now have. It seems to me proof that this vapor canopy collapsed during Noah's time, at least in part, as immediately after we seen the following four generations with age spans averaging half of the pre-flood age expectancy. After Peleg it drops again by half almost immediately, and then drops more slowly until we reach Moses at 120 years, which is still about our maximum life span for anyone -- and very few reach it.

So what caused that drop in age if not the loss of UV protection resulting in the mutations which may have destroyed our ability to produce telomerase (the enzyme which helps restore the telomere endings on chromosomes which shorten with each cell division. When they cannot shorten anymore, the cell dies.)?

To me there is too much evidence in genetics itself which points toward some kind of vapor canopy in the earliest days of man. This would not, by the way, have been the source for flood waters, as you will note in Genesis 7:11 -- the fountains of the earth all exploded upwards, their heat causing them to evaporate so quickly at first that the rain would have started almost immediately from the recycled waters. This heat differential in the atmosphere may have been what actually destroyed all or part of the initial vapor canopy.

And yes, I do look for natural cause and effects in every area where God has not told us specifically that He dealt with something by way of a direct miracle. I am quite sure the timing of the Flood was miraculous, but I am also pretty sure that the mechanisms God used were physically understandable by us.

As far as 'proving' God exists, not even the Bible tries to do that.
People know. We have always known. There is vast evidence in Creation itself as well as the knowledge in our own hearts (see Romans 1 and 2)

Comments?


JOHN WELLS
Dr. Walt Brown at http://www.creationscience.com/ has done some nice work that agrees beautifully and completely with what you have shared, Helen. He gives details about the vapor canopy and a flood model that is astounding. The ocean floor satellite pictures give compelling credibility to his theories.


BILL D BETZLER
I thank everyone for their reply.
I don't know who Russ Humpreys is. Perhaps I should read is work. I'm not a scientist so if it is technical, it will go over my head.

But I do agree with the waters around the whole cosmos. I understand Strong's definitions. It seems like all the heavens are between the waters and and God filled them in with specific parts of creation.
Strong's definitions categorized the levels. I picked the cosmos because the stars were placed there. They did not come from the earth. The birds that fly in the heavens came from the waters. That seems to limit them to our close atmosphere.

I guess it would be up to a scientist to see if they could determine whether or not the cosmos was acting as if it were in a bubble. But then the bubble could be moving (expanding or contracting) or stationary?

Also, the windows of heaven seems to me to indicate the outer limits of the cosmos. As we put windows on the outer shells of our buildings. It would be from God's perspective.

As far as the early settlers of the earth, they wouldn't know the difference between upper atmosphere and the ends of the cosmos. A lot of water came down and flooded the earth. That's what happened and it's plenty of explanation.

Curiously, how much water in height could the fountains of the earth provide to flood the earth?


MR.BEN
Ok, here's a couple of problems with the 'cosmos in a water bubble' theory that you should probably think about.

1. Water is only liquid in a narrow range between 0 and 100 degrees celsius. It would be far more likely that the universe was surrounded by a hydrogen halo (though that's not too likely either). You can rule water out.

2. At the density of ordinary 'water', a chunk (bubble) the size of.. say.. the planet Jupiter would be.. well.. the planet Jupiter. Jupiter is actually a big ball of hydrogen/oxygen (with some extra bits). It emits large quantities of radiation from its interior due to the compression of the elements near its core.

At the size of say.. the sun, it would be the sun. The sun is also a large mostly hydrogen ball like jupiter. Unlike jupiter, the forces of gravity in the center of the sun force hydrogen nuclei to fuse, producing helium along with large quantities of energy.

At the size of say.. the galaxy.. a blob of water would collapse into one or more very large black holes. Of course the sheer amount of matter needed to produce a water bubble the size of the galaxy would dwarf the total mass of all of the local galaxies, and would probably be a non-trivial percentage of the mass of the universe. Luckily the evolution of the cosmos spread the early hydrogen nuclei fairly evenly after the big bang, so these types of huge collapsars don't exist.

3. The total mass needed to populate a water bubble with the density of water on earth surrounding the entire cosmos would curve spacetime something fierce. It wouldn't even matter how 'far' away the bubble was, as the mass of the bubble would increase proportional to the square of the distance. The further away it is, the more massive the universe, the more curved spacetime would be.

We could measure the mass of the bubble (just as we try to measure the mass of the universe), by attempting to detect the curvature of the universe in astronomical observations. So far, the curvature appears to be 'flat', meaning the mass of the universe falls within a range that is not large enough to support the notion of any water bubble, or hydrogen halo, etc. around it.


Helen said: The actual fact is, that earth is the only known planet anywhere in the cosmos with the atmosphere we have, which sustains life.

We presently have a sample of one, with all other stars in the universe (a billion trillion approximately) presently unknown. Not much to go on there.

However, Sci-Am had an article last month about the probability of planets forming around stars, stating that the metalicity (the percentage of non-hydrogen atoms) in a solar system is the likely indicator of whether a star might have planets like ours.

We just don't know right now though.


The setting up of this atmosphere may have actually required -- or at least been facilitated by -- some kind of vapor canopy in the past.

The vapor canopy theory just doesn't work.
The primary and deciding objection is..

1. Water vapor is too heavy to float in the stratosphere or upper atmosphere at temperatures which would not sterilize the planet. This simply can't happen with the laws of physics we know, and what use is a scientific explanation that is simply another name for a miracle. Why not just stick with the miracle.

Some other objections..

2. The water canopy would also reduce all light (if it were possible at all), making photosynthesis impossible.

3. Some creationists have the vapor canopy as the source of the flood waters in Genesis. The mass of this canopy would increase the pressure at the surface dramatically. A column of 1000lbs of water floating directly above in the atmosphere would produce 1000lbs of pressure on the inhabitants of the surface. In other words, a large body of water could not just 'float' above the surface without affection the people below.


At any rate, "Psalm 145:3" is quite right about the use of the vapor canopy to prevent a lot of UV radiation from reaching the earth's surface and causing the mutational damage we now have.

This reminds me of Velikovsky's worlds in collision. Velikovsky starts from a premise (i.e. everything in all ancient writings are based on actual events), and then goes on to posit a set of physically impossible explanations to tie all of these ancient writings together in a neat bow.

The vapor canopy is such a physically impossible explanation, and like Velikovsky's worlds in collision, ties up everything in a neat package. Unfortunately the explanations fall apart after only a superficial examination of the real effects such a canopy would have.


EDGE
My proposition is that science could prove that God existed, but doesn't have the ability.

What??? Please amplify.


BILL D BETZLER
Mr. Ben
So what you are saying is that to extrapolate from current scientific knowledge it would appear that the water bubble idea is invalid.

That in itself does not make the idea untrue. Right? Since no one can observe the ends of the universe we do not know the temperature of it. More importantly, if the creation (cosmos) is a spot in the spiritual realm, then it would be most difficult to determine those effects on the cosmos. Hence, faith in the creation story is still logical since science is still quite lacking.

Edge,
My idea is that science proves natural phenomena. It cannot prove or disprove whether or not God exists or doesn't.
My gauntlet only asks science to prove or disprove a natural phenomenon, i.e. that the cosmos is in a bubble.
This in turn would lead to the conclusion that God and the creation story exists in truth (or is a lie). Since only God would possess that knowledge so far back in time.
I am saying that God has all of his bases covered. Science, as well as the rest of creation really does lead us to God. But not everyone can accept that.

So I say that scientist do well to understand their scientific observations within the confines of the bible stories. I think I'm concurring with Helen on this point. I believe we both came to the same conclusion independently.


EDGE
…This in turn would lead to the conclusion that God and the creation story exists in truth (or is a lie). [/b]

Actually, not. It would only prove that the bubble does not exist. It would say nothing about a god.
Also, there is no evidence of such a bubble. So, by your logic (if I understand correctly), you must accept the interim result that there is no god.


BILL D BETZLER
You are assuming that the bubble doesn't exist. You cannot see the ends of the universe, so you really do not know.

What I accept is that science doesn't have the ability to prove or disprove the idea.
I believe in God.

Is the cosmos finite?...and...How close are we to seeing the beginning of it?

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]