The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

makes “waters” the subject of the verbs in Psalm 104:8 (Stec 2004, p. 188). However, Stec (2004) observes that the Targum stands at odds with the Masoretic Text (p. 188n3). Some commentators associate verse 8 with Genesis 1:9 (“Then God said, ‘Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, …’”; cf. Ross 2016, p. 249). However, the numeral “one” does not occur in Psalm 104:8. The singular “place” ( m e qōm ) can speak of both mountains and valleys since the singular in Hebrew can have a collective reference with regard to species (cf. Joüon 2003, p. 498 §135 c ). In other words, “place” is the species for which “mountains” and “valleys” are members. This verse closes with a relative clause using “this/that” ( zeh ) as the relative particle and the relative clause adjectivally modifying the noun “place”: “the place which You established for them” (cf. Waltke and O’Connor 1990, p. 313n20 §17.4d). Some insist that “waters” must be the antecedent to “them” (“for them”; lamed preposition plus third masculine plural pronominal suffix) at the end of the verse (cf. Barker 1986, p. 78; Kraus 1993, p. 297). However, the fact that “mountains” is a masculine plural noun, even though “valleys” is feminine plural, negates the argument. In Hebrew, when a compound antecedent of two genders occurs, the preferred agreement for the pronoun is masculine plural — a characteristic also of adjectives modifying nouns of two different genders (cf. Joüon 2003, pp. 549 §148 a , 551 §149 b ; Waltke and O’Connor 1990, pp. 258 §14.2d, 302 §16.4b). This grammatical fact also eliminates the view taking verse 8a as parenthetical, since verse 8b continues the description without any such interruption of the flow. Psalm 104’s structure, literary devices, grammar, and word studies support the preservation of the simplest understanding of the Hebrew text in verse 8: “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down.” The internal evidence contravenes the ancient versions’ translation choice. Quite a number of modern English translations stick with the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible: Geneva Bible (1599), Douay-Rheims (1899), American Standard Version (ASV, 1901), Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952, 1971), New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1977; and Updated 1995), New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (NJPS, 1985), New English Translation (NET, 1996–2006), NewCentury Version (NCV, 2005), New Living Translation (NLT, 1996, 2007), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB, 1999, 2009), and English Standard Version (ESV, 2016) (cf. Oard and Reed 2017, p. 172). THE ROLE OF CHAOS IN CREATION Part of the reason so many commentators go with the creation event, despite the occurrence of “rebuke,” involves their preconceived notion that creation was really a battle between God and some form of chaos. For example, Keel (1978) associates Psalm 104 with pagan myths regarding gods conquering chaos or chaos monsters at creation: Until it was conquered by a god (Ps 104:7–8), the dynamic Chaos harnessed in the sea and tempest was free . . . and ruled the earth (Ps 104:6). . . . In these sharply dualistic conceptions, creation is undergirded by the (provisional) victory of the god, who embodies light and order (cf. Ps 104:9; Job 7:12; Jer 5:22).” (p. 50) Note how he admits that such a view might presuppose a dualism of matter and God. In addition, Keel (1978) writes, He has set a bound which the waters of Chaos (the void) may not pass (Ps 104:9). Should they succeed now and again in shaking the foundations of the earth, Yahweh immediately intervenes and establishes it anew (cf. Pss 11:3; 46:3; 75:3; 82:5). Since he has established it and maintains it, the earth, with all that moves on it, belongs to Yahweh (Pss 24:1; 78:69; 89:11; 93; 96:10; 104:5). (p. 55) Unfortunately, many scholars view Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 as nothing more than myth (cf. Terrien 2003, p. 710). In fact, Terrien (2003) goes so far as to accuse the psalmist of “unwittingly, symbolically,” subscribing to “speculations on an uncreated tohu-bohu (Gen 1:3)” (p. 714) — in other words, dualism. Many evangelical scholars have signed on to this mythological approach, although attempting to strip it of dualism. Broyles (1999) concludes that the psalmist’s “imagery portrays the waters as God’s opponent, and thus stems not from Genesis 1 but from the tradition of the divine king and God of the skies” (p. 399). Another evangelical Psalms scholar who sees a divine conflict with chaos in Psalm 104 (and Genesis 1) is Davidson (1998): Verses 5–9 draw on the mythological creation theme of conflict between the forces of chaos symbolized by ‘the deep’ and ‘the waters’ . . . . Such forces proved powerless to stand in the way of the creative purposes of the Lord who laid the unshakable foundations of the earth (cf. 24:2; 102:25). Rebuked, they fled to become mountain springs and rivers in the valleys, recognizing the boundaries within which they must flow. (p. 340) Such an approach to the biblical text ignores distinct differences between the cosmologies of believing Israelites and unbelieving pagan peoples. Biblical writers did not depend upon pagan literature to present theological truth. Two recent extensive evaluations of the concept of Chaoskampf in the biblical accounts of creation reach the conclusion that the biblical writers do not adhere to the concept (cf. Scurlock and Beal 2013; Tsumura 2005). As Tsumura (2005) observes, “And, most significantly, Baal never created anything. Thus the Canaanite Chaoskampf myth has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or even of a part of it” (p. 144). In fact, biblical descriptions of the Flood also provide no allusion to the myth concerning a conflict with a watery chaos (cf. Harland 1996, p. 95). Collins (2006) declares, “There is no indication that ‘the deep’ is any opponent of God; indeed, in the rest of the Bible it does his bidding and praises him” (p. 54). That summation applies equally to any reference to “the deep” in Psalm 104, whether the reference is to creation or the Flood. POTENTIAL GEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE As a theologian, not a geologist, this writer can only suggest some possible implications that geologists might consider as they seek and evaluate evidence in the light of the biblical text of Psalm 104. This paper assumes the factuality of a global, catastrophic Flood in Noah’s day by which the earth’s surface was significantly altered. In at least one model the Flood’s dynamics scoured thousands of feet of surface and redeposited the material as thousands of vertical feet of water-borne sediments resting on pre-Flood rock (cf. Snelling 2009, vol. 1, p. 281). 1. Large-Scale Crustal Displacement and Orogeny If the Masoretic Text can be accepted as the original reading for Psalm 104:8, there should be some geological evidence demonstrating nearly simultaneous mountain uplifts and the depression of broad valleys and ocean basins during the late and post-Flood timeframes. Some interpreters of Psalm 104:8 reject the text as a reference to the Flood. Instead, they believe post-Flood mountains correspond closely to the pre-Flood mountains (e.g., Barrick ◀ Exegetical analysis of Psalm 104:8 ▶ 2018 ICC 100