Genesis 1 - When was the Ice Age?

[NConly]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

There was light the first day, which is why there was an evening and a morning.

Since we know that evening and morning are caused by a single rotation of the earth and not light orbiting the planet, There is no reason to believe that the days were any longer than they are now.  keep in mind, there was no living thing on the earth before day three, and in fact, no dry land before day three.  Sorry, Dino, you simply didn't exist then.

There was light and darkness the first 4 days Just NO Sun or Moon to rule over the 24 hour day/night. per v18. No proof of a 24 hour day til 5th day.

 

[Who me]

13 hours ago, teddyv said:

Other than teaching that the Bible describes a great Flood (true), any of their suggested mechanisms are grossly inadequate ad hoc explanations of what we see in the world around us.

One has to decide is an explanation that is based on the bible and honours the bible is correct or whether explanations  that ignore the bible and are based on man's ideas are correct.

 

If ccreation scientists  cannot give reasonable  explanations neither can evolution believing scientists. 

[RV_Wizard]

7 hours ago, NConly said:

There was light and darkness the first 4 days Just NO Sun or Moon to rule over the 24 hour day/night. per v18. No proof of a 24 hour day til 5th day.

Please explain what the name and location of a light source has to do with the speed of the earth's rotation.  I'm interested in knowing.

Genesis 1 never mentions the sun by name.  Did it come from "light?"  Did it replace "light?"  Did the sun, moon and stars all come from one place called "Light," as the Big Bang suggests?  "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"  Light had existed since day one.  What if it was the sun from the beginning, there was just a moon and stars added?

So, were the days 24 hours?  Probably not quite, since the earth's rotation is slowing.  Maybe they were 23 hours, 55 seconds.  The days certainly wouldn't be 1,000 years, because nothing would survive a 1,000 year night, and that would mean the earth took 1,000 years to rotate once.  It also changes the 7-day week thing that God didn't have to institute, but did.

 

[teddyv]

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If you took all the miracles out of the Bible, you wouldn't have much left.  For example, having the dead return to life is not possible, yet it happens 10 times in the Bible.  Christianity is predicated on Jesus taking on the sins of the world and raising again on the third day.  God is not governed by the natural laws of the world He created.

Recent studies have estimated that Noah may have cared for 1,398 kinds of land-dwelling animals and flying creatures. This includes all living and known extinct animals. Using a “worst-case scenario” approach in our calculations, there would have been 6,744 land animals and flying creatures on the Ark.  The Ark as described in the Bible had a volume of about 1.88 million cubic feet.  (source) No problem.  Also, not every species were taken, but every kind.  The Great Flood happened about 4,372 years ago; more than enough time for the world to be re-populated.

If your view that Creation and the Flood were wholly supernatural events then I don't have much argument with you.

But here you are making testable claims of ark capacity to hold all of the created kinds (which are rather arbitrarily designed, likely to get the conclusion needed - to fit on the ark), that then somehow speciated into the orders of magnitude more species, while also having even more species going extinct in the last 4400 years. So it's not just about populating, but also extinction.

[teddyv]

7 hours ago, Who me said:

One has to decide is an explanation that is based on the bible and honours the bible is correct or whether explanations  that ignore the bible and are based on man's ideas are correct.

This is not an either/or proposition. There are alternative interpretations that honour the text, while not conflicting with the general revelation.

7 hours ago, Who me said:

 

If ccreation scientists  cannot give reasonable  explanations neither can evolution believing scientists. 

Creationists create ad hoc solutions to problems, but rarely take the next step of ensuring their solution does not conflict or contradict their other solutions to other problems.

Right now, biological evolution is the best explanatory framework for the diversity of life on earth. That does not mean it is right, but that it's the best current one. There are creationists scientists working on potential models (ICR is into something called continuous environmental tracking). AiG and CMI both accept natural selection and mutation as mechanisms for adaptation and speciation, both part of the suite of known evolutionary mechanisms. I assume they also accept the other mechanisms as well since they are well evidenced and observed. 

[teddyv]

14 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

I've research Biblical Creation for 40+ years and continue to do so. Maybe you could use the following: Pastor David Reagan Presents Evidence for the Gap Theory from the Creation Story

I'll have a look. (Edited to add - I see the heading, but I don't see an article)

I don't accept Gap as a literal historical narrative of the early earth. I think there is some potential value when viewing the Genesis narrative as an early cosmology held by the Hebrews. @FreeGrace, while I don't embrace his view, brought up some interesting textural use of the "formless and void" which further convinces me we are dealing with story-telling and worldview building first and foremost, rather than a treatise on the how and when of these things - theology before all else.

Edited April 16 by teddyv
added thought

[FreeGrace]

16 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

I've research Biblical Creation for 40+ years and continue to do so. Maybe you could use the following: Pastor David Reagan Presents Evidence for the Gap Theory from the Creation Story

I am unable to get to the text.  Kinda like going in circles.  Is there a key to accessing the info other than clicking on it?  Clicking didn't help.

Thanks.

[FreeGrace]

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Any cataclysm that would leave the earth "without form and void" (or "a shapeless chaotic mass" as The Living Bible expresses it),

Seems you are conflicted.  You quoted a source that explained the DIFFERENCE between shape and form, shape being 2 dimensional and form being 3.  So why do you now equate "without form" with "shapeless"??  You should know better.  And "tohu" doesn't mean shapeless or formless.  It DOES mean "chaotic", which means v.2 cannot be describing the state of the earth at creation.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Gap Theory conforms to neither the Scriptures or geology.

Once again, there is no theory.  There are the words "tohu wabohu" which describes a state of being.  And we know from both Jer 4 and Isa 34 that they describe GREAT destruction of land.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  The "gap" is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  However, until verse 9 there was no dry land anywhere on the earth, and no life of any kind.

Because God was restoring what had been ruined.  They means of which we don't know.

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Dinosaurs didn't roam on an earth with no earth. 

No, they roamed the earth BEFORE it was ruined.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

5 hours ago, teddyv said:

I'll have a look. (Edited to add - I see the heading, but I don't see an article)

I don't accept Gap as a literal historical narrative of the early earth. I think there is some potential value when viewing the Genesis narrative as an early cosmology held by the Hebrews. @FreeGrace, while I don't embrace his view, brought up some interesting textural use of the "formless and void" which further convinces me we are dealing with story-telling and worldview building first and foremost, rather than a treatise on the how and when of these things - theology before all else.

That's not a friendly website. My fault. I'll find someplace else to reference if you don't like the KJV.ORG quoted earlier.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

20 hours ago, NConly said:

There was light and darkness the first 4 days Just NO Sun or Moon to rule over the 24 hour day/night. per v18. No proof of a 24 hour day til 5th day.

 

The words "day and night" pretty much say in black and white a 24 hour day. Since we know a day is 24 hours, the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show how it's NOT a 24 hour day. I believe God himself was the light before he created the sun and moon. Since the Bible uses the word Day, you must have an external source for believing the days weren't 24 hours. Correct?