One of my greatest frustrations with the interpretation of the creation in Genesis was when I discovered how irrationally the whole situation was presented, by both the so-called literal interpretations and the fully scientific rejection of it. Part of my motivations for imagining Eldwan include presenting a different take on creation. I'll deal with a couple of points in this post.
The first major gripe - Who in the world advocated the idea that there was no precipitation until Noah's flood?
A little research directs me to Genesis 2 : 4 - 6 'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-', which has been interpreted to suggest that there was no rain until rain is quite undeniable by Genesis 7 : 12.
Let's try and sort this muddle out. Genesis 2, as I understand it, is an account of Day 6 of creation in more detail, about the creation of Adam and Eve. As such, the unique characteristics of this period, namely that there were no plants of the field, that there was no rain and that there was no man to work the ground, should be confined to our understanding of Creation Day 6. Of course there is no indication of when these conditions ceased to prevail, but I don't think they can be reasonably interpreted to have lasted until the flood. For one, after this brief description of the state of creation at the beginning of Day 6, the Lord raises the garden of Eden, and creates man. This already changes the conditions from 'no plants of the field' to many garden plants which are pleasing to eye and good for food. And man, while he may not be a worker, has also come into existence. These alterations already take effect by the end of Day 6.
By the time of the fall, man has clearly been cursed as a worker of the field, whose toil is what cultivates food for consumption. Cain is a farmer. Since the absence of rain was described with the other points that have clearly been changed, even by the fall, let alone the flood, I think rain would have pattered down on the vegetation of Eden as well. I have serious doubts about alternative hydrological cycles prevailing in this early stage of Earth's history. Just because God used rainbows as a symbol of his promise doesn't mean no one had seen a rainbow before.
Which leads me on to my second major gripe - The vapour canopy hypothesis
Unless the fundamental chemistry and intermolecular forces of water were drastically different from what they are today, I doubt that any water canopy could hover over the atmosphere of the earth for the length of time that these theorists claim. Incidentally, if water were so dissimilar to permit such structures, I don't think it would have functioned very well in human bodies.
The vapour canopy doesn't agree with scientific facts, or even biblical facts. If it was indeed the water above the earth, then the 'sky' would be limited to the space between this suspended aquatic layer and the seas. Since the sun and the moon were stated to have been placed in the sky, that would mean the sun and moon should have been sandwiched by the waters. Having a flaming sphere of plasma in such close proximity would hardly befit pre-rebellion paradise.
Exercising some creative liberty, I am re-imagining the water above the sky in Eldwan as an ice-belt that existed outside the orbit of Earth. If water was indeed raised to such an extent, the region between the ice belt and the Earth's seas would be the sky between the waters. The Sun and the Moon at least, would literally be contained within these two regions of water. I admit I cannot help the position of the stars, as they are a little too far away to wrap in an envelope of dihydrogen monoxide. But an ice-belt would at least fulfill a few more criteria that a vapour canopy cannot hope to explain.
Let's try and sort this muddle out. Genesis 2, as I understand it, is an account of Day 6 of creation in more detail, about the creation of Adam and Eve. As such, the unique characteristics of this period, namely that there were no plants of the field, that there was no rain and that there was no man to work the ground, should be confined to our understanding of Creation Day 6. Of course there is no indication of when these conditions ceased to prevail, but I don't think they can be reasonably interpreted to have lasted until the flood. For one, after this brief description of the state of creation at the beginning of Day 6, the Lord raises the garden of Eden, and creates man. This already changes the conditions from 'no plants of the field' to many garden plants which are pleasing to eye and good for food. And man, while he may not be a worker, has also come into existence. These alterations already take effect by the end of Day 6.
By the time of the fall, man has clearly been cursed as a worker of the field, whose toil is what cultivates food for consumption. Cain is a farmer. Since the absence of rain was described with the other points that have clearly been changed, even by the fall, let alone the flood, I think rain would have pattered down on the vegetation of Eden as well. I have serious doubts about alternative hydrological cycles prevailing in this early stage of Earth's history. Just because God used rainbows as a symbol of his promise doesn't mean no one had seen a rainbow before.
Which leads me on to my second major gripe - The vapour canopy hypothesis
Unless the fundamental chemistry and intermolecular forces of water were drastically different from what they are today, I doubt that any water canopy could hover over the atmosphere of the earth for the length of time that these theorists claim. Incidentally, if water were so dissimilar to permit such structures, I don't think it would have functioned very well in human bodies.
The vapour canopy doesn't agree with scientific facts, or even biblical facts. If it was indeed the water above the earth, then the 'sky' would be limited to the space between this suspended aquatic layer and the seas. Since the sun and the moon were stated to have been placed in the sky, that would mean the sun and moon should have been sandwiched by the waters. Having a flaming sphere of plasma in such close proximity would hardly befit pre-rebellion paradise.
Exercising some creative liberty, I am re-imagining the water above the sky in Eldwan as an ice-belt that existed outside the orbit of Earth. If water was indeed raised to such an extent, the region between the ice belt and the Earth's seas would be the sky between the waters. The Sun and the Moon at least, would literally be contained within these two regions of water. I admit I cannot help the position of the stars, as they are a little too far away to wrap in an envelope of dihydrogen monoxide. But an ice-belt would at least fulfill a few more criteria that a vapour canopy cannot hope to explain.