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

As I've been thinking about global warming, et al, it occured to me that the Genesis record implicates a pre-Genesis ice age for the earth and possibly some of the Solar System's planets which once had or which presently have ice on them.Genesis 1:1 simply says that whenever planet earth was made, God made it. It does not specifically state the it was made on day one. It does say that on day one, God, via his Holy Spirit began to make decreasing entropic improvements/modifications, if you will, upon the void, dark and formless planet, beginning with the introduction of light upon the earth. It also says that the Holy Spirit began to move upon the waters of the formless void planet.Then on day two, God separates the waters from the waters, dividing the waters into two locations, the waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmament, i.e. the vaporized airborne waters from the liquid surface waters.The implications that come to mind from the above are:1. That the dark void planet, having no light, was cold and totally frozen, including all the waters of planet earth.2. That the energetic light which the Holy Spirit effected upon the planet likely melted all the water on the planet, i.e, that a complete ongoing global ice age prevailed upon the planet from the time of it's creation by God until day one of Genesis one when it all melted.The Genesis account also states that it wasn't until day four that the sun was created, i.e, that the earth was created before the sun. This statement implies the following:1. That if the other planets were also created before the sun, any waters present upon them before day four of Genesis had no heat or light to melt them and were ice as well.2. That after the sun was created on day four any water on the other planets began a melting process to a lesser or greater extent, depending on their distance from the sun.3. That this could, I say, could explain why there has been some evidence of melting ice/global warming on some of the planets of the Solar System.This thead concerns the pre-Genesis earth, though polar ice caps would be implied by a global flood subsequent to the 6 days of creation. Comments about the post flood ice caps are ok here when applicable to the topic, but the thread topic is not about the Biblical post flood earth.What thoughts, remarks, musings, and arguments concerning the above might you have concerning the above?Edited to add that imo, since the part of the sun's function was to effect the 24 hour days, all days/evenings and mornings before day five were of an undetermined length or period of time.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-12-2005 23:27 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Hi Jar. Faith and Belief is ok, though it's my science hypothesis, as a creationist, for the original ice age. I know any implication of the supernatural cancels out science aspects of threads here and I've gotten use to that. No problem. Thanks for taking care of it.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-14-2005 08:30 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

The details are not given. It would be assumed that the light came from the power of God's omnipotent Holy Spirit moving upon the waters which would be ice in total darkness and would have melted by the power of God who's spirit was present. The presence of the Holy Spirit implies light and heat energy. Your premise, imo, is a strawman. The plants, as per text were created on day three before the sun was created. 1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. The Biblical authors didn't know about television either, but it is clearly implied in Revelation 14, Revelation 19, and elsewhere in the Bible when all nations are able to view an event in one location of the planet, as I've shown in another thread.2. I'm not saying emphatically that the solar system's other planets were created then, but that it was a possibility and may account for the global warming detected on some of them.3. Guess what? I just happened to be reading in II Kings a couple of days ago, during my daily Bible reading and I read this, about righteous King Josiah's reign at Jerusalem. II Kings 23:5: And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense to Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, AND TO THE PLANETS, and to all the host of heaven. 4. I neither said nor implied that there was an ice age on earth before the sun in my op. My proposal was that it was in ice before day one. I did say that the other planets, if existing then, would not have began melting until after the sun was created on day four, since the Holy Spirit, God's spirit was not operating on the planets-- only on earth. Your're right. fortunately, they hadn't been indoctrinated by some aspects of modern science, but they were inspired in what they wrote by the one who created it all What better source of information?! No, Genesis one is the chronological text and Genesis two is the detail text not relative to chronology. This has been, for a long time, the understanding of this by the majority of Biblical scholars. Yours is a liberal interpretation of the texts. This book has been my focus of prayerful study for 60 years now, since age 10, and I think I have a good handle on it's message and meaning. Keep at it, my friend, and hopefully it's inspiration agent, the Holy Spirit, will begin to enlighten you too, as you read it. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2005 12:51 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Arach, I'm not going to allow you to bog this thread down with strawmen that waste my time and run these threads on with pages of yada. In the past I've been admonished by admin for adnausium repetitive stuff relative to my position and this nitpic strategy of yours, a good example of why it happens. Yes, I believe there is a word for ice in the Hebrew, but can correctly subsituted with water, as per context. It is also so interchanged on occasions in grammar today. Deltawerken - What is water?
... All forms of water are made of the same water molecule. All substances have
three forms: fixed, liquid and gas. This also goes for water, ...
http://www.deltawerken.com/What-is-water/341.htmlThe topic of this thread is not about Genesis chronologies, so don't want to get off on that, but the ambiguous statements of chapter two, including the word "generations" are relative to chapter one, needing to be interpreted relative to chapter one. It's clearly not intended to be chronological.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2005 01:06 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

1. ......."earth's land and water," a phrase sometimes used at times, water including frozen water.2. "How much water is in the clouds?"3. "How much water does a cubic foot of ice contain?"4. Search "forms of water" on Google and you find multiple pages of "forms of water." Note forms ..... of ..... water5. I cited the link in my message above which uses the word generically as to form.Enough of this yada. How about we allow the Biblical authors the same leeway we take for ourselves in wording things? OK?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

No I didn't. Go back and read carefully before posting. My proposal pertained to water before day one when the planet was in darkness as being ice. 1. Please stop repetitively ignoring my responses. I've already covered this.2. The text also clearly refers to the waters above the "expanse" as water when the context clearly implies vapor.
This's clearly a strawman and a dead horse you're beating. Get over it and move on. If you don't, don't be upset if I ignore you. OK? The flood water was clearly implicated from vapor which condensed. Nobody, but nobody has argued for a liquid ocean in the sky.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2005 08:50 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I deduce from the text which states that there was darkness on the planet that a body in space with no light having water will have it in the form of ice. You may accept that or not, but that's the way the universe is, isn't it? They evidently knew them from stars, and that's significant. We don't know exactly how much the writers knew. 1. The implication is otherwise. No designation was given for length of evenings and mornings before day four.2. Imo, the wording, "the earth brought forth" pertaining to the plants indicates that day three was was likely longer than 24 hours.Btw, I'm not a King James fan. It's ok, but I've consistently stated that my user Bible is the 1901 ASV. That's why I use the name Jehovah often in discussion and debate. It's correctly in my Bible some 6000 times.Gen 1:2 uses the phrase, ".....earth was waste and void......" in ASV

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Thanks, Wm! I agree, that the earth likely began hot. I should have noted this in my opener. I believe, however that since it was dark with water on it just before day one, that all the water was ice until the Holy Spirit began to "move on the waters." I thought about this problem, but figured if the other planets were created about the same time as the earth, they, like the earth might have been somewhere in the general area of earth in the galexy and when the sun showed up God positioned them where he wanted them for orbit. Another possibility is that they were created on day four with the sun, but that wouldn't account for the global warming of them. I believe we can assume more by the scriptures about the earth than we can about the other planets, simply because the scriptures are mostly about earth with no mention of planets, per se. ......."And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
You can't sweep that under the rug.Did you read my answer to that problem? The glory of God is so bright that nobody is able to look on him. His power is omnipotent. You don't think his spirit can lignten the earth until day four? Likely he wanted to regulate the heat so as to melt quickly on day one, evaporate quickly on day two, and reajust temperature to get the plant kingdom up under perfect conditions on day three. Likely he wanted to readjust the heat for each day, to effect what he wanted to do in the earth's beginning.I believe that pretty much covers what of your post needs addressing. If not, I'd be happy to address more. Thanks for your input here.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

What more do you want, Charles? I guess you need to be more specific if that doesn't suit you. Wm Scott gave a pretty good scriptural answer to the problem you see, don't you think?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

See my answer to Wm Anderson's post concerning the heat/cold matter. Again, I should have noted in my opener that the earth likely began hot and cooled before day one. You're acting like YECs now, Paul. Most of them believe that too, but you're ignoring that no measurement/gent agent existed until day four as per scripture. Nobody, but nobody knows how long the first four days were by a literal reading of scripture. The literal reading simply says, "evenings and mornings." It doesn't say "24 hour......" 1. Are you saying the sun and moon have nothing to do with the revolution of the earth?2. Don't forget ID/God. He could spin it according to what suited him for the work he was doing previous to the sun's presence. We simply don't know and much of my concept is just that -- conception of what my thoughts on this lead me to believe. You're right. Accelerated growth is a possibility and likely was the case, to a greater or lesser extent. Please note also that I've never stated that six 24 hour days were impossible, but that we don't know for sure that they were such before day five. There's a whole lot of unmentioned detail in the Genesis record. This is one of them; whether the first five days were longer or not. Not a problem, imo.Btw, please understand that imo, we needn't know all this, but as in math, imo, we can take the givens and work from them to an extent.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

You know, Jar, here you are an admin and you hyjack my thread into a circus, using up these posts. You know, of course what you admins here do (rightly so) when creos do this to evo threads, don't you, bud?I don't mind a little fun along the way, but when it serves to make light of and ridicule legitimate thread topic, imo, it's over the line.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Read again. Not about everything. The text says it was dark and had lots of water. Have any dark spatial bodies having liquid water been observed? Even the lighted ones must be relatively near to a star for liquid water to exist. Ice, imo is clearly implied in the text. Believe what you want about it and don't ask me to prove it. That's how I see it.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.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Read again. Not about everything. The text says it was dark and had lots of water. Have any dark spatial bodies having liquid water been observed? Even the lighted ones must be relatively near to a star for liquid water to exist. Ice, imo is clearly implied in the text. Believe what you want about it and don't ask me to prove it. That's how I see it. What then in day one does the Bible say determines the days, seasons and years?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

You have disproved nothing. Come up with substantial arguments relative to the Genesis record and we'll talk. I'm not spending any more time with you on your repetitive strawmen.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Jar this is a faith and belief thread. The thread is about the Biblical record and it's implications. Please either debate forthrightly on the topic without the nonsense or go and talk to someone else. You're messing up my thread. That's against forum guidelines, and you know it. Stick to refutations of what you see as distortions, please, in sensible debate, and we can get along. I interpret Genesis with some science as guidelines, such as my arguments for the ice age pre Genesis planet. Your blasphemous bordering Holy Spirit rink skater nonsense is not appreciated. You should know better as a professed Christain. Fine. Nobody's shoving it into your brain. If you don't like this thread, find one more to your liking, but please don't derail this one with nonsensical yada.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw