For what it's worth, I'm not aware of "the Primordial Ocean" being a non-ambiguous Genesis reference either.
It is less ambiguous in its cultural context. Genesis refers to the 'waters of the deep' over which God roamed. It was an ocean that was there from the beginning and from which is the creation of everything. Quite literally a primordial ocean; as PaulK puts it, there are 'no planets, no stars, no life, except perhaps for some god or gods'.
Indeed Strong's gives 'primeval ocean' as a valid definition of
tĕhowm
Enuma Elish has a similar primordial ocean:
quote:
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined
Absu was sweet water and Tiamat was bitter water.
So given its cultural context, it seems the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is of a creation that occurred after there was only an ocean and a deity. This would be best described, I think, as a primordial ocean, especially as we consider that in the Genesis account, everything traces its origins to this ocean. PaulK capitalises it to differentiate it from more scientific notion of a primordial ocean - one that is only there as a beginning of life not all other things.
I suppose though, if there is dispute over this it might be best to hash it out in a thread of its own right.
™ Version 4.2
