The Implied Pre-Genesis Ice Age & It's Interesting Implications

Since I know you prefer the KJV here are Genesis 1:2-3 The text makes no mention of the temperature, or of ice, or of that ice being melted. Only liquid water is mentioned. Nor does the text mention the Holy Spirit making "decreasing entropic improvements/modifications" as you have it.Moreover if you want to claim that the ancient Israelites had a modern understanding of the planets you will need to do better than 2 Kings 23:5. Ancient cultures certainly distinguished planets from the "fixed" stars because they moved differently in the sky (the word "planet" itself is derived from this). However they did not realise the true nature of the stars or planets.I would also add that it is wrong to assume that the absence of the Sun justifies assigning an arbitrary day length prior ot that point. The creation of the Sun is not indicated as changing the length of the day/night cycle which is set up in Genesis 1:3-5. Accordingly a 24 hour cycle is the most reasonable reading.

Darkness does not automatically imply low temperature. And if you were trying to relate the Genesis account to a scientific explanation of how the solar system formed we would have to ask how and when the Earth formed. If you take a conventional view of the Earth's formation the temperature should start quite high, as a result of the potential energy given up as the material that makes up the Earth coalesced.As I pointed out knowing from the planets form the other stars is NOT significant - as other cultures (such as the Babylonians) made this distinction based on the observed motion. It does not tell us anything relevant to your hypothesis, therefore in the context of this discussion it has no real significance.I will also point out that the lack of ANY mention of the duration of day/night cycle does NOT imply that it changed. Indeed, sicne no change is mentioned it should be taken as weakly implying that the duration WAS 24 hours.It is also misleading to state that there is no indication PRIOR to the fourth day since there is no indication ON the 4th day or on the 5th, 6th or 7th days either. (And yo noeed to remember that the duration of the day night/cycle is the time it takes the Earth to revolve once about it's axis - it is not directly related to the Sun at all)I must also ask you to explain why you beleive that the claim that the "Earth brought forth" implies a length greater than 24 hours and indeed what length you feel it does imply. After all given that miracles are occurring accelerated growth is certainly a possibility and I can see no reason to prefer any other reading.Also you need to explain why, if the text was meant to convey the idea that some of the "days" were more than 24 hours, why it is that there is nothing that clearly addresses that duration even by implication. Surely the natural reading is that the days are the same length as an ordinary day.

W M Sxott disagrees with you. And what is the basis for your opinion that the Earth cooled to below freezing prior to Genesis 1 ? If it cannot be supported by the Biblical text you cannot claim that your hypothesis is implied by the Bible.As for day length I am not ignoring your assumption - I reject it as a clear falsehood and if you read and fully understood my posts you would know that. The day/night cycle is set up in day 1 and remains in day 4. That cycle is dependent on the rotation of the Earth and therefore it affects ALL the other measurements available at that scale created at day 4. The longer temr measurements (related to the yearly cycle) can't be related to day length without some basis for comparison - you would have to have a measurmeent of the day length BEFORE using it or defien hours based on year length which nobody did. Instead they divided up the day/night cycle - which existed from day 1.Morevoer even if your claim that new measurements COULD be done were reasonable it is completely illogical to claim that that implies any change in day length.As to your claim that nobody knows the day lenght that applies equally well to the length of days for the 4th, 5th 6th and 7th days as well as to the year length used ot measure the age of Adam and the other patriarchs. And I bet that you don;t assume that those were significantly better for no good reason - yet you attack me for extending the same reasonign to the earleir days of Genesis 1.And if I am "acting like a YEC" in refusing to accept your additions to the Bible as authoritative then all I can say is that YECs are right to do so - as an Christian or - indeed, any rational - person would agree.THe natural reading is that the days and years of Genesis - assumign accurate translation - are not significantly different from our own. If you can coem up with evidence relevant to the reading than I'll listen. But don't accuseme of ignoring facts simply because I don't agree with your unsupported opinions. I really don't appreciate that sort of lie and you would do a lot better to avoid using that tactic.So lets deal with your arguments:1 The "revolution" of the sun and moon are the product of the Earth's rotation. It is the Earth's rotation that determines those - and in fact (but not in Genesis) it is that rotation that causes the day/night cycle since the sun is the source of daylight. This point of course has no relevance to the actual poinbt under discussion because what needs to be shown is that a CHANGE in the length of the day specifically at this point is supported by the text (rather than Something Buzsaw Made Up).2- God's capabilities are not at issue, except perhaps the capability to disobey Buzsaw. I simply point out that there is nothing to suggest a change of day length on the 4th day and that the natural reading is that that "days" really are days. Just like the remaining days and other time units appearing in Genesis.Finally if we are talking about the IMPLICATIONS of the Bible it must be accepted that additional assumptions are NOT part of those implications. A longer - or shorter day length is not implied prior to day 4 and so anything which requires assuming a significantly longer day length is not strictly speaking an implication of the Bible.

Scott tries to argue as you do that the absence of the Sun means that the Earth would be frozen - however he brings nothing new in the way of argument. More significiant is the fact that he rejects the idea that the Bible implies that the Earth was frozen before Day 1 altogether, and even disagrees with you on the interpretation of the text dealing with "day 4".So he agrees with you on a point peripheral to his argument, likely because he gave it as little thought as you did. If you are going to appeal to miracles you might as well argue that God maintained the temperature of the planet as that the Holy Spirit melted the ice. Neither is mentioned in the Bible - yet the first at least appeals to an action that might more properly be omitted since it does not describe a significant change ocurring during the period described by the text. Nor does he deal with the point I made that the formation Let me repeat the point - there is NOTHING directly implying a low temperature or ice.Moreover the desription in Genesis 1 resembles NO planet that we know of. We know of none that is entirely covered in water, none that do not orbit a star - and none where a God is actively intervening. Irrelevence again - you assume that the Earth would have a long time to cool down and that God would not maintain the temperature but the text is entirely silent on these issues.As to your poitn about seasons and years - they are precisely the longer periods that I talked about. However they do NOT add to the ability to measure the length of a day in hours and even if they did it would not imply that a change in the lenght of the day had occurred there, nor that such a change could not have ocurred later on. It remains an irrelevance.The fatal problem with your position is that you assume that your speculations with little basis in the text - at best - are implications of the text. They are not. It would be just as valid for me to say that the Genesis implies that the Earth was created only a short period before Genesis 1:1 because it was still warm. Neither view is implied by the text, both owe more to speculation.

Since I was not arguing that "water" could not be used to refer to ice that is not an important point - if it was I would have investigated his claims.The significance of Scott's disagreement with you is that it undermines your claim that you are dealing with the implications of the text. If it were a clear implication he should agree with you.And believe me I'm not ignoring the fact that the text leaves out a lot of details - sicne it's a major point in MY argument. Where the text is silent there are any number of possible things that it DOES NOT mention. There is no reason to favour your imaginings over anyone elses - let alone claim that they are implications of the Biblical text. So where you say that you can't "help" me you are really admitting that your imaginings are NOT implications of the Bible.I must also add that there is no problem with my imagination. Indeed the problem seems to be with youirs since you seem unable to imagine a state between a molten hot Earth and one with the right temperature for large bodies of liquid water.Moreover I cannot reread your reasons for insisting that the days before the 4th day were longer because you have none. If you did you would not keep on repeating the same point after I had shown it to be irrelevant.Finally let me point out that your last paragraph yet again implies a special status for your imaginings. I do not need to show that the text contradicts your ideas - only that it does not imply them. And pointing out that the text is equally consistent with a quite different scenario is one way of doing so.Please get it through your brain "Buzsaw made it up" is NOT the same as "it is implied by the Bible"