Pre-Fall AND Pre-Flood?

[Floodnut]

Genesis 2:4-6 describes conditions in the earth when man was created, in the VERY GOOD world.

v4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
v5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
v6 "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Furthermore the diet for land animals and man, as directed by God was every green herb, etc (Genesis 1:29-30).
So there are two questions here:
Did it rain after the FALL and before the FLOOD?
When did men and animals begin to eat meat? Was it part of the sin of men before the Flood, before it was authorized by God after the Flood (Genesis 9)?

 

[laptoppop]

Note: this is conjecture and opinion

I think it did not rain before the flood. I think physical conditions changed drastically at that time.

I think they began to eat meat after the fall, before the flood. Remember, God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins...

 

[Floodnut]

Note: this is conjecture and opinion

I think it did not rain before the flood. I think physical conditions changed drastically at that time.

I think they began to eat meat after the fall, before the flood. Remember, God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins...

That is what I think too, but I would like to hear some reasons and basis for this view. And while some began to eat meat, Noah's family did not, and the animals were only beginning to eat meat, some supposed carnivores were still eating vegetables, but experimenting here and there. That is the way I view it at this point.

 

[keyarch]

So there are two questions here:
Did it rain after the FALL and before the FLOOD?
When did men and animals begin to eat meat? Was it part of the sin of men before the Flood, before it was authorized by God after the Flood (Genesis 9)?

Regarding rain: I believe it did rain before the flood. The passage you quote refers to the state the earth was in before man was created. It doesn't say that it didn't rain until the flood. It also rained as part of the flood, but the symbol of the rainbow wasn't introduced until a year later.

Your second question is a little more complicated. The implications involve "death before sin"; "what animals had a soul or the "breath of life"; what did the curse affect; "clean vs. unclean" upon the Ark; and so forth.
It could be that fish ate other fish from the beginning; also, animals without the breath of life could have eaten other animals and/or insects etc, all before man ever ate meat.

 

[vossler]

Note: this is conjecture and opinion

I think it did not rain before the flood. I think physical conditions changed drastically at that time.

I think they began to eat meat after the fall, before the flood. Remember, God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins...

As you said, this is conjecture and opinion.

Once again your thoughts on this topic aligned completely with mine. One thing I like about these 'opinions' we (YECs) usually don't attempt to pass them off as scientific evidence.

 

[busterdog]

Pre flood mist: would seem to have come from the founains of the deep, broken up at the time of the flood. It seemed in my KJV that the opending of the windows of heaven was for the first time at the flood.

As for meat, if the nations were so depraved, killing animals would seem to be in view. Also, God apparently ordained animal sacrifice. See Cain and Abel.

However, this suggest meat eating was only ordained post-flood:

Gen 9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Gen 9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

 

[keyarch]

Pre flood mist: would seem to have come from the founains of the deep, broken up at the time of the flood. It seemed in my KJV that the opending of the windows of heaven was for the first time at the flood.

Genesis 2:5-6 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


1. The mist would not have come from the fountains of the deep. Verse 6 says “from the earth” (Hebrew word for land) and watered the “ground”.

2. The “mist” was coming up before any plants were in the earth. God didn’t cause it to rain yet because He hadn’t created man yet to till the ground. Conversely, once He had planted the earth and created man to till the ground, rain was needed for the crops.

3. Animals need fresh water to survive. Are we to think they got this water from the “mist”?

4. There were certainly great rivers prior to the flood that are mentioned in the passages to follow (Gen. 2:10-). I wouldn’t think those were generated merely from the “mist”. And it was a river that watered the garden of Eden.

5. (From my other post): it rained days before there was an actual flood, and the rainbow was seen a year later as a symbol. (this doesn’t mean there was never a rainbow before that).

6. It seems to me that the only reason to suggest there was no rain before the flood is to postulate that there was a large water canopy and that’s where most of the water came for the flood. However, that is not needed given the source of water from the fountains of the deep (mid-ocean ridges) and the amount of water contained in the lithosphere (10 times that of the oceans above).

 

[busterdog]

Genesis 2:5-6 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


1. The mist would not have come from the fountains of the deep. Verse 6 says “from the earth” (Hebrew word for land) and watered the “ground”.

2. The “mist” was coming up before any plants were in the earth. God didn’t cause it to rain yet because He hadn’t created man yet to till the ground. Conversely, once He had planted the earth and created man to till the ground, rain was needed for the crops.

3. Animals need fresh water to survive. Are we to think they got this water from the “mist”?

4. There were certainly great rivers prior to the flood that are mentioned in the passages to follow (Gen. 2:10-). I wouldn’t think those were generated merely from the “mist”. And it was a river that watered the garden of Eden.

5. (From my other post): it rained days before there was an actual flood, and the rainbow was seen a year later as a symbol. (this doesn’t mean there was never a rainbow before that).

6. It seems to me that the only reason to suggest there was no rain before the flood is to postulate that there was a large water canopy and that’s where most of the water came for the flood. However, that is not needed given the source of water from the fountains of the deep (mid-ocean ridges) and the amount of water contained in the lithosphere (10 times that of the oceans above).

From Setterfield.org, these "mists" were of common origin with the fountains of the deep and apparently as substantial as rain, according to one view.

http://www.setterfield.org/archaeozoic.htm

2. Rapid radioactive heating by short and long-half-lived elements simultaneously occurs in the mantle and core. The resulting heat and pressure drive water from hydrated minerals that comprised the mantle towards the surface to appear as springs and geysers, as mentioned in Genesis 2:6.
3. The internal heating of the earth continued. This process initially caused some sodium rich granites to be intruded near the surface. That resulted in some metamorphosed basement rocks which formed the stable shield, or craton, areas on the earth’s surface. Zircon grains and the earliest stromatolite fossils from this time indicate shallow, warm waters in a number of areas.

4. Noah is born 4154 BC, in the Early Proterozoic era. Increased internal pressures and heat caused the earlier ‘mists’ or ‘streams’ of Genesis 2 to appear more like the ‘fountains’ mentioned in Genesis 7 which, at the onset of the Flood, all burst out at once. Some regions adjacent to the shield areas started to downwarp, and the flow of chemically rich water from the earth’s interior resulted in the distinct sedimentary deposits in these regions.

5. The Archaeozoic Era ended in massive tectonism with half our present ocean outgassed from the interior. Crustal rifting formed the ‘tectonic plates’, and the incipient mid-ocean ridges. Sediments were swept off the top of the shield (craton) areas and into troughs, which later stabilized. It is important to note that the ‘fountains of the deep’ which burst forth at this time were not randomly scattered across the earth, but primarily marked the incipient crustal plate boundaries and other specific areas of crustal weakness. This enabled a good part of the central sea area, which we now recognize as our central Pacific Ocean, to remain relatively calm during the land inundation going on, on the other side of the world. For this reason, floating vegetation mats were able to ride out the year, harboring a variety of insects and amphibians on them, precisely the way much smaller vegetation mats still do today after fierce storms in the Far East and the South Pacific.

Noah’s Deluge. Its beginning corresponds to the Diamictite—or rubble – layer (about 300 meters thick) which is often seen by evolutionists and long-age believers as being evidence of a past ‘snowball earth’. Refutation for this position along with more details may be found in the Snowball Earth? article. The Flood itself did not fossilize anything, but rather left a carbon-rich sedimentary layer above this diamictite strata of about 2.5 kilometers of thickness almost everywhere around the world. This is exactly what would be expected of erupting, boiling hot waters and the pulverized materials they were shooting up with them. Living material would have been scalded, dismembered, chemically disintegrated, and rotted through the year of the Deluge

Another Clue from Meteorites
Some meteorites are taken to represent samples of material from the formation of the solar system and hence the Earth. For example, carbonaceous chondrites, may hold more than 20% water locked up in their mineral structures [6]. More specifically, carbonaceous chondrites of class CI are made up of hydrated silicates as well as the volatile components water, carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen [7]. By way of an earthly example, the beautiful mineral serpentine is a hydrated silicate that contains 12.9% water in its composition [8]. Upon heating, this water is given up and the mineral turns to olivine, thereby reducing its volume [9]. Interestingly, olivine is an important component of the earth's mantle. In a similar way, other hydrated silicates, found in meteorites and on earth, may give up their water content when heated sufficiently, with a consequent reduction in volume. Indeed, the chondrules within the chondrite meteorites themselves are silicate spherules that have been melted and the volatile water component driven off. The remaining minerals in the chondrules contain a prominent amount of olivine [10].

Forming the Incipient Tectonic Plates
As serpentine changed to olivine, and other hydrated silicates lost their water content, there was a reduction in mineral volume. Consequently, the crust above the source areas for the water and magma would be weakened relative to the stable cratonic areas that had been solidly emplaced. This would be a major contributing factor to the predominantly vertical tectonic activity that generally dominated the Precambrian, instead of the horizontal forces of plate tectonics that predominated in the Mesozoic-Cenozoic history of the earth [20, 21]. These strong vertical movements in these weakened regions of the crust would result in intercratonic basins. In the case of South Australia, the Adelaide Geosyncline downwarped some 10 km, while the major faults and other structural features controlling these events extended to some 20 km depth [22]. On a worldwide scale, the downwarping formed a network of intercratonic basins that became mobile belts. Read and Watson point out a striking fact: "The network of mobile belts is closely followed by the margins of the present-day continental fragments. This aspect of the orogenic pattern suggests that when disruption of [the super-continent] began, fracturing followed the lines of the recently consolidated mobile belts" [23]. In other words, the stable cratons formed the core areas of what today are the continental fragments. By contrast, the weakened, downwarped areas were the regions that formed the boundaries of what was to later become the tectonic plates.
The Geology of Catastrophe 1.
The initiation of a series of geologically mobile belts bordering the shield areas of the super-continent can be approximately dated as 800 [wash my mouth] 900 million atomic years. At that time, the weakened crustal regions began to either downwarp or sink into fault-controlled basins. The activity continued to build up from that point and reached a climax at the time of the Flood. Interestingly, Noah was given the command to build the Ark around 3656 BC, corresponding to 870 million years atomically, which was just the time that this activity began. As the heating continued in the earth's interior, the pressure increased and eventually fractured the crust and the water explosively out-gassed to the surface. The pressure of the overlying crust may well have jetted the mixture of water and chewed-out debris as high as 20 km in a series of massive explosive eruptions circling the earth. As such, it would be an eruption on a worldwide scale similar to the local eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 AD where dense volcanic clouds reached a height of 27 km [24], compared with the 19 km of Mount St. Helens in 1980 AD [25]. Studies by Dr. Walter Brown suggest that about half the present volume of the oceans may have been explosively out-gassed from the earth's interior in that episode [26]. As the surge of water intensified, the sediments on top of the cratons were stripped off and swept into the rapidly deepening troughs. Water-lubricated fault systems assisted this process that formed a worldwide network of mobile belts. Some time after the Flood event concluded, these troughs stabilised and many were uplifted.

 

[keyarch]

From Setterfield.org, these "mists" were of common origin with the fountains of the deep and apparently as substantial as rain, according to one view.

You have made a lot of quotes here. I'm having trouble understanding your point from them, and your actual response to my post. What do you disagree with?
Also, what is the problem if it did rain pre-flood? How does it affect any theology?

 

[busterdog]

You have made a lot of quotes here. I'm having trouble understanding your point from them, and your actual response to my post. What do you disagree with?
Also, what is the problem if it did rain pre-flood? How does it affect any theology?

I don't think it affects any theology, I just think its very interesting. There may be some prophetic pattern between rain and the mercy and comfort that comes from teh Holy Spirit. Obviously, the flood is not a model of grace.

However, I just think it interesting to see a picture of a plausible geology for an apparently implausible biblical scenario. Who could imagine a world without rain?

As Setterfield suggests, in a young earth, the early period would representing the heating of minerals causing the release very large amounts of subterranean water. This could have caused the mists and fountains that watered the earth, unstable continental plates affected by large underground reservoirs and the release of large amounts of underground water to contribute to a global flood.

 

[HSetterfield]

Hi, thought it might help a bit if I responded to some of what was quoted from my husband, Barry.

There is no reason, biblically or physically, why there was not rain before the Flood. What is clear biblically is that there was no rain in the daytime over land before the Flood, for the rainbow was a new thing in the sky (although it had probably been seen in sprays of water before).

But water evaporates, condenses, falls. That is simple physics.

It is possible that because there was no axis tilt before the Flood, that there were no strong wind currents or jet streams to drive water-laden clouds over the land. Thus, water evaporating from the seas would simply condense at night and fall back right there.

And yes, the subterranean waters would have been more than sufficient to water the land. Look at Genesis 2 and note that Eden sat on a rise of land from which the headwaters for FOUR rivers originated. So no problem with a shortage of water, I don't think!

Regarding meat-eating: yes, all animals with nephesh (at least) and humans were vegetarians before the Flood. But those animals who would later be carnivores and even omnivores required a very high protein/amino acid diet -- as there is no reason to suspect their entire digestive tracts chanced during the year on the Ark! That means that there were plants at the time, before the Flood, which were appropriate for this type of diet. The very sharp teeth of squirrels and rodents today show us that sharp teeth can be necessary even for a vegetarian. If the protein necessary was to be found in nuts or beneath tough bark, then the sharp teeth of the cats and dogs, etc., would have been necessary to get at it. So there is only the false problem evolutionists bring up regarding all animals being vegetarian before the Flood.

The Flood evidently wiped out the plants with that amount of protein. We do have some hints of that possibility today with such things as soy, but it is my personal opinion that there must have been some much more abundant plant sources and a greater variety for the animals of antediluvian times.

God bless.

Note: we are jammed with work right now and so there is a good chance I will not even see a response to this. If there are questions or if there is anything about Barry's or my work which needs an explanation, please feel free to email us at barry@setterfield.org and if you link the conversation from here that is being referenced, I can come back on and respond.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[keyarch]

What is clear biblically is that there was no rain in the daytime over land before the Flood, for the rainbow was a new thing in the sky (although it had probably been seen in sprays of water before).

This is not as clear as you think.
1. The Bible is silent on this issue, so your clarity comes from your own conclusions, not scripture.
2. Is there a rainbow visible every time it rains during the day? NO.

It is possible that because there was no axis tilt before the Flood, that there were no strong wind currents or jet streams to drive water-laden clouds over the land. Thus, water evaporating from the seas would simply condense at night and fall back right there.

Where in the world is this coming from. How do you know there was no tilt?

Regarding meat-eating: yes, all animals with nephesh (at least) and humans were vegetarians before the Flood.

3. Where is the Scripture for this? Are you saying that after they made animal sacrifices that the meat just rotted. What was the purpose of "clean" vs. "unclean" animals on the ark? Clearly there was corruption and violence before the flood (the reason for it), and that means death; which also implies that there were no laws being followed, and that humans (even if not Noah and his family) were not purely vegetarians.

4. What about all the ocean creatures? Were they vegetarian too? NO. Were they judged in the flood? NO. Were they designed as they are with all their attack/defense systems? Why would we think not? Any theories should be looked at from a global perspective and not just what was on the land.

But those animals who would later be carnivores and even omnivores required a very high protein/amino acid diet -- as there is no reason to suspect their entire digestive tracts chanced during the year on the Ark! That means that there were plants at the time, before the Flood, which were appropriate for this type of diet. The very sharp teeth of squirrels and rodents today show us that sharp teeth can be necessary even for a vegetarian. If the protein necessary was to be found in nuts or beneath tough bark, then the sharp teeth of the cats and dogs, etc., would have been necessary to get at it. So there is only the false problem evolutionists bring up regarding all animals being vegetarian before the Flood.

Bogus arguments.

 

[Floodnut]

In the same context as "no rain," but "mist" it is said that a river flowed out of Eden and from there it became FOUR principal streams.

WHY is this recorded if it did not pertain UNTIL there is a clearly stated CHANGE at the Flood?

This climate condition of "Mist only" existed for how long then?

 

[HSetterfield]

Sir (keyarch):

The Bible is not at all silent about the fact that the rainbow in the sky was a new thing after the Flood. It was the sign of the Noahic Covenant. A rainbow does not appear in the sky unless there is rain and sun at the same time. Therefore it is reasonably safe to say that it did not rain in the daytime over land before the Flood. For if it did then we are faced with the idea that either the rain was so heavy and significant that the clouds never cleared during the day, or that the physics of light changed after the Flood. If you are willing to go with one of those ideas, great. I am not.

The Bible and the moon both indicate a time when there was no axis tilt. The moon, because our moon is the only non-captured moon in the solar system which does not circle on the equatorial plane. We have tilted. The time of the initial tilt is confirmed by the Bible when God tells Noah that summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, etc. shall not cease. Our English Bibles include 'day and night' in the list of not ceasing. But the most ancient texts available (the Alexandrian LXX) show a different wording: summer and winter, seedtime and harvest AS day and night shall not cease. In other words, they would now be as reliable as day and night.

Logically this means they weren't the same before.

The seasons are brought about by our axis tilt.

I don't know what the antediluvians did with sacrificed meat after the animal was sacrificed. I do know that the Bible commands vegetarianism for humans and all animals with the breath of life in Genesis 1:30-31. It may be that humans did not obey. I'm sure the animals did.

We do not know the dietary habits of the ocean creatures before the Flood. I do know that if any were considered nephesh creatures -- those with the breath of life, or soul, that they were vegetarians. This, in my own estimation, would at least include dolphins, whales, seals, and that sort.

If I thought my arguments were bogus, by the way, I would not have taken the time to post them.

 

[keyarch]

In the same context as "no rain," but "mist" it is said that a river flowed out of Eden and from there it became FOUR principal streams.

WHY is this recorded if it did not pertain UNTIL there is a clearly stated CHANGE at the Flood?

This climate condition of "Mist only" existed for how long then?

But the context is the stage of creation when only a mist came up to water the ground and not rain. It was before plants and before the creation of man.
Go back to Gen. 2:4. "...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,". Is it talking about the whole planet and the universe, or more local?
Upon a literal examination of the Hebrew, it turns out that this is in the "day" (or time period) when God made the "land" and the "atmosphere" but before the plants; which makes it between Gen. 1:6-10.
After that, man was created and that earlier state doesn't apply anymore.
So the "mist only" state probably lasted a few days until after man was created and put into the garden of Eden.

So then what is the "stated CHANGE at the Flood?"
All I see is that it started to rain before flooding. I see that AFTER the flood had already subsided and they were back on land, it rained again. Only then does a "bow" in the sky come about and become a symbol of the covenant.

Some people (like Kent Hovind) get into all these theories about a thick water canopy and a different pre-flood environment, and think that's why people had longer lives etc.; and also think that was the water source for the flood. It is totally unnecessary.

So what if it rained before the flood.

 

[keyarch]

The Bible is not at all silent about the fact that the rainbow in the sky was a new thing after the Flood. It was the sign of the Noahic Covenant. A rainbow does not appear in the sky unless there is rain and sun at the same time. Therefore it is reasonably safe to say that it did not rain in the daytime over land before the Flood. For if it did then we are faced with the idea that either the rain was so heavy and significant that the clouds never cleared during the day, or that the physics of light changed after the Flood. If you are willing to go with one of those ideas, great. I am not.

The Bible and the moon both indicate a time when there was no axis tilt. The moon, because our moon is the only non-captured moon in the solar system which does not circle on the equatorial plane. We have tilted. The time of the initial tilt is confirmed by the Bible when God tells Noah that summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, etc. shall not cease. Our English Bibles include 'day and night' in the list of not ceasing. But the most ancient texts available (the Alexandrian LXX) show a different wording: summer and winter, seedtime and harvest AS day and night shall not cease. In other words, they would now be as reliable as day and night.

Logically this means they weren't the same before.

The seasons are brought about by our axis tilt.

First, thank you for being polite. I was not (by calling the argumnets bogus), and I appologize for that.
My response:
1. There are more rainy winter days without a rainbow in my area than with one. No big change in physics, it just depends on the clouds etc.
2. If God set the moon in place from the beginning to function as it does, why would we assume there has been a shift? There seems to be many features of our planet and moon that are an exception rather than the rule.
3. The moon was set from the beginning of creation to be a sign for seasons, Genesis 1:14. I'm sure that during the time of the flood all things were interrupted, and possibly the comment in Genesis 8:22 was an assurance to Noah that things would go back to normal and not be disrupted again. So Biblically, I don't see that the logic you mention follows the text.
4. Scientifically, It sound like you are saying that the moon's orbit was constant around our equatorial plane, and then our axis tilted later. Is there really any factual evidence for this? If so, what kind of evidence? And how could it tilt and then be stationary again without some residual motion from the force that caused the tilt?

I don't know what the antediluvians did with sacrificed meat after the animal was sacrificed. I do know that the Bible commands vegetarianism for humans and all animals with the breath of life in Genesis 1:30-31. It may be that humans did not obey. I'm sure the animals did.

I think the text actually says that God provided those things for food. If animals were so perfect (after the Fall), why was God repentant that He had made them? Why were they also judged and wiped out. And since the flood was sort of a cleansing process of all the kinds on land, why was everything then fair "game" to eat. The curse that would have changed them (if they were changed) was back in the early days. Yet there was not a new curse after the flood that would cause them to eat each other. It makes more sense that they came off the Ark like they were before.

We do not know the dietary habits of the ocean creatures before the Flood. I do know that if any were considered nephesh creatures -- those with the breath of life, or soul, that they were vegetarians. This, in my own estimation, would at least include dolphins, whales, seals, and that sort.

If the Bible doesn't even mention what He gave the sea creatures to eat, how can we assume that any of them were strictly vegetarian? The term "earth" in Genesis 1:30 refers to the "land" not the planet.

 

[HSetterfield]

OK, keyarch, taking it bit by bit. I'll number the 'bits' so that it might be easier to respond...??

1. George Dodwell, the state astronomer for South Australia some years ago, did a massive research project on the evidence that the earth was recovering from a more severe tilt in 2345 BC (date of the beginning of the recovery). There is strong evidence in the ancient architecture and gnomens that there was a change in tilt. (It was this correction in tilt, by the way, which ended the ice age referred to in the book of Job).

2. There have most certainly been residual effects! Massive reversals in the earth's magnetic field are one of them. Another is Joshua's long day, the sun's shadow going back at the time of Hezekiah and the sun going down at noon on the day of the Crucifixion. All these are residual effects. You are right in presuming this was not a quiet ordeal!

3. Yes, of course God could have set the moon in place as it is now, but we do have evidence that there have been some changes. In addition, it does not take the moon to tell us seasons. It takes the axis tilt of the earth. The old word for 'seasons' however, simply means 'times' as marked off one way or another and not necessarily summer, autumn, winter, and spring.

4. The fact is, also, that the seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, are mentioned for the first time after the Deluge. It appears that they were established then.

5. I do not read where God repented (and the word does not mean repent in the sense we think about it) regarding the animals. Only man. There is no 'imperfect' animal in the sense of sin. They do not sin. They do what they have been made to do and eat what they have been designed to eat. So if God said simply that they would eat the plants, that is what they would eat.

6. The carnivores would have become carnivorous due to a lack of the foods they had eaten before the Flood. That, and the fact that cats naturally play with things that move, and if you think about the possible number of rodents that came off the Ark (they would have bred no matter what), eating meat was probably not quite as much of a change as we would think.

7. Actually the word 'eretz' which is translated 'earth' does not mean land in the Hebrew. It simply means 'that which is firm.' And you may be right about the sea creatures. As I said, I have only my own opinion to go on there and certainly yours is as good as mine!

 

[keyarch]

OK, keyarch, taking it bit by bit. I'll number the 'bits' so that it might be easier to respond...??

1. George Dodwell, the state astronomer for South Australia some years ago, did a massive research project on the evidence that the earth was recovering from a more severe tilt in 2345 BC (date of the beginning of the recovery). There is strong evidence in the ancient architecture and gnomens that there was a change in tilt. (It was this correction in tilt, by the way, which ended the ice age referred to in the book of Job).

2. There have most certainly been residual effects! Massive reversals in the earth's magnetic field are one of them. Another is Joshua's long day, the sun's shadow going back at the time of Hezekiah and the sun going down at noon on the day of the Crucifixion. All these are residual effects. You are right in presuming this was not a quiet ordeal!

3. Yes, of course God could have set the moon in place as it is now, but we do have evidence that there have been some changes. In addition, it does not take the moon to tell us seasons. It takes the axis tilt of the earth. The old word for 'seasons' however, simply means 'times' as marked off one way or another and not necessarily summer, autumn, winter, and spring.

4. The fact is, also, that the seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, are mentioned for the first time after the Deluge. It appears that they were established then.

5. I do not read where God repented (and the word does not mean repent in the sense we think about it) regarding the animals. Only man. There is no 'imperfect' animal in the sense of sin. They do not sin. They do what they have been made to do and eat what they have been designed to eat. So if God said simply that they would eat the plants, that is what they would eat.

6. The carnivores would have become carnivorous due to a lack of the foods they had eaten before the Flood. That, and the fact that cats naturally play with things that move, and if you think about the possible number of rodents that came off the Ark (they would have bred no matter what), eating meat was probably not quite as much of a change as we would think.

7. Actually the word 'eretz' which is translated 'earth' does not mean land in the Hebrew. It simply means 'that which is firm.' And you may be right about the sea creatures. As I said, I have only my own opinion to go on there and certainly yours is as good as mine!

On #7: The context is of the land animals and certainly not the sea and it's creatures.
On #5:
Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

I may address the others later. (It's getting late).

 

[mark kennedy]

Interesting discussion fellas, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here. I have a couple of things that might be of interest.

(It was this correction in tilt, by the way, which ended the ice age referred to in the book of Job).

I wonder could I trouble you for the chapter and verse, I'm big on the historical/literal aspect of Scripture particularly in the wisdom literature.

2. There have most certainly been residual effects! Massive reversals in the earth's magnetic field are one of them. Another is Joshua's long day, the sun's shadow going back at the time of Hezekiah and the sun going down at noon on the day of the Crucifixion. All these are residual effects. You are right in presuming this was not a quiet ordeal!

Astronomy is not my thing but I wanted to ask, did I read you right previously? Did you say the earth being tilted on it's axis and the moon having a nonequatorical path is unique? That' just something I am wondering about, I did have something else I consider a little more important.

During the crucifixion there was darkness for the space of three hours, it doesn't say the sun had set. A think dark cloud hung over the crucifixtion that reminds me of the pillar cloud the children of Israel followed in the wilderness. I am also pretty sure it's the 'whirlwind' mentioned in Job.

5. I do not read where God repented (and the word does not mean repent in the sense we think about it) regarding the animals.

I looked it up, would you believe that the word actually means 'comfort'. From the Strong's concordance/dictionary, submitted for you general interest and edification:

Repent 'nacham' - a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):--comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent(-er,-ing, self).​

(Strong's Dictionary, http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/index2.htm)

It's the meaning of Noah's name (Gen 5:29), Esau's wrath against Jacob (Gen 27:42) and turning mourning into joy (Jer 31:13). You are quite right that this is not repentance in the sense we are used to thinking of it. In the New Testament it's a change in attitude basically. In Genesis it's more of a satisfaction of just recompense.

7. Actually the word 'eretz' which is translated 'earth' does not mean land in the Hebrew. It simply means 'that which is firm.' And you may be right about the sea creatures. As I said, I have only my own opinion to go on there and certainly yours is as good as mine!

It does have the root meaning firm but it is most often translated either common (Lev 4:27) or land, nation or country (Gen 10:20, Jer 23:3, Dan 11:42)

Just thought I would throw that into the mix. I found the html Bible last week and I was wanting to use it online.


Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[HSetterfield]

keyarch -- on the inclusion of animals in Genesis 6:7, the section "men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground and birds of the air -- is a parenthetic. Without it, the sentence reads "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- parenthetic -- for I am grieved that I have made them." (NIV, but choose your favorite translation...) It is clear that this is a parenthetic in the Hebrew, defining who will be wiped out, but not so clear in the English. It was mankind who grieved God, not the animals. They, we are told in Romans 8, and all creation, suffers because of us, not by their own will.

About the large sea creatures, you may well be right. As I said, it was simply my own opinion and I certainly could be wrong. My kids will be happy to tell you it would not be the first time!

Mark -- There are a couple of references to an ice age in Job. The one that seems clearest is when God is responding, in chapter 38, verses 29-30. From the NIV, it reads:
"From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens?
When the wateres become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?"

This would have been in the Middle East, which is where the European ice sheets extended then. There are other indications in Job of the terror of those times when the continents were dividing (it probably took a couple of hundred years for the major movement to be completed) -- firestorms, volcanic activity, tsunamis. Take time to read Job with an eye for the physical catastrophes which are mentioned almost in passing and you will get a better idea of the time in which he lived. We generally read Job looking at the theology of the arguments used -- but read it a different way just once and be glad we were not alive then!

Regarding our moon and us -- my husband is a professional astronomer, the Director of the New Hope Observatory here in Oregon. Our moon is the only one in the solar system which is not a captured moon and which does not travel an equatorial path around the earth. This, all by itself, is very strong evidence for a tilt of the earth's axis at some time during its history.

About the day of the Crucifixion, although the translators have tried to make sense of what happened by calling it a 'cloud' or 'thick darkness', what actually happened is prophesied by Amos in Amos 8:9-10:
"In that day," declares the Sovereign Lord,
"I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.
I will turn your religious feasts into mourning
and all your singing into weeping.
I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads.
I will make that time like mourning for an only son
and the end of it like a bitter day."

As Matthew records it, "From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land." (27:45) That would be from about noon to about three. This would happen due to a pronounced wobble of the earth on its axis. This strange event is also mentioned in the annals in other cultures around the world. I cannot remember right now, but either the Chinese or the Middle Americans remember a time when the sun rose, then set, then rose again, or set, then rose, then set again. I've got it in my notes somewhere here...LOL If you do a Google search you might find something about it on the net. We also have the time of Joshua's long day when the same sort of thing occurred and, again, it was remarked around the world by those who were keeping records (primarily the Chinese as I recall).

This wobble being so pronounced several times in the history of man's memory is due to the gyroscope like effect of the earth being shoved off its normal axis alignment. Do the same to a spinning gyroscope and you will see it steady itself and then suddenly dip again and then steady itself then dip again, several times. This is recorded in the magnetic fields of earth as well as in the histories of a number of cultures, including in the Bible.

The pillar of cloud by day/pillar of fire by night was/is probably the Shekinah glory cloud of the Lord, and that is an entirely different thing!

I'm glad you are digging in to your Bible! God bless you and have a wonderful holiday season.