The no rain until Noah argument is an argument from silence. Gen 2:5-6 is the passage you’re looking for. “The hebrew word “’ed” was traditionally translated ‘mist’ because of its use in Job 36:27. However, an Akkadian cognate edu in Babylonian texts refers to subterranean springs or waterways. Such a spring would fit the description in this context since this water ‘goes up’ and waters the ground. (NET Bible, Full Notes, Gen. 2:6.
Note, however, that this is before the Fall. In Gen 2:5, the passage implicitly connects rain with cultivation — “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.”
After the Fall, the curse required man to toil, and noted that the ground would produce thorns and thistles, and food could only be gained by the sweat of the brow. It is possible to say that since this passage doesn’t connect rain with cultivation, that implies that there was no rain. But that is a strained reading since nothing in the passage would lend itself to requiring a parallel with Gen 2:5-6. It’s God’s curse of man and the ground.
Note, however, that nothing is said in the Flood account about rain being unusual at the time of the Flood. Given that creation is radically different before and after the fall, and that there is no mention of rain being a radical difference pre-Flood and post-Flood, nothing besides silence supports the contention that it never rained before the Flood. To claim that the Bible says there was no rain before the Flood is a claim that is not supported by the text.
Thanks for those thoughts and evidence. It is not an earth-shattering (!) theological concept for me - just interesting.
How about the idea of a rainbow in the sky post flood? Does that mean there were no rainbows before (indicating no rain), or does it just mean that rainbows (that had been around for a long time) now were given the symbol of being God’s promise.
Which of course now rainbows been corrupted by the gay movement.