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

not in genesis it's not.plants seem to grow with no sun just fine. actually, we do. genesis explicitly describes it. it implies a flat circular earth, with a dome of the heavens above it, and everything surrounded by water. they evidently knew of stars, and maybe planets (other authors did). and the sun and the moon. there is no indication they knew that other planets were in any way similar to place we lived, and that would have been TOTALLY anachronistic. nor after. like he said, there is no reason to assume the author meant anything other than a standard 24 hour day. if we're gonna change what the book says, let's just start from scratch.

quote:

---

The New Bible, Genesis One:

​

In the begining, God created the singularity. And the singularity was formless and nonexistant, surrounded by darkness, with God's spirit moving about. God said, "Let there be the Strong Nuclear Force..."

---

i mean, if we're gonna try to view this text with the eyes of modern science, and totally defy what it's actually saying, lets at least get it right. how? god can work miracles and create everything, but can't do it FAST? you don't give god much credit, do you? i like the jps for the ot, myself. mine starts of like this:

quote:

---

Genesis One, JPS:

​

When God began to create heaven and earth -- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water -- God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was an evening and there was a morning, a first day.

---

now, this is a proper, modern idiomatic hebrew translation from the masoretic text. the people who made this were scholars, and not all of them rabbis or religious leaders. so it's usually fairly true to the meaning except in a few specific instances. but lets look at what this says, since it's in modern easy to read english.there is darkness, followed by light. the darkness is night: not complete darkness. the light is day: not complete light. there is a night and a day even with the absence of the sun and the moon. the creation of light happens part way through the first day: it's why it always says evening before morning, and why even today jewish people regard the day as starting at sundown. (bet you didn't know that!)so, since the darkness is only night time, it doesn't imply that everything was frozen over. it also fully allows for plants to grow, since there is a daytime and light without a sun.it may not be RIGHT, but it's what the book says. no, not correctly. god's proper name is yahweh. jehovah is a combination of his name, rendered in german and read in english, with his title: adonay. the original text was written without vowels, so you have to ignore the vowels that are there NOW and look at the implied vowels. the vowels that are there now were added during the transcription of the masoretic text, and they are the vowels of adonay "LORD." they're there to remind the hebrew reader to say "adonay" instead of "yahweh" which would be a no-no. it is absolutely incorrect to use both name, you should use one of the other. and most bibles, out of respect for and knowledge of the hebrew tradition use "LORD" from the vowels of adonay.so no, jehovah is not god's name. and while we're at it, jesus is the wrong name as well. his name properly rendered in hebrew would be yehowshua. and coverted to common english: joshua. "jesus" has been through another language, greek.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-16-2005 12:40 AM

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.

That is poor - you have fallen at this simple hurdle. If you can't provide any back-up for this simple simple point.....

Dear Buzsaw;I am very glad to see that you are thinking things over and seeing things in a new light, so often people are trapped by their preconceived ideas and are unable as a result to see or understand anything that contradicts those ideas. You are preceded in some of your ideas by Leander R. Pimenta who published a book called "Before the First Day" which describes a literal six days of creation starting with a preexisting earth. Here is a link to his book with a review that I wrote on it. Look Here: Edited by AdminJar to shorten url. Use the peek feature to see how it was done so you can help in the future. Thanks. Leander is ahead of you in some areas, and you are ahead of him in others.You are right of course that in the Bible ice could be called water, which it is. I see someone was challenging you on this point, to show a scripture where ice is called water, here is one. -- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha Job 38:30 "when the waters grow hard as stone and the surface of the deep congeals?"I use the same point on ice possibly being called water myself, in that at the time of the flood part of the earth was covered by water in the form of ice rather than liquid water. My answer for how the tallest mountains were covered by the 'waters'. but that being said, I do disagree with you on the earth being frozen at the start of the first day. As others have pointed out it would have been very hot and covered by high temperature steam like the planet Venus. Then as the temperature slowly dropped the steam would have condensed and fell as rain, while the raise formed the clouds, that is how I believe that the waters were divided. All of the evidence shows that the earth started hot and cooled, there is no evidence for the reverse. Major problem here, if there was no Sun, what were the planets orbiting? Without the Sun there would be no solar system to speak of, the planets if they existed without the Sun, would be pulled by gravity towards each other and you would have only one big gas giant of a planet. The mass of the sun had to exist to act as an anchor for the rest of the solar system to revolve around, otherwise you don't have a planetary system at all. The orbits of the planets, asteroids and comets, all indicate that they have been in their orbits for billions of years and have formed by coalesced from smaller objects. Just look at the asteroid field between earth and mars and the impact craters still present on may planets and moons including our own. The earth itself has many old craters that erosion hasn't completely wiped away yet.It is of course impossible for the Sun not to have existed until the fourth creative day, for on the third day you have liquid water and living planets on the earth. Without our Sun, all water would be frozen on the ground as would all the gases that make up our atmosphere. Only through receiving light and the resulting heating of the atmosphere is it possible to have an open ocean. Read the verse below again and think about where the sun and moon are said to be and the effect that there being there has.(Genesis 1:14)"Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night;"In the Bible 'heavens' can have two meanings, one is the universe, the other meaning that is the main one, is the atmosphere of the earth where the birds fly and clouds are. What happened here is that as the earth's atmosphere cooled, the sun and moon became visible from the surface of the earth. The surface of the earth is the only vantage point from which the effects of day and night are felt. If you were watching this from any other point in space, creation of the sun and moon would not give you a day and night effect, no more than our watching the slow rotation of our moon gives us a 28 day long day/night cycle. So the events in Genesis is told from the viewpoint of someone watching them while standing on the surface of the earth, which considering to who the account was written for, that makes perfect sense.If you consider that the viewpoint is from the surface of the earth, on day one it is dark because of the heavy Venus type atmosphere surrounding the earth. Then as it cools the atmosphere starts to rain out and progressively clear up until on day four the sun is clearly visible. The fact that the sun and moon are clearly visible on day four disproves the idea of a preflood canopy by the way since it would have been impossible for them to be seen through the amount of water contained in the flood.The other possibility that most people go with is that the Genesis account of creation is just a poetic story, and we should be careful not to read too much into the details. I disagree with that view, since the details we are told must be accurate considering the source, so I view it as more a matter of a problem of interpreting what we have been told, and remember that while the words are true, our interpretation of the those words may not be.Some have a problem fitting in an ice age, but it isn't a problem once you know that Adam was created towards the end of ice age which ended of course with the flood which was a direct result of the sudden melting of the ice age ice. I bring this up to show that you don't need to put an ice age before the first day, when it works much better ending on day 6 causing the flood.Sincerely Yours Wm Scott AndersonThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-16-2005 09:05 PM

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

actually, "evening and morning" WAS the measurement device in the text. a period of dark followed by a period of light: a day. there is absolutely no reason to assume that a day would have changed length. no, he's saying "it is not directly related to the Sun at all." however, the hebrews who wrote genesis did not seem to associate the two AT ALL. there is light before the sun. and darkness. in cycles called days. they seemed to think that sun was a patron of the daytime, and not vice-versa. they had no concept of the earth turning. it's static, and flat. welcome to the outdated world of genesis. would involve changing the laws of the physics, i'm sure. and besides -- why? just to match genesis with the real world? you're not doing it very well. i've read genesis quite closely, i know the picture of the world that it paints.at least the flat earth society has the balls to pick one or the other. i had a very long day today. i bought a frame at rag shop, went to two classes, submitted three photos to a gallery showing, and wrote a huge refutation of contracycle's post that made him look just plain stupid.did it take me more than 24 hours? i even said my day was long, too. did the world change speed for me?now, why would it NEED to for god, who can do anything and everything? would it take him longer to do the impossible?the book means DAYS, literally. it's just wrong. you will never recitify perfectly with the real world, because the world it depicts is VERY innacurate. i mean, hey, an ocean in the sky, right? but that's what it says.want a better reading? the water is not water at all. water is what we call a thematic element in hebrew literature. it's associated with giant chaos dragons, like the tanniyn of genesis 1 and leviathan of psalm 74 and job 41. water is formless, void, but chaotic and dangerous. to the hebrew reader, water is a metaphor for emptiness.and they heavens are a compressed view of the rest of the universe. the sun and moon and stars and all the planets are all compressed into this (set of) dome(s) or sphere(s) that according to some traditional belief all rotate around the earth. but ignore that for a bit. what it's talking about, this water, is outside of the universe.so there's some questions resolved in this story that are still talked about in modern physics and sci-fi. granted, it is not LITERALLY correct, but it is an attempt to describe more than can possibly be comprehended.(i'm reminded of a book in osc's ender series, where they get outside of the universe, actually)

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God skated upon the ice on the rink.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light and stadium beer commercials.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness so that the commercials danced and twinkled attracting additional attention.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night and the pair ADVERTISING. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

hockey is awesome.now that the bible implies it, i won't feel like as much of a sinner if i go see the panthers.

Ice hockey is definitely implied by Genesis, even the violence. Neither Cain nor Able had their own front teeth. Able was a goalie for Montreal for a while but Cain was a winger. Neither ever dogged a backcheck and there is no mention of either deaking.This message has been edited by jar, 03-17-2005 12:51 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

don't be ridiculous, everyone knows abel was a mighty duck.one thing however is certain. david played for the kings.

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