I see what you’re saying about the translations, but the Hebrew is quite straightforward. Mountains is the subject of the first verb (“go up”) and valleys is the subject of the second verb (“come down”). The overall picture of vv. 5-`8 matches Day 3 of creation (with specific parallel between Gen 1:9-10 and Ps 104:5-9). This fits earlier parallels of Ps 104 (vv. 1b-2a = Day 1; vv. 2b-4 = Day 2) and later parallels (vv. 19-23 = Day 4; vv. 24-26 = Day 5; vv. 27-30 = Day 6). These parallels are not rigid; after all, Psalm 104 is a poem and not an historical narrative. But, combined, they give us strong reason to view Psalm 104 as a creation hymn, not anything directly related to the flood (other than the renewed creation connection).
It’s more big-picture than any particular historical reference. Within the historical context of Babylon on the move to exile God’s people (I date Habakkuk between 609-601 BC), the prophet-poet in Habakkuk 3 is conjuring up hope, asking for the same God who’s acted mightily in the past to do so again for the salvation of his people. The type of language he draws on–steeped in mythopoetic imagery–come from these earlier theophany encounters.
Irrelevant. One can certainly write a psalm in praise of what God did during Creation Week while also reflecting upon observing that creation in the author’s own experience.
There are no present tense verbs in Biblical Hebrew. So I would recommend caution in making major exegetical decisions based on how a Bible translation brings the ideas into a more familiar tongue.
Yep.
Yes. Clearly.
Ken Ham has a huge investment in the Ark Encounter, so I can see why he feels compelled to emphasize his global flood trope at every possible opportunity. So he often overplays his hermeneutical cards. It is not surprising that lots of evangelical scholars disagree with him.
Thanks! I think I had seen an ICR page about this Psalm but not this one. Re verse 9, I had forgotten the obvious implications that it puts this post-flood. And I think verse 35 is a beautiful reference to the fact that even though God had re-made the world, our hope is still in Christ’s final coming when wickedness will finally end.
One thing I noticed that is really awesome is that these verses are an allusion to resurrection
You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;
And You renew the face of the earth.
Again, renewed creation through judgment.
I also think again that the author shows evidence of knowing the pre-flood world - of theopanies and angels guarding Eden in the first verses.
Matthew Henry and other commentaries seemed to think that it may be a Psalm of David like Psalm 103. But I think that it’s obviously not the case. I think he was inspired to write his psalm by reading Psalm 104 - the context and historical clue are so different (reference to Leviathian especially, and the covenant and Moses in Psalm 103)
I also noticed the obvious parallels to Psalm 93, which seem to be written during the flood.
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord is clothed,
He has girded Himself with strength.
Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be [a]moved.
Psalm 104
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.
You who [b]laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
I imagine the flood felt like the world would be torn apart, but the writer is expressing His confidence in God who created the earth. From my POV, they are the same writer. There’s too much similarity.
I’ll throw in my $0.02…I read Psalm 104 as an expression of the ongoing regeneration of nature, and particularly the movement of weather that cares for various ecosystems…I think the waters in verse 6 are a reference to clouds going above the mountains and settling in the valleys, with the waters (clouds) ultimately returning to where they began. Solomon writes similarly in Ecclesiastes 1, comparing the vanity of mans striving/work to the processes and unending toil of nature. Solomon could have gotten the idea from David, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assign the psalm to David (or Solomon for that matter)…
I don’t think Psalm 93 is referencing “THE” flood, but rather the power of floods and seas in general, which would have represented the most powerful natural forces, and that God is mightier than those.
Seems like the author of the article disagrees with you. Too, the other evidences he points out make a good case that Ps 104 is a renewal and recreation of life after the great Noahic Flood. I like that personally, and I am going to keep that.
Yes indeed. And he also denies what geologists know about the geologic column and radiometric dating and just about everything else scientists know about the earth’s crust. Terry Mortenson disagrees with lots of textbooks in all sorts of academic fields. So I’m not at all surprised if you are telling me that he thinks that Biblical Hebrew has present tense verbs. (You will only find perfect and imperfect tense verbs in the Hebrew Old Testament.)
People are entitled to their own opinions—but not their own facts.
POSTSCRIPT: Obviously, I’m not saying that it is never appropriate to translate a Hebrew verb into the English present tense. I am saying that if you are going to build an exegetical case on Hebrew verb tense, one should have a basic grasp of Hebrew and how its verbs operate.
I thought you agreed that radiometric dating worked but was being misinterpreted, i.e. a date not for a rock for for some older crystals in the rock. No?
Zircon crystals are an enigma, and our current understanding of them make the YEC claim to a young earth a little hard to maintain. I must agree with that.
They are going to be exclusively in basement rock as native. If no means of accelerated nuclear decay can be found in them, they are problematic to YEC.
Radiometric dating of sedimentary rock is complete pseudoscience. It’s hard to even believe you termed it “accurate”.
Zircon crystallization is a completely, separate matter. It may truly be the only thing within erupted material where one could claim that the clock was reset.
Not sure what your understanding of that was, but it wasn’t mine. I am simply referring to the elemental cooling, crystallization, when the radionuclear clock is set to zero.
Perhaps you are unclear on the meaning of “reset”. That happens when an existing crystal is heated to the point when its atoms become mobile; melting or at the least metamorphism would be required.
Update and just for the record, I am beginning a more indepth study of zircons and finding them just as disappointing in determining any kind of authentic age as any other mineral. I was under the impression that they were more reliable. I am going to have to revise my views that zircons could point to an old planet. Apparently, they cannot be trusted to make that kind of conclusion.
I do have a very interesting question that I cannot yet get an answer for. Are all zircons historic? Meaning, are zircons no longer forming today? So far, that seems to be the case, and I am puzzled as to why that should be.
If anyone is able to find evidence that zircons are forming today or have formed in recent history, I would be interested.
That is not the point. The point would be why would zircons only be present at the formation of the planet in magma melts and not later. Why are all zircons old? I mean, volcanic eruptions occur every decade. Where are the zircons?
Well of course they wouldn’t, and they weren’t. You, for some reason, refuse to accept that the radiometric dates of most (all?) zircons are correct. The reason you don’t find recent radiometric dates for zircons is that the decay series used in dating zircons are not useful for recent dates. But there are plenty of Mesozoic zircon dates. So why do you refuse to believe them?
