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.

Where is Noah's Ark?

Editor's Preface, 09/16/2025: In my article My Journey Out of YECism, I explain why I no longer hold to young earth creationism. That shift in perspective is important context for what follows. The essay below was written while I was still working within a YEC framework, and it reflects the kinds of arguments and assumptions common in that community.

I’ve chosen to preserve it here because it illustrates how—even on YEC’s own terms—there are strong reasons to conclude that Noah’s Ark no longer exists. In that sense, this piece is less about defending YECism and more about showing how its internal logic can lead to unexpected conclusions.

Noah's Ark: The Holy Grail of Creationism.

For millennia, people have scoured the slopes of Mount Ararat in pursuit of this ancient, sea-faring vessel with mixed success. Many have claimed to have found it, only to have their discoveries disproved. Even to this day many Christians continue to search these remote, Turkish mountains for the remains of the vessel that could prove the validity of the Genesis account. But still the question remains: where is Noah's Ark?

Now while I would be ecstatic if the Ark were found, It is my belief that the vessel has been all but destroyed.

Think about it for a moment. Noah's flood was an apocalyptic event the likes of which the world has not seen since. The entire world was covered by water, mud, and volcanic debris. The ecosystem was all but destroyed--save for the specimens carried within the Ark--and the very earth itself had been shattered by intense, seismic activity when the fountains of the deep burst open. Not only that, all traces of human civilization had been washed away as well, just as God had intended. (Genesis 6:1-8) In that sense, the world Noah and his family would have encountered upon exiting the Ark would have been post-apocalyptic in every sense of the word.

Because of this, it is my hypothesis that the Ark itself would have served as shelter for Noah's family and their descendants for quite some time after the flood, as they waited for the ecosystem to recover. Grasses and fast growing plants like wheat and barley would have been the first crops they would have been able to produce--and indeed the first plants to grow in the post-flood world. It would have taken decades for the earth's forests to repopulate, resulting in a marked lack of timber resources for building and fuel.

Because of this, I feel that Noah's descendants would have reacted in much the same way we ourselves would if we were faced with the prospect of surviving in a post-apocalyptic environment, meaning that they would have made use of all available resources--most notably, the Ark itself.

After the flood, Noah's Ark would have been the largest timber resource in the Ararat region. As such, I present to you the hypothesis that early human settlements were in fact built from the salvaged remains of the great vessel itself. The Ark's timbers would have been ideal not only for constructing settlements, but also as a fuel source, seeing as how the Ark had been coated with pitch both inside and out. (Genesis 6:14)

Additionally, it is important to note that Mount Ararat itself is in fact a dormant volcano in an incredibly unstable seismic zone. Meaning that there is a high possibility that the remains of the Ark were lost to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes thousands of years ago. Assuming the Ark remained on Ararat, and was not disassembled by early settlers.

Of course this is all speculation, and not at all relevant to the message of Jesus Christ. While the discovery of Noah's Ark would give unprecedented credence to both the Bible and the Creation Account, it is not necessary for salvation, nor is it the foundation of the Christian faith. All that matters is knowing who Jesus is, and what he has done for you. Everything else, while fascinating, is peripheral. In the end Jesus is all that matters. (Acts 4:12)