Selective Literalism and the Mountains: How Young Earth Theology Reinterprets Psalm 104:8

 

Introduction: When the Waters Retreat, the Hermeneutics Shift

In Selective Literalism and the Flood: How Young Earth Theology Reinterprets Genesis 7:11, we examined how Young Earth theology applies a double standard to the biblical text—insisting on literalism when it supports their claims, but retreating to metaphor or reinterpretation when the plain sense becomes problematic. The same hermeneutical inconsistency surfaces again in Psalm 104:8, a poetic text describing the retreat of the floodwaters:

“The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.”

At first glance, this verse is a hymn of praise, celebrating God’s ordering of creation. Yet Young Earth interpreters often seize upon it as a geological statement—an eyewitness account of tectonic upheaval during the Flood. This move is especially striking because it directly contradicts their own stated principles about literary genre.

Genre Inconsistency: Ignoring Their Own Rules

Groups like Answers in Genesis (AiG) repeatedly emphasize that literary genre is decisive in interpretation. They argue that Genesis 1–11 must be read as straightforward history because, in their view, its literary style is narrative prose rather than poetry.

• Terry Mortenson: “Anyone who has read the Bible very much will recognize that there are different kinds of literature… So, how should we interpret Genesis 1–11? Is it history? Is it mythology? Is it symbolic poetry? Is it allegory?” (1)
  
  

• Tim Chaffey: “The best method of interpretation is known as the historical-grammatical approach… Genesis should be interpreted as historical narrative.” (2)
  
  

• Simon Turpin: “When we read Genesis 1 in its context, it should be understood as a historical account which teaches that God created everything in six 24-hour days.” (3)

Yet when it comes to Psalm 104:8—unanimously recognized as Hebrew poetry—AiG suspends its own rule. Instead of treating the verse as metaphorical imagery within a creation hymn, they extract a single line and transform it into a literal, scientific commentary on post-flood hydrology and tectonics. In fact, AiG has publicly taught that Psalm 104:8 “clearly” explains where the floodwaters went, as seen in this Facebook video.

• Genesis 1–11: Declared “history” because of its genre, therefore must be read literally.
  
  

• Psalm 104: Declared “poetry” by virtually all scholars, yet one line is lifted out and mined for geological data.

This is not just selective literalism—it is selective application of their own hermeneutical principles.

The Problem of Poetry as Geology

Psalm 104 is a creation hymn, deliberately echoing the structure and themes of Genesis 1. The psalmist moves through the same sequence of creation motifs: God clothing himself in light (v.2; cf. Gen. 1:3–5), stretching out the heavens (v.2; cf. Gen. 1:6–8), setting the earth on its foundations (v.5; cf. Gen. 1:9–10), ordering the waters (vv.6–9; cf. Gen. 1:9–10), providing vegetation (v.14; cf. Gen. 1:11–12), creating the sun and moon to mark seasons (v.19; cf. Gen. 1:14–18), and filling the seas with creatures (vv.25–26; cf. Gen. 1:20–23). The psalm is not a scientific appendix to the Flood but a poetic retelling of creation, designed to inspire worship by reciting God’s creative acts.

Furthermore, its language is richly metaphorical, filled with imagery that most interpreters—AiG included—acknowledge as non-literal:

• God “riding on the wings of the wind” (v.3).
  
  

• God making the clouds his “chariot” (v.3).
  
  

• The winds as his “messengers” and flames of fire as his “servants” (v.4).
  
  

• The earth set on “foundations” so it will “never be moved” (v.5).
  
  

• The sun and moon personified as timekeepers (v.19).
  
  

• The sea as a playground where Leviathan “frolics” (v.26).

Virtually all mainstream interpreters recognize these as metaphors. The notable exception is fringe groups like Flat Earthers, who seize on verses such as Psalm 104:5 to argue for a stationary, immovable earth with literal “foundations.” This illustrates the same hermeneutical error: isolating poetic imagery to support a modern cosmological agenda while ignoring the psalm’s genre and theological intent.

Yet mainstream Young Earth Creationists commit a parallel error in verse 8—“The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them”(v.8)—is singled out and treated as a literal geological event, a supposed record of tectonic upheaval during the Flood.

• Literalism When Convenient – Psalm 104:8 is treated as a historical record of mountain-building and hydrology, pressed into service for flood geology.
  
  

• Metaphor When Necessary – The surrounding verses, equally vivid in their imagery, are quietly acknowledged as poetic metaphor.

The inconsistency is not accidental—it is tactical. By isolating one line from a psalm that otherwise overflows with metaphor, both Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists selectively literalize only what can be co-opted into their scientific or cosmological models, while ignoring the broader poetic and theological context that undermines such readings.

Conclusion: A Pattern of Inconsistency

Psalm 104:8 demonstrates the same hermeneutical inconsistency exposed in Selective Literalism and the Flood. By treating Genesis as literal history based on modern assumptions about its genre while simultaneously treating one sentence of a poetic psalm as a literal description of geological processes, Young Earth theology reveals a hermeneutic of expedience rather than consistency.

This is not an isolated case. The same selective literalism appears in Genesis 7:11, where half a verse is taken literally and the other half metaphorically, and in Psalm 104:5, where fringe groups like Flat Earthers seize on “foundations” as cosmological fact while ignoring the psalm’s poetic context. Each example illustrates the same pattern: literalism when convenient, metaphor when necessary.

The result is not a defense of biblical authority but a distortion of it. By collapsing poetry into geology and ignoring the ancient worldview of the text, Young Earth theology weakens its own apologetic credibility. A consistent hermeneutic—one that respects genre, context, and the theological purpose of Scripture—does not diminish the Bible’s authority but strengthens it, allowing the text to speak with its full literary and theological richness.