Water Canopy? Huh? (page 9)

@Mr. Falcon:

*** w80 11/15 p. 23 par. 4 "Jehovah of Armies" to the Rescue! ***

The fact that today we do not have a vast water canopy suspended high up in space and all around our globe and thus blocking direct sunlight, moonlight and starlight is because Jehovah saw what was going on down here upon his terrestrial footstool and took action....

My question that I [desperately] would like answered concerns the supposed "water canopy" that the WTBS claims covered the earth at some early period in human history.... They seem to often allude to idea that prior to the Flood, mankind had never experienced precipitation before. We even had a talk this weekend and the speaker mentioned how when God said it would rain, Noah had to have faith because he had no idea what "rain" would be.

Ok.

This hasn't sat well with me ever since I was young. It just doesn't make sense. Is there any scientific evidence that the world at one time was rain-less, enclosed in a "water canopy"? Wouldn't this go against the whole water-cycle?

There's a reference at Job 38:28 to Jehovah God as "the father for the rain," but no one really knows for a certainty how the mechanism for the rain that falls to the earth works. We do know that raindrops are formed from microscopic particles, which become the nuclei of tiny droplets that increase in size more than a million times to create a single drop of rain, but Job 38:27, 28, indicates as to these raindrops that "they filter as rain ... so that the clouds trickle." We also know that the sun is responsible for causing approximately 100,000 cubic miles of seawater to evaporate into water vapor every year and that it is theorized that when the clouds become too heavy for the air to support that the ice crystals that form in temperatures below freezing in the clouds changes to rain as they fall through warmer air, but how this mechanism works, we just don't kinow.

I assume that you do not know that "water canopy" and "water-cycle" are two very different questions, so I'm going to concentrate on the "water canopy" question. I assume you attended school and have just forgotten some of what you may have learned, but that you do know how to do a little research on the "water-cycle" topic, but your water canopy question is one that arises from reading the book of Genesis, notably Genesis 7:11.

Somebody please help me out with this one. It's bad enough that I'm expected to believe that one man was able to get 2 of EVERY kind of animal in a box, but now I have to believe that rain was actually created as a punishment to wicked mankind?

IT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT.

Rain as punishment? What a concept! Except Genesis 8:21 makes it clear that the only thing that was "punished," the only thing upon which called down evil on man's account, the only thing that had been cursed was the ground upon which wicked mankind walked until they were drowned by the flood waters that fell as rain upon that ancient world. After 40 days and 40 nights of it, the rain became the flood waters of a deluge that brought all flesh to ruin, so, as Genesis 9:13 indicates, the punishment wasn't the rain, but when the waters themselves became a deluge.

At Genesis 8:22, God declares the removal of the curse that had been on the ground before the flood, and the extremes of "cold and heat" in "summer and winter" occurring "day and night," but at Genesis 9:1, God doesn't give the same command to Noah as He had given Adam at Genesis 1:28. Instead of commanding Noah to "fill the earth and subdue it" as He had commanded Adam, God tells Noah only to "fill the earth."

The water canopy that had formerly existed above the expanse of the earth, the water vapor of which being invisible, but which had so dramatically affected the terrestrial climate in the pre-Flood world so that the sun's energy was absorbed, retained, and uniformly distributed both seasonally and latitudinally over the earth, was now gone. The temperature differentials that came to exist after the flood brought temperature extremes at both poles of the earth with storm fronts that had been unknown to the pre-Flood world since the antediluvian vapor envelope that had produced the mild climate was no more. Rain cannot have been punishment, for much food is produced because of the rain, and just as it rained upon the earth before Noah and his family embarked the ark, it continued to rain after all eight of them had disembarked from it, but it was the global deluge of waters that God used to punish the ancient world that had ruined the earth. (Genesis 6:11)

As to your other question as to how it was possible that "one man was able to get 2 of EVERY kind of animal in a box," we can discuss that one in a different thread, but I'm here only to shed a little light in this dark room about the water canopy.

@bohm:

Is there any scientific evidence that the world at one time was rain-less, enclosed in a "water canopy"?

not at all.

So do you, therefore, think it reasonable to conclude that there was no water canopy in the expanse above the earth because no scientific evidence exists to support what the Bible says?

its a completely retarded idea which is why they have stopped putting it into print....

I would say that it is your conclusion here that is "retarded." Everything about the global deluge is based on the Bible, even if there is no scientific support for the water canopy that existed in that antediluvian world. There is, however, evidence of the global deluge, but the OP didn't ask about the existence of such.

AFAIK the watchtower today has no idea where the canopy came from, what it did, where it went, what impact it had on life or anything else -- its just an idea they cant say is wrong because older witness like to hang onto it.

But you're not saying that this is a real reason, are you, @bohm? I'm an "older witness," and a real one that doesn't need to repeat what I may have read in one of our publications since I have studied the science and can say for a fact that what things folks read in our publications are not just based on the Bible, but based solidly on scientific fact and the inferences that flow therefrom. The Bible tells us that the water canopy was suspended above the earth, and we know the purpose it served and why it is no longer suspended above our planet, and we also know that whereas the water canopy had an impact upon the climate that existed on earth before the flood that God's decision to empty its contents upon the earth caused seismic upheavals and volcanic shifts in the earth's crust that have led to the creation of mountain ranges in heights that didn't exist in the pre-Flood world and which produced the many faults that have led to earthquakes and tsunamis, and much loss of life. Even the younger Witnesses are aware of the geological conditions about which I have here been speaking and, like the older Witnesses, they, too, are hanging onto this information.

@bohm wrote:

Is there any scientific evidence that the world at one time was rain-less, enclosed in a "water canopy"?

@sir82 wrote:

None whatsoever; in fact there are mountains of evidence that not only did it never exist, it never could have existed. For one thing, it would cause such crushing pressure on the earth's surface that no life (at least "life as we know it") could exist.

What "mountains of evidence" might that be? If you have anything of an evidentiary nature to provide, this is the thread to do it. Now's the time. Either put up and shut up.

Use the search feature on this site for info on the scientific impossibilities of a global flood. This is just one of literally dozens of reasons why the biblical account of a global flood occurring 4500 years ago did not happen.

Whatever one reads on this site is just the opinions of others. You can use the search feature on JWN and even find messages that I posted here, which are merely opinions. Real research means going to the public library and actually reading books, like "The Genesis Flood -- The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications," by Whitcomb and Morris, which was published back in 1961. There are more than just a few books that have been written on the global flood that contain the conclusions reached by renowned scientists and geologists, and I have some of them.

Something tells me that your opinions are based on the opinions posted to JWN and perhaps a few opinions from the always-authentic Wikipedia, but maybe I'm wrong. What research materials have you consulted that have led you to conclude that the global flood that occurred some 4,383 years ago didn't happen?

@Mr. Falcon:

bohm & sir82...... THANK YOU! That woke me up!

Were you giving these guys kudos for what they posted to your thread, or exactly what did either of them say that 'woke you up'?.

Although no I feel like an idiot for having believed this shat for so long. I'm having "realization shock".

What proof did either @bohm or @sir82 provide that made you feel like an idiot and that gave you "realization shock"? I didn't see any proof at all, so it seems to me that you are a lousy poker player, that you let these guys bluff you into believing they are holding a full house so that you folded your hand instead of calling their hands. Wow!

@Morbidzbaby wrote:

Seriously, if "god" created the earth perfect, with it's perfect water canopy, wouldn't unleashing the floodgates of said canopy screw up the entire ecosystem of things that he so perfectly created? An omnipotent being with such knowledge and foresight would have surely not done something SO STUPID.

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

Morbidz, as usual, your logic rocks me. Like a hurricane.

What "logic"? What exactly did you read in @Morbidzbaby's post that I didn't get to read?

@bohm wrote:

its a completely retarded idea which is why they have stopped putting it into print....

@james_woods wrote:

Very interesting, Bohm - so this has become like the 7,000 year creative days, right? Never officially retracted, but just no longer presented as printed doctrine.

Jehovah's Witnesses aren't sure how long each of the creative days or "epochs" were, for it's possible that each of them were 10,000 years in length or longer. We had only speculated that they may have been 7,000 years in length, but the Bible is silent as to what the length of these creative days were.

I had a book somewhere on atmospheric science which stated that if all the moisture in the atmosphere at any given time could somehow fall as rain all at once that it would only raise the sea level a little less than one inch.

What is the name of this book?

We can get a lot of rain in a given location, but to cover the whole planet all at once is an enormous proposition. The atmosphere simply cannot hold that much water as vapor or clouds.

What do you mean by "the atmosphere simply cannot hold that much water as vapor or clouds?

@LostGeneration:

Didn't the WT reference the "water canopy" again in one of their recent issues?

Yes.

@bohm:

LG, yes i vaguely remember that and thought it was odd. however, if you want to learn about the water canopy, where would you go? I think one need to go all the way back to the 70s or 80s to find anything other than the odd line or two, and even further back to find something substantive.

Ok.

Today they have realized the water canopy is a dead end. its simply not possible to say anything [substantive] at all without getting into [trouble], so they dont. but it has to be there, because older witness recall it and younger witness can refer to it in their own mind and think it somehow "[fixes]" all the problems like C14, etc.

Oh, yes, as you already stated in this thread, the younger and well as the older Witnesses are hanging onto this information about the water canopy as was taught in the 1980s with having any substantive support for believing that such existed due to the assumptions on which radiocarbon dating is based, consider the fact that earth's magnetic field has an affect on cosmic rays on which radioactive decay is measured.

Also, considering that the water canopy would have shielded the earth from being bombarded with cosmic rays, its sudden removal from above the expanse would have increase the rate of carbon-14 (and carbon-12), causing a greater amount of carbonate in the oceans as the increased weight of the flood waters on ocean basins exposed rock surfaces to increase erosion and lifted the mantle to greater heights. The radiocarbon clock is an unreliable method of determining the age of something affected by the flood waters, often providing dates much older than the things on which its assumptions are based actually are. Since 1949, when carbon-14 dating was first championed, the assumptions on which such dating relies has undergone many challenges so that what evolutionists had hoped would date their fossil evidence back to a period that predates the Cambrian period has not done this at all, the evidence showing that there had been an outburst of life during this epoch, resulting in many adjustments to their assumptions having to be made.

@Franklin Massey:

Falcon, I had a big issue with this one too. So many things about a water canopy didn't make sense. I went DEEP in my research of this and found out that not only is the water canopy idea stretching what the Bible says to ridiculous [degrees], but also that the WT had been taking its teaching of the water canopy from Young Earth Creationist literature that had already been totally discredited by the scientific community at large.

I'd be interested in where you learned that what things Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to the water canopy that enveloped the earth in the antediluvian world had their origin in literature produced by Young Earth Creationist. I'm not so concerned about what the "scientific community at large" might say, for this same community are for the most part proponents of other beliefs with which Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree, such as its belief in evolution, but if you wouldn't mind sharing with me where it was you learned that some connection exists between Young Earth Creationist and Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd appreciate it.

I don't believe the WT has "officially" taught the water canopy since the early 80s but they are totally fine with the idea being alive and well in the minds of JWs.

I keep reading in this thread how Jehovah's Witnesses haven't officially been teaching anything about the water canopy, but I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm not the only one among us that teaches, not only about this water canopy, but about many of the things that people might suggest we no longer teach. Just for the record, most of the people that frequent this web site may have formerly associated regularly with Jehovah's Witnesses, some of them even calling themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" before they were either expelled or left our ranks, but not one of these folks were really Jehovah's Witnesses so it stands to reason that some wouldn't even know what Jehovah's Witnesses teach since they have never really taken the time to learn what things the Bible teaches. (Jehovah's Witnesses teach what things the Bible teaches.)

I have heard many witnesses use it to explain "why we can't trust the fossil record" and how "we haven't been on earth as long as scientists say."

And your point is...?

I even had a brother tell me that he thinks God will bring the water canopy back in paradise so that we don't have issues with flooding and bad weather.

Often you might hear Jehovah's Witnesses make statements that are clearly speculative since, if pressed, they would have to admit that the Bible is silent on the things on which they speculate, but the fact that some might have speculated about water canopy doesn't have anything at all to do with whether we teach what things the Bible teaches in this regard, especially considering that the apostle Peter, at 2 Peter 3:5, 6, describes this water canopy when he speaks of as "an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God.," the focus here being on the "in the midst of water" portion of this verse, since it was "by those means," as Peter goes on to say, that "the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." It's important to keep in mind though that God did say that the waters that He used to deluge all of the wicked people in that antediluvian world "should be above the expanse" (Genesis 1:7), so while we don't know yet what God intends to do in this regard, we do know that He purposed that this watery deep -- the water canopy -- "should be above the expanse."

This antediluvian world was not destroyed by rain, which is the common "take away" that many people, including those that may have associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, have after reading this particular passage, but this is not what Peter says. He says that "the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." By what means? My means of the water in which the earth stood "in the midst of," to wit, the water canopy.

@VM44:

What was the most recent [Watchtower] reference to the water canopy?

Wasn't it in one of the online issues of the magazine?

Yes, I'm sure. Discussion about the water canopy has not been abandoned by me, not by Jehovah's Witnesses at large, even if some should think otherwise.

@Mr. Falcon:

james_woods - great observation! It's made-up doctrine like this that makes a person wonder just how far down this rabbit-hole goes....

What "great observation did @james_woods make in your opinion? What is this "made-up doctrine" to which you refer?

@Franklin Massey wrote:

I have heard many witnesses use it to explain "why we can't trust the fossil record" and how "we haven't been on earth as long as scientists say." I even had a brother tell me that he thinks God will bring the water canopy back in paradise so that we don't have issues with flooding and bad weather.

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

Franklin, I also have heard various nonsensical comments that made me question my own sanity. It's terrifying that these people have completely deluded themselves into believing things that AREN'T even in the Bible itself.

What is that makes you believe that I've deluded myself? Are these"nonsensical comments" at all related to your being made to question your sanity?

But some publishing company in Brooklyn said it so it must be true.

No, not some publishing company, but Jehovah's Witnesses have taught what things the Bible teaches as to the water canopy that enveloped the earth. There is no requirement on your part, or on anyone's part for that matter, to believe that a water canopy ever existed. None.

Isn't that kinda what L. Ron Hubbard did sorta?

What connection do Jehovah's Witnesses have to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology?

I mean we've got CO's and elders walking around declaring themselves as "princes & dukes", we got people talking about water canopies, 9 year old girls getting baptized, made-up stories about seeing eye dogs leading people to Kingdom Halls (funny thread, BTW), I could go on and on....

.... yet we bash customs such as Santa Claus because he's a "silly myth". Yet I know now Santa Claus is NOT true, because if he was how could he fly his sleigh through the water canopy?

You say that "we bash customs such as Santa Claus." Who is this "we" that you say bashes Santa? Personally, I don't bash Santa Claus, nor do Jehovah's Witnesses since we merely point out to those that need us to do so that St. Nick is a mythological characters, that Santa Claus doesn't exist, typically to our own children. What bearing do these nine-year-old girls getting baptized (for example) have on this discussion about the water canopy, not "water canopies" (there was only one)?

@lifeisgood:

You know what makes me REALLY REALLY ANGRY? What I do for a living is figure things out. Companies hire me to tell them what they need to do to increase profits. Or fix their software. Or, any of a number of other questions dealing with how the company is run and how the software should support the company. I'm good at this or big companies would not hire me.

And yet, I believed all the stupid bullshit that the WTBTS liars told me for TWENTY YEARS. AAAAAARRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You are angry because you believe the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the water canopy to have been among "all the stupid bullshit that the WTBTS liars" told you over the past 20 years? Did you feel you were under obligation to believe what things you were told over those 20 years? Did you believe it was impermissible for you to ask one of the mature Christian men or women in your local congregation to explain some of what you are now referring to as "stupid bullshit that the WTBTS liars" told you over this 20-year period? If so, why did you fail to ask appropriate questions, and why would you be angry with anyone or with yourself if it was you alone that failed to ask appropriate questions about those things that you didn't quite understand of didn't understand at all?

It is like I turned my brain off before talking to those liars.

You turned your own brain off; no one could have done this. My question to you is the same: Why did you do this? Why didn't you ask appropriate questions when you had doubts about any of what you were being taught?

@Morbidzbaby:

A water canopy is scientifically impossible...dammit I gotta search for the article that I read this in... Basically, from earth looking up, it would've looked like you were looking up from under the ocean. That warbly looking bright yellow blob? That's the sun. Not to mention the incredible atmospheric pressure created by all that dang water floating above our earth!

What exactly are you talking about here? What it is about the water canopy described in the Bible that convinces you that it is a scientific impossibility that it ever existed? What "incredible atmospheric pressure was created by all that dang water floating above our earth"? Either you believe the water canopy existed or you don't, but the Bible doesn't talk about any "atmospheric pressure" at all. You are introducing this into this thread, but I have no idea to what you are referring since Jehovah's Witnesses have never taught anything at all about "atmospheric pressure" in connection with this water canopy.

Seriously, if "god" created the earth perfect, with [its] perfect water canopy, wouldn't unleashing the floodgates of said canopy screw up the entire ecosystem of things that he so perfectly created?

Yes, and yet that's the whole point of Jehovah's saying to Noah what He does say at Genesis 8:22 to him as to what I mentioned earlier in this post as to the extremes of "cold and heat" in "summer and winter" that would now exist upon His deluging the earth with these waters that were above the expanse. Because the Bible indicates that it rained 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12) until some 150 days after the rain began when "the springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens became stopped up" (Genesis 8:2, 3), there had to have existed a very different mechanism from which that rain came, since the normal hydrologic cycle wasn't capable of supplying rain in the amounts described in the Bible.

The implication of this is that a very different atmospheric source of water had to have existed before the flood suggesting a climatology and meteorology must different than what exists at present. Our earth today is no longer perfect after Jehovah caused the water canopy to break, for God had not originally purposed to use the waters in it to deluge the earth, which in the beginning had been perfect, this jewel of a planet having been made "very good." (Genesis 1:31)

An omnipotent being with such knowledge and foresight would have surely not done something SO STUPID.

And, yet, Jehovah did do what you believe to have been "SO STUPID," didn't he? You yourself, although you may not be willing to recognize this, are the proof that Jehovah destroyed that ancient world with a global deluge, for you are yourself alive today as the result of God's having delivered eight people from the destruction of that antediluvian world.

@isaacaustin:

Doesn't the WT insist on this because they then make the claim that carbon dating is way off as a result....thus man's dating is off and man has not been around as long as science shows?

No.

@designs:

Yes remember all the junk we learned about 'Radiation' screwing with science. Doh!

How did radiation come to 'screw with science' exactly? From whom did you come to learn that radiation 'screws with science' and when?

@lifeisgood wrote:

It is like I turned my brain off before talking to those liars.

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

lifeisgood, I'm feeling you, dogg! I know what you mean, you think of yourself a rational, [thoughtful] person. Next thing you know, you are knocking on people's doors talking about water canopies. It's enough to make your head explode.

You don't have to knock on anyone's door. The only folks that need to knock on anyone's door are those that believe it necessary to do so. Why would you be here speaking as if you, or anyone really, is required to leave their homes to visit others at their home to share with them the good news about the kingdom of God if you are not one of Jesus' disciples? Why should your head explode over your not being obliged to do something that Jehovah's Witnesses feel obliged to do?

Sometimes I even feel as though perhaps I'm wrong for feeling this way about all these things and perhaps because so many JWs truly believe it, that maybe I'm the one who is being close-minded or stubborn. But then I take a look at the overall numbers of JWs versus a more traditional religion like Catholicism or Islam. JW numbers don't come close. So in reality, only a small amount of "Christians" believe and follow WTBS doctrine. So I don't feel like I'm sticking out anymore. If anything I'm leaning towards a more conventional belief system.

You do know that after that water canopy burst and destroyed all of the people that lived in that antediluvian world that there were only eight people that survived the global deluge, right? Of the approximate 1.030 billion of people that had been alive at that time, Jehovah provided deliverance to just these eight. Eight. Are you hearing me? The number of survivors numbered only eight. How many people that are living today do you think are going to survive Armageddon? There are over seven million people in the world that call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is possible that only a million of them will survive Armageddon, maybe half a million.

Recall that at Luke 13:24, Jesus said that "many ... will seek to get in but will not be able" to do so. If Jesus is "the way and "the life," then what possible difference would it make what "the overall numbers" of Catholics or non-Christian Muslims are, when only those "not lying against the truth" will be saved? (James 3:14; John 14:6) Jesus is "the truth," and only those that 'loving one another intensely from the heart' are the ones purifying their souls by their "obedience to the truth." (1 Peter 1:22) I don't believe either Catholics or Muslims, who Jesus doesn't even know, are "walking in the truth" as are Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the ones calling on the Jehovah's name. (Matthew 7:23; 3 John 4; Romans 10:13)

@Mr. Falcon:

I think Isaac is [on] to something. Officially going back on the stupid Water Canopy doctrine or even trying to downplay it as "adjusted" or "New Light" could prove DEVASTATING to their solution for the whole "how long has man been cranking one out on this planet" question. And then, where would it stop?

One of my questions would be, On to what do you think @isaacaustin to be? What is this "stupid Water Canopy doctrine" to which you refer? You speak here of a solution to the "how long has man been cranking one out on this planet" question. If you prefer to believe man to have been around for 9-, 10,000 years, 50-, 100,000 year or longer, you can believe this to be true, and whenever it is you share your belief with others, those listening to you will no doubt accept that this is your opinion. Everyone, including those becoming Jehovah's Witnesses, have every right to believe what things the Bible teaches or to believe something else altogether.

You make it sound as if there is something wrong with folks having a different opinion than you have about this "how long has man been cranking one out on this planet" question that you mentioned here. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe, and so are Jehovah's Witnesses entitled to believe what we want to believe. Should creationists tell you that they believe the earth to have been created in six 24-hour days -- even if you should think it unreasonable to conclude, based on all of the geological evidence that has been brought to bear as to the age of the earth, that 144 hours to be ridiculous! -- are you prepared to deny these creationists the right to believe such nonsense?

Now the prevailing view today is that the earth is some 4.5682 billion years old and that the universe is some 13.7 billion years old, so should I tell someone that I believe the earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old -- even if you should believe otherwise, @Mr. Falcon -- but would you deny me the right to believe to be true what you are not prepared to believe to be true? Have I no right to hold a very different opinion than you might hold on any specific factual matter?

For example, I believe that God exists, whereas you may be of a different opinion, and you know what? That's ok. You may think coconut creme pie to be heavenly dessert, and opine that there's nothing finer than a slice of coconut creme pie with a refreshingly cold glass of water, but I might hold a different opinion that you about coconut creme pies generally due to the fact that I am allergic to the coconut in them, but this doesn't mean that there's anything wrong whatsoever with your opinion about coconut creme pie, does it? Personally, I'm not allergic to anything (as far as I know), so you and I would then be holding the same opinion, whereas Mr. Allergic over here always orders a slice of Keylime pie. And while you can opine all you want about a refreshingly cold glass of water, I'll have my pie with water at room temperature, so we would agree in part (on the pie) and disagree in part (on the water).

Getting back to the Bible and what things people believe that others do not believe even though the Bible stands as a witness against their opinions, here's another example:

Matthew quotes Jesus at Matthew 12:40 as saying that he would be "in the heart of the earth three days and three nights," and he associates the length of time when he would be dead with the length of time that Jonah spent in the belly of the fish that had swallowed the prophet. Some people do not believe it possible for Jonah to have been able to be preserved alive while inside this fish, but whether this is so or not, I'm focusing here on the expression, "three days and three nights," used at Jonah 1:17, which expression is the one that Jesus uses at Matthew 12:40.

There are Christians that will swear up and down that when Jesus used this expression that he meant that he would be dead for three days, 72 hours, even though Jesus also is quoted as saying in the same gospel that he would be raised up on the "third day." (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19) Even Jesus' enemies understood Jesus to have meant "third day" by his use of the expression, "three days and three nights." (Matthew 27:64)

Now you and I may agree that Jesus' being put to death on that passover Friday (Day 1), Nisan 14, 33 AD, through the intervening first day of the festival of fermented cakes, Saturday (Day 2), Nisan 15, 33 AD, which is itself a sabbath that is always observed on the day after the passover, which day was a double sabbath, since the seventh day of the week is also a sabbath,* and Sunday (Day 3), Nisan 16, 33AD, "being the first day of the week" when we read how Mary Magdalene "and the other Mary" (Jesus' mother) and Johanna, Chuza's husband, and maybe Salome, Mary's sister, and Susanna, too, had gotten to Jesus' "memorial tomb "early, while there was still darkness." (John 20:1; Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:10).

However, if it was still darkness when these woman got to Jesus' tomb, hardly 12 hours would have passed between 6PM Saturday, when Sunday officially began, and 6AM Sunday, so Jesus was resurrected on the third day, that is to say, before the "third day" had cone to an end, so that did Jesus really mean by "three days and three nights"? This: "The Son of man is destined to be betrayed into men’s hands, and they will kill him, and the third day he will be raised up" (Matthew 17:22, 23), so Jesus didn't mean what some think he meant by this expression, namely, that he would be raised up after the third day, but on the third day. (Luke 24:46)

____

*Nisan 15 turned out to be a double sabbath since Nisan 15 fell on the seventh day of the week, which was when the weekly sabbath was typically held, and why John referred to the day before this double sabbath as being "the preparation of the passover," lumping together Nisan 14 with Nisan 15, "for the day of that Sabbath was a great one." (John 19:14, 31). Mark explains in his gospel that "the day before the sabbath," or Nisan 14, was called "Preparation," which was the day on which Jesus died. (Mark 15:42)

Could there have been primitive man? Was Adam & Eve really the first humans? Is there possibly some fact behind evolution? There is no way that the WTBS is going to open that can of worms!

You asked some other questions having nothing to do with this topic about the water canopy, but maybe we can "open that can of worms" at some other time, @Mr. Falcon.

@Mr. Falcon:

What's sad is that what you're theorizing isn't that much wackier than what many JWs spew. I always love how people with practically no education think they can hold their own when debating scientific beliefs. Like what they read in that awful blue creation book is more convincing and accurate than all the scientific books on the freaking planet.

I have never heard that the Creation book is more accurate than all of the scientific books on Planet Earth. The book, as written, does need to be updated and it will likely be updated or replaced with a much better one.

But the Creation book is not a scientific textbook; it was produced as a Bible study aid. And many Jehovah's Witnesses do hold their own when discussing the contents of this book. Frankly, Jehovah's Witnesses are typically not debating anyone's scientific beliefs, since they use the Creation book to encourage people that love science and/or have always believed evolution to be suspect to consider reading the Bible.

I know a handful of Creationists (non-JWs) who while defending creationism, have actually taken the time to study biology, geology, etc. So while I may not subscribe to all their ideas, I can at least respect them for having some degree of education.

Many Jehovah's Witnesses are educated people, and, as a matter of fact, I'm one of them. But I suspect that you don't respect me "for having some degree of education," and I've had a lot of it.

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

I always love how people with practically no education think they can hold their own when debating scientific beliefs. Like what they read in that awful blue creation book is more convincing and accurate than all the scientific books on the freaking planet.

@Morbidzbaby wrote:

You mean the one that talks about the aforementioned wooly mammoths? That's an awful book? Say it isn't so! Actually, I just trashed my copy yesterday, along with some others lol.

The title, "Can You Trust the Bible," is chapter 17 in the book, "How Did Life Get Here--By Evolution or By Creation?" and paragraph 10 of this book does make reference to the water canopy. What was it about these mammoths that made you think it to be "an awful book"?

I know for a FACT that I cannot hold my own when debating science. I LOVE science...but I'm not of the mind to debate it. I like skimming over different facts and formulating conclusions as to what I believe.... I'm an Evolutionist and I'm not going to come out of the experience with a heavenly glow....

How can you be an evolutionist when you cannot hold your own when debating science?

@Morbidzbaby wrote:

I'd have to do what the WTBS does and saw off the ends of some puzzle pieces and MAKE them fit.

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

This statement gave me flashbacks to when my mother would teach me that the Flood is the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. And being a young boy obsessed with dinosaurs, I asked her about how come there aren't any plesiosaurs since they lived completely in water and ate sealife. Therefore even a global deluge wouldn't be able to kill them off. She told me to "wait on Jehovah. He'll explain what happened in the New System."

First, whether plesiosaurs lived or not, they weren't dinosaurs, and, second, they are said to have lived during the Mesozoic Era (248 - 65 million years ago), from the Triassic Period (248 - 206 million years ago) through the Jurassic Period (206 - 144 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous Period (144 - 65 million years ago), followed by the Cenozoic Era (65 million years ago), but preceded by the Paleozoic Era (540 - 248 million years ago), which included the Cambrian Period (540 - 490 million years ago) to which period all life exploded on the scene.

@VM44:

Found it. The most recent mention of the water canopy appears on page 26 of the March 15, 2011 issue of The Watchtower.

In this issue of the Watchtower, reference is made to the water canopy as a "heavenly ocean" for the reason I give in my response to @Totally ADD as to the expressions, "vast watery deep" and "floodgates of the heavens" used at Genesis 7:11. It is with reference to this water canopy that we read at Genesis 1:2 that "there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep," which contrary to what I'm sure many here and even some active Jehovah's Witnesses might think does not refer to the water contained in the oceans.

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

@FollowedMyHeart wrote:

Did the writers of that watchtower [article] in the OP even read what they wrote? They say, themselves, that the canopy would have blocked sunlight! How in the he** could there have been any life, let alone wickedness, to merit a flood???

While there was diffused light on the first creative day, the sun was visible through the overcast, and nothing changed in this regard on the second creative day when the waters above, which became the water canopy, were separated from the waters below, which were our oceans, until the fourth creative day, for only then did the source of the light become visible on earth. The word "blocked" used in this article is just a way of describing the diffused light from the sun through the "vast water canopy suspending high in space and all around our globe."

@Mr. Falcon:

VM44, thank you for posting that. That is [positively] outrageous that they printed that in this day and age.

What makes you say this?

FollowedMyHeart - crazy isn't it? It's like they are living in the Dark Ages. I'm surprised they don't print that the world is flat.

Really?

@LostGeneration:

Thanks VM44, that is what I was thinking of. Since it hadn't been discussed for a long time in WT publications for a long time I thought they had quietly dropped the idea.

Why would you be thinking this at all? Only Jehovah's Witnesses would know when a particular doctrine had been abandoned. For example, there hasn't been mention made about the instructions Jesus gave to this disciples as to relying upon the provisions that God would provide them as they went "continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" preaching that the heavens had drawn near, and how his later instructions to them as to taking up a food pouch for themselves changed as they would soon be preaching to the nations who would not be as hospitable toward them as "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" could be expected to be, but our doctrinal understanding as to these things hasn't been abandoned at all. (Matthew 10:5-14; Luke 22:35, 36)

I'm not too familiar with young earth creationists, if this is one of their theories then the WT looks pretty dumb by aligning themselves with one of their theories while at the same time stating that the creative "days" took untold amounts of time.

Ok.

@LostGeneration wrote:

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

Forgive this stupid question, but I've never really understood just what the devil JWs are talking about when they discuss the creative "days". What exactly is the official JW stand on this? Do they believe in 6 literal days or what? I was raised a JW and I have no idea. Scary.

Like I said earlier, you weren't one of Jehovah's Witnesses, for no one among Jehovah's Witnesses is raised as such; they are merely the children of Jehovah's Witnesses and nothing more. Even if someone should get baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this does not mean that this baptized individual is really one of Jehovah's Witnesses although we might regard them as such. Often in less than ten years, those that we had formerly called Jehovah's Witnesses leave or ranks, which is ok. "They were not of our sort." (1 John 2:19)

@simon17:

They believe the creative "days" to not be literal days but instead by "possibly thousands of years" each, which of course is scientifically maddening in terms of the scale but technically correct.

What else can we do? The Bible isn't clear on this point, so we must infer that each creative days was at least 7,000 years in length, but it could be that they were 10,000 years in length. We just do not know.

So they are in the difficult position of having to denounce young earth creationists as scientifically ignorant while eschewing the entire scientific [community] with the other hand in railing on evolution, carbon dating, etc while supporting a global deluge 4000 years ago!

I don't get the point you're making here. You mentioned evolution and carbon dating as if either of these things are as significant as the global deluge 4,383 years ago. Jehovah's Witnesses do not eschew the scientific community at all. In fact, we embrace it!

@Mr. Falcon:

*duplicate post due to Mr. Falcon's [incompetence]. sorry, I had a JW education.*

Are you telling me that you didn't attend college or didn't finish high school or what does this mean?

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

@Morbidzbaby wrote:

Just another cut-and-paste doctrine that suits their agenda. They take the Genesis account and then they take a scripture from the NT (2 Peter 3:8) to say that a day could have meant a thousand years and so the 7 creative days were "evidently" 7, 000 years. However, the "day as a thousand years" gets shot to hell when they have to describe the prophecy that leads them to 1914...then it's "a day for a year". So, was it 7 days? 7 years? or 7,000 years?

Where did you come up with this idea about the apostle Peter's words at 2 Peter 3:8 being somehow the basis for Jehovah's Witnesses believing that the seven creative days totalled 7,000 years? Do you know whether or not the Bible even teaches that there was a seventh creative day?

Probably more like 7 million

Ok.

@ProdigalSon:

I see that our resident experts are already all over this, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, the Watchtower needs nearly 30,000 feet of solid water in their canopy to make the Bible flood story work. Any meteorologist can tell you that only 40 feet of water in such a canopy would keep the earth's average temperature at a rather uncomfortable 800 degrees F.

Where did you read or hear that the water canopy must have contained 30,000 feet of solid water in it? On what is such a number based? Would this "30,000 feet of solid water" be cubic feet or what?

@skeeter1:

Has Jdeggnog commented on this water canopy idea? I'm in suspense.

Why?

@sir82:

Holy crap!

March 15, 2011, and they're still teaching the "water canopy"?!?!?

Why not?

How soon until the 7000 year creative day makes a comeback?

It was formerly speculated that each creative day was 7,000 years in length, but the Bible is silent on this and so we have no way of really knowing how long each creative day was.

@Cadellin:

Great thread. Yes, its mind boggling that the March 2011 WT has a reference to the water canopy. So that old canard is alive and well in Jwland.

What makes you conclude the water canopy described in the book of Genesis to have been a fiction, a fabrication?

What's really odd is that the Genesis account indicates that moon and stars were visible by Day 4, bright enough to serve as "luminaries" according to the NWT. So how could starlight penetrate a water canopy that held enough water to flood the earth? When it's getting ready to rain today, the cloud cover is pretty dense and you don't even see the sun, much less stars. So it makes no sense whatsoever.

What's really odd is that you read the words "water canopy" and think this phrase refers to cloud cover, when this water canopy was an atmospheric water vapor that was invisible, but which was essentially held in suspense over the entire earth like a dome. The cataclysmic rain that deluged our planet didn't come from clouds, but from "all the springs of the vast watery deep" that used to exist before there ever existed things like "rain" or "cloud cover." (Genesis 2:5)

Oh, wait--the Flood story is a redaction of earlier Ugaritic and Babylonian myths! Its the imposition of a rationalistic framework onto what is clearly myth that makes no sense!

You're brilliant, @Cadellin, but I would assume that you already knew this, didn't you?

@VM44 wrote:

The most recent mention of the water canopy appears on page 26 of the March 15, 2011 issue of The Watchtower.

@Franklin Massey wrote:

NOOOOOOOO! Dang it! When I was researching this issue a while back I typed "water canopy" into the WT Library CD (probably the 2008-9 edition) and I recall the last article that mentioned it was from the early 80s. I thought, "well at least they aren't actively teaching it anymore." I should have known better.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Think about this a moment and you'll realize that you couldn't possibly have popped the 2009 WT Library CD into your PC to find Watchtower articles that you couldn't reasonably expect would be found on the 2010 WT Library CD either, so don't be too hard on yourself. (It's more likely than not that 2011 Watchtower articles will likely be found on the yet-to-be-released 2011 WT Library CD.)

@strymeckirules:

really [surprised] nobody mentioned it in the midst of this conversation.

somehow peter knew about this... probably from jesus.

Actually, the apostle Peter wrote under inspiration of God's holy spirit as did all of the Bible writers.

i believe in the firmament.

we will have to wait to find out who is right because there is only scriptures to go by right now.....

Only those exercising faith in Jesus will be among those that get to find out whether or not the Bible is right in what it says about "the firmament" or expanse. Those lacking faith will never get to "find out" since these "will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

@TotallyADD:

I know what you mean Mr. Falcon. I [too] only had a JW education. It was my wife the college educated one who brought to my attention that the air pressure would be [too] great for life on earth if there was a water canopy. When she told me that it was one of those small moments in my life that my brain actually have some [intelligence] going through it.

While your wife may have had a college education, only ignorance on her part would explain why it is she discounted the fact that there was a water canopy by telling you what she did about 'air pressure being too great to sustain life on earth.' I would like to think that you only thought she had concluded the non-existence of a water canopy, but I have no way of knowing if she posited an argument based on some notion about air pressure being a factor in her rejecting what the Bible states at Genesis 7:11 in describing a water canopy that had been held in suspense above the earth, which is specifically what is being referred to at Genesis 1:7 when it tells us that God caused a division to exist "between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters "that should be above the expanse."

I personally know many college graduates holding BA and BS degrees, and you may, too, that will ascribe evolution as the explanation for all plant, animal and human life in existence today, and they will credit evolution as being responsible without the slightest hesitation or any degree of difficulty in making such an ignorant assertion, despite the glut of knowledge discovered by the scientists connection with the Human Genome Project about DNA, the code that provides instructions to all living cells numbering some three billion combinations of the letters "G," "A," "T" and "C," which knowledge is presently available to both college and non-college graduates alike.

In Genesis 7:11, you will find the phrases "vast watery deep" and "floodgates of the heavens," and both of these expressions describe this water canopy that before the global deluge had been suspended above the earth. Note that I did not say a thing about clouds, which someone in this thread evidently thought it to be a good idea to substitute for the phrase "water canopy," except, in the English language, no one would translate "vast watery deep" or "floodgates of the heaven" as "clouds" or "cloud cover," especially when it is clear that Genesis 7:11 is not making reference to something that did not come to exist until after the global deluge.

@strymeckirules wrote:

we will have to wait to find out who is right because there is only scriptures to go by right now.....

@TheSilence wrote:

if one completely discounts science. We wouldn't want to go by that.

Why discount science? We're not discussing science, are we?

@Mr. Falcon:

strymeckirules - interesting point, although I personally don't believe that Peter was referring to a water canopy, but I'm no bible scholar or expert. However, perhaps I'm wrong.

Yes, perhaps.

In that case, does this mean that Peter believed in the water canopy doctrine?

Of course. I understand the apostle Peter's words at 2 Peter 3:5, 6, as to "an earth standing ... in the midst of water" to apply to the water canopy that used to exist when Jehovah made "a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse" on the second creative day. (Genesis 1:7, 8)

TotallyADD - This really shook my "faith". Most JWs simply don't pay any attention to this infamous WT doctrine, for whatever reason.

What it is for you that makes mention of the water canopy so "infamous" for you, @Mr. Falcon? What makes you say that most Jehovah's Witnesses "simply ... pay [no] attention" when it is those that had formerly been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses that are the ones paying no attention to what things they learned from having studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses?

But just because you ignore something, doesn't make it go away.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not ignore reference to the water canopy in Scripture, nor do any of us seek to "make it go away" as you suggest.

It is hypocritical for JWs to attack Trinitarians for "twisting the scriptures" when they teach a belief in a water canopy that isn't even mentioned in the Bible (unless I'm wrong about 2 Peter 3: 1-7).

There is absolutely no doubt that trinitarians are "twisting the scriptures" to make them say something that they do not say with respect to Jehovah and Jesus being two of the three "Persons" of a trinity, which along with the holy spirit is the one to whom they are giving godly devotion as god, and the fact that you have concluded these trinitarians to not be twisting them in teaching the true God to be triune has nothing at all to do with what the apostle Peter states in the Bible, there being absolutely no connection whatsoever between what trinitarians teach and what Peter writes at 2 Peter 3:1-7.

@Lunatic Faith:

This has always been one of those teachings that didn't make sense, but I found it interesting so I believed in it. But I always wondered why Jehovah would have put that canopy up there unless he was planning on deluging the world and killing his creation.

Obviously you never attempted to find out why Jehovah put that canopy up there, but it is clear that God had a purpose for doing so.

Since the Bible teaches that would be unjust on God's part then he must have made a mistake by putting that up there.

The Bible doesn't teach that it was unjust on God's part to have used the waters of that watery deep in the way He chose to use them to destroy that antediluvian world with a global deluge. It says that he did use the waters above the expanse -- the water canopy -- to bring "all flesh ... to ruin together with the earth" (Genesis 6:13), and that is what Jehovah did! Jehovah didn't make a mistake in putting that water canopy up there, but perhaps after "the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men," He will restore it to where it had been before "the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (2 Peter 3:6, 7)

Like an experiment gone wrong, which also flies in the face of everything JW"s believe.

How so?

I remember bringing this up to my brother once and he said Jehovah put it there temporarily to help spread the garden worldwide (greenhouse effect) and then he probably planned on gradually diminishing it. I thought the explanation made a small amount of sense, but how the hell could anyone see the moon and stars. Behind such a canopy they couldn't be considered 'lesser luminaries', they would have been flat out invisible!

But this would be your opinion, right? You brother expressed his opinion and you have expressed yours, and you, accordingly, believe it to have been an impossibility for Adam and Eve to have been able to see the moon or the stars if there actually did exist a water canopy, because, like @Cadellin, you view this water canopy as being "cloud cover," but on what basis do you say this? There were no clouds in the skies until after the global deluge since it had never rained until after the global deluge occurred.

I have heard the friends argue as to whether another water canopy would be established in paradise. I remember thinking about how depressed people get in places like Seattle when the cloud cover only occasionally lifts. How are we supposed to be gloriously happy when blue skies, the moon and stars are only a distant memory. How depressing!

When someone says "water canopy," you think "cloud clover." It seems you would be fine were you to search for the meaning of words and stop guessing "water canopy" to be synonymous with "cloud cover," when these two phrases simply do not the same thing.

@Mr. Falcon:

It's cool Morbidz, good research. That's the general feeling I got from those scripture, regardless of which translation is used. There isn't really and tangible, clear mention of any sort of "canopy". Part of the problem I have is that this is "adding to the Scriptures" something that is forbidden.

In mention of the water canopy that used to exist, no one has added to the Scriptures.

For example, let's just play Devil's advocate here for a moment and assume that the Flood did indeed happen. If you believe that God performs miracles and such then why can't God make it [miraculously] just rain a deluge?

God didn't need to perform such a miracle when all He needed to do was use the waters above the expanse -- the water canopy -- to deluge the earth.

Throughout the Bible he made it rain fire, split the earth open and other destructive acts, so why couldn't he just make it rain? The bible says that he made it rain 40 days and 40 nights. Don't say nuthin' bout no canopy.

Sure it does.

To me, the idea that a canopy of water existed around the earth would mean that rain was never meant to be and that it came about as a means to kill mankind. Rain was invented to kill mankind. Marinate on that.

What occurred as rain from the water canopy (and not from clouds) was not designed by God for the purpose of killing mankind, but as a kind of climate control device.

@ProdigalSon:

So what the Bible is saying is that in the youngest stages of the earth, the oceans were under pressure and sealed under the land masses. The floodwaters came when the earth expanded and the crust cracked, and the sealed water below shot high into the atmosphere and came down as a deluging rain.

This is not what the Bible is saying at all.

Atlantis was deluged between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago.... quite a bit before the Bible story but we know it was plagiarized from older myths and deluge accounts.....

Ok.

@Lunatic Faith wrote:

@Mr. Falcon wrote:

I love the ideas that JWs come up with when they speculate about things like this. Just making things up. The hell with what the Bible actually says...

To speculate essentially does mean to make things up that you do not know to be true. When someone speculates on something they read in the Bible, what this means is that the Bible doesn't say what one imagines something that they are reading in it to mean. Understand? No one that speculates on anything -- whether it be something they will have read in the Bible or on whether or not it is going to rain today or whether some team competing in the World Cup is going to be victorious over another team -- is being dismissive of anyone or anything, but is merely imagining a "What If" scenario.

I say that this or that is going to occur! Isn't that relying on human philosophy instead of God's Word?

No, it isn't.

So human philosophy is okay in some circumstances but it is apostate thinking in other situations. Whatever.

Yes, human philosophy is fine in its place. Apostate thinking is also fine in its place. Neither human philosophy nor apostate thinking are appropriate among God's people.

@Mr. Falcon:

windows of heaven were opened." -Genesis 7:11.

Could this be referring to the "water canopy"?

Yes.

@Morbidzbaby:

Supposedly it was Moses who was "inspired" to write the book of Genesis... and this just goes to show he couldn't have possibly been inspired to write such inaccuracies. Whoever did write Genesis was writing purely from what they themselves THOUGHT about how their world worked and came to be in existence.

You are free to believe that Moses wasn't inspired to write what we read in the book of Genesis today.

@Mr. Falcon:

I think maybe it's a sign that I have to stop reading information that makes me dumber with every single line ... of irrational thought...

What information are you reading that is making you dumber?

Reading secular literature and doing REAL research is the only thing that keeps my mind from melting.

Ok.

If a person read nothing but Watchtower propaganda, they would become functionally retarded.

What kind of propaganda do you mean exactly? Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching and sharing with others what things we read in the Bible, which isn't propaganda at all, but is the truth, which can set us free from all of the world's propagandistic rhetoric, even yours, @Mr. Falcon. (John 8:32)

@djeggnog

Water Canopy? Huh?

Mr. Falcon

Franklin Massey

Black Sheep

poopsiecakes

Mr. Falcon

Morbidzbaby

Mr. Falcon

Black Sheep

djeggnog

ziddina

Share this