Do You Believe There Was Not Rain Before The Flood Of Noah?

[Ukulelemike]

Don't have enough infor from the Bible to make a certain stand. I agree there wasn't rain before Gen 2:5, but there was also, at that point, according to contex, 'no man' either, so no rain before man. After man? Not sure. Clearly the Lord could have continued watering by a mist from the ground until the flood came, but it doesn't say specifically so. I'd speculate "no rain before the flood", but no more than speculate.

[AVBibleBeliever]

You can see through ice, especially if God wants you too.  The verse that comes to mind said something about separating the waters from the waters and putting a firmament between them.

the firmament is not an ice shield it is what hold the darkness and separates us from God and his abode.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Seems pretty plain to me.  Why you ask?  because God said it.

 

Ge 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

(Emphasis Mine)

 

So you either believe the account that God gave us by His inspired word, or you don't and need to inject your own human reasoning. I do believe that the Biblical chronology would prove that Gen.2:5 was before the flood.  eh???

in context is does say, and there was not a man to till the ground.  but after there was a man to till the ground then it is only logical that it rained.

[Salyan]

in context is does say, and there was not a man to till the ground.  but after there was a man to till the ground then it is only logical that it rained.

 

Um... why? There's a whole lot of land that doesn't get tilled in the world, but it still needs water. It's only planted crops that require tilling.

Contextually, the verse says that the Lord 'had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." I think this is just two unrelated factual statements. If the first was because of the second, then grammatically the conjunctive 'for' should have been used. As it was not, I don't think we can pull a doctrine out of this verse that is (a) not mentioned and would ( require a complete reorganization of the hydrological cycle (which would be a significant natural event that is also not mentioned).  

I didn't have a clear opinion before as to whether or not it rained before the flood, but now that I think about the physical ramifications of such a hydrological change, I think I am now of the opinion that, as far as we are told, it must not have rained before the flood. 

[HappyChristian]

the firmament is not an ice shield it is what hold the darkness and separates us from God and his abode.

Wrong.  Genesis 1:6 tells us what the firmament was for:  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

[Alimantado]

A related question is, did people still talk about the weather before the flood?

[John81]

Yes, and Eve really got tired of hearing Adam go on and on about it!

[AVBibleBeliever]

Um... why? There's a whole lot of land that doesn't get tilled in the world, but it still needs water. It's only planted crops that require tilling.

Contextually, the verse says that the Lord 'had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." I think this is just two unrelated factual statements. If the first was because of the second, then grammatically the conjunctive 'for' should have been used. As it was not, I don't think we can pull a doctrine out of this verse that is (a) not mentioned and would ( require a complete reorganization of the hydrological cycle (which would be a significant natural event that is also not mentioned).  

I didn't have a clear opinion before as to whether or not it rained before the flood, but now that I think about the physical ramifications of such a hydrological change, I think I am now of the opinion that, as far as we are told, it must not have rained before the flood. 

you will notice that the word man is singular.  a single man could not OBviously till the whole eartth, but he could till the earth locally.  Remember that earth as a planet is not the same as earth the ground which is what God is talking about.  what we have here is God telling us that until he made a man to till the earth the earth was misted that is all it says.  Once man was created and began to multiply then God allowed it to rain.  We know that Adam, Cain and others since them have tilled the earth before the flood.

 

Rain was not unusual for them but raining for 40 days straight was, and it would be today. I don't think God would have revealed this scripture for us to assume there was no rain for almost 1000 years until the flood.

Edited September 10, 2014 by AVBibleBeliever

[DaveW]

Once again we have assumption presented as "Fact".

 

Fact - the Bible says:

Gen 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 

Gen 2:5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 

Gen 2:6  But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 

Gen 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

Gen 2:8  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 

 

Nowhere in this passage does it say that the Lord made it rain after he put man there.

 

Facts from the passage are:

1. God had not caused it to rain.

2. There was no man to till the ground.

3. A mist went up and watered the whole face of the ground.

4. God formed the man.

5. rain is not mentioned again in God's Word until: Gen_7:4  For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 

 

Nowhere does it say it rained before the flood.

Nowhere does it say that it DIDN'T rain at all before the flood.

Rain is not mentioned as occurring UNTIL the flood.

Prior to that the ONLY mention of rain is that it DIDN'T rain, but a mist went up and watered the ground.

 

The easiest assumption to make is that there was no rain until the rains of the flood. BUT THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION - however it is the most likely assumption and certainly fits the Bible text better than saying that it rained as soon as man was made.

 

That assumption (That it rained after man was made) is not indicated in the language.

 

But you can not get away from the FACT that rain is mentioned only once before the flood, and that is in the negative ie. it DIDN'T rain.

The next time rain is mentioned, it is that it DID rain - to cause the flood.

[2bLikeJesus]

Agreed.  The only thing that would lead me to make an "assumption" of rain before the flood would be the presence of "Rivers" such as the river leading from Eden.  I find it difficult to picture a river so large it splits into 4 head ways, forming from merely ground mist.  How would ground mist create such a great runoff of water?  I can allow though for the possibility of the waters source for the river coming from "the fountains of the deep" which were also mentioned as being "broken up" during the flood.  This could allow rivers formed from underground water sources and not rain.  

 

This issue is a tug of war for me, it is very slippery.  Every time I think I have my opinion nailed down on one side or the other, it slips between my fingers to the other side. 

 

However, I am very cautious about forming doctrines over things NOT mentioned in the Bible.  I have seen a few, even on OB, who take strong doctrinal stands not on that the bible says, but what it does not say.

 

Bro. Garry

Edited September 10, 2014 by 2bLikeJesus

[Alimantado]

Genesis 7:4 is part of a quote from a conversation God has directly with Noah, in which God explains His plan to flood the earth. The fact that God talks about rain without explaining what it is implies that at this point Noah already knows. But there are plenty of explanations I can think of:

 

• Noah knew what rain was because he had seen it before.
• Noah knew what rain was because God had explained it, but that conversation isn't recorded.
• Noah knew what rain was because God had granted him some sort of intrinsic knowledge of it.

Or even:

• Noah didn't know what rain was but figured it out from the context (i.e. being asked to build a boat for an impending flood).
• Noah didn't know what rain was and remained ignorant until the day it began to rain.

If Noah didn't know what rain was, it begs the question whether or not he made the roof and upper deck rainproof. God tells Noah to use pitch inside and out, but you might make a roof with pitch and yet have holes in it if you don't think water will come from above. :-)

 

Yet another explanation is that Noah knew what rain was because at some point prior he had visited Scotland... ;-)

Edited September 10, 2014 by Alimantado

[Genevanpreacher]

Since my opinion is just that, my opinion, I do believe it rained before the flood of Noah's time.

I base my 'opinion' upon this...

 

Since Genesis 2:5 said there wasn't a man to till the earth yet, God hadn't caused a rain to occur up to that point in time.

Yet after Adam and his wife were expelled out of the Garden, it is said in Genesis 3:23, that the Lord sent man forth, from

the garden to till the earth from whence he was taken.

 

Then there was a 'man to till the earth', and a reason to let it rain.

 

That is how I perceive this subject. I may be 'off me noggin', but it is me noggin' to be off with.

 

(Edited to reword as per Bro. Jims post)

Edited September 13, 2014 by Genevanpreacher

[Genevanpreacher]

Um... why? There's a whole lot of land that doesn't get tilled in the world, but it still needs water. It's only planted crops that require tilling.

Contextually, the verse says that the Lord 'had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." I think this is just two unrelated factual statements. If the first was because of the second, then grammatically the conjunctive 'for' should have been used. As it was not, I don't think we can pull a doctrine out of this verse that is (a) not mentioned and would ( require a complete reorganization of the hydrological cycle (which would be a significant natural event that is also not mentioned).  

I didn't have a clear opinion before as to whether or not it rained before the flood, but now that I think about the physical ramifications of such a hydrological change, I think I am now of the opinion that, as far as we are told, it must not have rained before the flood. 

 

Since my Bible says the word "neither" where yours says "and", my view is OBviously different. (as well as the 1537 Coverdale/Tyndale Bible)

 

As for the phrase "significant natural event" (hydrological cycle) you are discussing in your post above, wouldn't it be a more significant event to change what was natural already?

Putting aside the 'theory' of a 'humid type of atmosphere' where our earth was enveloped in a vast solid mass of water, giving us unrealistic environmental conditions, 

I believe the waters that are described in Gen. 1 verses 6-8 are referring to the clouds that hold the rains, agreeing with Gen. 6 verse 11 where the 'windows of heaven

were opened'.

 

Now this is my opinion, and I have only proof shown above, I defer to anyone else's opinions with respect.

[Jim_Alaska]

GP  You added the word "since." which is not in that scripture. This would change the meaning and give the reason for there being no rain as because there was not a man to till the ground.

 

If you back up just a little you will see that this section of scripture is a recount of happenings in His creation.  Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

 

Plants and herbs were created but did not actually grow in the ground. But again, this was not because there was no man to till them, it was because it had not rained.  Ge 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

 

Anyway, just something to think about.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Jim_Alaska

[Genevanpreacher]

The scripture says there wasn't a man to till the earth. That is plain to see.

I wasn't meaning to say the scripture said "since there was no man to till the earth".

 

Sorry for any confusion or implication there.