Some water measurements for the Flood

The windows of heaven being opened was the condensing of the VAPOR of the "canopy" into rain:

I can't really speak for NoNukes, but it seems as if he is asking what textual support do you have for this idea? How does the canopy idea come from scripture?

For my part, I wonder how you have decided that "windows of heaven" is a metaphor for condensation of water vapor. The verses in question read:

quote:

---

Gen 1:6-8 (NKJV)
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus 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. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Gen 7:11b - 12 (NKJV)
..., on that day all the fountains of the deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

---

A plain, simple reading indicates that there was water above Heaven and water below Heaven. The firmament, or Heaven, separated these bodies of water. The "windows" would have been holding back the waters above Heaven and when they were opened, the water poured out as rain.

So, how do you decide that "windows of heaven" is a metaphor for condensation?

Since when is the portion of our atmosphere between the surface of the earth and the clouds called Heaven?

You seem to think the "fountains of the deep" were a literal, natural phenomenon. Why then is "windows of heaven" a metaphor that refers to something that is not obvious from a plain and simple reading of the text?

How is the canopy idea supported textually? I say it is not supported by the text, in fact, a plain, simple reading of the text indicates something completely different.

Unless you can provide support from the text for the canopy idea, we would have to rely on sources outside of the Bible to determine if it is reasonably viable or not. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that a vapor canopy could not possibly support enough water vapor to account for more than a very, very modest rise in sea level (on the order of inches, not feet).

How about start with calculations that would determine the maximum amount of water that could be held in the atmosphere and figure how much rain that could produce over a forty day period and how much it would raise sea level. Then the rest would have to come from the "fountains of the deep."

HBD

It's not all perfectly flat and horizontal, is it?

Oh, good grief. Don't get her started on that! I tried to point that out at the Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law but she apparently has a different idea than I do about what flat, horizontal and parallel mean.

A small sampling:

Message 330

Message 332

Message 412

It's a really long thread, but you could browse through it to see what all has been discussed rather recently.

HBD

It would be hard enough, and probably impossible really, to get a few hundred people praying with enough consistency and fervency to make the Mojave desert bloom,

Have you heard of Honi the circle maker? One man who prayed for rain and it did. Oh, and Elijah, who was one man who prayed for rain and it did. Why do you need hundreds of people?

but when you are talking about praying to solve the problem of millions of people displaced by evil political machinations in the name of militant Islam, that would take millions of prayer warriors praying around the clock, a tall order.

How do you support this textually? How did you decide that prayer needs to be cumulative, as if it needs to build up power?

Another thing to point out, have you not read

quote:

---

Luke 13:1-5 (CEB)
Some who were present on that occasion told Jesus about the Galileans whom Pilate had killed while they were offering sacrifices. He replied, “Do you think the suffering of these Galileans proves that they were more sinful than all the other Galileans? No, I tell you, but unless you change your hearts and lives, you will die just as they did. What about those eighteen people who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them? Do you think that they were more guilty of wrongdoing than everyone else who lives in Jerusalem? No, I tell you, but unless you change your hearts and lives, you will die just as they did.”

---

and

quote:

---

Matt 5:44 - 45 (CEB)
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous.

---

and

quote:

---

John 9:1-3 (CEB)
As Jesus walked along, he saw a man who was blind from birth. Jesus’ disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned so that he was born blind, this man or his parents?” Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents. This happened so that God’s mighty works might be displayed in him.

---

Jesus dispels the myth that suffering is simply the result of sin. Bad things happen to all of us, suffering, ie. life, is common to us all. Where do you get the idea that Las Vegas is a desert because of wickedness? Or that it would be virtually impossible for God to work a miracle in the Mojave desert because of the wickedness of Las Vegas?

Remember, Elijah was one man among hundreds of priests of Baal and the entire nation of people had turned to wickedness, but God answered his prayer. Could not one man stand in the midst of Las Vegas and pray for God to work a miracle?

Why do you depart from the simple and plain reading of the Bible and suggest that it would take hundreds or thousands of round-the-clock prayers to work a miracle?

HBD

There's nothing nonbiblical about such an interpretation, it's just that you prefer your interpretation so you call yours the biblical one... You can't just decide that your interpretation is correct against all those of a different understanding who don't regard the source of water as miraculous. You may prefer your interpretation but it's no more biblical than theirs so you can't use it the way you are doing to make it the standard from which others deviate.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

TO YOU!

HBD

How could the 'windows of heaven' be opened without a miracle?

Simple. If you use the Biblical account to draw the known universe you get something like the image below (complete with scripture references).

It's clear that the windows of heaven are physical constructs in the formation of the vault or dome. They simply needed to be unlocked and thrown open.

However, why Faith, who insists on a clear and simple reading of the Bible, would depart from such a clear and simple reading is beyond me.

HBD

P.S. Please note, that I do not mean to ridicule the Bible itself, I have the utmost respect and confidence in the Bible. I only mean to ridicule the idea that a plain, simple and literal reading is at all possible, let alone a requirement.

That model was built on a simple, straightforward reading of scripture. Are you now saying that a modern day, Spirit-filled Christian reads the Bible in a way other than a straightforward, simple way and understands the text differently than a simple, straightforward reading would present? Maybe with a modern understanding of cosmology and physical processes?

HBD

So now you're all feverishly engaged in trying to define what a "clear and simple reading" means

It's not a matter of defining what "clear and simple reading" means. The question is, why have you decided that "windows of heaven" is metaphorical? Does that decision come from the text itself or from some outside source? That phrase is setting right there in the middle of a whole bunch of stuff that you take as absolutely literal, so what is it IN THE TEXT that indicates that it is metaphorical?

In Message 185 you state that

Faith writes: A "simple" reading doesn't mean a stupid reading, or a blockheaded physicalistic literal type reading,

So what would make interpreting the phrase "windows of heaven" as a literal, actual barrier between the water above the firmament and the waters below the firmament that could be open and closed to allow for water to pass through - what would make that a "stupid reading" or a "blockheaded physicalistic literal type"? Is it the text that would make you think that interpretation is stupid or is it some external source of knowledge that informs you that there is no such thing as literal "windows of heaven?"

I find the language metaphorical and believe it is a way of describing natural processes that still remain mysterious to us.

But what a slippery slope of compromise this is. Because you "find the language metaphorical" and you "believe" it describes a natural process, you are no longer trusting the Word of God. You are relying on your own understanding of how the world works. Unless you can identify what it is within the text indicates this phrase is meant to be metaphorical, it should be taken literally, especially since it is included in a passage that you DO interpret literally. Or maybe 40 days and 40 nights is also a metaphor. Maybe "rain" is a metaphor... maybe the whole story is a metaphor - it just depends on how you "find" the language to be and what you "believe" - not in the truth of the text itself.

So why is it you reject Biblical Cosmology that is taken straight from scriptures?

Does the text not support such a cosmology or do you reject it because of external knowledge?

HBD

Prayer works in proportion to the situation. My prayer for millions of people to be spared the evil machinations of Islam contributes something to the mix but just one person isn't going to change the whole problem. You really do need prayer in agreement with others, often many others, to move God to change things on a great scale.

Any support for this from the Biblical text? There is plenty of examples of a single person moving God to change things on a great scale. Any support that one person CAN'T change the whole problem? Or is that based on your own understanding of how prayer works (or doesn't work)?

HBD

WHAT example of a single person moving God to change things on a great scale?

Elijah and the prophets of Baal, Moses stayed God's hand when he was about the destroy Israel, how about Hezekiah, Nehemiah, what about when Ezra intercedes for Israel, and Daniel's prayer for the captives?

Your response really doesn't address my question, though.

Yes persistence and faith are important, but that doesn't justify saying:

Prayer works in proportion to the situation. My prayer for millions of people... isn't going to change the whole problem. You really do need prayer in agreement with others, often many others, to move God to change things on a great scale.

However, this is WAY off topic, so I will let it go.

HBD

Totally ignores the main point of my post. WHY is it obvious that referring to "windows" in the sky a significant clue that it is meant to be taken metaphorically?

The Ancient Hebrew Cosmology image presents a plausible model for how the universe works and is based on Biblical ideas. It is how the ancients view the universe and it explained the know characteristic of the universe. It doesn't present an impossible situation - there is no reason that I can think of why this model couldn't be an accurate representation of our universe.

But neither of us believe that it actually represents reality. Why?

Seeing as you hold that Biblical evidence trumps all other knowledge including science...

While I, on the other hand, accept the Bible as the Word of God, but also accept that we can understand the reality around us and that understanding can change the way we understand and interpret the Bible.

And yet we come to the same conclusion on this issue. Why?

Do you also accept that our understanding of the reality around us (understanding we gain from science, for example) changes how we understand and interpret the Bible?

If Biblical evidence trumps all other knowledge, then why could there not be "windows" in heaven?

HBD

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you let science do a lot more than just change the way we interpret the Bible, or like No Nukes if the contradiction is too severe you just decide to interpret the Bible allegorically or something like that?

This is exactly what I want to get across to you. In principle, how we handle the text is not that much different, it may be a matter of scale or we may disagree about certain conclusions, but in principle it is not that different.

In this case, though, literal openings in heaven contradict science -- contradict simple observation --

You have based your conclusion on observations made externally to the text. You have NOT concluded that the description "windows of heaven" is a metaphor FROM the text itself but from external observation. And not observation you have really made yourself. You have not been to the parts above our atmosphere where such a dome would be located. You rely on observations made by others who have traveled to the outer reaches of our atmosphere.

But certainly, if you believe that the ToE is a massive conspiracy to discredit the Bible, then you could also see space exploration as a massive cover-up / conspiracy to hide the fact that there is indeed a giant dome that covers our earth. And there are those who DO believe this.

Because the contradiction isn't all that severe,

So it comes down to a personal opinion of what constitutes "severe?"

Well let's use the age of the earth as an example. That the earth is young and was formed in six literal days contradicts science, and I believe contradicts simple observation. I believe the evidence that the earth is very old is so simple and straightforward that one could not honestly look at the evidence and come to any other conclusion unless they reject those simple observations out of hand. The evidence that the earth is very old is as clear and as simple as the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe and that there are not "windows of heaven" situated in a dome above the surface of the earth. Just as simple and clear!

or in fact there really isn't a contradiction at all.

That's the thing. I don't see that an old earth contradicts the Bible at all. I don't believe that Genesis was written to describe a historic, literal account of creation. Instead it was written to refute and oppose the creation mythology that the Hebrews would have been exposed to during their time in Egypt. Everything in the story is a direct confrontation to the Egyptian creation myths and their gods and it establishes God's place in the cosmos and his relationship to the creation (and ours as well).

So no contradiction at all! The creation account in Genesis served a specific purpose and did so in language and with a cosmological framework that the people of that day could relate to. It is not meant for us in the 21st century to use as a science book.

My point is not to argue the age of the earth, but to illustrate that in principle what we have done is not that different, it is a matter of "severity," not principle. But for the reasons above, I don't think accepting an old earth is all that severe a treatment of the text. It does not diminish my appreciation for the text at all - in fact, it enhances it. Now the text actually makes sense. It makes sense why the author uses strange language like "windows of heaven," "placed the stars in the firmament," and "evening and morning - the first day." (this one was a direct confrontation to the Egyptian myth that Ra, the sun god, went into the underworld every evening and struggled against the dragon and only after defeating it could he rise again the next morning. The God of the Hebrews had no such struggle, there was nothing that opposed him during the night, he did not struggle in the underworld like Ra had to)

No, I never look at it that way although of course I notice that there are no actual windows or openings in the sky, which affects my understanding that the word must be metaphorical, but I would assume even the ancients should have seen it that way so their physicalistic rendering seems odd to me. In fact I'd think even an ancient Israelite should have taken it as metaphorical. All you have to do is look at the sky.

No, the ancients had a pretty messed up view of cosmology, I don't doubt they thought that there were literally windows in the dome of the sky. If you look at the cosmologies of other societies both before and during that time, you will find they are rather similar in their ideas about how the universe was structured. They simply did the best they could with what they could observe and understand. If God had intended Genesis to be a scientific explanation of the cosmos, don't you think he would have corrected those misconceptions about the structure of the universe, not used the same ancient terminology to describe it?

Nobody reads the Bible in a total vacuum, that would be impossible.

Exactly. And today we have so much more knowledge about how the universe works than they did in ancient Israel. So we need to look at the text, in the best way possible, from the eyes of those it was written to, not as if it was written in the 21st century.

So I am OK with you believing what you believe. But, what is not OK is that you try to make those who have different views less Christian than you (if Christian at all) when what they do in principle is really no different than what you yourself do. All because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of how it should be and your opinion of what constitutes "severe". As in when you say:

In this case, though, literal openings in heaven contradict science -- contradict simple observation

What is not OK is that you consider scientists to be liars and frauds, intent only on discrediting the Bible simply because they are trying to understand the world around us in the best way possible.

So, if you want to hold to the premise that we can not be sure about the past, fine. But as for me and many others, we believe we can know a lot about the past with a fair amount of certainty. And that knowledge must color our understanding of the Bible. To do otherwise would be to read the Bible in a vacuum and quite frankly, would be dishonest.

It's a natural reading in my opinion.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : corrected spelling of "principle"

The vapor canopy makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology and the amount of water that flooded the earth, that's all. If you have a better idea that fits the Bible I'm all ears.

No it doesn't. There is simply no mention of a vapor canopy or anything that resembles a vapor canopy. That is simply trying to cram modern science (although terribly faulty science) into the text. The explanation that makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology is this:

or maybe this:

HBD

stupid autocorrect

thanks

HBD

Do I believe that Jesus was actually a lamb because He's called the Lamb of God? That would be ridiculous. But how do I know He's not a literal lamb? Because I know from my own experience that a human being is not a lamb.

But the world was much different back then. Who knows? Were you there?

Likewise I know from my own personal experience that there are no openings in the sky, so I know that "windows" is a metaphor just as "lamb" is. Actually I think it's from my own observations as I say above. I can see that there are no holes in the sky and so can everybody else.

Don't ya know the windows are sky-colored, so you can't see them from the ground? You have to go up there, near the surface of the dome to see them.

Well there are lots of unintelligent people, and people who don't know how to read the Bible either. Are you going to require me to say all points of view are equal or something?

No, certainly not. Just that there are people who are genuinely trying to make sense of the Bible and sincerely trying to reconcile it to reality. As far as who to accept as "Christian" or not, there are more central issues that determines what a Christian is - like the Apostle's Creed for example. The age of the earth and related issues are not central themes. To use terminology such as "Biblical Christianity" to refer to those who make stuff up about vapor canopies, rapid plate tectonics, dinosaurs and humans co-existing and a worldwide flood depositing the entire geological column is extremely insulting.

Interesting you are so insistent about this without giving an example to show why it's so "simple and straightforward" that that the earth is old.

Unlike your insistence of the vapor canopy or that there are not windows in the sky because you can't see them when you look up? To me, the age of the earth IS straightforward, but this isn't about the age of the earth, so I'm not obligated to lay out my arguments. It is about how we reconcile what we see as reality with what the Biblical text says.

But in order to claim that the old earth doesn't contradict the Bible you have to accept this whole other explanatory system you are now laying out that would be impossible for a simple reader to glean from the text alone.

How would the average reader glean the vapor canopy idea from the text alone? Or that the phrase "windows of heaven" is metaphoric from the text alone? Or that there really isn't a dome in the sky? - from the text alone as you insist.

What ordinary reader is going to have any knowledge of "Egyptian creation myths" for instance, but you are putting that reader in the position of being completely unable to understand the text for lack of such arcane extrabiblical knowledge.

What average reader has access to the vapor canopy idea? How do you think a Bushman in Africa would read this text? Do think he would clearly recognize this as a metaphor and decide that this must be referring to some kind of vapor canopy that we no longer can see?

The average reader is going to read those verses and say "Hey, Faith, this says that there are windows in the heavens and the stars, sun and moon are placed in a dome and there are pillars of the deep. That makes no sense, what could this mean." And then you can proceed to explain that its is a metaphor for a vapor canopy and whatever else you think explains it.

So to maintain your position you have to disqualify the average reader's ability to read the text. I can agree that it does take some external historical knowledge to understand the Bible well, and the more informed the reader and the more educated in language and other basic knowledge the better, but I can't agree that it takes the mindset of ancient Israel's experience of Egypt to do so. If the Bible is the word of God it is meant for everybody.

It is meant FOR everybody, but it was not written TO everybody. Remember that you don't read the Bible in a vacuum? Well the ancient Hebrews weren't in a vacuum either. They understood certain things in certain ways and not like we do. It's not that we have to have the mindset of the ancient Hebrews, but we do have to consider it in context of their situation. To do otherwise is to miss the point.

And yet it is written to the average reader HBD.

And yet the average reader can't have it in a version that is readable - it has to be the KJV - or at least readable versions are corrupt and so the average reader will be deceived. And yet the Bible uses metaphorical language that is so foreign to us that the average reader can not make sense of it. And yet there are thousands of commentaries that are intended to explain difficult passages of text. And yet there are thousands of different denominations that have broken off because of differing interpretations. And yet so many who set down to read the Bible give up because they feel it is just inaccessible.

I do believe the Bible is relevant to us today. But it takes some unpacking, some explanation and some work to make sense of it and to extract what it has to say about how we live our lives and how it is relevant to us today.

Your claim just doesn't hold water HBD.

Well, neither does the vapor canopy. So what is the source of the "windows of heaven?" What is it metaphorically referring to?

HBD

I only have time for a quick comment.

I just googled the topic and found a long discussion of the background influence of the Enuma Elish on the writing of Genesis, meaning Babylonian myth rather than Egyptian myth.

Yes and also other Mesopotamian and Canaanite influences. A good book on the subject is "In The Beginning... We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in its Original Context" by Johnny Miller and John Soden.

I recommend it. In this book they don't discuss the age of the earth directly, but they start with what they call the most important question of all (in regards to this debate): "What did Genesis mean to the original author and original readers?"

In any case, again, it's God's truth or it isn't, and I say it is, it is not just another myth.

I say it is God's truth also. But it has a higher purpose than to teach science or a scientific understanding of the universe. To take it that way seriously misses the mark. I don't use the word myth to describe the Bible. I believe it teaches the truth, and a truth that transcends science, not supersedes it.

Read the book I referenced. If you can't bring yourself to spend the time to do it, I will try to out line their arguments for you.

HBD