Talk:Canopy theory

Question
I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place for this question, but if not, please direct me.

I wonder about the meaning of the word translated "firmament" in the King James version, in Hebrew (transliterated, if I'm not mistaken as) "raqia." I understand that this means a metallic dome. I can see how this makes sense in the context of what we are told was the common concept in the ancient Middle East of the earth as in the form of a disk, floating in the endless ocean, with endless waters above the firmament. My problem is that I can't imagine how this can be visualized in a way that is concordant with our modern view of the earth as a globe, surrounded by virtually empty space. What are we to understand by the word firmament in this context?

Can someone help me with this?

Thank you! --Drlindberg 18:09, 10 July 2006 (CDT)


 * See if this helps. PrometheusX303 00:01, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Thank you for your reply.

I looked at the article you mentioned, but I’m afraid I have problems with people who refer to those who disagree with them as “enemies of the Gospel.” It somehow sounds Stalinist, and is not conducive to intelligent dialog, or indeed, any real thinking..


 * If "Anti-Christian sceptics" are not "enemies of the Gospel", what are they? Oelphick 08:46, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

I understand that the basic issue here is whether the first part of Genesis is to be understood literally, as though it were a 21st century science text, or figuratively, as an ancient Middle Eastern parable or allegory. James Patrick Holding seems to want to have it both ways, as he insists on the literal interpretation, but wants to interpret ‘raqiya’ figuratively.

So I’m as baffled as ever. Drlindberg 10:27, 22 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The question is what does raqiya' actually mean. The word "firmament" in the KJV is an unfortunate translation; in fact it is a transliteration of Latin "firmamentum" which translates the Septuagint's στερεωμα (stereoma), which means "a solid body" (per Liddel & Scott Greek Lexicon).  In translating raqiya'  thus, the Septuagint translators made assumptions from the then universally accepted Ptolemaic view of astronomy, which held that the stars and other heavenly bodies were mounted on crystal spheres.  But the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean a solid body.  It means an extended surface or expanse, in other words, something that has been stretched out.  Now we know from the scripture that the Lord stretched out the heavens, so what word could be used to describe the result?  It should describe an everything that is somehow bounded but yet has nothing, not even space, outside it.  Hebrew does not have a special word for a multi-dimensional space-time continuum or whatever the astrophysicists among us would call it.


 * Just as we borrow existing words to apply to something new or previously undescribed, the scripture uses raqiya' to describe something which Hebrew has no words for. That does not mean that the new thing has to be exactly like the old; the context has to inform the meaning. Oelphick 08:46, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Adding new section
I'm not sure if adding a section to this that compares the vapor canopy to the crystalline canopy, and how the word of God supports on over the other, would be welcome. What the section would consist of is where God uses the word mist to show that there is a word that can be used for vapor. gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

But instead used the word firmament. In which the vapor canopy does "not" fit into this definition.Ikester7579 08:38, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

The following criticisms of all types of canopies.

1: The ozone blocks ultraviolet light. Right? But if a canopy ,OF ANY FORM, where to exist, it would be out side of the ozone layer. Thus it would be exposed to ultraviolet light and intern this would dissociate the minerals or liquids that would be in the canopy.

Conclusion the canopy, OF ANY FORM, could last more then a few days and would come down to earth in a non liquid form.

2: heat can go threw glass of a green house easily, but it has a hard problem getting BACK OUT. Thus the temperature would increase over time and would make it hard for life to exist. Luckily, a greenhouse has a way to get rid of all this heat. NIGHTTIME.

However, a canopy of any form doesn't have this mechanism. Over time it would get so hot, mass amount of water would evaporate from the earth’s surface, especially its oceans. More water in the air means a greater greenhouse effect. This cycle would keep on going and would then, according to calculations by ICR, create "surface temperatures as high as 400°F".

“Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR,” Acts & Facts, April 1998, p. 2.

What's really makes your personal canopy model completely absurd is the fact it would act as a magnifying glass! Putting a glass like shell around the earth does that.

I made sure that these two model applied to the vapour canopy and your pet theory, but I could make more that could be unique to both.--Nlawrence 14:49, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Sorry I took a while to get back to this, and the problems pointed out by Nlawrence. So I will address them now.


 * 1) The Crystalline Canopy is made up of phased metallic hydrogen. In order for the Hydrogen made canopy to form, the oxygen molecule has to separate from the hydrogen (H2O). Once this is done, the hydrogen becomes polarized (magnetized) by the earth's magnetic field. This phases the gas to a semi solid metallic hydrogen that would take place because of the pressure produced by a magnet big enough to surround the earth (bigger magnets are stronger). The oxygen would be pushed to the outside of the canopy creating the ozone layer there. Also, metal (metallic hydrogen) is a very good conductor of heat. And because it was created on earth which was already rotating on it's axis. That would mean that it was rotating as well. So one part of it did not stay in front of the sun at all times. It would have the absolute zero of space cooling it. Plus the upper atmosphere of the earth. And because there was night, the heat collected during the day in the upper atmosphere, would conduct back into space as the canopy cooled at night.
 * 2) Ultraviolet radiation is totally filtered out in a thicker type atmosphere. The area around the dead sea is a perfect example of this because of the additional of 400 meters of atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation is sufficiently filtered out. Most people find that they don't even get sunburned while tanning at the dead sea. How would this work with the canopy? The barometric pressure was higher, which would equal a thicker atmosphere. A thicker atmosphere would filter out the UV rays just like the 400 meters of extra atmosphere at the dead sea does.


 * Greenhouse effect: The warming of the atmosphere by the trapping of longwave radiation being radiated to space. The gases most responsible for this effect are water vapor and carbon dioxide... So if the radiation is being filtered by the thicker atmosphere, then there is no radiation being trapped to warm the earth's surface because the short and long wave radiation never reaches the earth's surface, or it does in very small amounts.


 * Also, higher barometric pressure makes the atmosphere hold more moisture. More moisture means more condensed atmosphere with a more filtering effect on any radiation coming from the sun. The atmosphere cannot release it's moisture unless the barometric pressure drops. This is why storms or hurricanes cannot form in what is considered high pressure areas, and hurricanes will weaken or die if it runs into a high pressure area. And this is the same reason that there was no rain before the flood. The extra barometric pressure caused by the canopy made it to where clouds could not form. And because pressure always affects the boiling point of water. It is theorized that the boiling point of water, before the flood, was 55 degrees higher than it is now because the barometric pressure was twice what it is now with the canopy present. So the vaporization problem you spoke of is non-existant. And the hydrologic cycle did not work because it was not needed. Why?


 * gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground...Why mist the earth if rain was possible?


 * As far as acting like a magnifying glass. Does the ray from a magnifying glass start a fire on a paper when you have the light in pin point focus, or just any old way? So in order to get the heated affect you imply here, the canopy would have to be in pin point focus. This would also mean that it would have to be close to the suface of the earth. So if you want to see how much more heat is generated by a magnifiying glass that is not in pin point focus, then I suggest you do the test and get back to us. Because the whole earth had light during the day, that is not a magnifying glass in pin point focus if the 1/2 of the earth is lit.


 * You may disagree with the canopy theory for what ever reason you want. But I challenge you to come up with a working mechanism that can fit "every word" written in God's word. Such as why it did not rain. And explain it scientifically as I have done here.&#91;http&#58;//creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 04:45, 2 September 2007 (EDT)


 * What makes you think it didn't rain before the flood? ~ MD Otley (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Largely Discredited?
Since when is the the canopy theory largely discredited (among creationsists)? Is this vandalism? The whole article seems to support canopy theory, while its intro rejects it. I'm confused. EDIT: After having checked out the history, apparently a senior administrator of this site made the change, so it apparently wasn't vandalism, but I still don't understand the reason for the change. I am reading AiG's page on the subject, and apparently there is question as to its existance, but I wouldn't say they even believe it's been "largely discredited". What about the extreme atmosphere changes after the flood that creationists talk about so much? Do we have some other alternate explanation for them? ZachCallear 04:45, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

The canopy theory has been discredited for a few decades now. Nearly ALL creationists reject and it shouldn't be held up as a major creationist theory. The article you cite is merely a brief over view and isn't a in depth look. Please read

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Ever since Vardimen did his research, a canopy with water is considered out-of-date. We DO believe it's out-dated because every MAJOR creationist organization rejects it.

By reading your paragraph, it is easy to see you don't read that much of creationist article and you are not very familiar with it's history. What do you mean by "What about the extreme atmosphere changes after the flood that creationists talk about so much?"? Do you mean a post-flood ice age? --Nlawrence 06:47, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What about the extreme atmosphere changes after the flood that creationists talk about so much? Do we have some other alternate explanation for them?'''
 * The flood itself caused the atmospheric chaos. It is explained on the ice age article-

''When the fountains of the great deep burst forth, hot water and lava poured out of the Earth directly into the oceans. This would have warmed the oceans increasing evaporation in the years following the flood. Volcanic ash in the air would have blocked out sunlight cooling the atmosphere producing the right conditions for a massive ice age.

The global flood severely compromised the Earth's original ecosystem, and transformed the planet into a recovering wasteland. It is in fact likely there were no polar ice caps prior to the global flood, but the earth instead possessed somewhat globally uniform temperatures.''


 * PrometheusX303 08:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry. I did read the don't use page, but it was more of a "we're not sure" kind of thing, rather than an explicit "don't use that". Anyway, I'm relatively new at this young earth fun stuff. Give me a break. I'm here for the knowledge. I'm only 20, and I've only recently gotten into believing (or at least discovering and clarifying what I already believed) regarding creationism. Although I imagine Kent Hovind is probably viewed as a crackpot around here, a lot of what I've learned in the past year comes from watching all of his seminars, and much of his CSE classes. I'm seriously on the same side, but I just need the education. I really didn't know that the canopy theory was out the window, as I'd heard it from a few sources. Out of curiousity, is all the stuff about higher atmospheric pressure and increased oxygen concentration before the flood bogus, too? Edit: This article still seems to be at odds with its intro. The whole article is supportive of the canopy theory, while the intro denies it. --ZachCallear 02:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Rainbow
On what grounds do you assert that there were no rainbows before the flood? Evidence should be something that is agreed upon, but whose significance or interpretation may be in dispute. In any case, the reference to clouds on the same line is completely out of place. There is not only no statement about that in the Bible, there isn't even a hint of it. And if it's questionable, it's worthless as evidence. ~ MD Otley (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2007 (EDT)


 * No rainbow is mentioned on the earth after Genesis 9, either. Does that mean there were no more during Bible times? ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

about recent edit
It didn't contradict the article, it remained objective about the theory. I mean isn't it largely discredited?--Tony 11:26, 31 August 2010 (PDT)

Depends
What is discredited is the idea that ALL the water could have come from the canopy during the Flood. But the Bible doesn't say that all the water came as rain--it mentions the fountains of the great deep as being a source of water, too. So we believe there was a canopy, and that it had enough water to make it rain for 150 days, but not that it was the source of all of the water that must have covered the earth, just some of it.
 * I'm not talking about Biblical consistency or exegesis, I am talking about recent scientific critiques about it. Perhaps I am thinking of :something different, but I thought the effects of such a canopy were determined to be to great for life... Or perhaps the scientific critiques are based off of a faulty exegesis to begin with, and that is your point?--Tony 14:30, 1 September 2010 (PDT)


 * The rain actually occurred for 40 days. 150 days is the length of time from the beginning of the flood (17th day of the second month) to the day when the ark came to rest (17th day of the seventh month). I'm going to let the original text stand since I know of no atmospheric creation scientist (Vardiman, Oard, etc.) that still hold to the theory. --Ashcraft - (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2010 (PDT)

Canopy and oxygen
A canopy would not increase the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere. Higher oxygen levels would not create a canopy. Evidence of higher oxygen levels is not supportive of the existence of a canopy in any way, shape, or form. ~ Webster (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2012 (PDT)

An YouTube video that supports this theory
The Pre-Flood World Noahs Ark and Dinosaurs - Russ Miller


 * By all means, if he says something worth including, add it to the page and cite the video. ~ Webster (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2014 (EST)