# earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, and ante-dilluvian world map?



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 23, 2004)

Do we have any clues to whether there were earthquakes, volcanic eruptions in the pre-flood era?

Also was the world map of then the same as we have here?

blade


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2004)

Only the Bible can give us accurate information about that time, and it is largely silent on those issues. Sin brought destructive forces and changes upon the earth. And, perhaps, until the devastation of the flood the physical world still enjoyed the original creational stability. But what that looked like compared to earth's present level of stability (with hurricane, earthquake, volcano, etc.) is impossible to say without the data or revelation.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 23, 2004)

Good point, Bruce. One thing I've always wondered, but which we likewise can't really say at this point, is how much we will "know" about such things when we are in Heaven. For instance, I wonder if we'll be shown what the earth was like in certain times before our lives, after our lives, etc., or if being in the presence of God in the new heavens and new earth will leave no place for even cares about such things.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 23, 2004)

Chris,

I don't think that our residence in the new heavens and new earth will begin with our minds getting the old <format c:> effect. True, we will be relieved of the grief of this life, but I don't think that translates into an elimination of our memories of it, or of the background reality of the world in which we lived--both physical and historical. The main reason is that we will need that reality and those memories for the _eternal_ apprecition of Jesus saving work on our behalf. And a full appreciation of a renovated creation (2 Pet. 3:10-13, cf. the phrase "in the regeneration" Mt 19:28; and I don't think it'll be another creation _ex nihilo_ either) entails, I think, an essentially complete understanding of the original creation, and the full effect that the Fall and Sin had upon it.

Therefore, I think that upon our entrance into glory God will give us a rich appreciation of the whole history of redemption, from the original creation through all the subsequent history, satisfying all the (appropriate!) curiosity that we have.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 23, 2004)

It's true that we can't be dogmatic about what the antediluvian world was like. If we are then we fall into the same trap that evolutionists do who claim that their theory is fact although it can't be proven scientifically (ie., through reproducable experimentation). 

However, that does not mean we can't apply our minds to the Biblical data and consider questions about the past. 

For example, the Institute for Creation Research has studied and addressed questions like "why did people live so long in the patriarchal era?" and "how did plants get water before it rained for the first time during the Flood?" and "were there earthquakes (and volcanoes) before the Flood?"

The Flood is a major landmark in history and uniformitarians fail to see that such a catastrophic event was bound to have repercussions in geology, climate and in other ways, not to mention fossils. Granting the historicity of the Flood, as all Christians should, helps to account for so much that would be unfathomable otherwise. 

The difference between the antediluvian and the postdiluvian world is like the difference between summer and winter (cf. Gen. 8.22). Although we can't know or explain all the differences, yet reasonable minds can, I believe, hypothesize about the past without necessarily giving way to vain speculation. I view this as "thinking God's thoughts after Him." However, such study must be done with great humility and the Biblical historical account must not be compromised.

The more serious error (or the one to which many in this day are more prone), in my opinion, is to extrapolate vainly about the future based on dispensational understandings about the catastrophic past. I disregard ICR's claims in that regard.


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 29, 2004)

According to Genesis 1:7, God made the expanse and there were waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse. What are the waters above the expanse?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> According to Genesis 1:7, God made the expanse and there were waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse. What are the waters above the expanse?



We know from Gen. 2.5-6 that the earth was watered not by rain at first but by streams or mists from within the earth. The Flood was the first rain, which is in part why Noah's preaching seemed so foolish to his neighbors. The first rainbow was given by God after the Flood as well. I believe the waters above the expanse (ie., sky) constituted a water canopy which enveloped the earth until the time of the Flood. Note also Gen. 7.11, which speaks of the windows of heaven.


----------



## sastark (Nov 29, 2004)

to what Andrew said. "waters above the expanse" = "water canopy".


----------



## InSixDays (Jan 5, 2005)

I believe there was some sort of water canopy (probably mist), but unfortunately every model of explaining the canopy has completely failed to provide the amount of water needed, how it stayed up, or why it didn't boil the earth completely. Either way you look at it, the canopy cannot explain where the majority of the water came from. Rather, the "fountains of the great deep" that were broken open (Gen. 7:11) provides a very good source for much of the water.

Some creationists have tried to adjust the Plate Tectonics theory to fit this view (mostly AiG and ICR), but the PT theory is still unproven, lacks primary evidence, and is contradicted often by known evidence. The primary driving force for Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, as the creationist version is called, is a mathematical model which may or may not work physically.

Therefore, I have adopted the model developed by Dr. Walt Brown, known as the Hydroplate Model, which explains the flood through simply gravity and physics. He has made about 33 predictions based on his model that should be found to be true if he is correct. So far, about 5 have been confirmed to be correct. I recommend you read about it online: The Hydroplate Model. Its online for free. Start with Part II

As to earthquakes, most geologists assume that earthquakes occur as convergent plate boundaries shift against each other, but many earthquakes do not fit the predictions if this were true. If this were true, earthquakes should happen only on plate boundaries and in descending lines as plates subduct underneath other ones. But earthquakes often happen at random points far from either of these assumed conditions. Dr. Brown concludes that they are more likely shifting of the earth's interior as after effects of the flood.

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by InSixDays]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 21, 2005)

But couldnt EQ's occur on cracks formed by tectonic movement between plates??


----------

