Yes, I actually did read the whole story.  At best you've just pointed out a contradiction.  Which is it?  Every living substance or not?  Are you saying that God went back and corrected himself?  

See, I don't CARE if there's a contradiction.  As I mentioned earlier, I think it's truth mixed with error.  YOU are the one that can't allow there to be a contradiction because it destroys your entire worldview if you do.  

Yet...there one is.

Gee willickers...you left out the line right after what you posted.  How convenient.

EDIT:  Actually you didn't leave it out, it just reads completely different than King James version.  What version are you quoting from?

²³And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Note that it does not say "excluding trees and fish."  It says EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE - and then list some that that includes.  I want you to understand, KFC, I'm not trying to debunk the Bible.  I'm trying to debunk a literalist view of it.  You can't claim a literal interpretation, but only when it's convenient to do so.  I retract that, you can, you have, and you will.

I'd like to add that the line I quoted is God speaking.  The line you quoted is a report by your inspired scribe reporting what actually happened.

and I want you to understand and get it that you can have a literal view of it.  You're the one not using the whole thing, not me.  I'm confused...where have I only calimed it when convenient to do so?  Not here.  I never said a word about trees either way but you keep insisting the trees died.  Well they probably did.  I didn't refute that.  So what's your beef? 

but note that it does say:  "Upon the face of the ground."  You have to read it in context....context, context context.  it's very important.   So I would take that as trees and anything alive on the earth, but some of the fish probably did survive. 

so to be clear.....it says......"every living substance (some versions say creatures) upon the face of the ground."  It says nothing about the fish, nor does  God tell Noah to collect fish. 

If I were going to guess, I'd say the trees and all vegetation were destroyed upon the face of the earth much like we saw in Mt. St. Helens.  It all came back eventually but it took many years to do so. 

so what's not to take literal here? 

I quoted from the NASB which I do on occasion like this because I believe the NASB is the closest to the original Hebrew.  The KJV is not.   My daily bible I use for almost everything tho is a KJV

All scripture is God breathed...period. 

"Beef" is a strong word.  I don't have a "beef" I just see a contradiction.  If every living thing on the ground died, including the trees, then how would a dove find a "fresh olive leaf" to pick?

¹⁰So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark.

 ¹¹The dove came to him toward evening, and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth.  

Since an Olive tree has to have roots in the ground, and sunlight in order to grow, it would be impossible for an olive tree to grow submerged under water during the 150 days the water covered the land.

If you ever feel inclined to grow Olives, here are some things you should know:

Location: Plant olive trees in full sun and away from sidewalks to avoid stains from fallen ripe fruit. Non-fruiting trees are available which can be planted in areas where fruit may be a problem. Strong winds will "sculpt" the trees, but otherwise they are quite wind-tolerant.

Soils: Olives will grow well on almost any well-drained soil up to pH 8.5 and are tolerant of mild saline conditions.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it is contradictory.  I'm fine with that.

First I have to pat you on the back for a great question.  I've heard them all but this is an original Ock.  That's a good thing.  I know unbelievers have good questions, but I also know that believers have better answers. 

Ok, nuff with that. 

Let's look at your verse:  Notice it says...."freshly picked."  It doesn't say it was a fresh olive leaf but a freshly picked olive leaf.  There's a diff.  I'm telling ya, God's word is amazing.  Every little detail is taken care of.  Hopefully you can see this.  Remember what I said about an honest skeptic and a dishonest one?  Which are you? 

Did you notice that after 40 days when Noah opened the Ark and sent out a raven that it kept flying back and forth because it couldn't find a tree to rest it's feet? (v6-7) Then he set out a dove after that (v8) but the dove couldn't find a place either.  He waited seven more days and then sent out the dove from the ark.  This time it came back with an olive leaf. 

Who says just because the tree were covered with water that a dove couldn't come back  with an olive leaf when they receded and how is that a contradiction? 

I lived in Maine most of my life.  In the fall the snow would cover the leaves on the ground for a good 5-6 months.  The leaves started to fall in October and the snow cleared about May 1.  In the spring we would go out and rake up the leaves.  They didn't disappear any more than the leaves on these submerged trees did.   I imagine they looked pretty bad but they stood in place with leaves on them and that's how this dove found that leaf. 

And that's a literal explanation that fits perfectly well. 

Unfortunately, your Maine plants that are fit for being covered with snow and Olive trees aren't the same thing.  I'm not even going to say the "E" word.

Olive trees are fit to sustain long DRY periods, not long wet ones - I'm guessing that after the tree died (since it was a subset of all living substance) that submerging the dead plant matter for 5 months under water deep enough to cover the mountains (i. e. without sunlight to speak of at that depth) would cause all the leaves to get pretty gross.  If the dove "picked" the leaf, then the plant wasn't dead.  If the plant was dead, over-saturated (a safe bet), and without sunlight for 5 months, it would not still be connected to the plant.  It would be soggy at best and utterly decomposed at worst.  Maybe I'll get hold of a couple olive leafs still connected to a branch (should be easy here in Cali) put them in a jar filled with water, and keep it out of the sunlight.  In 5 months, we could have our answer!

Again, I just wish it was written differently.  The dove returned with a dead soggy leaf that was falling apart from an advanced state of decomposition.  Freshly picked doesn't make sense.

Well, there ya go, then.

Aside from some (presumed) faint hope that your blogs will have a degree of proselytizing effect, why bother 'debating' anything?  An absolutist has nothing to 'debate.'

well not exactly.  You could do that but there was some sun peeping thru those waters once the sky cleared up.  Besides all that these leaves were clearly attached to the tree so putting them in a jar wouldn't quite be comparable either. 

Remember the original wording comes from the HEbrew and a translation from the Hebrew to the English isn't perfect.  It's as close as we can get tho.  I think the whole point was that Noah knew this leaf came off a tree so that meant that the water was receding.  He wasn't looking for a leaf floating in the water.  He was looking for a stem that was attached to a tree.  I think that was the main sense of the passage. 

I don't know enough about olive trees and how they stand up to being covered with water.  But there's nothing here really to make it into a contradiction.  I suppose if you wish to see one you can, but I think it's all pretty logical here. 

God's word to mankind comes directly from him.  How do I distinguish my words from myself?  God says that the world will pass away but his word will not.  What is he talking about?  Isn't he saying his word is eternal?  Isn't he eternal? 

I'll be getting to God first before Lula anyhow because according to scripture "absent from the body is present with the Lord."  but according to RCC teaching she's got to go to purgatory first. 

That's actually my entire point.  It was some leaf off the ground, probably quite dead and whatever - the point was, the ground was there to get a leaf from.  That is how *I* read it, too.  But that isn't literal.  It IS very logical, and there is no contradiction whatsoever IF you aren't reading it literally.

Maybe Leuki will pop in and translate more accurately for us.

Now to an UNOriginal question I have.  And since I perceive you spend lots of time thinking about what you believe, what do you believe about this story?

Or here's a good one:

Maybe this is true, too:

I could go on, obviously, and I'm sure you've dealt with this question from unbelievers of every kind.  The Great Flood story is present in almost every culture.  The reasons why it happened vary, but some of the basic elements are always present.  Two or more people saved by a boat of some sort.  I'm curious what the pat apologist explanation for it is.

One thing I do find interesting is that the overwhelming evidence of all these stories points to the fact that there was a flood at some point.  For cultures all over the world to spontaneously come up with the same myths doesn't seem statistically likely.  My brain is more likely to consider comet or meteor (large one!) impact with the ocean.  But only because I don't have to twist my mind very far to imagine that happening.  The farther I have to twist statistical probability to make some written text make sense, the more uncomfortable I am.  I did name myself Ockham's Razor, after all

I think it just verifies what the scripture says is true.  Every culture has a flood story to tell.  It is quite interesting.  Who is that Sproul you're quoting?  Where is that quote from?   You should be aware that for every original you will have many counterfeits no matter what it is.  Many times it's considered flattery.  I consider them as confusion.  That's the work of Satan, "if you can't beat em' join em" mentality.   That's what he does, causes confusion and chaos whereever he goes.  Started right in the garden and continues to this day. 

now see I think it much more plausible to believe in the creation story as written than to believe in this general great impact.  It's like you're trying to come up with your own idea instead of the one given to us.  He even tells us how he did this with the breaking up of the earth so I believe it has to do more with some sort of earthquake maybe that caused several tsunamis in the process all over the world. 

We also have a lineage involved here that has never been questioned and is quite important in the great scope of things.   During bible times every Jew could trace his geneology "So all Israel was reckoned by genealogies" (1 Chron 9:1).  These records were kept in the cities (Neh 7:5-6, Ezra 2:1) and were public property.  Each Israeli's record constitutes his title to his farm or home, therefore, he had an interest in preserving the genealogical records of his family.  These records go right up to the time of Christ.  No one offered to dispute the well known fact that He was of the house and lineage of David because it was in the public records to which all had access.  These geneologies go right back to Noah. 

You're not going to get the understanding of scripture Ock with the mind you have now.  Does that sound weird?  Well I guess it is.  Until you have the mind of Christ you will not be able to really grasp what I'm saying.   You'll get bits and pieces but you will not be able to make complete sense of it.    So I do understand where you are coming from.

I wish I could have a dime everytime I heard someone say after "regeneration" "I get it. It makes sense now." 

You know, I did not delve into the veracity of the things I copied and pasted.  I didn't spend a lot of time looking for these stories, either, so if you'll only credit them if I conjure the dead and have them tell you yourself, then it's cool.  My thought is that it is significant that so many diverse stories on the flood exist yet with so many consistencies - not that I believe one to be more true than another.  The point wasn't that one was more believable than another, it was that the bulk of them is significant.

In the same way, all the Christian holidays can be traced to other roots, etc...I don't say this to debunk anything, I simply find it worthy of inspection.  The cross isn't a Christian invention, it's a pagan one.  Same with Christmas, same with Easter.

Further, it is completely a non sequitur to suggest that the reason I don't understand things the way you do is because I don't "jhave the mind of Christ with me" in the appropriate way (according to you).  Of COURSE you are right.  If I thought exactly like you, I'd think exactly what you think, but this is not proof that you are thinking correctly - nor is it disproof, but therein lies the difference between you and me.  I accept you might be right, you do not do the converse.  You can't!  What if *I* have the mind of Christ with me and YOU do not?  How can you say that isn't a possibility?  Your answer would be something from the bible, see "logical fallacy" regarding that.

Of complete consequence is that you use the bible to prove the bible.  That's a logical no-no.  Again, maybe you're right, but your methods of proving it are wrong.  I can admit that - can you?