Say it's not so!
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?
ock posts:
ock 224
kfc posts:
Your question is answered here.
From Gen. 7:14-15, 21-23, we know that only the land dwelling, air breathing animals and birds were on the Ark.
And while there is no doubt (becasue we have found their fossils) that some fish and other sea creatures died as a result of the breaking up of the fountains of the deep causing great volcanic action, etc. However, God did not destroy all the fish or all other creatures of the sea. It says in plain English...that He destroyed every living substance from off the face of the earth. The "face of the earth" is not what is in the seas.
ock posts 224
Good point about the olive trees Ock. You must be referring to the olive leaf brought back to Noe by the dove. Gen. 8:11.
There are a few plausible answers. Some of the olive trees and their limbs could easily have been floating in the water and while part was submerged under water, part of it could have been above it so that the dove probably picked a leaf off from that.
Many terrestial seeds of plants can survive long periods of soaking and some indeed are better off for the soaking as they germinate faster. Some plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses and even broken off pieces of plants are capable of sprouting.
Many seeds have devices for attaching themselves to various things that floated as well as animals and some could have survived the Flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.
At the end of 150 days the waters receded and these seeds could have easily taken root, including the little olive tree.
Classic.
SETARCOSNOUS POSTS: I can just picture it now, lula reaches the afterlife and tries to hold God accountable to a written work of men. It's posts like these that confirm to me how people hold a book above their possible creator, or at very least cannot distinguish between the two.
Where do I say or even intimate that the Bible is above God? Not me, for I don't believe that for a second. My point simply is that the Bible is inerrant only becasue God is inerrant..and He is the Principal Author is all I said. God cannot deceive or be deceived.
When KFC says the Bible is "God-breathed" or when I say that God is the principal Author ....that means we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors to write down what they wrote in the manner and style that He wanted them to write, and God guided them to the extent that they wrote faithfully what they had been taught.
Ok. I agree except for the fact you know I hold the biblical account as the original.
I agree. The cross is actually a Roman invention. The Christians just took it up in memory of Christ dying on the cross. We see alot of paganism mixed in with our Christian holidays. Agree. It's truth mixed with error. Like I said before....take out the truth and disregard the error.....or at least be familiar with what's what.
Honestly I would if I thought I was wrong. I've done it before. I don't use the bible to prove the bible. I use the bible to interpret the bible. Big diff. So if you're thinking I'm proving the bible this way....can you admit you're wrong? I've said before the bible stands all by itself as a verified book of antiquity. It doesn't need me to prove anything. I'm not into that.
Although the bible scholars thru the years cannot prove this book to be the word of God they have been able to verifiy what's in it to the best of their ability as true. And that would be important if this was a book from God don't you think? All dates, places, events and such have been scrunized to the nth degree. And nobody can really touch it so they look for ways to mock it instead.
I think she meant plain Hebrew???
this doesn't make sense Lula. First off do you know how long it takes for an Olive tree to germinate and grow?
I think it's quite clear that the bird went out and found a standing tree when the water started to recede. I went to Mt. St. Helens 15 years after the explosion. The trees were all still standing although they were stark naked but even after 15 years they were still there. Here in the book, it's just a matter of months. I'm sure there were still leaves on these trees. The whole point and context of the passage was Noah knew the water was receding enough for the bird to land on a tree to rest it's feet.
and this I totally agree with. Well put Lula.
Do I get credit for a good catch, Church lady?
lula posts:
aldericjourdain posts: #216 Though the Catholic church and others have removed and done various "editing and clarency" work on it?
KFC POSTS: I didn't even read past this line Lula. This is the second entry you've left here in a day trying to get us back into your RCC dogma. I ignored the first time. Please don't bring that here.
kFC,
Every word of my comment 217 in reply to AldericJourdain is the truth. There is not one bit of Catholic dogma there...it's pure history.
I can understand your frustration had I actually out of the blue brought up Catholic dogma, but I haven't done that.
Look again, it was Alderic who first brought up the CC and I answered him in a most truthful manner.
We're starting to have good natured fun here. I hope that's the real point of everything.
C'mon people...looks like you posted the English translation to me!
Yes, here's a root beer float....
"Church lady"...reminds me of those hilarious skits on Saturday Night Live!
Well, that was the reference. Hey Ock....why do you think that perhaps the Bible isn't completely accurate...is it SATAN?!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
