Pre Flood Rain

[Floodnut]

Use this thread to discuss pre-flood rain and weather.
Genesis Two says that there was NO RAIN. Why should we think that this condition is mentioned in this text, in the section that runs from 2:3 through 4:26, why should it be mentioned here, and then not apply to that time frame? Why should it be mentioned if it only applies to a time BEFORE Man was created?

The question here is why is the absence of Rain mentioned if it did pertain?

Arguements from silence are not valid for either side of this question. It does not solve the question of how long 2:5,6 applied to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it did NOT rain," or to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it DID rain."

2:5,6 is still there. WHY?

 

[busterdog]

Use this thread to discuss pre-flood rain and weather.
Genesis Two says that there was NO RAIN. Why should we think that this condition is mentioned in this text, in the section that runs from 2:3 through 4:26, why should it be mentioned here, and then not apply to that time frame? Why should it be mentioned if it only applies to a time BEFORE Man was created?

The question here is why is the absence of Rain mentioned if it did pertain?

Arguements from silence are not valid for either side of this question. It does not solve the question of how long 2:5,6 applied to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it did NOT rain," or to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it DID rain."

2:5,6 is still there. WHY?

I think that your logic is very sound.

I note two kinds of responses:

1. Those who believe there was no rain prior to Gen. 6, but who don't find enough explicit reference between Gen. 2 and Gen. 5 (the interim period) to be too terribly impassioned about it.

2. An insistence that there must have been rain, which seems to arrive with greater urgency.

I am somewhat concerned about the urgency of the question. I would not presume to oppose with any vigor the more logical inference that you have suggested. With an explicit exclusion of rain early in Genesis and silence thereafter until we get to the flood, the attempt to inject something into the text for the interim just doesn't seem to merit strong conviction.

However, what does seem to motivate the conclusion for including rain prior to the flood is "common sense" or circumstance, as viewed from our present day experience of rain.

Arguing from circumstance to make the Bible fit our experience is one of those practices that divides the philosopies of Christians. I just can't reason it out that way.

 

[keyarch]

Use this thread to discuss pre-flood rain and weather.
Genesis Two says that there was NO RAIN. Why should we think that this condition is mentioned in this text, in the section that runs from 2:3 through 4:26, why should it be mentioned here, and then not apply to that time frame? Why should it be mentioned if it only applies to a time BEFORE Man was created?

The question here is why is the absence of Rain mentioned if it did pertain?

Arguements from silence are not valid for either side of this question. It does not solve the question of how long 2:5,6 applied to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it did NOT rain," or to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it DID rain."

2:5,6 is still there. WHY?

I talked about this in your other thread, but will say it again.
1. In Chapter 2, we are brought into the creation week with more detail surrounding man, but the narration starts at the condition the earth was in at the beginning of the third day and not from the very beginning. The same thing happens with the narration in Genesis 1 where we are brought into the seen with the initial conditon of the earth before God started working those six days.
2. If God says He did not plant the field or the herbs of the field because He hadn't caused it to rain yet AND He hadn't created man yet to till the ground. So it can be inferred that the plants needed rain and not merely the "mist". It's also very clear that this state of creation was before the end of day three. It has nothing to do with the time period after that and until the flood.
3. It's possible that rain occurred without a rainbow visible to man, and it's been argued whether or not the rainbow after the flood was even the first one.
4. Think about this: It started to rain before the flood waters covered the earth (pre-flood). So, doesn't it make sense that when God made the covenant with man AFTER THE FLOOD a year later that this wasn't the first time it rained on earth?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

You have persuaded me. I have read Genesis countless times but never did have an opinion on if it rained before the flood out not. A closer reading though would make it look like it was very likely that it didn't rain before the flood. I don't know why anyone would feel the need to prove otherwise.

Use this thread to discuss pre-flood rain and weather.
Genesis Two says that there was NO RAIN. Why should we think that this condition is mentioned in this text, in the section that runs from 2:3 through 4:26, why should it be mentioned here, and then not apply to that time frame? Why should it be mentioned if it only applies to a time BEFORE Man was created?

The question here is why is the absence of Rain mentioned if it did pertain?

Arguements from silence are not valid for either side of this question. It does not solve the question of how long 2:5,6 applied to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it did NOT rain," or to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it DID rain."

2:5,6 is still there. WHY?

 

[HSetterfield]

You have persuaded me. I have read Genesis countless times but never did have an opinion on if it rained before the flood out not. A closer reading though would make it look like it was very likely that it didn't rain before the flood. I don't know why anyone would feel the need to prove otherwise.

I personally do think it rained before the Flood, but not over land in the daytime.

There is no reason to think water did not evaporate before the Flood. That would have required a drastic change regarding all of physics as we know it now.

And if water evaporated, it went up. Up in our atmosphere is, at various layers, cooler.

Thus condensation

Thus rain.

If water evaporated over the seas in the days, it probably rained back down on them at night.

Genesis 2:5-6 states that there was no shrub at one point BECAUSE God had not yet sent rain. This indicates rather strongly that there was rain before the Flood.

This would have been in keeping with a normal hydrologic cycle. It could easily have rained over land at night, when the normal cooling would cause the condensation in the clouds.

However, because God said he set the rainbow in the clouds as a sign of the covenant, it seems to indicate that these clouds were now either forming over land during the day and raining, or were being blown over land and raining during the day, and that this may have been a new thing.

 

[busterdog]

You have persuaded me. I have read Genesis countless times but never did have an opinion on if it rained before the flood out not. A closer reading though would make it look like it was very likely that it didn't rain before the flood. I don't know why anyone would feel the need to prove otherwise.

I personally do think it rained before the Flood, but not over land in the daytime.

There is no reason to think water did not evaporate before the Flood. That would have required a drastic change regarding all of physics as we know it now.

And if water evaporated, it went up. Up in our atmosphere is, at various layers, cooler.

Thus condensation

Thus rain.

If water evaporated over the seas in the days, it probably rained back down on them at night.

Genesis 2:5-6 states that there was no shrub at one point BECAUSE God had not yet sent rain. This indicates rather strongly that there was rain before the Flood.

This would have been in keeping with a normal hydrologic cycle. It could easily have rained over land at night, when the normal cooling would cause the condensation in the clouds.

However, because God said he set the rainbow in the clouds as a sign of the covenant, it seems to indicate that these clouds were now either forming over land during the day and raining, or were being blown over land and raining during the day, and that this may have been a new thing.

Seems to be a reasonable position that does just to the lack of rain "on the ground" and the apparent uniqueness of the rainbow.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Use this thread to discuss pre-flood rain and weather.
Genesis Two says that there was NO RAIN. Why should we think that this condition is mentioned in this text, in the section that runs from 2:3 through 4:26, why should it be mentioned here, and then not apply to that time frame? Why should it be mentioned if it only applies to a time BEFORE Man was created?

The question here is why is the absence of Rain mentioned if it did pertain?

Arguements from silence are not valid for either side of this question. It does not solve the question of how long 2:5,6 applied to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it did NOT rain," or to say, "There is no statement in chapters 3 - 6 that it DID rain."

2:5,6 is still there. WHY?

before the flood there was no Mountain ranges... there was only dew...

 

[keyarch]

before the flood there was no Mountain ranges... there was only dew...

I'm just curious how or why you would think there were no mountain ranges. How do you reconcile:

Psalm 104:8 "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."

This passage and the surrounding ones are talking about the initial creation and not post-flood. If you accept that premise then look at:

Psalm 104:13 "He watereth the hills from His chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works."

This would indicate that He watered the hills with RAIN from the clouds. (His chambers being in the upper waters per Psalm 104:3).

 

[HSetterfield]

keyarch, a lot of it depends on the definition of mountains. When we think of mountains today, we usually think of the great ranges, such as the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Andes, and such. These are all 'young' ranges and were formed at the time the continents 'unzipped'.

When Barry was first showing me around Adelaide and parts of South Australia, he pointed to one hilly sort of rise and told me, "and that is Mt. Lofty."

I am sorry to say I started to giggle. I lived in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas in California at the time and there was absolutely nothing lofty about Mt. Lofty. It is little more than one of our hills!

Nevertheless, in comparison to the land around it, it was lofty!

Any mountains before the Flood would most probably not have been any higher than a thousand feet or so, but they would have been mountains compared to the land around them.

In addition, Psalm 104:13 is a description of the earth AFTER the Flood, for in verse 9 we read "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth" (referencing the waters).

 

[busterdog]

keyarch, a lot of it depends on the definition of mountains. When we think of mountains today, we usually think of the great ranges, such as the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Andes, and such. These are all 'young' ranges and were formed at the time the continents 'unzipped'.

When Barry was first showing me around Adelaide and parts of South Australia, he pointed to one hilly sort of rise and told me, "and that is Mt. Lofty."

I am sorry to say I started to giggle. I lived in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas in California at the time and there was absolutely nothing lofty about Mt. Lofty. It is little more than one of our hills!

Nevertheless, in comparison to the land around it, it was lofty!

Any mountains before the Flood would most probably not have been any higher than a thousand feet or so, but they would have been mountains compared to the land around them.

In addition, Psalm 104:13 is a description of the earth AFTER the Flood, for in verse 9 we read "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth" (referencing the waters).

What is up with this?

This always sounded so curious. Does not appear to be just metaphor by its use.

Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
Luk 3:5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways [shall be] made smooth;

Isn't Zion to be the highest mountain in the end times?

What kind of geology is that?

 

[shernren]

keyarch, a lot of it depends on the definition of mountains. When we think of mountains today, we usually think of the great ranges, such as the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Andes, and such. These are all 'young' ranges and were formed at the time the continents 'unzipped'.

When Barry was first showing me around Adelaide and parts of South Australia, he pointed to one hilly sort of rise and told me, "and that is Mt. Lofty."

I am sorry to say I started to giggle. I lived in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas in California at the time and there was absolutely nothing lofty about Mt. Lofty. It is little more than one of our hills!

Nevertheless, in comparison to the land around it, it was lofty!

Any mountains before the Flood would most probably not have been any higher than a thousand feet or so, but they would have been mountains compared to the land around them.

In addition, Psalm 104:13 is a description of the earth AFTER the Flood, for in verse 9 we read "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth" (referencing the waters).

I proffer a creationist understanding in which Psalm 104 speaks solely of Creation:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html

Psalms 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10).

 

[A Brother In Christ]

I'm just curious how or why you would think there were no mountain ranges. How do you reconcile:

Psalm 104:8 "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."

This passage and the surrounding ones are talking about the initial creation and not post-flood. If you accept that premise then look at:

Psalm 104:13 "He watereth the hills from His chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works."

This would indicate that He watered the hills with RAIN from the clouds. (His chambers being in the upper waters per Psalm 104:3).

David wrote these passages and there was mountains after the flood..

Gen 2:5-6 no rain but a mist from the earth

gen 7:17 states flood but not how....



2 peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise [of judgement]of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

2 peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, the #1 flood earth standing out of the water #2 flood and thru the water.

2 peter 3:6 whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished.

side note....

the standing out of water is how God had the earth appear in gen 1:2,9

thru the water is the ice ball encasing the earth thus protecting the people from the sun and its deadly rays.. thus when God started the flood ... He used it to start to melt and help the flood action to begin plus he used the earth to sink lower so that the water would rise also...

 

[keyarch]

keyarch, a lot of it depends on the definition of mountains. When we think of mountains today, we usually think of the great ranges, such as the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Andes, and such. These are all 'young' ranges and were formed at the time the continents 'unzipped'.

When Barry was first showing me around Adelaide and parts of South Australia, he pointed to one hilly sort of rise and told me, "and that is Mt. Lofty."

I am sorry to say I started to giggle. I lived in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas in California at the time and there was absolutely nothing lofty about Mt. Lofty. It is little more than one of our hills!

Nevertheless, in comparison to the land around it, it was lofty!

Any mountains before the Flood would most probably not have been any higher than a thousand feet or so, but they would have been mountains compared to the land around them.

In addition, Psalm 104:13 is a description of the earth AFTER the Flood, for in verse 9 we read "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth" (referencing the waters).

• I don’t think we need to split hairs about what a mountain is. If the Bible says mountains, I’ll assume that the author (coming from a post flood perspective) knows the difference between hills and mountains.
• When you say the continents “unzipped”, I assume that you’re referencing Pangea and plate tectonics. Personally, I don’t see empirical evidence for that. One doesn’t need to be a scientist to see that the geological evidence doesn’t add up. I’ve looked at graphics showing the age of the Ocean Floor along with looking at the geography thru Google Earth, and I don’t see any relationship between the major continents that would fit that model. In addition, if you take away the sediments from the flood and account for a sea level 400 feet lower, the shapes look much different. Also, I see no reason that the shapes would hold together in their current form and travel many varied distances while maintaining the same width of sediment ages.
• Regarding Psalms 104 – If you took verse 9 out of the chapter, there would be no question but that the context of this account is of the “creation” pre-flood. So verse 9 warrants a closer investigation if it is to be used as a post-flood proof text. After studying the Hebrew words and their English meanings closely, I feel that the actual meaning of the verse is something like this:
  
  “A boarder was established, not to cause (the water) and not return to cover the earth.”
  
  In essence, the water was already over the land masses before God gathered together the waters (Gen. 1:9) unto one place and so God established the boarder so that they wouldn’t return back over the land on their own. It does NOT say that the waters “never again will they cross over the earth”. There was no covenant or promise that would preclude the judgment of the global flood and make God a liar.

 

[Floodnut]

You guys just can't do it can you? THE TOPIC IS RAIN. I have yet to hear a satisfactorily reasonable answer as to the purpose of the Genesis 2 text if it does not address conditions that persisted until the stated change of Genesis 6.
Compare: the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

With: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

So, unless someone can give me some sensible answer, I will show a preflood world with no rain upon the earth, but being watered by fountains and springs out of the ground, and rivers flowing from places like Eden, and even geysers.

 

[Brennan]

All it states is that it had not rained up till then. (A matter of days): why assume that it means the next 1600 years as well?

It mentions it because there are no plants around so far as I can see " and no man to till the earth". Cain is described as a tiller of earth though shortly later, from which I would infer that there are plants around, and presumably rain.

 

[keyarch]

You guys just can't do it can you? THE TOPIC IS RAIN. I have yet to hear a satisfactorily reasonable answer as to the purpose of the Genesis 2 text if it does not address conditions that persisted until the stated change of Genesis 6.
Compare: the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

With: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

So, unless someone can give me some sensible answer, I will show a preflood world with no rain upon the earth, but being watered by fountains and springs out of the ground, and rivers flowing from places like Eden, and even geysers.

You can't really do anything but give an opinion about how Genesis 2 should be interpreted unless other passages are brought into the discussion as reinforcement for a particular view. When doing that, invariably other issues get brought up. I think you've had some good reasoning here by quite a few people, and I don't understand where your frustration is coming from.

There doesn't have to be a "purpose" why it did or didn't rain pre-flood if all Gen 2 is doing is stating the condition of the earth on a particular day. You have to look to other texts for the answer, and I think we've attempted to do that.

 

[busterdog]

New Forum: Creation Science

Creation Science
The subforum for young-earth and other creationist members.


A new subforum For Christians Only in the Theology category under the Origins Theology forum.

The old Creation Science & Evolution forum has been renamed Origins Theology.

Rules of this forum:

1. Only Creationist members may debate in this forum.

2. Non-creationist members may post fellowship posts in this forum but any debate posts will be removed.

Enjoy!

please note:
I am a TE who has regularly posted in this forum and I have now returned, but this time wearing a silly little hat that says, "MOD" on it

We are going to find a way to get along in these forums. First step is going to be that TE's will NOT post non-fellowship posts in the creationist forum--and visa versa--period! You may ask serious questions if you have them, but do not try to mask your debate or ridicule in the form of a question.

Inappropriate posts will be deleted and as necessary warnings will be given out. This will be handled in a non-biased manner to the best of our ability. If you are unsure about a post of someone else's use the report button. If you are unsure of your own post, PM a mod here first.

We must remember that all of us (TE's and Creationists) are guests here at CF. As guests, we are to act as if we are Christian guests in someone else's home--in this case, Dr. Erwin Loh. We will, as Christian guests respect his rules or we will no longer be welcome.

These forums have the capability of creating fellowship or enmity. We are going to strive for fellowship. If all members end up getting banned or leaving, then we will simply close the forum, but we will respect the owner's rules.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest!
Tommy

edited to add:
the reason this is posted in the creationism forum is NOT because creationists are the main ones violating this rule. It is posted here because so many TE's are coming here to debate.

 

[keyarch]

Why the reference? It looks like we're all creationist here so far.

 

[busterdog]

Why the reference? It looks like we're all creationist here so far.

Brennan is new here, but I don't think he is a creationist. However, his posting here seems to be in line with yours, so, my posting was a little hasty and he is of course welcome to fellowship here.

(Not that I am a mod or anything.)

I just wanted to get the rules out there (which I broke on another forum recently.)

 

[busterdog]

You can't really do anything but give an opinion about how Genesis 2 should be interpreted unless other passages are brought into the discussion as reinforcement for a particular view. When doing that, invariably other issues get brought up. I think you've had some good reasoning here by quite a few people, and I don't understand where your frustration is coming from.

There doesn't have to be a "purpose" why it did or didn't rain pre-flood if all Gen 2 is doing is stating the condition of the earth on a particular day. You have to look to other texts for the answer, and I think we've attempted to do that.

Essentially, you do seem to be right about the opinion part. There is some degree of silence or subtlety in the text on the point.

But, I don't see the impassioned objection to floodnut's position either. Clearly the rain switch is in off position in Gen. 2. Nothing suggests it is back on until Noah's time, except perhaps "common sense", based upon our current experience with rain. One would usually assume that the switch is off unless we are told otherwise and current observations shouldn't really change that, I would think.