Search results

Aha. JR said I'm adding to scripture ("I'm accusing you of adding to scripture"), and you said, "As @JudgeRightly has pointed out, you are adding this to scripture." so I'm sure you can understand my confusion. But if you want to say I've added my interpretation to the figure of speech... well...

I'm not being silly. You're being flippant. The word "necessarily" makes all the difference because it changes the meaning from you being sure to you understanding there can be room for other interpretations. You say it is physically impossible as if you know. You don't know the construction of...

It is precisely how things are done. When one reads a figure of speech in the bible we look at grammar, history, and science to get the best interpretation. That's quite a presumption. I'm perfectly comfortable with there being no canopy, which would not be true in principle if it were an a...

Let me go back to something you said before: "I agree that the composition of the atmosphere was probably a lot different, but that does not require a higher atmospheric pressure. You are claiming "higher pressure", but again no evidence of that supposed fact." Your statement is not quite...

Yes, you are. The nature of the vegetation, the size and longevity of the animals and insects are outward signs. They are indicators that something was different before the flood. At this point we are free to speculate within certain bounds. One of these bounds is the bible. The bible in this...

You simply don't know the difference between evidence and speculation. Evidence is a statement about how things were, or plausibly were, whether you agree with it or not. Speculation is guessing (intuiting) or reasoning why things were that way. You are confusing the speculation with the...

That isn't quite accurate. There is speculation, but it isn't pure speculation. The environment before the flood carried a lot more vegetation over a much larger area. It had to account for longer living and larger bodies in animals and insects. This suggests there may have been a different mix...

The air before the flood could be better for life if it is at a higher pressure depending on the mix. And we can be pretty sure the mix was different before the flood, especially that the % of co2 was relatively higher. UV filtering would be helpful to life in many scenarios. More even...

That's subjective. You act as if it's objective when it isn't. There is room for nuance in the interpretation that could include a canopy. That's a viable interpretation. But it's still an interpretation that has room for variation depending on the evidence and there is evidence for a canopy...

When I've read those passages they seem to be a figure more tied to getting blessings from "above". The use in Genesis seems to indicate more a physical process. Any Hebrew scholars around to elaborate on the use in these cases?

What are you talking about? Of course the canopy was ripped through before it came down. That's probably what brought the canopy down. I'm still not seeing why you think the rain happening after the fountains broke open does not allow for a canopy when that's exactly how a canopy being brought...

But to just say there was torrential rain would have been very clear. Adding "the windows of heaven were opened" has to be a figure of speech. For us, and probably most other languages (polyglots please comment) and cultures, it probably means something like "it rained so hard as if floodgates...

I never heard that one, but then again, I grew up Lutheran so they didn't get into the science. If it's possible to do that, it's exactly what I'm talking about. More data.

Yes. "Beliefs" is far too strong a word for a rather insignificant bet. Did I base my hunch on a single set of passages and the physical evidence? Sure. No. It's called being logical and reasonable. I'm not basing my theory on a dead theory. The dead theory was a theory about providing water...

Sure. I don't know the makeup of the canopy, although the fact that the windows of Heaven brought rain, I'm thinking water had to be a component somehow.

The Windows of Heaven verse. That's it. No other verses. HPT has good explanations for and anomalies I mention. But I think a canopy would be better for some. The gas mixture of the air before the flood was different, I'm guessing carbon dioxide was higher and oxygen was lower. Higher...

Wow. Amazing that I disavowed the popular theory clearly, forcefully, and loudly when I began to talk about a canopy in this thread making it the most relevant point relative to the other points I was trying to make. And yet it's the only point that the people responding can't stop talking...

Sorry, I made some edits. What canopy theory are you talking about? I've never eluded to any *formal* canopy theory. I'm not so sure the canopy would have had to be that thick to exist. It only had to be thick enough to induce the pressure that was required for life. And at the gas mix that I...

What canopy theory are you talking about? I've never eluded to any *formal* canopy theory. I'm not so sure the canopy would have had to be that thick to exist. It only had to be thick enough to induce the pressure that was required for life.

It would have been either somewhat or very different. I'm not sure without more data. But having less oxygen as a percentage and higher pressures would also allow larger creatures to breath.