Cecil N. Wright

From Genesis 2:5-6,10 and 9:13-17, many have inferred that prior to the flood of Noah's day there was no rain upon the earth. But it is doubtful if such is a necessary inference, which will be pointed out as our study proceeds. However, it is a not a matter on which salvation depends, but rather one of academic and intellectual interest primarily. So the following is offered for consideration in that regard, for whatever it may be worth to concerned persons, and not for the purpose of making coverts necessarily.

 FIRST, extended and technical attention will be given to Genesis 2:5-6,10, alternating-principally between Verses 6 and 10, with various translations noted, and with Job 36:27-28 included in connection with Verse 6, because both of them use the same Hebrew word that is crucial to an understanding of the process referred to in the latter passage. SECOND, Genesis 9:13-17 will be briefly discussed. LASTLY, closing remarks will present a brief summation.

 I. GENESIS 2:5-6,10.

1.The Issue Set Forth.

 Verses 5-6 read as follows in the American Standard Version (and similarly in the King James Version and others as well):

 "5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth [before the latter part of the third day of creation, Chapter 1:9-13, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: And there was not a man to till the ground [until the sixth day of creation, 1:24-31]: but there went a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

 NOTE: What is said here about watering "the whole face of the earth" is prior to the mention of making man and planting a garden in Eden, and appears to describe a process that must have begun on the third day prior to creation of vegetation before the close of that day. It was a process by which "the whole face of the ground" was watered, not just Eden. And Verse 5 seems to imply that God caused it to rain before vegetation was made to grow, with Verse 6 seeming to describe the process antecedent to the rain by which the whole face of the earth was watered.

But there are those who think otherwise -- namely, that Verse 10 describes the process of Verse 6. The remainder of this section will discuss that issue pro and con, followed by a much shorter section dealing with Genesis 9:13-17, as already indicated.

2. The Issue Discussed.

a. Leupold's Translation: H. C. Leupold, in his famous Exposition of Genesis (2 Volumes, 1949), translates Genesis 2:6 as saying, "So a mist kept rising from the earth and kept watering all the surface of the earth," and comments as follows: "A regular and continuous mode of operation now begins, as the durative imperfect (ya'aleh) indicates, .... This may refer to the continuous evaporation which began to set in.... the rising of the mists, their condensation and the regular falling as rain" (Vol.1, pp-113-14).

b. Watering of Garden of Eden (v.10): Verses 7-9 tell again of God making man, and of his planting a garden eastward in Eden (which likely occurred on the third day), where he placed the man he formed (on the sixth day), with Verse 10 saying, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads."

So the garden of Eden likely was not only watered by the "mist" that went up from the earth and may have come back down as rain upon "all the face of the ground," but was certainly watered by irrigation from a source described as "a river [that] went out of Eden to water the garden." But the garden could hardly be watered by its flowing outside of Eden. So the meaning must be that it sprang up from the earth somewhere inside the garden before flowing beyond it and separating into four "heads" or sources of four streams. So far as we are aware, this concept is not contested. And a few versions so phrase their rendering as to express that idea explicitly. Note the following:

 Translations of Verse 10

* Moffatt: "From [that is, from inside] Eden a river flowed to water the park, which on leaving the park branched into four streams. "

* New International Version: "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden, and from there it divided," etc.

* New American Bible: "A river rises in Eden to water the garden; beyond there it divides and becomes four branches."

* Today's English Version: "A stream flowed in Eden and watered the garden; beyond Eden it divided into four rivers."

c. Is Watering of Verse 10 the same as that of Verse 6? Notwithstanding that Verse 6 describes the watering of "the whole face of the earth" and Verse 10 explicitly describes the watering of only "the garden" of Eden, which was by no means "the whole face of the earth," there are those who equate them and claim to do so on the basis of language.

  Believing that the Hebrew word ed in verse 6 (pronounced as eed in "weed"), which is translated "mist" in the American Standard and other eminent versions, may be related to the ancient far eastern Akkadian word edu, meaning flood, waves, or swell, some modern scholars think the Hebrew word "probably" means a subterranean stream of water, or flood, rather than the rising of vapor into the atmosphere and returning to the earth as rain. Consequently, some modern translations adopt that concept in their text, either with or without placing "mist" in the margin as an alternate reading while a few others retaining "mist" in the text nevertheless give recognition of an alternate as a possibility by placing it in the margin. And the Septuagint renders it similarly by the Greek word pege, meaning a fountain or spring, without any alternate rendering. (Leupold says its translators "guessed at the meaning.") Note the following:

 Translations of Verse 6

  (1) Other Than "Mist" Without Alternate Reading:

* LXX: "But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth."

* Lamsa (from ancient eastern manuscripts, called Syriac): "But a powerful spring gushed out of the earth, and watered all the face of the ground."

* Today's English Version: "But water would come up from beneath the surface and water the ground."

* New American Bible: "But a stream was welling up out of the earth and watering all the surface of the ground."

* Goodspeed: "A flood used to rise from the earth and water all the surface of the ground."

* Jerusalem Bible: "However, a flood was rising from the earth and watering all the surface of the soil."

NOTE: In passing, it must be said that it would have taken a mighty stream indeed to have watered not only Eden but "all the surface of the ground" Even if it did divide into four streams, it is hard to conceive of their overflowing to cover all the earth's land surface, or to provide irrigation for all of it without overflowing. It would seem impossible for the excess from the stream originating in Eden not to be dissipated long before "all the surface of the ground" could be watered by those four streams. But it all could have been watered from vapor arising from the earth and returning as rain. This consideration alone makes the above translations highly suspect.

Furthermore, even if the Hebrew ed is related to the Akkadian edu, that does not necessarily make them equivalent. To illustrate, consider the two related Greek words petros and petra. They are brother and sister, so to speak, in the same language -- one being masculine and the other feminine gender of the same root word, and both referring to the same substance -- rock. Yet they are not equivalent. Petros is a detached fragment, or stone, whether as large as a boulder or as small as a pebble, whereas petra is massive, whether bedrock or a ledge of rock. And so it may be with the Hebrew ed and the Akkadian edu, in reference to water -- edu being water in its liquid form, as a stream, or wave, or flood,-whether under or above ground, and ed being water in the atmosphere as a vapor, whether so diffuse as to be invisible or whether condensed enough to be visible as mist, fog, or cloud. The burden of proof logically falls upon those who would translate the Hebrew ed as equivalent to the Akkadian edu, with the "probability" weighted against such translation, all factors considered.

(2) "Flood," "Stream," or "Mist" With Alternate Reading:

* New English Bible: "A flood used to rise out of the earth and water all-the surface of the ground." (Or mist.)

* New International Version: "But streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." (Or mist.)

* Revised Standard Version: "But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. ' (Or flood.)

* New American Standard Bible: "But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground." (Or, flow.)

(3) Other Readings, "Mist" and "Vapor," Without Alternates:

* Moffatt: "A mist used to rise from the earth and water all the surface of the ground."

NOTE: Moffatt's is an example of both a modern-speech and free translation, yet using "mist" without any alternate rendering being offered, the same as the King James Version, the American Standard Version (quoted at the outset of this review), and the New King James Bible.

 * Green's Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible (1976). "And a mist went up from the earth and watered all the face of the ground."

 * Berkeley Version: "But a vapor used to rise from the earth to moisten all the surface of the ground."

 NOTE: Young's Analytical Concordance gives both "mist" and "vapor" as meanings of the Hebrew word ed, used here (Genesis 2:6) and in Job 36:27-28, which will be noted next. Funk & Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary says of "vapor": "l Moisture in the air; especially, visible floating moisture, as light mist [emphasis added]; ... loosely, any light cloudy substance in the air, as smoke or fumes. 2 Any substance in the gaseous state, which, under ordinary conditions, is usually a liquid or solid; a gassified liquid or solid." Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms explains: "Mist applies to a condition where water is held in suspension in fine particles in the air, floating or slowly falling in minute drops. A fog differs from mist only in its greater density and in its power to cut off vision. A fog differs from a cloud in being near the ground." It should also be noted that none of these is "dew," which is "moisture condensed upon the surfaces of cool bodies, especially at night. ...often popularly, but erroneously, regarded as falling from the atmosphere" (Webster).

  To summarize, the Hebrew word ed is translated both "mist" and "vapor." The term "vapor" is applicable to any degree of moisture in the atmosphere; whereas "mist" is visible moisture either floating or slowly falling, differing from "fog" only in being less dense. Hence, like fog, it is capable of rising or forming clouds, or of being further vaporized by sunshine and becoming invisible except as it rises into air cool enough to condense it again so as to be visible as clouds or condensed still further so as to fall back to earth as rain or other precipitation (snow or sleet).

d. Job 36:27-28 and Its Bearing on the Meaning of ed in Genesis 2:6

* Green's Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible (1976): "For he draws up the drops of water; according to its vapor [ed], rain is distilled; which the clouds pour down, and drop down on men plentifully."

NOTE: This is a literal, word-for-word, translation. The Hebrew ed is translated "vapor," as in a number of other English versions. In the translations that follow, we shall not insert ed as is done in the foregoing, but simply underscore the word used to translate it. Examples of translating it other than "vapor" will be given first.

  * Goodspeed: "For he draws up the drops of water; They pour out as rain in his flood, which the clouds pour down upon many men."

*New International Version: "He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. (or, distill forth from the mist as rain.)

NOTE: These foregoing translations accord with their renderings of ed in Genesis 2:6, but Goodspeed's "flood" and NIV's "streams" in this instance are not from underground but are above in the earth's atmosphere! So, even if ed is akin to the Akkadian edu, that does not make it equivalent in meaning. Or, if it does, the Akkadian term is not limited to streams or floods from underground sources, but includes those that form in the atmosphere from water vapor that rises from the earth.

And, should the latter be true, there is no reason for understanding ed in Genesis 2:6 any differently from its use in Job 36:27-28.

  * Today's English Version: "It is God who takes water from the earth and turns it into drops of rain. He lets the rain pour from the clouds in showers for all mankind."

 NOTE: This is a paraphrase that omits the equivalent of ed. But, along with the previous two translations, it does credit God with drawing up water from the earth before turning it into rain to fall back upon the earth, and this drawing of it up into the atmosphere is done by evaporation or vaporization.

  * New American Standard Bible: "For he draws up drops of water, They distill rain from the mist, Which the clouds pour down, They drip upon man abundantly." (or, flood.)

  * New American Bible: "He holds up in check the water drops that filter in rain through his mists, Till the skies run with them and the showers rain down on mankind."

  * Jerusalem Bible: "He it is who keeps the raindrops back, dissolving the showers into mist, which otherwise the clouds would spill in floods over all mankind."

  * New English Bible: "He draws up drops of water from the sea and distills rain from the mist he has made; the rain-clouds pour down in torrents, they descend in showers on mankind."

  * Revised Standard Version: "For he draws up the drops of water, he distills his mist in rain, which the skies pour down, and drops upon man abundantly."

  * New King James Bible: "For he draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man."

  NOTE: The preceding seven versions use "mist" as they do in Genesis 2:6. The remaining that we shall quote employ "vapor" instead, which includes "mist," though not limited to it.

  * King James Version: "For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapor thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distill upon man abundantly."

  * American Standard Version: "For he draws up the drops of water, Which distill in rain from his vapor, Which the skies pour down And drop upon man abundantly."

  * Berkeley Version: "For he draws up drops of water from the sea and distills them through vapor into rain, which the clouds pour down, dropping in showers on man."

  * Moffatt: "He draws up water from the sea, distills it from his vapors, and pours the rain down from the clouds, dropping in showers on man."

  NOTE: The bottom line is that Job is saying that God draws up water (which he draws up principally but not exclusively from the sea) into the atmosphere and distills it into drops that fall from the clouds as rain -- which evidently is what is meant in Genesis 2:6 as to the way he began watering "all the face of the ground." This watering seems to have been from the third day of creation when, before it had ended, God had caused the earth to put forth vegetation (1:11-13). But this he seems not to have done before he "caused it to rain upon the earth" (2:5). So, unless Genesis 9:13-17 gives solid evidence to the contrary, there seems no valid reason for the concept of no rain before the flood.

 II. GENESIS 9:13-17.

  That passage reads thus: "..’I do set [margin: I have set] my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth’ And God said unto Noah, ‘This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.’"

  Does this mean that God had not previously set his bow in the cloud, but was doing so after the flood for the first time? This question has long been moot. But, if we read the text as "I do set," it could be interpreted as a matter of practice, not as something just then beginning to be done. Or, if we read it, "I have set," that indicates something previously done but not specifying when. Yet, could it be proved that it had not been done from creation, that still would not be proof that it had never rained either, for since the flood, only under certain combinations of conditions does the bow appear. At the time of this writing it has been many months since the writer has been aware of any rainbow notwithstanding the clouds and rain. So the text here can hardly be justifiably used to nullify the apparent significance of Genesis 1:12-13; 2:5,6 and Job 36:27-28. For the bow could have existed from the first week of creation, and still not been given significance as a sign until after the flood. Witness the fact that (a) "God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it: because in it he had rested from his work which God had created and made" (Genesis 2:3), yet (b) did not give it to Israel as a sign of the covenant between him and them until centuries and even millenniums later at Sinai (see Exodus 31:12-13, 16-17; Nehemiah 9:13-14; Ezekiel 20:12) -- after delivering them and giving rest from their Egyptian bondage (Deuteronomy 5:15).

  Adam Clarke, in commenting on Verse 13 of the foregoing text of Genesis 9, stated: "On the origin and nature of the rainbow there had been a great variety of conjectures, till Anthony de Dominis, bishop of Spalotro, in a treatise of his published by Bartholus in 1611, partly suggested the true cause of this phenomenon, which was afterward fully explained and demonstrated by Sir Isaac Newton" -- namely, as being "a mere natural effect of a natural cause." And, upon briefly explaining it, he continued as follows:

  "From the [now] well-known cause of this phenomenon it cannot be rationally supposed that there was no rainbow in the heavens before the time mentioned in the text, for as the rainbow is the natural effect of the sun's rays falling on drops of water, and of their being refracted and reflected by them, it must have appeared at different times from the creation of the sun and the atmosphere. Nor does the text intimate that the bow was now created for a sign to Noah and his posterity; but that what was formerly created, or rather that which was the necessary effect, in certain cases, of the creation of the sun and atmosphere, should now be considered by them as an unfailing token of their continual preservation from the waters of a deluge; there the text speaks of what had already been done, and not of what was now done, ... , "My bow I have given, or put in the cloud"; as if he said, As surely as the rainbow is a necessary effect of sunshine in rain, and must continue such as long as the sun and atmosphere endure, so surely shall this earth be preserved from destruction by water; and its preservation shall be as necessary an effect of my promise as the rainbow is of the shining of the sun during a shower of rain."

 III. CONCLUDING REMARKS.

  The above is not cited as proof, but included because believed to represent the most probable explanation of the passage under consideration. And, of course, it presupposes what this paper has already presented as the most likely meaning of Genesis 2:6. Furthermore, having just now turned to see what Clarke may have had to say about that verse also, I am so delighted with it that I am using it as a fitting summary and close of this paper -- not to ask the reader to accept it unless he, too, is convinced, but as an expression of what seems to me to be the most likely meaning of that passage (with one minor exception that will be noted).

  "This passage [Genesis 2:6] appears to have greatly embarrassed many commentators. The plain meaning seems to be this, that the aqueous vapors, ascending from the earth, and becoming condensed in the colder regions of the atmosphere, fell back upon the earth in the form of dews [which technically is not the equivalent of rain, as Clarke seems to use the expression], and by this means an equal portion of moisture was distributed to the roots of plants, &c. As Moses had said, verse. 5, that the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the earth, he probably designed to teach us, in verse 6, how rain is produced, viz., by the condensation of the aqueous vapours, which are generally through the heat of the sun and other causes raised to a considerable height in the atmosphere, where, meeting with cold air, the watery particles which were before so small and light that they could float in the air, becoming condensed, i.e., many drops being driven into one, become too heavy to be any longer suspended, and then, through their own gravity, fall down in the form we term rain."