The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum First Rain

When I first heard put forth the idea that the flood was the first time that it had rained upon the earth, I found it amusing. I was very young in the faith at the time.

But over the next few years, as I matured in the faith, I came to believe it to be true. Not through outside influences or resources, nor through studying that particular subject, but just through my daily Bible study.

And these many years later, I still do believe it, though I am not adamant about it. What do others here think about the idea?

I have to admit that I have never heard that there was no rain before the flood. I'm curious how you came to that conclusion??

When I read through Genesis 1, particularly vv. 6 and 7:

it appears to me that when the waters were 'divided', the lower waters became the oceans, seas and lakes v. 9, and the upper waters became the clouds. It was in God's design that all the plant life that was to follow v. 11 was to be watered by the water that was in the clouds, aka: rain.

Logically, it would seem unlikely that for nearly 1000 +/- years between Adam and Noah there was no rain on the earth. The WCF, in regard to what we may know about God, salvation and life in Chapter 1, article VI says:

Thus, since all life requires water to subsist, and IF there was no rain, it would require a special providence of God to sustain the plants, trees, etc. Yes, this is possible but we read of nothing that would indicate this was the case. The normal way the creation continues is by rain. Jesus said that God makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust (Matt 5:45) and I have to believe that this didn't begin until after the flood.

That's my

Some thoughts (all scriptures from NKJV):

The earth may have been watered by other than rain.

"Things not yet seen" is not required to, but could refer to, rain.

The windows of heaven being open seems to imply that it hadn't previously rained.

Most telling of all, at least to me, is the strong implication of the text that the rainbow had not previously been seen.

Though each of these may be interpreted differently, together they seem to allow the idea of no rain before the flood. Again, I am in no way adamant about it.

But if it is so, it is entirely by God's hand. Just as in a related text, it seems evident to me, though perhaps not to others, that after the flood, God changed the nature of animals:

This might also help us to understand why the animals so meekly entered the ark, because the fear of man was not yet upon them.

Interestingly, the fact that every moving thing was given for food, would tell us that the dietary restrictions of the law were not in place before Mount Sinai.

1. In Gen 1:6,7,9 we are told of the distribution of water; water on the earth, oceans, seas, etc., and water above the earth in the atmosphere, i.e., CLOUDS.

2. In Gen 2:5,6 we are told that there was no plant life because there was no rain:

Note that there was a mist but that was not sufficient to sustain plants, trees, etc. And, there was no plant life of any kind because there was no man to till the ground. The creation account is of the ENTIRE earth and not just a tiny portion of earth where God established a garden.

3. The creation account informs us of many fundamental things, e.g., order, natural law (aka: nature), i.e., the way in which the universe, including the earth was to function which is upheld by God's providence. A river supplied water for the Garden of Eden, but that does not necessitate that the rest of the world was supplied water via that river. The clouds formed on the second day were to be the "normal/natural" method for watering the earth in order to sustain all plant life.
"Things not yet seen" is not required to, but could refer to, rain.

Methinks it is more than a stretch to interpret "things not yet seen" as being no knowledge of rain. The natural reading of the text would rather mean the catastrophic events that were about to take place.

It is most telling to you because you are starting with the presupposition that it had not rained before the flood. Evolutionists (no reference whatsoever to you ) claim that their theory is true, it is most telling, because there is no way that anything could have occurred without an extended period of time, etc., based upon their presupposition there is no God. By dismissing God, they are left with their own conjectures of how things came to be. Again, the creation account describes not only the small plot of land in Eden, but the entire world. During the 1000 +/- years between Adam and Noah, surely there were 1000s of humans living on the earth beyond Eden. And many of them were farmers as was Adam, who tilled the ground and depended upon rain for their crops to grow, never mind the vast variety of trees and plant life existing on the entire planet that needed water for the "mist" was removed as soon as the waters in the firmament, i.e., clouds were established and man was created who would till the ground.

You quote Gen 9:2,3 to prove your premise that the nature of animals changed after the flood. I'm confused? The whole creation changed after the FALL, not the flood.

Now, my curiosity needs to be pacified if you could do that for me, please... by explaining why it is so important to you that no rain occurred before the flood for over 1000 years AND the ramifications of this view. Also, one other small matter needs satisfying... are there any groups or individuals that you know of who hold to this view? As I originally stated in my first response, I have never heard of this proposition before nor have I ever read anything that posits this view.

Pilgrim
I am actually surprised that you have never heard this before.
This is a teaching I have heard on the subject sinse I first became a Christian.
For some reason (until now) I never even thought to question that teaching.
I have no Idea why, but it just didn't even come to my mind to question it.
Now however, I will be studying the subject. 😃
Tom

Tom,

Could you tell us who teaches this? I have never heard this either and would be interested to know who is teaching this.

I can look into who teaches this, but whenever I have heard this topic up over the years, that is what I heard.
Tom

I did a Google search on the subject and found a link to the subject.
However they say that Scripture does not bear this teaching out.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/there-was-no-rain-before-the-flood/[
Kind of strange how God clears up long held understanding on issues.
Would not surprise me to find out I hold to other errors.
Tom

Pilgrim, all that you have written is your view; what I posted was my view. Neither seems conclusive, and either seems possible.

It is not in any way important to me that one view be right and the other wrong. It is simply something that I thought would make for interesting discussion.

No, I do not know of any group with this teaching, but it does seem to be widely held by some individuals across different groups. My former pastor, whom I greatly respect, held this view not as doctrine, but only as a personal opinion. That makes it neither right nor wrong, but I think it was were I first heard of it.

Like Tom, I Googled it yesterday after your first reply, and found many hits which were divided in opinion, but it did seem as though more were tending against the view rather than for it.

Once again, this view is totally new to me and I found it fascinating that it was held. The individual who wrote the short article that Tom referenced used almost the same arguments that I have used which got a chuckle from me. I had NEVER read that article until a few minutes ago.

Methinks one of the more salient passages that one needs to consider is here:

It would me extremely difficult grammatically to not see that no plant existed/was created nor any herb of the field sprung up BECAUSE God had not caused it to rain... even though there was a mist that watered the whole face of the ground. The strong implication is that vegetation needs rain to live. I cannot escape what appears to me to be obvious, that the mist was insufficient to sustain vegetation. And the fact that without man being created, the inevitable necessity of food being grown and harvested could not happen. It wasn't until after the the creation of the clouds (water in the firmament) and the division of the waters on the earth into seas, oceans, etc., Gen 1:7-10 that plants were created. Why? Because the 'natural' order of things, e.g., the water cycle was established in order to sustain all plant life and even humans who did not live near a body of water. The 'mist' we read about in Gen. 2 is immovably wedged between the creation of the land and the division of water, which I suggest replaced the mist for the next phase of the creation; plant life, vegetation and man.

Thanks for the irenic exchange. I do not think the subject is one of the "essentials" and thus not something anyone should part over nor judge the spirituality of one who holds an opposing view.

All right, I admit it, I had to look up 'irenic'!

But I'm happy you took it that way.

Meta4
--
"As I said before, I don't repeat myself!"

The link I provided said something in conclusion that I believe is worth repeating.


Thinking back to the teaching that I was taught years ago about there being no rain before the flood. They were using this arguement for the right reasons. Yet in doing so I believe the above quote is very applicable.
I can't remember if I have ever used that particular arguement; but I certainly hope not.

Tom

And which was......????????

It has been quite some time, so I do not remember the exact reason why they said this. Perhaps the person who started this thread, has a better memory of why this was important in their arguement?
However, if I remember correctly, usually it had something to do with supporting a young earth. Though right now, I am having trouble connecting the dots.
Like I said before, until now I never even thought to question this teaching and I am not even sure why.
Tom

Hi Tom,

No, I am not aware of any particular importance to it. I merely thought it was an interesting topic for discussion.