Flood: Global or Local

[Arlan]

"As I have read over these threads on the Genesis deluge I don't see anywhere where a date has been established for the Genesis deluge to have happened on earth. It seem to me that If we had a date then we could look at world history and find out where and when it might have happened. This information then might lead us to a answer to the question. Also I think we are using the wrong terminology ~ the story in the Genesis is not a flood ~ flood have to do with rivers over flowing there banks or ocean water washing into the land. The water story in Genesis is much more than that ~ a "Deluge" that filled up the whole earth covering all the land and the mountains according to the bible. Who is going to give us a exact time frame for the Genesis deluge???"

[n0rstar]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[xtreem5150ahm]

this is a link to a July 7, 2006 IRC article... it seems reasonably fair, and concise. Not really anything new, just Morris' take on the claim.

http://www.icr.org/news/70/

johnny

[Arlan]

Thank you nOrstar for the positive date for the Genesis flood of 2348 BC A year or so ago I picked up a very nice book called "Past Worlds, Atlas of Archaeology". It is an amazing book. On page 12 it starts a chronology of the whole earth. After reading over parts of the book I think we have a problem with the flood happening at 2348 BC. According to the Bible people that lived befor the flood were killed by the flood and didn't survive and live after the flood as I understand it. But the Egyptain, Indus, Sumer and Sodom/Gomorrah cultures were in full swing at 2348 BC and continued for 500 to 1500 years after the Genesis flood. Also the Ur civilization was in full swing from about 4000 BC down to 300 BC without any interuptions. The Egyption pyramids were built about 300 years before the 2348 BC flood and there has never been any date of a Genesis flood cover them.

2348 BC does not jive with a Genesis flood in the chronology time frame of the earth. Do we have another date that works better?
Arlan

[n0rstar]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Sparko

This area is for Creationists only

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[rogue06]

I believe that the Flood was local because of what Psalm 104 states. Known as the "Creation Psalm," it describes the creation of the Earth in the same sequence as does Genesis 1, but also includes some extra information. While speaking of forming boundaries for the waters during Creation we are told: "Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." (emphasis mine) To me this eliminates the possibility that Noah's Flood was global in nature since we are told explicityly that the waters would "not again cover the earth." Unless you wish to claim that Noah's Flood was some sort of exception and that the psalm is incorrect...

[The Curtmudgeon]

I believe that the Flood was local because of what Psalm 104 states. Known as the "Creation Psalm," it describes the creation of the Earth in the same sequence as does Genesis 1, but also includes some extra information. While speaking of forming boundaries for the waters during Creation we are told: "Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." (emphasis mine) To me this eliminates the possibility that Noah's Flood was global in nature since we are told explicityly that the waters would "not again cover the earth." Unless you wish to claim that Noah's Flood was some sort of exception and that the psalm is incorrect...

But, Rogue, just calling it "the Creation Psalm" doesn't automagically make every reference in it refer to only the act of Creation. Read the context for the verse you quoted:

Psalm 104:6-9

⁶ Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. ⁷ At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. ⁸ They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. ⁹ Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Note especially verse 6: "Thou coveredst it with the deep". In Genesis 1, God is nowhere described as having covered the earth with the deep; rather, the deep is already upon the earth from the beginning, and He then removes it to a single location so that the dry land appeared. The only time when God is described as covering the earth with the deep is...wait for it...during the Flood. Verse 6 also speaks about the waters covering the mountains, exactly the description of the Flood in Genesis 7:19-20. Verses 7-8 then describe the action of the receding flood waters: At His rebuke the waters "fled". So verse 9, which you quote, doesn't refer to the Creation, but rather to the end of the Flood, when God really did set a bound on the waters so that they would never again cover the earth.

The (the Bible consistently treats the Flood as global) Curtmudgeon

[rogue06]

But, Rogue, just calling it "the Creation Psalm" doesn't automagically make every reference in it refer to only the act of Creation. Read the context for the verse you quoted:

Psalm 104:6-9
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

I probably should mention that the designation "Creation Psalm" precedes me.
Since the Creation is the context of this psalm (see below) it is probably safe to assume that most, if not all, references in it are to the Creation. For example, I may be describing South Carolina to you, and you think that part of what I said sounds a lot like Oregon, but that doesn't mean I started describing Oregon instead of South Carolina.
I like the "automagically."

Note especially verse 6: "Thou coveredst it with the deep". In Genesis 1, God is nowhere described as having covered the earth with the deep; rather, the deep is already upon the earth from the beginning, and He then removes it to a single location so that the dry land appeared. The only time when God is described as covering the earth with the deep is...wait for it...during the Flood. Verse 6 also speaks about the waters covering the mountains, exactly the description of the Flood in Genesis 7:19-20. Verses 7-8 then describe the action of the receding flood waters: At His rebuke the waters "fled". So verse 9, which you quote, doesn't refer to the Creation, but rather to the end of the Flood, when God really did set a bound on the waters so that they would never again cover the earth.

Perhaps the answer lies in the part of verse 6 you skipped over: "as [with] a garment." The figure of speech of the Earth being covered in a garment is a concept associated with Creation passages (Proverbs 30:4; Job 38:9) and not in ones associated with the Flood.
Of course God covered the Earth with the deep in that He created both. They didn't pre-date Creation. If God uncovered the land at Creation, then by definition it was covered before that. The Flood was God's re-covering the land with water. Whether God created the land already covered in the first place (which seems to be what is described), IMHO doesn't really make any difference, and hence, isn't evidence in support of these passages being about the Flood. Instead as I stated in my previous post, it describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1, but includes a few extra details. Verse 6 describes the Earth covered in water (parallel to Genesis 1:9). Verses 7 and 8 has God causing the dry land to appear (parallel Gen. 1:9-10). This then leads to verse 9: "Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Since the psalmist has been referring to the Creation this entire time, why now the sudden change in context and subject? It makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense if it is still referring to the Creation. And the Creation is what this psalm is celebrating. Did God stretch out the heavens (v.2) in Genesis 6-9 (Noah's Flood)? Did God set the world on its foundations (v. 5) during the Flood? Is there any reference to Judgment in Psalm 1 as might be expected if it were a reference to Noah's Flood. No. Nor is there any mention of anything being destroyed – another detail of the Flood one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject. Also, there is no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8) after the Flood, but these events could be linked to setting the boundaries of the oceans and seas as described in both Genesis 1 and Job 38. Finally, the reference to the boundaries of the deep is another clear reference to the Creation (Proverbs 8:29; Psalm 33:6-7; Jeremiah 5:22; Job 38: 8-11) and not the Flood to which there are no boundary references.
Sorry if I rambled.

The (the Bible consistently treats the Flood as global)

You might be surprised that I agree that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a the Flood being global in scope... but I also feel that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a geocentric viewpoint – and we can probably both agree that this isn't correct.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Psalm 104:6-9
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

I probably should mention that the designation "Creation Psalm" precedes me.

I assumed that, and tried to word my statement so that it wasn't important whether the phrase was original with you or not. I meant to comment on the use of the phrase in general, not to imply that you personally had mislabeled the Psalm.

Since the Creation is the context of this psalm (see below) it is probably safe to assume that most, if not all, references in it are to the Creation. For example, I may be describing South Carolina to you, and you think that part of what I said sounds a lot like Oregon, but that doesn't mean I started describing Oregon instead of South Carolina.

Fair enough. But when the description mentions "South Carolina"'s seashore with terms that imply or indicate that it lies to the west then I have the right to assert that Oregon is a better fit.

Just keep in mind that no matter how well-established the label "Creation Psalm" may be, it isn't in the Biblical text itself. Some later commentator, for reasons that appealed to him, first put that label there, and perhaps many good and reasonable people have since then agreed that it seemed like a fitting label, and it might even be a majority opinion now. None of that guarantees that it is correct.

I like the "automagically."

Thanx! I won't claim originality, but I've been using it for such a long time that I forget where or from whom I first got it. It's public domain by now, I'm sure.

Perhaps the answer lies in the part of verse 6 you skipped over: "as [with] a garment." The figure of speech of the Earth being covered in a garment is a concept associated with Creation passages (Proverbs 30:4; Job 38:9) and not in ones associated with the Flood.

Hmm, I fail to see that Proverbs 30:4 is specifically a Creation passage:

Proverbs 30:4

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Besides the phrase in question, only the following "hath established all the ends of the earth" can be said to be Creation-related. God's ascending and descending from Heaven is not specifically limited to Creation (e.g., God comes down to Babel to see what mankind is doing, which is post-Flood, of course). Gathering the winds finds no counterpart in Genesis 1. And of course, the question of the name of God and God's Son is eternal.

Mentioning Job 38:9 is a telling point for my side of the argument, because when you step back and look at the immediately surrounding verses, it appears exactly as does Psalm 104:6-9 as more a Flood-related passage than Creation-related:

Job 38:8-11

⁸ Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? ⁹ When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, ¹⁰ And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors, ¹¹ And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

While the description in 10-11 can be applied to the Day 3 creation of dry land, much like South Carolina, the description in verse 8 is definitely an "Oregon" moment of Flood description.

The identification with Genesis 1 can only be applied to a very small portion of the verses, and not the entirety of the surrounding context. Job 38 talks about the foundations of the earth in verses 4-7, and verse 6 is very definitely a Creation moment, but then after the passage discussed, the chapter goes on to discuss a variety of facets of "Creation" as a noun (i.e., "Creation" as the thing that was created), not as a verb (i.e., the actual act of creating Creation does not appear). For example, the gates of Death in verse 17 have no part in Genesis 1; the breadth of the earth in 18 is a characteristic that remains true today and is not spoken of as "setting the breadth" or any other Creation-action; verse 26 is definitely a post-Creation reference as Genesis 2 specifically states that no rain had fallen on the earth during the Edenic period. Like verse 18, most of the questions God asks in Job 38 have nothing to do with the act of Creation itself, but only ask about things that were created but remain true to this day -- and were equally true in Noah's day.

Of course God covered the Earth with the deep in that He created both. They didn't pre-date Creation. If God uncovered the land at Creation, then by definition it was covered before that.

Um, no. My point is that "Thou coveredst" is active voice, not passive. In Creation, Genesis 1:2 implies, if not actually states, that the world was created with a water covering from the beginning, not created as dry land and then God covered it with water in a subsequent action. It would seem extremely strange for God to have created dry land, covered it with water, and then removed the water covering two days later when it had served no purpose during the intervening time. But Psalm 104 is talking about a specific action that God took to put a covering of water over the earth.

The Flood was God's re-covering the land with water. Whether God created the land already covered in the first place (which seems to be what is described), IMHO doesn't really make any difference, and hence, isn't evidence in support of these passages being about the Flood. Instead as I stated in my previous post, it describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1, but includes a few extra details. Verse 6 describes the Earth covered in water (parallel to Genesis 1:9). Verses 7 and 8 has God causing the dry land to appear (parallel Gen. 1:9-10). This then leads to verse 9: "Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Since the psalmist has been referring to the Creation this entire time, why now the sudden change in context and subject? It makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense if it is still referring to the Creation. And the Creation is what this psalm is celebrating. Did God stretch out the heavens (v.2) in Genesis 6-9 (Noah's Flood)? Did God set the world on its foundations (v. 5) during the Flood? Is there any reference to Judgment in Psalm 1 as might be expected if it were a reference to Noah's Flood. No. Nor is there any mention of anything being destroyed – another detail of the Flood one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject. Also, there is no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8) after the Flood, but these events could be linked to setting the boundaries of the oceans and seas as described in both Genesis 1 and Job 38.

Let's look a bit closer at that claim that Psalm 104 "describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1":

Psalm 104

¹ ¶ Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. ² Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: [Light = Day 1; good start!] who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: ³ Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: [Firmament = Day 2] ⁴ Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: [Genesis 1 doesn't mention the angels, so this could have been at any time] ⁵ [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever. [Foundations of the earth would put us back at Day 1 again] ⁶ Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. [Your point is that this is Day 1 also] ⁷ At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. ⁸ They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. ⁹ Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. [If this is Creation, it can only be Day 3] ¹⁰ He sendeth the springs into the valleys, [which] run among the hills. ¹¹ They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. [Beasts of the field = Day 6] ¹² By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, [which] sing among the branches. [Fowls = Day 5] ¹³ He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. [No rain until after Eden] ¹⁴ He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; ¹⁵ And wine [that] maketh glad the heart of man, [and] oil to make [his] face to shine, and bread [which] strengtheneth man's heart. ¹⁶ The trees of the LORD are full [of sap]; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted; ¹⁷ Where the birds make their nests: [as for] the stork, the fir trees [are] her house. [Grass, herb, vines, olives, wheat, trees = Day 3] ¹⁸ The high hills [are] a refuge for the wild goats; [and] the rocks for the conies. [Back to Day 6 again] ¹⁹ He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. [Moon & Sun = Day 4] ²⁰ Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep [forth]. ²¹ The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God. ²² The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens. ²³ Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening. [If this is darkness/night/day, it's Day 1; if it's beasts/lions/man, it's Day 6] ²⁴ O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. ²⁵ [So is] this great and wide sea, wherein [are] things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. ²⁶ There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein. [Beasts of the sea/Leviathan = Day 5] ²⁷ These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give [them] their meat in due season. ²⁸ [That] thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. ²⁹ Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. ³⁰ Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. ³¹ The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. ³² He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. ³³ I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. ³⁴ My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD. ³⁵ Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

What do we see here: Days 1, 2, ?, 1, 3, 6, 5, post-Creation, 3, 6, 4, 1 or 6, 5. Sorry, I think you cannot show that Psalm 104 follows a Genesis 1 order in anything other than the vaguest form.

Your comment that other details of the Flood "one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject" is a non-starter. The Psalmist mentioned those details which were pertinent to his purpose. Only if you can prove that his purpose was to describe the Flood in detail can you argue that other details can be expected, and I make no claim that this is the case.

As for "no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8)", that's a red herring (although I'll allow that it may be unintentional on your part). The verse actually states "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them"; the mountains and valleys are not going up and down, but rather something (plural) is going up and down by the mountains and valleys. The clear referant is "the waters" in verse 6.

Finally, the reference to the boundaries of the deep is another clear reference to the Creation (Proverbs 8:29; Psalm 33:6-7; Jeremiah 5:22; Job 38: 8-11) and not the Flood to which there are no boundary references.
Sorry if I rambled.

Not so fast, friend.

Psalm 33:6-7

⁶ By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. ⁷ He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

While verse 6 is past tense, and certainly refers to Genesis 1, verse 7 is present tense and refers to actions that God takes continuously. And I've already shown that Job 38:8-11 cannot be confined to a Genesis 1 reference.

You might be surprised that I agree that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a the Flood being global in scope...

Yes, I deliberately worded that statement as to pertain to the Biblical language as it stands, and not any specific interpretation (in other words, I deliberately refrained from saying "The Bible requires a global Flood", although I also think that a true statement, but not immediately helpful to the discussion at hand).

but I also feel that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a geocentric viewpoint – and we can probably both agree that this isn't correct.

No, actually we cannot agree on that -- that is, I agree that geocentrism is not correct, but not that the Bible supports it. My belief is that the Bible nowhere presents a geocentric [as a view of the mechanics of the solar system!] viewpoint per se, and its "supportive" language means nothing more than the fact that you and I, and even professional astronomers, talk about "sunrise" and "sunset" even today without meaning geocentrism. Note that I specifically limit my comment to discussion of solar system mechanics. I do believe that the Bible is "geocentric" in the sense that Earth, as the home of Mankind, very much is the center of the universe as God's intentions go, and everything else -- the sun, moon and stars, galaxies, black holes and quasars -- was created in service to man (the primary service being to display the glory and handiwork of God, and therefore His power and the fact that He is the Creator-God). But that does not require that the sun orbit the earth, and the Bible makes no such stipulation, as pagan creation myths inevitably do. If you want to read Biblical "sunrise"/"sunset" language as supporting geocentrism, then you need to go read some works by my old pal Bert Einstein about relative frames of reference; he's quite keen on the theory, actually.

The (but I know that a lot of people hold the same opinion as you express) Curtmudgeon

[rogue06]

I assumed that, and tried to word my statement so that it wasn't important whether the phrase was original with you or not. I meant to comment on the use of the phrase in general, not to imply that you personally had mislabeled the Psalm.

I sort of figured that which is why I tried to phrase it neutrally.

Fair enough. But when the description mentions "South Carolina"'s seashore with terms that imply or indicate that it lies to the west then I have the right to assert that Oregon is a better fit.

Depends on the context. If I had said that South Carolina's seashore lies to the west of Maine's seashore, I would be A) Correct B) Still describing South Carolina C) Not describing Oregon. But enough picking at nits, I do agree with you that the designation "Creation Psalm" isn't scriptural, but it does serve to accurately describe it.

Thanx! I won't claim originality, but I've been using it for such a long time that I forget where or from whom I first got it. It's public domain by now, I'm sure.

Good. I won't feel so guilty for steali... er, borrowing it.

Hmm, I fail to see that Proverbs 30:4 is specifically a Creation passage:
Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Besides the phrase in question, only the following "hath established all the ends of the earth" can be said to be Creation-related. God's ascending and descending from Heaven is not specifically limited to Creation (e.g., God comes down to Babel to see what mankind is doing, which is post-Flood, of course). Gathering the winds finds no counterpart in Genesis 1. And of course, the question of the name of God and God's Son is eternal.

I didn't mean to imply that it is exclusively about Creation, just, as you pointed out, there are elements which deal with the Creation. The only relative part which isn't something that explicitly did occur during the Creation is the part about the gathering the winds, yet it probably would be something that would have occurred during Creation. My point is that there are several elements of this verse which can be linked to the Creation and none that must be excluded from it.

Mentioning Job 38:9 is a telling point for my side of the argument, because when you step back and look at the immediately surrounding verses, it appears exactly as does Psalm 104:6-9 as more a Flood-related passage than Creation-related:

Job 38:8-11
8 Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
While the description in 10-11 can be applied to the Day 3 creation of dry land, much like South Carolina, the description in verse 8 is definitely an "Oregon" moment of Flood description

I never said that verse 8 couldn't have referred to the Flood, just that verse 9 (and as you correctly point out, 10 and 11 as well) was in reference to Creation. Chapter 38 seems to be more a list that isn't necessarily in any chronological order so it isn't surprising that several different things are brought up in it.
I must be missing your point since this does not falsify my contention that Psalm 104 limits the Flood to being local. In fact, verse 8 could be read to mean regular, natural storms and floods and how God keeps them in check so they don't repeat the deluge (not that I necessarily agree with such an interpretation).

The identification with Genesis 1 can only be applied to a very small portion of the verses, and not the entirety of the surrounding context. Job 38 talks about the foundations of the earth in verses 4-7, and verse 6 is very definitely a Creation moment, but then after the passage discussed, the chapter goes on to discuss a variety of facets of "Creation" as a noun (i.e., "Creation" as the thing that was created), not as a verb (i.e., the actual act of creating Creation does not appear). For example, the gates of Death in verse 17 have no part in Genesis 1; the breadth of the earth in 18 is a characteristic that remains true today and is not spoken of as "setting the breadth" or any other Creation-action; verse 26 is definitely a post-Creation reference as Genesis 2 specifically states that no rain had fallen on the earth during the Edenic period. Like verse 18, most of the questions God asks in Job 38 have nothing to do with the act of Creation itself, but only ask about things that were created but remain true to this day -- and were equally true in Noah's day.

Job 38 speaks of the Creation in the past tense, as a past event (as it was) and has a few anarchronistic references, which don't detract from it being basically about the Creation.
So far you've attacked the premise that the verses I cited in Proverbs and Job support the interpretation that Psalms 104 is about the Creation by pointing out that the some of their surrounding passages aren't necessarily Creation-related (which isn't surprising since the entire Bible isn't about the Creation). I thought you pretty much agreed with the notion that it was the Creation Psalm.

Um, no. My point is that "Thou coveredst" is active voice, not passive. In Creation, Genesis 1:2 implies, if not actually states, that the world was created with a water covering from the beginning, not created as dry land and then God covered it with water in a subsequent action. It would seem extremely strange for God to have created dry land, covered it with water, and then removed the water covering two days later when it had served no purpose during the intervening time. But Psalm 104 is talking about a specific action that God took to put a covering of water over the earth.

It probably been clearer if you had waited to respond until after this bit rather than before. "The Flood was God's re-covering the land with water. Whether God created the land already covered in the first place (which seems to be what is described), IMHO doesn't really make any difference, and hence, isn't evidence in support of these passages being about the Flood." This and the part above was what I meant when I apologized for rambling. I knew I wasn't really being that clear here except for the end.

Let's look a bit closer at that claim that Psalm 104 "describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1":
[snip]
What do we see here: Days 1, 2, ?, 1, 3, 6, 5, post-Creation, 3, 6, 4, 1 or 6, 5. Sorry, I think you cannot show that Psalm 104 follows a Genesis 1 order in anything other than the vaguest form.

I concede that you've demonstrated that my assertion was not completely correct and would have been far more accurate if I had said "in roughly the same order." Perhaps, very roughly. Still, it does share the same details, if not necessarily the same chronology.

Your comment that other details of the Flood "one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject" is a non-starter. The Psalmist mentioned those details which were pertinent to his purpose. Only if you can prove that his purpose was to describe the Flood in detail can you argue that other details can be expected, and I make no claim that this is the case.

I guess you're right. I shouldn't be surprised that references to Noah's Flood would be completely devoid of such inconsequential details as destruction or judgment. Sort of like mentioning Original Sin without ever bringing up Adam and Eve.

As for "no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8)", that's a red herring (although I'll allow that it may be unintentional on your part). The verse actually states "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them"; the mountains and valleys are not going up and down, but rather something (plural) is going up and down by the mountains and valleys. The clear referant is "the waters" in verse 6.

That was actually preemptive on my part. Several translations read: "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them." I agree with the interpretation you gave.

Not so fast, friend.

Psalm 33:6-7
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

While verse 6 is past tense, and certainly refers to Genesis 1, verse 7 is present tense and refers to actions that God takes continuously. And I've already shown that Job 38:8-11 cannot be confined to a Genesis 1 reference.

Interesting. I've got a copy of the RSV in front of me and for verse 7 it states: "He gathered the waters of the sea." Past tense. Hmmm.

No, actually we cannot agree on that -- that is, I agree that geocentrism is not correct, but not that the Bible supports it. My belief is that the Bible nowhere presents a geocentric [as a view of the mechanics of the solar system!] viewpoint per se, and its "supportive" language means nothing more than the fact that you and I, and even professional astronomers, talk about "sunrise" and "sunset" even today without meaning geocentrism. Note that I specifically limit my comment to discussion of solar system mechanics. I do believe that the Bible is "geocentric" in the sense that Earth, as the home of Mankind, very much is the center of the universe as God's intentions go, and everything else -- the sun, moon and stars, galaxies, black holes and quasars -- was created in service to man (the primary service being to display the glory and handiwork of God, and therefore His power and the fact that He is the Creator-God). But that does not require that the sun orbit the earth, and the Bible makes no such stipulation, as pagan creation myths inevitably do. If you want to read Biblical "sunrise"/"sunset" language as supporting geocentrism, then you need to go read some works by my old pal Bert Einstein about relative frames of reference; he's quite keen on the theory, actually.

The language of appearance verses that you mention aren't the only geocentric passages in the Bible. There's Joshua 10:12-13, which describes how the Sun's movement was halted (see also Habakkuk 3:11). Martin Luther, for one took this very literally. I Chronicles 16:30 makes it clear that Earth does not move (see also Psalm 93:1; 96:10). Even the sunrise/sunset passages you dismiss are interesting, for example "The sun rises and the sun goes down; and hastens to the place where it rises." The last part seems a bit unnecessary unless that was exactly the concept which they wanted to express. I want to emphasize that I'm not a believer in geocentricism (astronomically speaking), I just wanted to illustrate that there was more to it than a few sunrise/sunset references.

The (but I know that a lot of people hold the same opinion as you express) Curtmudgeon

Huh? I kind of thought I was taking a different approach here (utilizing Psalm 104), but then again, I'm sure someone else has probably thought of it (I'm just not that original a thinker!). Still, I greatly appreciate you helping me hash it out a bit here.

[rogue06]

"The sun rises and the sun goes down; and hastens to the place where it rises."

Oops. It would probably help if I provided the citation Ecclesiastes 1:5 (see also Psalm 19:4-6).

[Weboh2]

No force really. Everything was eventually submerged for 40 days and nights, which happens to be how long someone could live without food. I am working out how they might have fed themselves most of the time. Bobbing for apples or fishing in a large reed boat seems to be a good explaination.