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 rout
14) 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
1
1
