A Pictorial Explanation of How Some Creationists View the Pre-Flood World

Creationist believe the earth is 6,020 years old. Based on a literal interpretation of God’s divine science textbook — the Bible — creationists believe God, 4,000 or so years ago, sent a worldwide flood that killed all life on earth except Noah and his family and the animals on the Ark. Many creationists believe that the world after the flood was very different from the one before. Those of us who came of age in the Fundamentalists churches of the 1960s and 1970s  likely remember preachers and conference speakers waxing eloquently about the “science” of the book of Genesis. Forced to stick to a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, these promoters of the creationist myth said that prior to Noah’s flood the earth was protected by a water canopy that kept the earth in an Edenic state. This perfectly controlled environment kept plants living without rain and allowed some people to have lifespans exceeding 900 years. (See Genesis 1:6-8, Genesis 2:6, Genesis 7:11)

Yesterday, my friend James McGrath posted a graphic that perfectly illustrates the vapor/water canopy theory.

earth before the flood

Enlightened creationists — an oxymoron — will scream foul, reminding me that most creationists no longer embrace the canopy theory. Fine, but I suspect that many older creationists still embrace the theory.  This theory is hardly “ancient” history. I heard preaching on it in the late 1980s. Every Evangelical preacher I knew owned copies of  Henry Morris’ and John Whitcomb’s 1960 book, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implication and Morris’ 1976 book, The Genesis Record, A scientific and devotional commentary on the book of beginnings. These two books, along with a King James Bible, were all Evangelical preachers needed to explain the universe.  What have creation “scientists” discovered that would cause creationists to now abandon the canopy theory? Or is the real issue that believing it makes them look like illiterate hillbillies? Craving acceptance by the larger religious community or desiring validation from the science community, creationists have abandoned a theory that was central to interpreting Genesis for much of the 20th century. Creationists are front and center in the attack on gay Christians who reinterpret the Bible to support their belief that God/Bible does not condemn homosexuality. How is abandoning the canopy theory any different? Did the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God change? How dare creationists abandon their interpretation of the Bible just because it makes them look illiterate!

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

11 Comments

  1. August Rode

    The diagram is one of several that will appear if one googles “ancient Hebrew cosmology” and looks at the images returned by that search. It is *not*, as far as I understand it, something that illustrates the “water canopy theory,” the main difference being that under ancient Hebrew cosmology, the world is flat whereas creationists tend to accept that the world is a sphere.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      So, the only difference is one is flat, the other is a sphere. ?? I’ll have to see if if can find Larkin’s depiction of this.

      Reply
      1. August Rode

        That isn’t the only difference, it’s the main difference. If you look at the diagram, you’ll see the sun, moon and stars *inside* the “canopy.” Creationists will tend, of course, to reverse that. Although they want the canopy to be around the earth, they also accept that the sun, moon and stars should be outside the canopy. What they’re trying to do is to twist the features of the ancient Hebrew cosmology to fit our modern cosmological understanding. What they end up with are absurdities.

        Reply
    2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I couldn’t find anything in Larkin’s Dispensational Truth. It has been 30 plus years since I saw a chart like this….my memory fails me. 🙂 Damn!

      Here’s a link to LOGOS software graphic that confirms what you said http://www.testingtheglobe.com/images/HebrewConceptEarth.jpg

      Reply
  2. Geoff

    Well well, it’s never too late to learn something new! I’ve never heard of this canopy nonsense before. It’s very much like a drawing from a book of fairytales, that children by the age of 8 or 9 dismiss as so obviously silly.

    Fundamdamentalists and creationists seem to want it all ways. They re-write the bible to suit themselves in respect of keeping slaves, stoning women to death, or eating shellfish, but cry foul when gays try and do the same thing. Their confusion over science is, in some ways, worse. They enjoy the benefits that science confers, such as cars, computers, medicines, but don’t realise that the same, much more able, minds that produced these benefits have also shown the whole of the bible to be largely false, in so far as the events it relates are concerned.

    Reply
    1. August Rode

      “It’s very much like a drawing from a book of fairytales, that children by the age of 8 or 9 dismiss as so obviously silly.”

      Indeed. So much so that even organizations like Answers in Genesis have articles on their web site explaining (a bit too briefly, in my opinion) why the canopy “theory” doesn’t… erm… hold water. CreationWiki, too, mentions that the “theory” is “discredited.”

      The “canopy theory” was *never* a theory in any way that science would recognize. A theory has to explain an observed phenomenon in a way that is consistent with all of the available facts and observations. “Canopy theory” explained a never-was-observed phenomenon and did so by ignoring broad swaths of physics and other sciences. It was only ever an exercise in circular reasoning.

      Reply
      1. grammar gramma

        ” A theory has to explain an observed phenomenon in a way that is consistent with all of the available facts and observations.”
        I strongly suggest that this does not hold true with religions.

        Reply
  3. Kenneth

    Want to learn more about it? Visit the creation museum in Cincinnati, OH…. *barf*

    Reply
  4. Troy

    When your world is only the size that you can see from horizon to horizon a world wide flood is possible, even probable when you find sea shell fossils at the top of mountains.

    Reply
    1. August Rode

      And the problem with that is that we don’t find sea shell fossils *at* the top of mountains. We find them *in* the tops of mountains.

      Reply
  5. Ian

    I grew up hearing about this canopy. Like it was mentioned above, canopy was under the sun, moon and stars. This idea was still being preached in my circles as recently as 4 years ago, when I stopped going to church. These were Sovereign Grace/Calvinistic churches that were very insular, so that may have been why.

    I’ve never looked into this belief, even as a Christian. To me, it simply didn’t matter. As a non-Christian, it still doesn’t matter. It has absolutely no affect on my life today.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.