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

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.

 

Would Preacher4truth agree?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

How were the stars seen through a canopy?

 

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

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.

This is an arbitrary, Darwinistic presupposition.

But they did care about the revelation of God.

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.

 

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.

 

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, 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?

 

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?