> 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.
Gen. 2:6 must be consistent with Gen. 2:5. Unless this was a new
phenomenon, it still did not allow for the growth of the vegetation
mentioned. Thermal areas have steam arising from the ground without
allowing the growth of vegetation, although I am not saying that that is
what this was.
I don't think that it is clear that the post-Flood rainbow was a novelty.
By analogy, are we to assume that because circumcision was the sign of the
covenant with Abraham, he was the certainly the first person ever
circumcised?
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395