Whether it was fitting that the gathering together of the waters should take place, as recorded, on the third day?

❌ Objection 1 : It would seem that it was not fitting that the gathering together of the waters should take place on the third day. For what was made on the first and second days is expressly said to have been "made" in the words, "God said: Be light made," and "Let there be a firmament made."But the third day is contradistinguished from the first and the second days. Therefore the work of the third day should have been described as a making not as a gathering together.

❌ Objection 2 : Further, the earth hitherto had been completely covered by the waters, wherefore it was described as "invisible" [*Question [66], Article [1], Objection [1]]. There was then no place on the earth to which the waters could be gathered together.

❌ Objection 3 : Further, things which are not in continuous contact cannot occupy one place. But not all the waters are in continuous contact, and therefore all were not gathered together into one place.

❌ Objection 4 : Further, a gathering together is a mode of local movement. But the waters flow naturally, and take their course towards the sea. In their case, therefore, a Divine precept of this kind was unnecessary.

❌ Objection 5 : Further, the earth is given its name at its first creation by the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Therefore the imposition of its name on the third day seems to be recorded without necessity.