Pre Flood Rain

[Floodnut]

I like that. The rain switch is in the OFF position, with no indication that it has been switched to ON, until chapter seven.

All I am is asking is whether Scripture demmands that it was raining. I suppose it would allow it, and just as well, it would allow that it was not raining. I don't need a discussion on mountain uplifts and Ps 104 here. That is a good topic, but start another thread for that.

It is just that we are hopeless when it comes to staying on topic. It is so easy to start a new thread. I ask for new threads, and all we get is more answers to those new thread suggestions.

 

[busterdog]

I like that. The rain switch is in the OFF position, with no indication that it has been switched to ON, until chapter seven.
.

In the trade, that would be known as a rebuttable presumption.

What you might try to find is a pattern for rain as an idiom in scripture. That sometimes solves problems. Obviously the early rains and latter rains seem to be prophetic patterns.

 

[keyarch]

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.

My point is that the switch was never off. The passage is bringing us to a point in time during the creation week before the rain cycle was started. That doesn't infer that it was never "switched on" until the flood. The lack of rain at that point was directly linked to the lack of plants and the lack of man. So, since they are linked, it only makes sense that once the plants and man were present, there would also be rain.