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

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

i don't mean any offense, but it's a little ridiculous to begin with. and ignoring my posts makes you look a little bad, especially when i keep disproving your points with textual evidence.

yes. currently, the atlantic ocean is covered in darkness and is still liquid.the text says the darkness is called "night." why do you assume it means anything other than "night?"

Sorry Buz. You have something you believe. That's fine. It has no more support though than the idea that Genesis describes a skating rink.Just as you find my statement somewhat unnerving, many of us find what we see as gross distortions of Genesis and the Bible as ridiculing reasonable interpretations.You expressed your belief. I believe your interpretation makes light of what is actually in the Bible. You are free to challenge my interpretations.Trying to use Genesis as a science book draws attention away from the message.Christianity is a wonderous faith, one that has great potential for improving life in this world we inhabit. But when people take parts of it and misue them, it detracts from anything that Christianity can possibly accomplish.I see no support for your position. Genesis is not a literal history of how the world was created. It's a generalized tale trying to show that the Universe is the creation of a Deity. It's meant to be read as allegory and morality play. It's not science. It has nothing to do with creation, the creation myth is simply a plot device that the various authors used.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

But we KNOW that simply is not a correct interpretation, in fact it is no closer to the truth than my comparison to an Ice Rink.We KNOW that for the first Billion Years or so that the earth was here it was a molten wasteland with NO water to freeze even if it was in the dark.We KNOW that the sun existed long before the earth did.We KNOW there was light LONG before the earth existed.And we know that the concept of Day and Night could not exist until the earth was formed and both rotating and revolving around the sun.Trying to pretend that there is any real science in Genesis is not only piss poor science, it's piss poor theology.Yes, this is a Faith and Belief forum. And as a Christian I believe it's my duty to speak out when folk try to bastardize the Bible and debase the Christian Faith.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

you know, playing the strawman card to attempt to avoid logical defeat is intellectually dishonest.you argue that the "deep" and "water" of genesis 1:2 is in fact solid ice, do you not? and you reason this because there is no light, and therefore no heat, correct?however, a verse later, the darkness is called "night." the light is called "day." there are light and darkness cycles described in the text, prior to the creation of the sun. do you agree?now, tell me, does the ocean freeze over at night? and more importantly, do you think the ancient hebrews thought it did?

*applauds* *continues applauding*

buzz, you have failed to be sensible. i have provided evidence for a correct and literal reading of the text, and multiple reasons why what you're saying is a distortion.and you have ignored my points, claimed i'm attacking strawmen, and refused to answer logical questions.at a certain point, all we can do is sit back and laugh.

LOL. You have produced nothing but nonsense for refutation. Your evidence? From what I've read of this, secularist scientists believe both earth and sun are around 4.5 billion years old. See above. And your evidence that God couldn't produce the light is what? What should one expect from a professed Christian who, so far has denied all but two supernatural events of the Bible, i.e. the miracle birth of Jesus and his resurrection? More of your meanspirited insolence, Jar. Too bad I need to do my own moderating here in town.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-18-2005 08:19 PM

---

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

As I understand him, he also agrees that ice can and is referred to as water, citing a Biblical text as evidence. There's a lot he likely doesn't agree with. So what? If you insist on ignoring my important point that there's a lot of details the text omits, I can't help you here. But if you use your science knowledge you should know that a molten hot earth wouldn't be covered with liquid water. You should also know scientifically that if it's cool enough to be covered with water, it's going to be ice until heated by something involving light and heat. So what? God had recorded only what he deemed necessary. How so? Please reread my reasons for this. You fail to show where my hypothesis counters what is in text. Assumptions are made on my part, and may have other legitimate interpretations as in any hypothesis. My assumptions cannot be proven by text, nor do they counter the text. They are simply that -- my assumptions based on my interpretation of text. Others are free to believe otherwise.At least, Paul, your arguments have been arguments, rather than frivolous nonsense and I appreciate that.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-18-2005 08:42 PM

---

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

Please read carefully before posting. I'm going to say it for the last time. It was ice [i]until heat and light was applied, and that ,imo, is implicated in verse two by the Holy Spirti. 1. Likely a warm ocean would not freeze over night any more than it should with the sun.
2. The temperature would be regulated by God.
3. I have no idea if the ancient Hebrews even cared. The writers, according to scripture were directed by God what to include and what to exclude in the text.

---

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

How so? Go ahead, bud. Laugh yourself silly.

---

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