Thanks for your comments. You wrote:
> 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.
It is unthinkable that Moses would have erred in these details, I agree.
But what of Gen.2:6? Aren't we informed there of a different - but
equally-effective - source of water that was to sustain life throughout
the antediluvian period? If rain had fallen during this time, why is the
post-Flood rainbow so clearly a novelty? Is it logical to suppose the
Lord would use some commonplace phenomenon as a guarantee and reminder
of his covenant with Noah and his descendants (Gen.9:13)? I suggest the
significance of this event cannot be lightly dismissed.
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm