Did the Pre-Flood World Have a Vapor Canopy?

I came to the biblical creation movement from the outside—not just outside of the camp but outside of the church. I was raised a Mormon, became an atheist, and received my training at university as a committed atheist and evolutionist. I taught high school biology and chemistry from that viewpoint, even serving as the state chairperson for the curriculum standards that made sure evolution was taught in the public schools.

In his kindness, God showed me mercy, changing my heart and my thinking on origins. As one committed to God and his Word, I had to submit my thinking to what was true according to the Bible. I started consuming resources from ministries like ICR and AiG, as well as thoughts from the Intelligent Design community. The connection between my scientific training and my new faith was clear—God’s Word had to be my authority, not any man’s word.

I got a major shock when I was attending a video series on creation apologetics at my church. The speaker showed fossil evidence of giant insects and talked about the long lifespans of the Genesis patriarchs. His explanation for these and other evidence was that a canopy of water once surrounded the pre-flood earth, as described in Genesis. As I recall, I laughed out loud at this suggestion. Was I questioning or doubting God’s Word?

Starting with the Bible

My initial reaction to the idea was scientific. You have experienced my objection as you opened the car door on a hot summer day and sank into the seat. The overwhelming heat made you reach for the AC button fast. The greenhouse effect raises the temperature by trapping the sun’s electromagnetic energy as heat within the glass and metal surrounding the car. The same is true of the gases in the atmosphere, primarily water vapor.

The man hosting the video series must have heard my snickering because he asked me about my reaction. While my initial objection was based on the laws of nature, if the Bible clearly taught a canopy, I would have to reassess my understanding. As we looked at the words of Genesis (I was using the NKJV at that point), it seemed like the speaker was right.

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. So the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:6–8 NKJV)

If the waters under the firmament were the seas, mentioned on the next day of creation, then the waters above must be some sort of water canopy. But I had learned enough about studying the Bible to look more broadly. The clue to interpreting this passage came just a few verses later. If the same “firmament” is being referred to in verses 14 and 15, that would seem to place the sun and moon inside the earth’s atmosphere.

We must cling closely to the truth of Scripture but be willing to question the interpretation and application of the text in light of other passages and what we clearly see expressed in created order.

So how do we resolve these issues, and where did the canopy theory come from in the first place? We must cling closely to the truth of Scripture but be willing to question the interpretation and application of the text in light of other passages (interpreting through the analogy of Scripture) and what we clearly see expressed in created order. God’s Word and God’s world are our guides, but we must submit what we glean from creation to the overarching truths of his direct revelation to us.

How Long Has the Canopy Been Set Up?

While I don’t blindly trust what Christians of the past have said about Scripture, we should value the insights from great thinkers of the past. The idea of a canopy of water described in Genesis 1 was recorded earliest by Basil of Caesarea (c. AD 329–379) in his Hexaemeron (Homily 3) on Genesis 1. Basil argued against Origen’s allegorical interpretation of the waters above and below referring to good and evil beings.

But as far as concerns the separation of the waters I am obliged to contest the opinion of certain writers in the Church who, under the shadow of high and sublime conceptions, have launched out into metaphor, and have only seen in the waters a figure to denote spiritual and incorporeal powers. In the higher regions, above the firmament, dwell the better; in the lower regions, earth and matter are the dwelling place of the malignant. So, say they, God is praised by the waters that are above the heaven, that is to say, by the good powers, the purity of whose soul makes them worthy to sing the praises of God. And the waters which are under the heaven represent the wicked spirits, who from their natural height have fallen into the abyss of evil. Turbulent, seditious, agitated by the tumultuous waves of passion, they have received the name of sea, because of the instability and the inconstancy of their movements. Let us reject these theories as dreams and old women’s tales. Let us understand that by water water is meant; for the dividing of the waters by the firmament let us accept the reason which has been given us.1

Basil was sticking to the text—if Moses recorded in the inspired text that there were two sections of water separated from one another. Exactly where and in what form? Basil seems to connect the waters in the “higher regions” with our atmosphere and the provision of precipitation and the water cycle:

Since, then, Scripture says that the dew or the rain falls from heaven, we understand that it is from those waters which have been ordered to occupy the higher regions. When the exhalations from the earth, gathered together in the heights of the air, are condensed under the pressure of the wind, this aerial moisture diffuses itself in vaporous and light clouds; then mingling again, it forms drops which fall, dragged down by their own weight; and this is the origin of rain. When water beaten by the violence of the wind, changes into foam, and passing through excessive cold quite freezes, it breaks the cloud, and falls as snow. You can thus account for all the moist substances that the air suspends over our heads.2

Before Basil, Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. AD 183) affirmed the water that was “taken up” on day two was responsible for our atmospheric precipitation:

In the very beginning, therefore, of the history and genesis of the world, the holy Scripture spoke not concerning this firmament [which we see], but concerning another heaven, which is to us invisible, after which this heaven which we see has been called “firmament,” and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas.3

Ambrose of Milan (c. AD 340–397) followed in Basil’s thinking when he affirmed of Genesis 1:7 that “from this I learn that the firmament is made by a command by which the water was to be separated and the water above be divided from the water below. What is clearer than this?”4

Dr. Terry Mortenson has surveyed commentaries on this issue, offering the views of Luther, Calvin, and later commentators in describing what these “waters above” were and how they functioned.5 He then moves on to modern commentators, seeking to provide a clear exegetical explanation of what and where these waters are. His conclusion, in line with others, is that the text indicates the “waters above” are not merely the atmosphere immediately above the earth, as these ancients have proposed, but must include a much greater distance—the edge of the universe.

He reaches this conclusion by noting that the “firmament” or “expanse” created by the separation of the waters includes certain elements. As we move through the days of creation week, the stars (which would include all celestial bodies) appear in the firmament, as Dr. Mortenson describes:

Here on Day 4, God says three times that the sun, moon, and stars are in the raqiya‘ [firmament/expanse]. Verse 17 says that He set (or placed or put) them in the raqiya‘. The repetition must surely be seen as emphatic. God wants us to know that these heavenly luminaries are not above or under but in the raqiya‘. (emphasis in original)6

A parallel argument looks to Psalm 148 where the elements mentioned moves from the heights to the depths.

Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights!
Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts!
Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!
Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
Let them praise the name of the Lord! For he commanded and they were created.
And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away. (Psalm 148:1–6)

Verse 7 shifts from the “highest heavens” to the seas and mountains and the creatures that dwell there. It seems quite clear that the psalmist, writing some 1,000 years after the flood, sees the “waters above” (assumedly connected to the waters mentioned on day two) as still in existence. According to the model, the water canopy supplied the 40 days and nights of rain during the flood (coming from “the windows of the heavens” in Genesis 7:11). If that’s true, how can it still be present to praise Yahweh? Additional reasoning gives this conclusion from Dr. Mortenson:

If the raqiya‘ is the area of our universe where the sun, moon, and stars are (what we call outer space) then “the waters above” the raqiya‘ are at the outer boundary of the universe.7

This conclusion is affirmed by other commentators, including astrophysicist Danny Faulkner8 (others argue against this idea; see the discussion of Dillow’s book below). All of this assumes that the translation of “firmament” in Genesis 1 should rather be “expanse,” a different idea from the apparently solid dome implied by almost all translations that appealed to the Septuagint’s use of stereoma and the Latin firmamentum from Jerome’s translation. A defense of the concept of “expanse” is beyond accomplishing here but consider reading “Underneath a Solid Sky”9 for a brief summary or Dr. Mortenson’s article (above) for a more thorough treatment.

Modern Canopy Ideas

How did the idea of a canopy become so ubiquitous in young-earth creation circles? As scriptural and scientific ideas about the age of the earth, method of creation, and extent of the flood were advanced, we must certainly point to Morris and Whitcomb publishing The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris points to the influence of lectures from Moody Bible Institute in 1941 that informed him of the canopy theory, which he saw as “one of the main events that triggered [his] own lifelong interest in the harmonization of the Bible and science.”10 Morris goes on to acknowledge other influences, including George McCready Price, an SDA advocate of a recent creation in six days and geology influenced primarily by the flood (drawing on the writings from Ellen G. White).

What we see in God’s world will align with what we see in God’s Word when we properly understand each.

In Morris’ comment, we see the clear intent to harmonize the Bible with science. What we see in God’s world will align with what we see in God’s Word when we properly understand each. However, God’s Word must be the driver, and our interpretation of nature should never contradict the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible gives us clear, propositional truths; science is always an interpretation of experiencing created order. Because God is the one who created everything in the six days described in Genesis, it is his order that we see in the laws of nature. We credit God the Father, not Mother Nature, for the water cycle.

In The Genesis Flood, Morris and Whitcomb did not seek a robust defense of the scientific aspects of the canopy theory but assumed its existence and benefits. In a section titled “The Geologic Work of Creation Week,” regarding the second day, we read:

On the second day of Creation, the waters covering the earth’s surface were divided into two great reservoirs—one below the firmament and one above, the firmament being the “expanse” above the earth now corresponding to the troposphere. The mechanism whereby this result was accomplished, together with any side effects, has not been revealed. Whether terrestrial heat was instrumental or extraterrestrial forces of some kind or whether solely due to creative fiat, we do not know.11

This assertion carries the rest of the mentions of the canopy in the book. The remainder of the chapter (“A Scriptural Framework for Historical Geology”) outlines the various results of a canopy of vapor surrounding the earth before the flood. The authors believe that before the flood, there was a “uniformly warm temperature climate around the earth,” no rain (connecting to Genesis 2:5–6), and no rainbows.12 They believe their canopy model explains how these things were possible. But I would ask, “If there is mist in the air, why wouldn’t it form clouds, leading to rain, producing rainbows?” They respond by assuming that turbulence was “largely absent” in the canopied atmosphere and would not have allowed the water cycle to function as it does today.

The basic thermodynamic principle that causes a fire to burn causes water vapor evaporating from the surface of water to rise. If God had set the laws of nature in place from the beginning, he would have to supernaturally allow fires to burn while withholding the normal function of evaporation to form clouds.

It is worth noting here that the creative acts of God described in Genesis are supernatural—we cannot recreate or scientifically verify how God separated the waters above from below or how he caused the plants and animals to appear on the earth. These direct creative acts of God are not subject to scientific scrutiny. We accept them on the testimony of God himself. But once created, we expect the creation to operate according to the established natural laws (apart from further miraculous intervention). Passages like Genesis 8:22 support God’s sustaining of natural laws, and there is no reason to believe they were not operating in a similar manner before the flood.

The flood comes about 1,650 years after creation. Canopy proponents would have us believe there was a lack of the normal water cycle before the flood because the canopy tempered the atmospheric extremes that drive global weather. But this is a scientific argument, not a biblical one. Morris and Whitcomb touted the explanatory power of a canopy while acknowledging some of the limitations. The same ideas were also made very popular in The MacArthur Study Bible, one of the most widely distributed study Bibles available in multiple translations and languages. The explanatory benefits of the canopy are mentioned in the notes for Genesis 1:7, 7:4, 11 and 2 Peter 3:5.13

Morris and Whitcomb acknowledge the vapor canopy as a “plausible working hypothesis, which seems to offer satisfactory explanation of quite a number of biblical references and geophysical phenomena. The detailed physics of this inferred antediluvian [before the flood] atmosphere is bound to be uncertain as yet . . . but there seems to be no inherent physical difficulty with the concept.”14

What does the canopy theory offer to explain the particular aspects of biblical history, and is it necessary?

A Consequential Canopy

Skeptics often point to the unscientific “errors” in the Bible, and a discerning believer is justified in asking questions comparing the past with the present. How can the ages given in Genesis be real? Does Genesis 2 demand there was no rain before the flood? Questions like these are appropriate as long as we keep the text in its primary position and let the scientific thinking serve it. Let’s work through the benefits and drawbacks.

Longevity

The ages of the pre-flood men described in Genesis sound fantastical. But God recorded their ages, and we can trust them. So can we explain why? Canopy proponents suggest that the canopy would block out almost all of the harmful short-wave radiation and damaging particles from the sun. Today, these lead to increases in cancers and speed aging. But if they were blocked by the increased water, ozone, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, aging and disease would be limited.15

A layer of water in the atmosphere would provide a higher oxygen concentration, leading to health benefits, it is said. It is true that hyperbaric chambers have shown to speed wound healing and recovery from various ailments. But it is rarely recognized that oxygen is toxic at high levels and prolonged exposure—that’s why you take antioxidants. Oxygen is naturally converted to a free radical in normal metabolism, leading to molecules that can cause tissue damage. When the oxygen concentration is increased, the process accelerates and can lead to hyperoxia-induced oxidative stress. We take patients out of the hyperbaric chamber and administer the right doses of supplemental oxygen before these negative effects cause tissue damage.

While the canopy would block harmful radiation, the increased oxygen could reverse those effects. From a scientific explanation, it seems that longer lifespans were influenced by a combination of environmental factors and, more strongly, genetic factors that would have included very few mutations. Today, our short lifespans can largely be explained by the genetic load we carry from the accumulation of those mutations over millennia.16

Giants

Oxygen content is also used to explain the presence of giant humans (as interpreted from Genesis 6:4) and giant insects before the flood. We find fossils of dragonflies with two-foot wingspans and millipedes over eight feet. With a mostly passive breathing system, insects of that size cannot survive in today’s atmosphere and oxygen content.

A canopy seems to provide the higher oxygen, but this can also be explained by different initial conditions or more atmospheric oxygen produced by the abundance of plants. Even secular scientists acknowledge a higher oxygen concentration in these rock layers, elevated by up to 30% of present-day values.

Climate

Seasonal extremes would be limited with the canopy in place, stabilizing the climate to even temperature. This would allow plants to flourish. The massive amounts of plant matter stored in the coalbeds believed to be deposited by the flood support this view, as do the presence of fossilized tropical plants in what is now Antarctica and other colder areas.

But other models, like catastrophic plate tectonics, can also explain these occurrences. If the continents we know today were originally more central to the equator, the same increase in plants would occur. As the plates separated when the fountains of the great deep broke open, fossilized tropical plants were carried toward the poles.

The warmer climate would be the result of the greenhouse effect from the canopy. Over the span of 1,600 years, the heat would continue to accumulate. How much heat would be generated is a very complex question requiring computer modeling with a multitude of variables.

Rain and Rainbows

There is no significant reason to reject the idea of rain before the flood apart from the possible suggestion in Genesis 2:5 and that no one expected a global flood if it had never rained. But scientifically, this is a moot point and a circular argument from the canopy perspective. Without a canopy that would somehow limit vertical and latitudinal air transfer, the water cycle would operate much as it does today.

Similarly, there is no scientific reason to limit rainbows before the flood. Although, some suggest that God places the first rainbow anyone had seen at the announcement of the covenant in Genesis 9:8–17. But neither this nor the absence of rain is necessary from the text, and both would seem to indicate that God miraculously prevented cloud formation and the normal laws of optics from functioning. But even a mist in the air can produce the visual effect of a rainbow, so it seems scientifically implausible to reject pre-flood rainbows.

The Waters Above

The most comprehensive defense of the canopy model came in a series of papers and then the book The Waters Above by Joseph Dillow. In the book, he seeks to lay out an exegetical case that the Bible clearly teaches a sea of water on the earth and a sea of water above the earth. He uses Genesis 1:6–8, 2:5–14, 7, 11–12 and 2 Peter 3:4–7 as the scriptural foundation.17 He then goes on in the second section (chapters 5–7) to detail the scientific validation for the amount of water present and the advantages of a canopy related to the previous biblical ideas. His biblical arguments are framed in a formed-filling model where the basic elements of the creation are formed in days 1–3 and those areas are filled in days 4–6.18

The “theory” he draws from is from the writings of Moses but not explicitly taught there.

Dillow argues that to have a meaningful contribution to the rain for 40 days, the canopy would have to be between 40–160 feet equivalent of water.19 In the explanations that follow, he uses the lower limit of 40 feet, using extensive calculations to seek to validate the various aspects of the model. But he rightfully acknowledges that the “theory” he draws from is from the writings of Moses but not explicitly taught there.

Should some presently unknown physics be discovered in the future by which a liquid ocean could be maintained, the vapor canopy theory will be readily abandoned. . . . Should the physical assumptions on which the following theory is based be one day disproved by scientific advance, the veracity of the words of Moses will not be affected in any way. It will simply mean that our model of the ancient atmosphere was deficient.20

As the 426 pages seek to lay out the case, the ideas take on layers of complexity—literally. To maintain the idea, he acknowledges that the text clearly indicates a liquid sea of water in the heavens but that it must have been transformed almost immediately to a vapor layer that itself is made up of many layers. If not, then it would have to be sustained by a miracle and thus fall outside the realm of science. The layers are outlined on pages 240–245 and employ three differentiated temperature layers capped by a cloud layer.

There are indeed layers to the atmosphere, but these things are notoriously challenging to model. Likewise, he lays out the case for how the canopy could explain lower radiation and increase longevity and how it explains the lack of rain and rainbows. Dillow does seek to lay out his ideas with the parameters he assigned, but are they really the conditions of the pre-flood atmosphere? One way to evaluate this type of question is to compare alternative models. Are there other ways to explain the longevity? To validate a scientific hypothesis, competing views should be shown to be inadequate to explain all of the evidence. That is where we will head next.

The strongest rebuttal to Dillow’s work comes in a paper by William Worraker titled “Heat Problems Associated with Biblical Flood Model—Part 3: Vapour Canopy Models.”21 He details the history of the various canopy ideas and then arrives at Dillow’s work. He first confronts the biblical arguments presented and then moves on to the scientific concerns.

Dillow argues that the water must be “above” the sky, but Worraker offers a thorough explanation of the grammar and other examples that support an observer’s perspective, allowing for the waters to be “in” or “within” the expanse. Affirming this view is the fact that the stars are placed “in” the expanse. Dillow demands this must be from a different perspective since it is on one of the filling days. Worraker notes that “Dillow’s choice of senses in which to read the prepositions above and in looks like special pleading.” The other biblical arguments are also explained, and I commend the article’s explanations of no rain before the flood, no rainbows, and other aspects.

While there are multiple scientific aspects in The Waters Above (Dillow outlines 10 of them), Worraker deals primarily with the atmospheric conditions and the heat problems. Dillow acknowledges the greenhouse effect and an error in his initial calculations, but the corrected heat values put the surface temperature at 1,144°C. Dillow seeks to overcome this by modeling three layers in the atmosphere, including a convective current and presence of a cloud layer at the top of the canopy and cloud formation in the middle layer that would reduce the heat. But a constant cloud layer would block the stars, so Dillow posits it dissipated on a daily cycle. He also argues that the clouds would not form rain because there is no current bringing nucleating particles (dust, salt, etc.) into the atmosphere. I agree with Worraker’s assessment that without more quantitative modeling, Dillow’s model is untenable.

Larry Vardiman (and others) did more extensive computer modeling to assess the related greenhouse effect heat in multiple papers. In a 2003 paper “Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy,” he argues that the only way to get a “livable” temperature with a sizable canopy is to reduce the solar constant down to 25% of today’s values. Previous models still gave temperatures in the hundreds of degrees even with as little as a meter of water—less than 10% of Dillow’s suggested minimum. While Vardiman left hope for the canopy to work as a scientific explanation, getting a 75% reduction in solar output with a thin layer of water really doesn’t seem viable. The sun doesn’t have a dimmer switch.

Worraker goes on to address other issues, including the significant problem of the heat released at the collapse of the canopy. Sweating cools your body because the conversion from liquid to vapor takes heat energy away from your skin. The reverse happens as vapor condenses. As the windows of heaven opened, Dillow’s model indicates that the atmospheric temperature would rise 2,100°C.22 He attempts to describe the energy dissipating into the ocean, but as Worraker notes, it can’t rain when the atmosphere is above the vapor point.

Has the Death Knell Rung?

Whether examined through the lens of Scripture or science, the canopy theory fails to meet the standard of a robust explanation. The biblical passages do not demand a layer of water immediately above the atmosphere. We can explain the “waters above” as the atmosphere with its associated water (a thin canopy) or as water at the edge of the universe (or a combination of those). In doing so, we don’t compromise the text.

As a scientific model, the fatal flaw with a canopy of water significant enough to contribute to the flood as the “windows of heaven” opening is the heat involved. The amount of water vapor described by Dillow would release enough heat to boil the entire atmosphere and much of the oceans (it can’t rain with that much latent heat). It also raises the surface temperature to hundreds of degrees through the greenhouse effect. If the idea was developed to give the biblical account scientific validity, it hasn’t met the task.

We must hold tightly to the Bible but loosely to our scientific models.

While there is much appeal in using rational and scientific explanations to support the Bible’s claims, we must be willing to let go of ideas that don’t bear fruit. We must hold tightly to the Bible but loosely to our scientific models.

It has been over 20 years since I chuckled at that video suggesting the canopy. I trust I have matured some since then, but my conclusion is the same. The canopy is not clearly described in the text, and it provides more scientific problems than it solves. As scientists and theologians, we would do more for the biblical creationist movement to ring the death bell of the canopy and move on to other endeavors.