Is the following Psalm describing the Genesis "Creation" or a "Global Flood" from the times of Noah?

Psalms 104:1-13

1 Bless the LORD, O my soul!

O LORD my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.
3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters,
Who makes the clouds His chariot,
Who walks on the wings of the wind,
4 Who makes His angels spirits,
His ministers a flame of fire.

5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

10 He sends the springs into the valleys,
They flow among the hills.
11 They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 By them the birds of the heavens have their home;
They sing among the branches.
13 He waters the hills from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of Your works.
NKJV

It probably refers to the creation myth, though the author of this psalm would undoubtedly have been familiar with the Sumerian flood myth that inspired many Near Eastern writers and story-tellers to come.

The passage starting in line 6 referring to "the deep" is mentioned in Genesis prior to the Noachian flood myth. Tehom, means "the deep" (if memory serves me correct -perhaps TDI will correct me or confirm it since he speaks Hebrew) and in Hebrew its written as a proper name, as if it were an entity. Line 26 (not included here) mentions the Leviathan and, together, these concepts are reminiscent of Tiamat, who was a leviathan or serpent god in the Sumerian mythology (Abraham was from Sumer).

I don't think this psalm refers to the Noachian flood myth but rather the Creation myth.

*************
M*W: I'm reading it as if the author is praising the Sun for its creation.

"You have set a boundary that they (waters) may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth."

That cannot be about the time of the Creation because the Deluge was to follow.

I chose flood, ecause of the word "return" in there, but then again, it could be referring to putting water in its place before the laws of physics were developed. But then again, I don't know when the laws of physics were made:p

Let's all recall that when God created the earth in Genesis 1 the earth was fully covered in water.

Only after God covers the world with water does he make the water move into its permanent zones:

Gen 1:9-11
9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.


Compare that with Psalms 104:

5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

Look especially at these two verses:

Genesis Creation

Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.

Psalms 104

8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.


If that isn't enough, let's see what some young-earth Christian biblical scholars have to say:

The inscription of the Syriac version of Psalms 104

"a psalm of David, when he went to worship before the ark of the Lord with the priests; and as to us, it teaches us confession and prayer; and intimates to us the constitution of the beginning of the creatures; and declares some things concerning the angels."

Septuagint

"a psalm of David concerning the constitution of the world;"

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"for it treats of the creation of all things, of the heavens and the earth, and of all creatures in them; and of the providence of God in taking care of them.
Psa 104:6 - Thou coverest it with the deep as with a garment,.... This refers not to the waters of the flood, when the earth was covered with them, even the tops of the highest mountains; but to the huge mass of waters, the abyss and depth of them, which lay upon the earth and covered it as a garment, at its first creation, as the context and the scope of it show; and which deep was covered with darkness, at which time the earth was without form, and void, Gen 1:2"

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible

"Psalms 104 - God's majesty in the heavens, The creation of the sea, and the dry land. (1-9)"

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

"Psa 104:6 - The deep - In the first creation, Gen 1:2, Gen 1:9."

Adam Clarke's Commentary

"The majesty and power of God manifested in the creation of the heavens and the atmosphere, 1-3; of the earth and sea, 4- 9"

The Treasury of David (Charles H. Spurgeon)

"Verse 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment. The new born earth was wrapped in aqueous swaddling bands. In the first ages, ere man appeared, the proud waters ruled the whole earth. The waters stood above the mountains, no dry land was visible, vapour as from a steaming cauldron covered all. Geologists inform us of this as a discovery, but the Holy Spirit had revealed the fact long before."

Let's all recall that when God created the earth in Genesis 1 the earth was fully covered in water.

Only after God covers the world with water does he make the water move into its permanent zones:

Gen 1:9-11
9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.


Compare that with Psalms 104:

5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

Look especially at these two verses:

Genesis Creation

Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.

Psalms 104

8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.


If that isn't enough, let's see what some young-earth Christian biblical scholars have to say:

The inscription of the Syriac version of Psalms 104

"a psalm of David, when he went to worship before the ark of the Lord with the priests; and as to us, it teaches us confession and prayer; and intimates to us the constitution of the beginning of the creatures; and declares some things concerning the angels."

Septuagint

"a psalm of David concerning the constitution of the world;"

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"for it treats of the creation of all things, of the heavens and the earth, and of all creatures in them; and of the providence of God in taking care of them.
Psa 104:6 - Thou coverest it with the deep as with a garment,.... This refers not to the waters of the flood, when the earth was covered with them, even the tops of the highest mountains; but to the huge mass of waters, the abyss and depth of them, which lay upon the earth and covered it as a garment, at its first creation, as the context and the scope of it show; and which deep was covered with darkness, at which time the earth was without form, and void, Gen 1:2"

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible

"Psalms 104 - God's majesty in the heavens, The creation of the sea, and the dry land. (1-9)"

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

"Psa 104:6 - The deep - In the first creation, Gen 1:2, Gen 1:9."

Adam Clarke's Commentary

"The majesty and power of God manifested in the creation of the heavens and the atmosphere, 1-3; of the earth and sea, 4- 9"

The Treasury of David (Charles H. Spurgeon)

"Verse 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment. The new born earth was wrapped in aqueous swaddling bands. In the first ages, ere man appeared, the proud waters ruled the whole earth. The waters stood above the mountains, no dry land was visible, vapour as from a steaming cauldron covered all. Geologists inform us of this as a discovery, but the Holy Spirit had revealed the fact long before."

What is the point you are trying to make??? Have you made a point?

Is there a problem with the two scriptures?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What is the point you are trying to make??? Have you made a point?

Is there a problem with the two scriptures?

There is no "problem" with the two scriptures. My point is that Psalms 104 is describing the Genesis Creation and not a global deluge. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, but apparently not.

This thread all stems back to the old/young earth debate began a while ago on this site, when you weren't here. IAC has claimed that Psalms 104 is describing the Noah flood, however it's pretty clear that it isn't.

Ohhh lol i never get involved in the young earth old earth debates its a dead end.

But i will comment on the scriptures.

5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.

Here is the end of the creation part of the story in the beginning the world was covered with water and no land was present.

8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.

Here is the flood. See how the waters went up over the mountains. originally they where above the mountains and where brought down, or the land was lifted up. (or a combination of both) If this scripture was only addressing the creation then it would never refer to the waters going up over the mountains. Because if there was only creation and no flood then the only mention of the waters movement would be in a downward direction. But as you can see they went back up over the top of the mountains after God had originally made the waters flee from the mountain tops in the first part of the scriptures you quoted.


9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

This last bit of scripture also aligns with the flood story God promised that he would never again cause the waters to flood the earth.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Ohhh lol i never get involved in the young earth old earth debates its a dead end.

Yeah, it is a dead end. One that ends at the conclusion of an old earth!


But i will comment on the scriptures.

5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.



Here is the end of the creation part of the story in the beginning the world was covered with water and no land was present.

Wrong. In verse 6 we see that God covered the earth with water in the beginning of creation. You claim that "no land was present" yet in verse 6 we are told mountains, which constitutes as "land," already existed! So land did indeed exist, it's just that the waters stood above it at the time.

So Step 1 is that God created the earth, a rocky planet, and he covered it with water. Step 2 is moving the water and making the land actually appear:

Gen 1:9-11
9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.

This directly coincides with verses 7-8 of Psalms 104. And you, for some reason, separated verse 7 from verse 8 when both verses are talking about the same event! Verse 7 and verse 8 are talking about the same thing, which is the water from original creation (NOT THE FLOOD) moving and dry land appearing. I'm not quite sure why you separated them when verse 8 uses the pronoun "they" in reference to the same water which fled in verse 7. Verse 7 tells us that the original creation water "fled" or "hastened away," and verse 8 tells us where that water went.

There is no indication whatsoever that David suddenly was talking about the flood waters in verse 8, which would make absolutely no sense.

8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.

Here is the flood. See how the waters went up over the mountains. originally they where above the mountains and where brought down, or the land was lifted up. (or a combination of both) If this scripture was only addressing the creation then it would never refer to the waters going up over the mountains. Because if there was only creation and no flood then the only mention of the waters movement would be in a downward direction. But as you can see they went back up over the top of the mountains after God had originally made the waters flee from the mountain tops in the first part of the scriptures you quoted.

So you are claiming that verse 8 is a completely separate event, and is talking about an entirely different "water" than verse 7! What do you think the pronoun "they" in verse 8 is referring to? Obviously, it is referring to the waters in verse 7.

9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

This last bit of scripture also aligns with the flood story God promised that he would never again cause the waters to flood the earth.[/COLOR]

Nope. Since that verse is referring to the waters of the original creation, it means that the Noah flood must have been local, not global.

Orthodox Rabbis through the millennia have said that global encompassing Deluge occurred ten generations before Abraham, in the time of Noah.Dragons, for example, are a kind of exaggerated reaction to a creature man came into contact with, preserved, in eternity, as an over inflated caricature of the actual beast.

One can only think back at mankind’s beginnings and their dependence on water sources, which eventually resulted in primitive civilizations springing up beside rivers and lakes to explain the root of the deluge myth.
That different people’s shared similar myths of floods and destruction, which, for them, would have meant the end of the world, is not difficult to comprehend.

As the cycles of nature imposed their destructive and constructive effects on human history the psychological remnants of these cycles, would have been a shared remnant of these destructions and constructions, resulting in common or similar mythologies.

For a primitive mind the flooding of its preferred environment would have been catastrophic and devastating.
Many of which would have had to innovate to escape the devastating cycles that brought drought and floods, bringing about tales of mythological deeds.

Mankind takes what is known and exaggerates it constructing spirits or mythologies or generalizations to make sense of what is occurring and why.
No doubt then that the common experiences of natural phenomena such as fires and the moon and floods and droughts and animals migrations would have had a profound effect on the primitive mind, trying to comprehend the world around it.

That modern men become seduced by these primitive tales of woe and wonder can only be explained as the effect of culture on the simplistic and underdeveloped intellects, seeking a way of understanding the world the confounds their senses and fills them with insecurity and fear.
No surprise then that they would take literally primitive, mythological stories promising regeneration and a meaning to the devastation and uncertainty around them.

A retarded psychology is a psychology unable to break out of its dependence on others and on the ideal parental idea of an omnipotent omniscient father figure or mother figure that offers safety and a reward.

*************
M*W: It seems that the issue of Noah's flood is appearing in threads all over sciforums, but since this was the thread attributed specifically to the flood, I'll post here.

According to Wikipedia:

"The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme in Greek and many other cultural myths. Though it is best known by the biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization."

In other words, there were stories of floods coming out of other cultures including the Americas. Can anyone explain all these various flood myths occuring worldwide in many cultures?

There was more than just one flood myth. That is the point of my post. How is more than one deluge explained?

Interesting how the Local Flood Model fits right in with with the Bible...

How is that supposedly so?

The Local Flood Model:

1. It rains extremely hard for 40 days.
2. The precipitation was unusually heavy because of excess cloud condensation nuclei from the earth-circling ash cloud generated by the massive eruption of a nearby volcano.
3. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and other smaller rivers of the Mespotamian Region flooded and overwhelmed the entire surrounding region for miles, killing off all modern humans in the area, and hence in existence.
4. Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.
5. Seeing that in the Local Flood Model the waters were all part of the natural non-mantle water cycle, they could have evaporated in only months, especially with the strong wind God sent.
6. The End.

both, Nature.

There is no "problem" with the two scriptures. My point is that Psalms 104 is describing the Genesis Creation and not a global deluge. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, but apparently not.

This thread all stems back to the old/young earth debate began a while ago on this site, when you weren't here. IAC has claimed that Psalms 104 is describing the Noah flood, however it's pretty clear that it isn't.

actually it is self explantory as far as I can determine. Seems to be speaking of the creation account in Genesis.

But Saquist, the passage says God then established bounds which the oceans would never pass over, and the Deluge covered the Earth, so clearly it's talking about the Deluge, the bounds established after it.

That's right, IAC. David claims that after creation, the waters would never cover the entire Earth again. If the deluge was global, then that means David lied to everyone in Psalms 104. He wouldn't lie, would he?

Swollen River NDS.

Yeah, just like the Mississippi River "swelled" in '93, right? How many buildings did it destroy again?

But Saquist, the passage says God then established bounds which the oceans would never pass over, and the Deluge covered the Earth, so clearly it's talking about the Deluge, the bounds established after it.


Okay guys...
Lets think about this...David lived after the flood. This a Psalm..or a song. And songs frequently include many different topics. Don't tell me you think that it's talking only about one or the other. Could it not be speaking of multiple topics.

It's a song...interpret it like you would Dave Matthew's What Would You Say
It's a song about the "wonders" of Creation. But it's from his stand point too. Which was after the flood.

There is no indication at all that the "waters" David writes about in Psalms 104 are referring to the flood waters. Where's the talk of all men dying and God displaying his great wrath as seen in all other references to the flood?

Why would David begin the Psalm about the greatness of creation, then suddenly for no apparent reason switch to talk of the flood for 3 verses, then immediately switch back to creation again for the rest of the Psalm?

I can't see how Psalms 104 in any way would be referring to the waters of the Noah flood.

I can't either...
but neither is that a contradiction.

Yeah, it's like the idea that we are about 99.99999999% that we landed men on the moon, but there always that .00000000001% chance that it was all a hoax.

Hey Saquist, sorry I couldn't respond sooner, I got one of those stealth banishments, and I think David would have known about his ancestor Noah and his plight, so considering this, I still think it there describes the Deluge.

*************
M*W: Has anyone ever given a thought to the Flood of Noah and the Great Deluge being two separate events?

http://www.halexandria.org/dward193.htm

A while back I read something about Noah's flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh (the oldest known written document) to have occurred before the story of creation with A&E. Maybe that's where all the confusion comes from.

While it's intresting to entertain such ideas I usualy find such speculation are lacking circumstantial compared to the bible. While the bible purpose is to instruct man to God's will it also records history very accurately. Not all sources agree with the bible but that's far from surprising. Different perspectives causes different stories....Yet the bible takes the time unlike any other book to etch out a time line and future prospect for the literal nation of Israel and the figurative nation of Israel as well.

I dig your moniker Saquist, "once burned, twice shy," good line for a movie, we hope to be making one, maybe we'll use it, along with Roman's line "at least we know the difference between poodles and sheep."

records history very accurately. .

It would seem ..Not!

Exodus Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?ex=1333252800&en=6f654bfd6c4fbcd8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Can anyone here provide some proof of the alleged historical accuracies??

What kind of evidence would you expect from a parting of the Red Sea 3,500 years ago nova900?

The question is can you show any historical inaccuracy in the Bible.

The question is can you show any historical inaccuracy in the Bible.

Check the above link..you can do that can't you??

Icemaster....the burden of proof is on you and Saquist, you should know better than to try that evasive trick,eh?
:rolleyes:

What kind of evidence would you expect from a parting of the Red Sea 3,500 years ago nova900?

I believe Archeology is Skinwalkers' field of study...perhaps he can elaborate.
Such a huge exodus of people leaving Egypt and the death of thousands of Egyptian soldiers,a event never recorded in their history.
Well, this is to be expected since the story is a mythical one.

The question is can you show any historical inaccuracy in the Bible.

Actually, the question is can you differentiate between parable and literal truth.

Did a walking snake really talk to Eve and convince her to eat an apple of off the Tree of Knowledge? Or was the apple and the tree symbolic of something deeper?

It would seem ..Not!

Exodus Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?ex=1333252800&en=6f654bfd6c4fbcd8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Can anyone here provide some proof of the alleged historical accuracies??


The Fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians
Cyrus' coming to power there is more I've a couple of books with correlations. The bible is the book archaeologist go to with historical finds because of it's accurate record keeping. That was not by accident. God meant for the bible to be precise in this manner in order to plot the arrival of the Christ. As a result many Isrealites were looking for the Messiah at the time of Jesus birth and of course so were others who did not wish for the Messiah to live.

The Fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians
Cyrus' coming to power there is more I've a couple of books with correlations. The bible is the book archaeologist go to with historical finds because of it's accurate record keeping. That was not by accident. God meant for the bible to be precise in this manner in order to plot the arrival of the Christ. As a result many Isrealites were looking for the Messiah at the time of Jesus birth and of course so were others who did not wish for the Messiah to live.

References to other cities or historical events really does not prove much except the authors were aware of some events unfolding (or ones already unfolded). Science fiction authors do this all the time..ie: A fictional story set in the future in a real city (say New York).
So, the bible contains references to real events and places interwoven with mythical stories, so what?

And as for the lack of proof of exodus???

References ot other cities and the fall of those cities prove historical accuracy Otherwise you're not looking for proof...you're looking for disproof.

As for Exodus...It is proof. I know of no correlations in history, yet neither have I looked. Exodus deals with the movment of an isolated group of people from captivity. Why others in history would record it I don't know. To that point there has been no correlating evidence. Exodus is merely an account events withing a nation.

Like China whose interior events are unknown to most of us. Or the Tiananmen Square incident. In the outside world many of us know about this event yet there is an entire generation of children who will grow up with out knowing this event.

You say the burdeon is ours. I do not accept the burdeon you place upon me. I give it back to you, For I have no use for it.

In a court of law a plaintiff has the burdeon of proof. A planiff has an alegation like yourself. You statement is that the bible is historicaly inaccurate? Now you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

As for Exodus...It is proof.To that point there has been no correlating evidence. Exodus is merely an account events withing a nation.

Thank you for confirming there is no evidence of this event.



You say the burdeon is ours. I do not accept the burdeon you place upon me. I give it back to you, For I have no use for it.

In a court of law a plaintiff has the burdeon of proof. A planiff has an alegation like yourself. You statement is that the bible is historicaly inaccurate? Now you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Total B/S !
Your logic (as usual ) is bizarre to say the least.
You want atheists and others like myself to believe in your bible and it's infallibility,then the burden IS on you,not me sir. You made the claim of the bibles accuracy and I dispute it,this means the burden is on the person making the claim.
Like most apologists you are creating an excuse to get around the issue of providing proof.
If you cannot provide proof of what the bible claims then what is your purpose here?

Nova, the Old Testament has been the primary roadmap for archaological investigations in the Middle East for two centuries, so how can this be if it's not the most accurate text available?

Nova, the Old Testament has been the primary roadmap for archaological investigations in the Middle East for two centuries, so how can this be if it's not the most accurate text available?

Still waiting for proof of the Exodus account.
Anyways...
I don't wish to change the threads' topic so I will let an Archeologist like Skinwalker answer your question if he wishes to.

Ancient migrations are usually inferred, such as the evidence of the Israelites in Egypt, followed by their appearance in Canaan.

Don't look to Skin, he thinks the Jews developed from the Canaanites.

Thank you for confirming there is no evidence of this event.

You recieved no such confirmation. at least not from me.





Total B/S !
Calm yourself.

Your logic (as usual ) is bizarre to say the least.
correction: My logic is indicative of known processes of most human judicial systems.
Bizarre if you like but that is indeed the held standard in democractic societies.

You want atheists and others like myself to believe in your bible and it's infallibility,then the burden IS on you,not me sir.
It is as I have stated. Your heart condition is not sympathetic to truth. That being the case..I have no burdeon to prove to you anything. I

I have a duty to teach meek like ones and honest heart ones that listen desire and knowledge.

You made the claim of the bibles accuracy and I dispute it,this means the burden is on the person making the claim.

I have made no claim. The bibles accuracy on several accounts are a matter of history. Just as I pointed out.

Like most apologists you are creating an excuse to get around the issue of providing proof.
Fortunantly...you've miss labeled me. But such is the error of the person with the stack of labels but doesn't apply them correctly.