What is your understanding of this text?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,196
6,509
113
#21
(KJV) And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

The area where Mount Ararat is is an area of great orogenic activity. Of course this is according to geologic alnguage. I believe our Father simply made the earth so.
The translation above is by scholars from the Hebrew.

It is wasting time to dispute words when all versions of the Word have the same description in all languges translating it from the origina.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,196
6,509
113
#22
Chari singular, Charim plural of mountain in Hebrew. This is the word employed in the Hebrew text which translates as mountain, mountains.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#23
It's cool man. The majority of Theologians and Scholars side with this passage being about Noah's Flood. I tend to agree with them on this. But like anyone of us, we are more than welcome to believe as we do. So you go on thinking this is about Creation (y)
Google theologians scholars psalms 104 creation story About 1,260,000 results (0.63 seconds)

Google theologians scholars psalms 104 Noah About 938,000 results (0.80 seconds) and most of those say Creation Science takes the text out of context.

"
Of the twenty-eight commentaries on Ps. 104:6-9 (ranging from the sixteenth century to the present) which I consulted, all of them regarded Ps. 104:6-9 as referring to the third day of creation. Some of them explicitly denied that these verses referred to Noah's flood. Three commentators, however, said that in addition to the reference to the third day of creation there is also a secondary reference to Noah's flood. No commentator saw Ps. 104:6-9 as referring solely to Noah's flood--as creation science theorists do. The basic reason commentators see Ps. 104:6-9 as a reference to the third day of creation is that v. 2a of the Psalm is an implicit reference to the first day of creation, vv. 2b and 3a are references to the second day of creation, and v. 5 which is tied literarily to vv. 6-9 is a reference to the third day of creation. So, context favors the idea that vv. 6-9 are a reference to creation, not to the Flood.

The use of the word tehom ("the deep") in v. 6 connects better with Gen. 1 than with the Flood account according to the commentators; but, one must grant that the phrase "above the mountains" reminds one of Gen. 7:19. Yet, neither of these wordings settles the issue because the Flood account also mentions the tehom (Gen. 7:11); and, the phrase "above the mountains" lacks the word "high" which is used in Gen. 7:19, leaving it so general a phrase that it is just as applicable to Gen. 1 as to the Flood account. There is nothing in Gen. 1 which excludes the earth from having mountains today as high as they were before the earth was separated from the waters (Gen. 1:9). Also, other biblical passages associate the creation of the earth with the creation of the mountains (Prov. 8:25, 26; Ps. 90:2). Psalm 104:9 is the verse which creation science theorists really count on to connect Ps. 104:6-9 to the Flood account. As Whitcomb and Morris put it:

that this passage [Ps. 104:6-9] refers to the Flood rather than to the initial Creation is evident from the last verse, which refers to God's promise that the world-covering flood would never again be visited upon the earth (Gen. 9:11).11
If one lifts vv. 6-9 out of the context of the preceding verses, one might agree that v. 9b, "the waters will not return to cover the earth," fits the promise of Gen. 9:11 better than Gen. 1:9. But, is interpreting v. 9b apart from its context a good enough reason to reject the historic interpretation of the church?

In addition to the fact that verses 2-5 place verses 6-9 in a context of creation, the action of Ps. 104:9, "setting a boundary," also fits the context of the first three days of Genesis. On day one in Genesis, light is separated from darkness: God puts a boundary between them. On day two, the waters above are separated from the waters below: God puts a boundary between them. On day three, the waters below are gathered into one place and separated from the dry land: God puts a boundary between them (which is the sand of the seashore according to Jer 5:22). Psalm 104:6-9 with its "setting a boundary" thus fits very nicely into the creation context and seems to be clearly referring to God's actions on day three.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#24
Finally, it is quite clear from the way the waters are described in Ps. 104:7 that the reference is not to the removal of the Flood's waters from the earth. That is, in Ps. 104:7 the waters are described as rebuked by God in such a way that they "fled" ... "hastened away," in the sense of being in a hurry or alarm. The picture is one of waters rapidly running off, just as would have occurred in Gen. 1:9, 10 as the newly created earth emerged from below as a submarine rising to the surface. In contrast, Gen. 8:3 describes the removal of the waters of Noah's flood as subsiding very, very slowly, taking some seven and one-half months to get to the place where it was dry enough for Noah to get off the ark.12

The picture of waters fleeing in panic given in Ps. 104:7 is just the opposite of the interminably slow lowering of the waters by draining and evaporation given in Gen. 8:3. We can see then that Ps. 104:6-9 fits the context of Gen. 1 much better than the context of Gen. 8.

Despite the fact that the context of Ps. 104:9 is that of creation rather than the Flood, Whitcomb and Barker each try to save it as a reference to the Flood by citing Isa. 54:9 as "a significant parallel passage." Isaiah 54:9 reads: "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth."

If you remove Ps. 104:9 from its context, it can look partially parallel to Isa. 54:9 in that both verses refer to water not again covering the earth. But, even removed from its context, Ps. 104:9 is significantly different from Isa. 54:9. In Isa. 54:9, God made a covenant with living beings and swore to them that the waters of Noah would never again flood the earth. In Ps. 104:9, on the other hand, there is no covenant with living beings and no oath. God simply "sets a boundary" for the inanimate waters. Isaiah 54:9 is not a true parallel to Ps. 104:9.

If one were looking for genuine parallels to Ps. 104:9, they are easily found in Prov 8:29 and Job 38:4-11. Both passages speak not only of God setting a boundary for the sea, just as Ps. 104:9 does, but also of God laying the foundation of the earth, just as Ps. 104:5 does. They are accordingly much closer parallels than Isa. 54:9; and since their context is creation, they confirm that Ps. 104:9 is a reference to creation.

This leaves the question: "What does Ps. 104:9b mean when it says the waters 'will not return to cover the earth'?" How can this be a reference to creation as the context demands when the waters did in fact return and cover the earth at the time of the Flood? The answer to this question is that v. 9b is a rhetorical statement made for the purpose of emphasizing God's power and sustaining control over nature as he keeps the sea from engulfing the land. (Cf. Jer 5:22 where the point of mentioning God's setting a boundary for the sea is to obtain respect for God.) The rhetorical statement is like the statement in Ezek. 21:5 [Hebrew 10] where in the threat against Jerusalem and the land of Judah. God says: "I the Lord have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return (shub, same word as in Ps. 104:9b) again." This statement is even stronger than the one in Ps. 104:9b because it adds the word 'od ("again"), thus making the "not" a virtual "never." Yet Ezek. 21:5 is just rhetorical, emphasizing God's determination to judge and to slay. It is not to be taken literally because just seven chapters later Ezekiel is prophesying the return of Israel to live in the land in peace (Ezek. 28:25, 26), just the opposite of the Lord never returning his sword to his scabbard.13

Similarly, Ps. 104:5 says: "The earth will never be moved." If you interpret that literally as an absolute promise, you contradict Rev. 20:11. Further, since the straightforward meaning of Ps. 104:6-9 is a reference to creation, if you insist on taking the words, "they will not return to cover the earth," literally, you would have to conclude that the waters of Noah's flood must not have completely covered the earth and therefore the Flood was local.


Does Psalm 104:8 Say that Mountains Rose?

Since the subject of verses 7, 8b and 9 is "the waters" and verses 10-13 all revolve around water, one must say that contextually the subject of v. 8a is probably "the waters." Most exegetes have understood it that way; and, the minority who understood the text to say, "the mountains rose," understood it with reference to creation--with no thought that the mountains at creation would not be as high as they are today.

Barker, unable to see that the waters are being poetically described (apparently as an army in rout14) rejected "water" as the subject because, he said, water going up mountains "violates the natural order of things."15

He interpreted v. 8a as meaning that the mountains rose to their present heights in "the latter part of the flood year." The tendential nature of this interpretation is evident not only in its ascription of the verse to the Flood when virtually every other exegete in history has ascribed it to Creation; but also in Barker's self-contradiction. For he interprets the verse as describing mountains rising so fast they certainly "violate the natural order of things." The fact that his interpretation is given with an explicit reference to creation science theory strongly suggests that it is flood theory rather than the biblical context which is determining his exegesis.


Conclusion

Nearly all exegetes throughout church history have understood Ps. 104:6-9 as referring to the third day of creation. The preceding verses, the action of "setting a boundary," the rapid retreat of the waters, and the parallel verses in Prov. 8:29 and Job 38:4-11 all testify that Ps. 104:6-9 is about Creation not the Flood. The fact that the Flood waters are described in Gen. 8:1-14 as running off very, very slowly is just the opposite of the description given in Ps. 104:7; so, we can be sure Ps. 104:6-9 is not a reference to the Flood.

Creation science theorists are departing from their own standards of following a straight forward interpretation of Scripture when they offer an interpretation of Ps. 104:6-9 which is contrary to its context and which virtually no one but themselves has ever seen there. It seems apparent the only reason they do this is because they desperately need a cover for the fact they have arbitrarily introduced a gigantic miracle ad hoc to save their theory from being falsified.16"
https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Seely.html.ori
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#25
(KJV) And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

The area where Mount Ararat is is an area of great orogenic activity. Of course this is according to geologic alnguage. I believe our Father simply made the earth so.
The translation above is by scholars from the Hebrew.

It is wasting time to dispute words when all versions of the Word have the same description in all languges translating it from the origina.
"Nearly all exegetes throughout church history have understood Ps. 104:6-9 as referring to the third day of creation. The preceding verses, the action of "setting a boundary," the rapid retreat of the waters, and the parallel verses in Prov. 8:29 and Job 38:4-11 all testify that Ps. 104:6-9 is about Creation not the Flood. The fact that the Flood waters are described in Gen. 8:1-14 as running off very, very slowly is just the opposite of the description given in Ps. 104:7; so, we can be sure Ps. 104:6-9 is not a reference to the Flood. "
https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Seely.html.ori
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#26
Chari singular, Charim plural of mountain in Hebrew. This is the word employed in the Hebrew text which translates as mountain, mountains.
There are translations and commentaries view genesis 8 as hills.

"Nearly all exegetes throughout church history have understood Ps. 104:6-9 as referring to the third day of creation. The preceding verses, the action of "setting a boundary," the rapid retreat of the waters, and the parallel verses in Prov. 8:29 and Job 38:4-11 all testify that Ps. 104:6-9 is about Creation not the Flood. The fact that the Flood waters are described in Gen. 8:1-14 as running off very, very slowly is just the opposite of the description given in Ps. 104:7; so, we can be sure Ps. 104:6-9 is not a reference to the Flood. "
https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Seely.html.ori
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#27
"Nearly all exegetes throughout church history have understood Ps. 104:6-9 as referring to the third day of creation. The preceding verses, the action of "setting a boundary," the rapid retreat of the waters, and the parallel verses in Prov. 8:29 and Job 38:4-11 all testify that Ps. 104:6-9 is about Creation not the Flood. The fact that the Flood waters are described in Gen. 8:1-14 as running off very, very slowly is just the opposite of the description given in Ps. 104:7; so, we can be sure Ps. 104:6-9 is not a reference to the Flood. "
https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Seely.html.ori
 

TenderHeart

Active member
Jul 5, 2021
188
179
43
Florida
#28
A beautiful Psalm about Elohim. HE is the greatest architect, greatest artist and the greatest creator of all that was, is and ever will be!
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#29
TheLearner, and there as many and more claiming it is about the Flood of Noah including 15 specific Google pages of accounts, viewpoints, scholars, theologians. It really is cool just how divided this is towards the meaning of Psalms 104. Good topic choice due to such controversy in meaning!
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#30
TheLearner, and there as many and more claiming it is about the Flood of Noah including 15 specific Google pages of accounts, viewpoints, scholars, theologians. It really is cool just how divided this is towards the meaning of Psalms 104. Good topic choice due to such controversy in meaning!
And, yet there is around 2 million or more that says it is about creation. It was not until Morris' book that the text has been misinterpreted by YEC.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#31
I don't see mountains unveiled when God separated the waters, it just mentions land during the Creation. But in Noah's Flood, his Ark rested on top of a mountain.
but mountains are made of dry land; they are part of the dry land.
were there no mountains until after the flood Noah was saved in?
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#33
And, yet there is around 2 million or more that says it is about creation. It was not until Morris' book that the text has been misinterpreted by YEC.
I believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years old, but I don't believe more than 150k years.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#34
but mountains are made of dry land; they are part of the dry land.
were there no mountains until after the flood Noah was saved in?
Mountains are also made from spewing lava on top of old lava.
But we don't read about mountains existing until the Ark rested upon one. And then we don't get to another one until the 10 Commandments.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
7,856
1,447
113
67
Brighton, MI
#36
Job 28:9
·Miners [L They] ·hit [L put their hands to] the rocks of flint ·and dig away at the bottom of the mountains [upturning the mountains from their root].

Job 9:5
He moves mountains [C an earthquake] without anyone knowing it and turns them over when he is angry.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#37
TheLearner, and there as many and more claiming it is about the Flood of Noah including 15 specific Google pages of accounts, viewpoints, scholars, theologians. It really is cool just how divided this is towards the meaning of Psalms 104. Good topic choice due to such controversy in meaning!
I think that scholars who tear apart the words of the Lord are often simply trying to tell us how smart and wise they are, and they are not. God is wise. If we make this wonderful psalm a commentary on waters only, we are missing what God is telling us about His power and majesty, and how God wants us to react to that. God does not want us to react with wickedness, but by bowing before His might and majesty and follow Him.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#38
I think that scholars who tear apart the words of the Lord are often simply trying to tell us how smart and wise they are, and they are not. God is wise. If we make this wonderful psalm a commentary on waters only, we are missing what God is telling us about His power and majesty, and how God wants us to react to that. God does not want us to react with wickedness, but by bowing before His might and majesty and follow Him.
Agreed!
Whether some believe this is about Creation or Noah's Flood, it still is describing the Power of God. After all, both Accounts are Miraculous and could only happen by God alone. Whether moving waters to form seas and dry land for Creation or moving waters to recede into streams and rivers so Noah and his family could begin a normal life again all exemplifies the magnitude of God's Awesomeness. It's simply amazing to think of all what God can do that we've yet to witness in the past and await to see in the future.
 

Gideon300

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2021
4,816
2,805
113
#39
Nice. You've asked us to comment on Psalms 104, which happens to be a part of my daily reading plan for today.

In my meager opinion, I believe that "christians" (note the lower case "c") read WAAAAAAAAY too much into this text-set and others like it. Look . . . we must ALL read, know, and understand the Old Testament because if we do, the first thing that we should realize is that God is Powerful and that we are not. In fact, verse one of chapter 104 states "You are very great," and this is the very context of the entire chapter.

What you are reading about is the Raw, Almighty, Power of God. Until we understand THIS, we will never Truly Fear the Lord. Hence, Christians claim, I am a servant of Christ!" Or, "I am a slave to Christ!" Or, "I am a Truly saved Christian because I believe in Jesus!" - If we do not fear the Power of our amazing God, the above three "quotes" are nothing but words. Empty words that mean nothing. For unless we Truly fear the Lord, we are hellbound.
Just not true. We are saved by grace, through faith. It is our trust in the finished work of Christ that saves us. Or do you have a different bible?

John 1:12
But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God..........

John 6:29
Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent........."

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

The OT is going to save you? Not if you read it the wrong way.
John 5:38-40
"...........nor does His word abide in you, because you do not believe the One He sent. You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.…"

I won't bother you with the other scriptures, you know them well enough. You just choose to ignore them.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#40
Just not true. We are saved by grace, through faith. It is our trust in the finished work of Christ that saves us. Or do you have a different bible?

John 1:12
But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God..........

John 6:29
Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent........."

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

The OT is going to save you? Not if you read it the wrong way.
John 5:38-40
"...........nor does His word abide in you, because you do not believe the One He sent. You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.…"
t
I won't bother you with the other scriptures, you know them well enough. You just choose to ignore them.
The truth of the lord that we are saved by grace only is repeated time after time after time on these posts but did you know that it is also a truth that we will be judged by our works in this life? To know God is to know all truths of Him.

Matt. 16:27 For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

1 Cor. 3:8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one; and every man shall receive his own reward according to his labors.

Rev. 22:12 And behold, I come quickly. and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.