Hmmm.....for all the "new light" allegedly shining into the minds of the FDS,
The OP (@Mr. Falcon) ostensibly asks folks to opine whether there is scientific evidence to support what "the WTBS claims" as to there having existed before the flood a "rain-less" world that had been "enclosed in a 'water canopy,'" believing that such would not have been likely due to his belief that a water canopy would "go against the whole water-cycle" thing. When someone phrases a question that way the OP did in this thread, it was clear to me that he was anti-Bible and that he was seeking the comments of others that were anti-Bible, too, and he embraced all of their anti-Bible comments while treating my comment with disdain, which I suspect is because I happen to support what Jehovah's Witnesses have taught for decades now. Because you decided to post an "anti-FDS" comment in this thread pertaining to "all the 'new light' allegedly shining into the minds of the FDS," it seems clear to me that the OP would embrace your comment as well, even though you mention nothing about the water canopy. You refer instead to "phrenology, pyramidology and medical quackery:
They have still not gotten far removed from phrenology, pyramidology and medical quackery. This pseudoscience serves an important purpose. It sifts out people who are not gullible, because when they hear this nonsense they turn and distance themselves from it. That leave a core of people who will easily swallow any rubbish they cook up and serve as a "nourishing spiritual banquet".
For all of the talk of "new light," the discussion about the water canopy isn't new at all and Jehovah's Witnesses teach to the effect that a water canopy once existed above the earth because the Bible describes such. Your mention of "phrenology, pyramidology and medical quakery" indicates a strong anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bias since not one of these things were raised by the OP or by anyone else that posted their respective opinions to this thread. You could have started a thread of your own, than to bring what really is a rant to someone else's thread , but you elected to hijack @Mr. Falcon's thread. Ok.
I am one of the few people that posted to this thread for the purpose of clarifying what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach about this water canopy, not so much for the benefit of the OP, but for the benefit of the lurkers that peruse these threads on JWN, and really do not know themselves what Jehovah's Witnesses believe in this regard or the scriptural basis for what we teach others as to the water canopy. I believe I have satisfactorily done this, but I really wish you would have started your own thread for your comment seems to me to be completely out of place.
@djeggnog
I do not know exactly what you are talking about. I do not consider myself anti-Bible. I have several translations and study them with great interest. I do not have a "strong anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bias". If I did, I would not have spent so much time studying with them. I still talk to them and have great concern for them as people. As to being "anti-FDS", it is not my concern that some men appoint themselves as God's spokesmen. There are a lot of people who do that and I do not concern myself with it much. The "anti" that I would claim for myself is anti-fraud. Men who claim they are God's spokesmen and then proceed to claim that there was a canopy of water over the earth, despite the lack of scriptural or scientific evidence to support that claim, are committing fraud and I am very much against that. I mentioned their other pseudoscientific claims to show that it is a pattern for these men to make fraudulent statements, and not just a random error.
