The only way to interpret the latter half of Gen. 2:5 as implying that
there was no rain anywhere before the Flood is to take it completely out
of context. Within its context it says the opposite.
The main statement of Gen. 2:5 is, "Now no shrub of the field was yet in
the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted." Lack of rain was
given as a reason for this. We know that such plants existed on the third
day of creation (Gen. 1:11, 12). Thus if no rain fell anywhere on the
planet before the Flood, they didn't need rain to exist, and Moses made a
mistake when he attributed their absence at a particular time and place to
a lack of rain. Since I don't believe that the Holy Spirit allowed Moses
to make such a mistake, I take this as affirming that rain existed before
the Flood.
Gen. 2:5 indicates to me that the place where the Lord planted the Garden
of Eden had previously been a desolate place.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> VJ: I try not to 'wiggle-waggle' anything biblical. For example, I am
> impressed by the scientific backcloth to the appearance of the first
> rainbow (Gn.9:13-17). We read that before the flood '...the Lord God had
> not caused it to rain upon the earth...But there went up a mist from the
> earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.' (Gn.2:5,6). The
> implications of these statements for a scientific understanding of
> antediluvian climatic conditions are interesting, to say the least!