Did the Earth shift on its Axis at the Time of the Flood?

[Sapper Woody]

But the fountains opening would seem to indicate a shift

Possibly, depending on the force and the direction of the force. If all the force generated were venting in the same direction, then the earth could have shifted. But, if the water was distributed evenly under the earth, and it came out semi-evenly, then the earth would not have shifted. While I could not find an exact number, to make the earth shift as much as it evidently has would require an enormous amount of force. And any counter force just adds to the force necessary.

So, without further information, we can not conclude one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with believing that the flood caused a shift, just like there's nothing wrong with believing it didn't. In fact, some people believed that at the time of the flood, the earth was hit by a large asteroid, puncturing the firmament and causing the deluge of rain, while simultaneously puncturing the crust causing the water from the deep to spout out. An asteroid of this size would definitely cause the earth to shift, and cause major devastation of life irrespective of the water. This would also align with the evolutionist's ideas of a meteor cuasing the extinction of the dinosaurs (not that it is my goal to align with evolutionists, but if something they say can be explained Biblically, I don't see any reason to NOT reconcile it.)

However, I personally still think that the earth was already created on a tilt. Again, I am basing this completely off of Gensis 1:14, where God placed the heavenly bodies to show seasons.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, actually I did have to use the ignore feature. Dishonesty is not something I tolerate well, especially from any person who titles themselves 'rev'.

Would Preacher4truth agree?

 

[revmwc]

Possibly, depending on the force and the direction of the force. If all the force generated were venting in the same direction, then the earth could have shifted. But, if the water was distributed evenly under the earth, and it came out semi-evenly, then the earth would not have shifted. While I could not find an exact number, to make the earth shift as much as it evidently has would require an enormous amount of force. And any counter force just adds to the force necessary.

So, without further information, we can not conclude one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with believing that the flood caused a shift, just like there's nothing wrong with believing it didn't. In fact, some people believed that at the time of the flood, the earth was hit by a large asteroid, puncturing the firmament and causing the deluge of rain, while simultaneously puncturing the crust causing the water from the deep to spout out. An asteroid of this size would definitely cause the earth to shift, and cause major devastation of life irrespective of the water. This would also align with the evolutionist's ideas of a meteor cuasing the extinction of the dinosaurs (not that it is my goal to align with evolutionists, but if something they say can be explained Biblically, I don't see any reason to NOT reconcile it.)

However, I personally still think that the earth was already created on a tilt. Again, I am basing this completely off of Gensis 1:14, where God placed the heavenly bodies to show seasons.

That is true, they were placed there and as agedman pointed out about the change in seasons wouldn't a shift have that effect too along with the canopy having been destroyed

 

[Sapper Woody]

That is true, they were placed there and as agedman pointed out about the change in seasons wouldn't a shift have that effect too along with the canopy having been destroyed

Rev, please don't take this the wrong way, but your question was ambiguous, so I'm going to try and answer it as I understand it. I am assuming that you are asking if a shift in axis, along with the canopy having been destroyed would have caused an ice age. I'm going to answer this question, but if it isn't what you're asking, please feel free to explain your question further.

A shift in the axis would not necessarily cause an ice age all on its own. In fact, our axis shifts constantly due to weather, although this is a very, very small shift. In the case of our current earth, a slight shift (a few degrees) would cause somewhat of a migration of our poles. In other words, the places that did not get the most direct sun would accumulate more ice, while the places that shifted to get more sun would get less. A dramatic shift of more than a few degrees could easily cause a localized ice age that would last until (and if) the axis ever corrected itself. If the axis tipped too far and in the wrong direction (as in, our north pole began facing the sun and we were essentially rotating sideways), then we'd have some severe weather patterns throughout the year. Essentially, there would be a global meltdown on one pole for half the year, with the other pole icing over. And then they'd switch for the other half of the year.

So, shifts in axis can have an impact and cause localized ice ages.

Now, the firmament falling would have created two localized ice ages that are still going on today. These would be located at the north and south poles. Essentially, without the canopy to disperse heat evenly across the earth, the poles would then have frozen over (presumably God's way of taking care of all the extra water that was now on the face of the earth). As for causing a global ice age, that depends on the way the canopy fell. If it just fell "naturally", as in it wasn't punctured, then it's a lot less likely that an ice age took place.

If, however, an asteroid caused the canopy to fall, then it could be as evolutionists have said, and the ash and/or debris from the asteroid could have blocked the sun's rays and caused a global ice age.

Personally, I am more inclined to think that the flood caused the local ice on the poles and that there was no global ice age. The canopy falling would have caused a rapid decrease in temperature at the poles (possibly as quick as 100s of degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of minutes to hours) causing animals to become trapped in ice while still living, preserving them nicely (as in the case of some mammoths). If we look at only evidence from the poles, it definitely appears that there was a rapid cooling of the earth that is evidence of an ice age.

I'm open to correction on this point, but as far as I know, no animals have been discovered trapped in ice outside of our polar regions.

 

[revmwc]

Rev, please don't take this the wrong way, but your question was ambiguous, so I'm going to try and answer it as I understand it. I am assuming that you are asking if a shift in axis, along with the canopy having been destroyed would have caused an ice age. I'm going to answer this question, but if it isn't what you're asking, please feel free to explain your question further.

A shift in the axis would not necessarily cause an ice age all on its own. In fact, our axis shifts constantly due to weather, although this is a very, very small shift. In the case of our current earth, a slight shift (a few degrees) would cause somewhat of a migration of our poles. In other words, the places that did not get the most direct sun would accumulate more ice, while the places that shifted to get more sun would get less. A dramatic shift of more than a few degrees could easily cause a localized ice age that would last until (and if) the axis ever corrected itself. If the axis tipped too far and in the wrong direction (as in, our north pole began facing the sun and we were essentially rotating sideways), then we'd have some severe weather patterns throughout the year. Essentially, there would be a global meltdown on one pole for half the year, with the other pole icing over. And then they'd switch for the other half of the year.

So, shifts in axis can have an impact and cause localized ice ages.

Now, the firmament falling would have created two localized ice ages that are still going on today. These would be located at the north and south poles. Essentially, without the canopy to disperse heat evenly across the earth, the poles would then have frozen over (presumably God's way of taking care of all the extra water that was now on the face of the earth). As for causing a global ice age, that depends on the way the canopy fell. If it just fell "naturally", as in it wasn't punctured, then it's a lot less likely that an ice age took place.

If, however, an asteroid caused the canopy to fall, then it could be as evolutionists have said, and the ash and/or debris from the asteroid could have blocked the sun's rays and caused a global ice age.

Personally, I am more inclined to think that the flood caused the local ice on the poles and that there was no global ice age. The canopy falling would have caused a rapid decrease in temperature at the poles (possibly as quick as 100s of degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of minutes to hours) causing animals to become trapped in ice while still living, preserving them nicely (as in the case of some mammoths). If we look at only evidence from the poles, it definitely appears that there was a rapid cooling of the earth that is evidence of an ice age.

I'm open to correction on this point, but as far as I know, no animals have been discovered trapped in ice outside of our polar regions.

We see Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Sounds as if holes formed in the Canopy thus puncturing it while at the same time the earth shifted then wouldn't it have formed the ice age. And then what would the water and ice do to the Carbon content in the fossil record? The canopy according to Dr. Carl Baugh, the Founder and Director of the Creation Evidence Museum of Texas in Glen Rose. He is the scientific research director of the world's first hyperbaric biosphere, simulating earth's atmospheric conditions before the world-wide flood of Noah's day. He is the discoverer and excavation director of sixteen dinosaurs, including Acrocanthosaurus in Texas and Diplodocus Colorado. - See more at: http://www.creationevidence.org/about_us/directors_bio.php#sthash.vhBluhLU.dpuf, suggest that over a period of forty days that canopy was in the process of collapsing.

 

[agedman]

Wow, I come back to look in on the thread and see a page devoted to what I said. Not certain, the why for the argument, but would urge folks to resolve to be a peace.

The only reason that I posted about a period of very cold after the flood, was because some look upon geology and geography as taking a very long time, however with the receding flood, ice build up and weather patterns, the changes could have been accomplished in a matter of a decade or a bitmore.

For example the carving of the Grand Canyon and the Great Lakes. The way the earth would have been responding to the extremes of temperatures (very hot equator) very cold beyond the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn) the great changes to the land would have happened far more quickly.

As the oceans again were able to establish less and less tumultuous temperature extremes, the weather patterns would have been impacted allowing for a faster and faster receding of the ice, leaving behind the wonders that some consider took eons, but actually took far less time.

Another aspect of the breaking up of the fountains mentioned in Scriptures could also involve the possible collapsing in upon themselves (possibly from the weight of the ice) and very large and deep fresh water ways were created (Hudson Bay, Great Lakes...).

The Scripture tell us little to nothing about the changes as a result of the flood. So all is up to speculation and drawing conclusions from observation.

As far as the earth axis shifting, I just don't see that happening.

There is documentation of the magnetic fields switching poles, and such switching has very little effect on what goes on on the earth, but there is nothing that would indicate that the earth was tilted, and the slight "wobble" is so minuscule that it is not readily observable.

But, while on the subject of the earth, and a bit of a rabbit trail, what has always fascinated me, is a simple test of how the earth rotates and how that effects the life span.

If one takes a pin and stick it near the top of the globe, and another pin and sticks it at the equator, the pin at the top rotates faster than the one at the equator.

Don't believer me, try it. :

Dig out a typical grade school globe, and a couple pencils, put one near the top, and one near the equator and rotate the globe. The pencil at the top will complete the turn far faster than the pencil at the equator.

What does that mean?

People have a longer 24 hour day at the equator than at the globe.

 

[Aaron]

Genesis 7:
10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
18 "And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
23 "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."
Then chapter 8:
2 "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;"
First we see that the windows of heaven opened and that is of course the Canopy Theory. That a canopy surrounded the original earth and that it was punctured and the deluge came down from heaven. But what we see too is that the fountains of the great deep were broken up. Now question what would cause the fountains of the deep to open? Could it have been a shift upon the axis? Otherwise a great earthquake and you would think that Noah would have spoken of such a great earthquake and Moses would have recorded it. But it the earth shifted on its axis what would that have caused? When the fountains opened up what would that do the earth's continental plates? Would a shift on its axis have caused this?

What we are told of is a tremendous upheaval, so much so that Peter talks of "the world that then was." It was a world we cannot imagine. I don't believe the verse about the days of Peleg has anything to do with continental drift. I think that verse speaks of political divisions. We're told by geographers and geologists that the continents fit together like they were one land mass at some point, and the evidence presented seems conclusive, and it seems to be consistent with the revelation in Genesis in which we're told that the waters were gathered into one place, and the dry land appeared. If the waters were in one place, it seems to say that the waters weren't divided by land, nor the lands divided by the waters.

It seems the fountains of the great deep being broken:

to split, cleave, break open, divide, break through, rip up, break up, tear
(Qal)
to cleave, cleave open
to break through, break into
(Niphal)
to be cleft, be rent open, be split open
to be broken into
(Piel)
to cleave, cut to pieces, rend open
to break through, break down
(Pual)
to be ripped open, be torn open
to be rent
to be broken into
(Hiphil)
to break into
to break through
(Hophal) to be broken into
(Hithpael) to burst (themselves) open, cleave asunder
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1234&t=KJV
​

. . . would be the event in which the land masses were divided.

We're not told whether God did it directly, or whether it was some secondary reaction, but God did it, and it was sudden. As Woody stated, Gen. 1:14 seems to rule out a change in the way the heavens were seen from the earth.

 

[Deacon]

But, while on the subject of the earth, and a bit of a rabbit trail, what has always fascinated me, is a simple test of how the earth rotates and how that effects the life span.

If one takes a pin and stick it near the top of the globe, and another pin and sticks it at the equator, the pin at the top rotates faster than the one at the equator.

Don't believer me, try it. :

Dig out a typical grade school globe, and a couple pencils, put one near the top, and one near the equator and rotate the globe. The pencil at the top will complete the turn far faster than the pencil at the equator.

Pardon, the rotation of the earth is completed in the same period of time whether one lives near a pole or at the equator.

Do people really think the bible is the best textbook for science?

We are reading old mail to a pre-scientific culture with different preconceived ideas about cosmology.

They cared little for global cooling or axis tilt.
Scriptures accomodate for their beliefs without necessarily correcting them.

That's why we still have YEC's - God doesn't seem to care what you believe about how things were created as long as you know the Creator.

Rob

 

[Aaron]

How were the stars seen through a canopy?

 

[Aaron]

Pardon, the rotation of the earth is completed in the same period of time whether one lives near a pole or at the equator.

He's just saying the speed of rotation at the equator is greater than the speed of rotation at the poles.

Do people really think the bible is the best textbook for science?

I think the bible is the revelation of God, and if He said six days, he meant six days, and that Moses had no more problems understanding six days, six seconds, or six billon years than anyone walking the earth today.

We are reading old mail to a pre-scientific culture with different preconceived ideas about cosmology.

This is an arbitrary, Darwinistic presupposition.

They cared little for global cooling or axis tilt.
Scriptures accomodate for their beliefs without necessarily correcting them.

But they did care about the revelation of God.

That's why we still have YEC's - God doesn't seem to care what you believe about how things were created as long as you know the Creator.

We still have YEC's because there are those who still believe in the Creator, and who believe what He said. And faith is directly sustained by the work of the Spirit.

It requires no such grace to yield to faithless reinterpretations foisted by godless philosophies and philosophers looking for reasons to invalidate His revelation and His authority.

 

[revmwc]

Wow, I come back to look in on the thread and see a page devoted to what I said. Not certain, the why for the argument, but would urge folks to resolve to be a peace.

The only reason that I posted about a period of very cold after the flood, was because some look upon geology and geography as taking a very long time, however with the receding flood, ice build up and weather patterns, the changes could have been accomplished in a matter of a decade or a bitmore.

For example the carving of the Grand Canyon and the Great Lakes. The way the earth would have been responding to the extremes of temperatures (very hot equator) very cold beyond the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn) the great changes to the land would have happened far more quickly.

As the oceans again were able to establish less and less tumultuous temperature extremes, the weather patterns would have been impacted allowing for a faster and faster receding of the ice, leaving behind the wonders that some consider took eons, but actually took far less time.

Another aspect of the breaking up of the fountains mentioned in Scriptures could also involve the possible collapsing in upon themselves (possibly from the weight of the ice) and very large and deep fresh water ways were created (Hudson Bay, Great Lakes...).

The Scripture tell us little to nothing about the changes as a result of the flood. So all is up to speculation and drawing conclusions from observation.

As far as the earth axis shifting, I just don't see that happening.

There is documentation of the magnetic fields switching poles, and such switching has very little effect on what goes on on the earth, but there is nothing that would indicate that the earth was tilted, and the slight "wobble" is so minuscule that it is not readily observable.

But, while on the subject of the earth, and a bit of a rabbit trail, what has always fascinated me, is a simple test of how the earth rotates and how that effects the life span.

If one takes a pin and stick it near the top of the globe, and another pin and sticks it at the equator, the pin at the top rotates faster than the one at the equator.

Don't believer me, try it. :

Dig out a typical grade school globe, and a couple pencils, put one near the top, and one near the equator and rotate the globe. The pencil at the top will complete the turn far faster than the pencil at the equator.

What does that mean?

People have a longer 24 hour day at the equator than at the globe.

Well I made a statement tin post six concerning what yous stated in post #2 I said "Well he said it was an ice age, the current shaping of the earth separated in Peleg's time. That would be once the people's groups were in place God divided the continents with oceans. Now could they have been frozen and the ice melted?"
To which the guy who trolls me all the time stated this in post #8
"Sure why not, anything interpretation is just as valid these days. It's all up for grabs so to speak. Just differing opinions. Whistling

...and not to mention, can you show me where he said this? Friend, you have a tendency to read things into statements that were never made. Nor implied"

So I used a part of what you stated in post #2 in my post #9 I said
"In post 2 the third paragraph he stayed "that great time of what we might consider an ice age" and the guy who trolls me came back with post #10 with "Try supplying in context what he actually stated:

"One thing that did occur not long after the flood in which the Scriptures don't tell about is that great time of what we might consider an Ice age."

This is how you distort things. Time and again."

So he said I was lying and distorting what you stated. If I was I apologize but I believe I quoted you verbatim just left the first part off that dealt with the bible not saying it.

I harbor no ill will toward him never have. We disagree and as fellow believers do we banter back and forth. But it is all in fun to me.

 

[preachinjesus]

But the fountains opening would seem to indicate a shift

Why? If the supposed vaults of water that were located far underground in the antedilluvian world, couldn't it be just as reasonable to note that they opened up as God began the process of flooding the world? An axial shift need not be applied.

On the main question here, I'd simply say that I doubt it is the case. There isn't enough force available on this planet to cause that much of a shift. I do believe in a global flood as described in Genesis is possible but I don't believe it occurred prior to 10,000 years ago. It was significantly longer ago than that, but I also posit a very old creation.

 

[revmwc]

Why? If the supposed vaults of water that were located far underground in the antedilluvian world, couldn't it be just as reasonable to note that they opened up as God began the process of flooding the world? An axial shift need not be applied.

On the main question here, I'd simply say that I doubt it is the case. There isn't enough force available on this planet to cause that much of a shift. I do believe in a global flood as described in Genesis is possible but I don't believe it occurred prior to 10,000 years ago. It was significantly longer ago than that, but I also posit a very old creation.

How long ago do you see Adam created? Because we see Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." So man was created on that sixth day. These would be 6 literal days. Then we see that Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" nothing would have been pre-historic for no death entered the world until man sinned. We see too this in Romans 5:
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification."

Death reigned by the offense of Adam. So do you believe Adam lived over 10,000 years ago. Yet we are told that Adam lived Genesis 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Of course we have the Jewish calendar says we are in the year 5776 and this starts with the creation of Adam by their belief.

So when would according to your belief Adam have been created? The creation of the earth must coincide with that, being that Exodus 20:11 states
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

So when was Adam created and the Earth?

Then we need to deal with Luke 3:
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

The genalogy of Jesus through Mary as Joseph was the son in law of Heli, but goe without a skip right down to Adam. Same list as we see in Genesis from Adam to Abraham with not one skip. So that would make the lineage coincide and the 6 literal days of creation followed. so the Earth would be how old?

 

[revmwc]

Why? If the supposed vaults of water that were located far underground in the antedilluvian world, couldn't it be just as reasonable to note that they opened up as God began the process of flooding the world? An axial shift need not be applied.

On the main question here, I'd simply say that I doubt it is the case. There isn't enough force available on this planet to cause that much of a shift. I do believe in a global flood as described in Genesis is possible but I don't believe it occurred prior to 10,000 years ago. It was significantly longer ago than that, but I also posit a very old creation.

Now on the shift on the Axis would it not be that these deep fountains would open by either a catastrophic event such as a large meteor hitting the earth or God hand moving it to open the fountains and bring the great flood in judgment of mankind.

 

[Revmitchell]

I would like to ask an honest question.

Why does it matter if the earth shifted on its axis? How does that knowledge effect our lives? What is the tiniest of evidences that we have to suggest such a thing?

 

[revmwc]

I would like to ask an honest question.

Why does it matter if the earth shifted on its axis? How does that knowledge effect our lives? What is the tiniest of evidences that we have to suggest such a thing?

It really doesn't matter. It was just something that I have wondered about and to me makes some sense as to how the fountains opened up. As far the knowledge of in fact that occurred then some of the calculations of scientific endevors may need to be recalculated. The pressure and force upon the fossil record.

 

[preachinjesus]

Revmwc, thank you for responding to my above post. I appreciate the time and interaction.

I take a different read to the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 than many around here. My position is more in line with John Sailhammer but also considers points by some like John Walton. When discussing I also note that God tends to (as a pattern) create with age built in, so it is beyond our ken to know how old creation actually is. Likewise I don't believe the genealogy lists of the OT or NT are created to indicate the age of the earth. Since there are gaps and differences in each, and since I believe they are more ethnologies describing the advancement of the Israelite people than historical evidences to a linear timeline. Most Jewish scholars agree btw and you're hard pressed to find a YEC who is a Jew. Anyways, that might be for another thread.

Now on the shift on the Axis would it not be that these deep fountains would open by either a catastrophic event such as a large meteor hitting the earth or God hand moving it to open the fountains and bring the great flood in judgment of mankind.

Okay. I just don't think it actually happened. From its creation, the earth has been on a slight axial tilt which hasn't changed much. God has uniquely craft earth to be the one place in our local universe (a rather funny phrase) and, as such, placed the earth on a tilt to sustain life. There's too much data to point out the earth has been on some kind of continuous tilt to say it wasn't. But ultimately we can't really know, can we?

 

[revmwc]

Revmwc, thank you for responding to my above post. I appreciate the time and interaction.

I take a different read to the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 than many around here. My position is more in line with John Sailhammer but also considers points by some like John Walton. When discussing I also note that God tends to (as a pattern) create with age built in, so it is beyond our ken to know how old creation actually is. Likewise I don't believe the genealogy lists of the OT or NT are created to indicate the age of the earth. Since there are gaps and differences in each, and since I believe they are more ethnologies describing the advancement of the Israelite people than historical evidences to a linear timeline. Most Jewish scholars agree btw and you're hard pressed to find a YEC who is a Jew. Anyways, that might be for another thread.



Okay. I just don't think it actually happened. From its creation, the earth has been on a slight axial tilt which hasn't changed much. God has uniquely craft earth to be the one place in our local universe (a rather funny phrase) and, as such, placed the earth on a tilt to sustain life. There's too much data to point out the earth has been on some kind of continuous tilt to say it wasn't. But ultimately we can't really know, can we?

No we can't know but it is fun to interact on the issues. Now as for the age of the earth God created fruit on the 3rd day to sustain life that would come on the 6th day. So yes He could have made an earth with age built in. Now if we take the moon and its crust what do we find? Well listen to the second phrase of the man who set foot on it. Keep in mind they expected to find deep powdery surface. They designed the landing craft with large pads, but what did the astronaut say as his foot on the moon?

 

[Aaron]

I would like to ask an honest question.

Why does it matter if the earth shifted on its axis? How does that knowledge effect our lives? What is the tiniest of evidences that we have to suggest such a thing?

These discussions matter when people are told the earth is billions of years old, that the sun came first, then the planets, that men and women evolved simultaneously from some prehumen primate and that the reality is all other than what has been revealed.

Now the beginning of knowledge is not reverence for the Lord and His revelation, the beginning of knowledge is the Naturalistic supposition of unbelieving scientists.

Adam came first, then Eve, and that reality is cited as the basis of a Christian doctrine.

 

[Revmitchell]

These discussions matter when people are told the earth is billions of years old, that the sun came first, then the planets, that men and women evolved simultaneously from some prehumen primate and that the reality is all other than what has been revealed.

Now the beginning of knowledge is not reverence for the Lord and His revelation, the beginning of knowledge is the Naturalistic supposition of unbelieving scientists.

Adam came first, then Eve, and that reality is cited as the basis of a Christian doctrine.

So how does this earth shifting relate to evolution?