It does indicate that there was a layer of water above the earth. I know the water canopy thing is pretty generally discounted by non-creationists, but that is what the Bible says.
But isn't this example (like the one I referred to above, of modern "creation science" founder Henry Morris adamantly insisting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics didn't apply before the fall) perfectly indicative of the point I was making: that "creation science" should invoke mixed emotions in Biblical inerrantists like you, because of it's tendency to speculate wildly beyond the Biblical text, while at the same time giving the impression that these speculations represent the Biblical view?
In fact in this case (see my added emphasis in quoting you above) you've fallen for just such an unwarranted, or at least highly questionable, equation of "creation science" speculation with the straightforward Biblical account.
Let's see what the Bible actually does say:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And 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. (Genesis 1:6-8)
So, O.K. So far so good. There is a "firmament," in some translations an "expanse," or a "canopy" (the "creation science" term) if you prefer. In any case the Hebrew word "raqia". And the raqia does indeed divide waters above and below it.
But where do you get the notion that these waters are above "the earth," and therefore implicitly somewhat close to the earth, related to the earth? You clearly get that (as suggested also by your use of the term "water canopy") from "creation science".
Young earth creationists elaborated this notion of a "water canopy" (variously conceived, the dominant and majority view being a "canopy" of water vapor in the upper atmosphere and/or the atmosphere generally, less common views of a shell of solid ice, ice crystals in orbit, and other variations) because they needed to get massive amounts of water from somewhere to make their "flood geology" work.
However if you look at other things the Bible says about the raqia, this notion that the "waters above" are nearby enough to fall to the earth as rain and help the flood along falls apart:
And God made two great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. (Genesis 1:16-17)
So we find that the sun, the moon, and the stars, are all "set ... in the firmament [raqia]." Now, if the stars are in the raqia, and the heavenly waters are above the raqia, then "the waters above" are beyond the stars. At the least beyond the clearly visible stars. Say, outside our galaxy.
Now you may think there's a flaw in that reasoning. In fact I think there is. I think the flaw is ignoring what, in my opinion, the ancient Hebrews actually believed: that the raqia was a solid dome or vault covering a flat earth -- sun, moon and stars set in it -- so the water was available to fall on the earth simply by opening "windows" in the raqia.
But of course you will reject my flat earth interpretation of the Bible. Which is fine. In any case, the point remains: The Bible does say the stars are set in the raqia, and the waters are above the raqia. You ignore these things which the Bible does say precisely because you've implicitly accepted the "creation science" account of what it says, or rather what it needs to say for the creation science scenarios to hold together.
Granted the "creation science" account does try mightily to construct a scenario which harmonizes with a literalistic and inerrantist interpretation of the Bible, but because it's also trying mightily to construct a putatively "scientific" scenario (at least to connect and fill in between the Biblical miracles) it again and again allows itself to get "carried away," as it were, with this later task, and in the process move far beyond the simple text of the Bible, and in many cases contradict at least some Biblical assertions.
This kind of thing is why I asked earlier if you might have "mixed feelings" about "creation science". You seemed to be suggesting that some of these conundrums that arise in trying to fully understand what the Bible is describing ought to be sort of held in abeyance, or somehow kept open. But doesn't "creation science" tend to break that abeyance and close those questions? It seems to me that it does.
I am not a Hebrew scholar. I never dissected those verses to that extent.
I don’t deny that there are problems with the different scenarios and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a reasonable explanation that makes it ALL fit together.
I think that what it gets down to, again, is that God explained to us in the most concise terms possible, something that is complex beyond what we are able to understand.
My thoughts about the second law, however, are based on the verses that I posted earlier about corruption entering the world with the fall. Stating that it entered must mean that the second law AS WE KNOW IT, didn’t apply before then.
What did apply, nobody knows, and there’s just all kinds of speculation as to what did at that time.
Since conditions in the new heaven and the new earth are indicated to be somewhat like they were before the Fall as the curse is eliminated, reading about that gives some idea of what things may have been like then.
But still, since no one was there to see it and all we have it what’s recorded in Scripture in the easiest to use most concise terms possible, there will always be room for varying interpretation.
I figure, again, that determining that stuff is a nice mental exercise but really irrelevant to my day to day living. I have to deal with this corrupted world as it is and that’s plenty, thank you.
I also recognize that no evolutionist is ever going to be convinced of the truth of the Bible by *creation science*. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life and the kinds of things that bring a person to that point are not intellectual debate.