Why Can't Everyone Come To Christ?

[TexUs]

I used to think the same until I knuckled down with the Hebrew to find nothing in Gen 1:1-2 was restricted to a certain time frame.

Can you show me in the Hebrew how Gen 1:1-2 is restricted to a time frame that you think isn't stupid?

Can you show me where it supports a greater time frame?
The FACTS are that you can't prove either a long nor short time frame with Genesis. The only methods of dating we have in the Bible are the genealogical records which place it about 6,000 years old.
The only way to elongate that is by attempting to say, because of a period, millions of years have passed. That's adding to the text that which isn't there.

Young earthers live in denial of facts. All science, which states that the earth is older than about 6,000 years, is denied without explanation or a shred of proof as to how the science in dating artifacts is "flawed".

I deny the existence of "facts", yes. I can't deny facts that aren't there.
Actually scientific dating methods are all flawed I suggest you do some research into carbon dating, which is the only method other than theory scientists have to base their long dating off of.
The skinny of the method is that the entire process is based off bias. Carbon dating begins with an assumption on how old the object is. You don't simply run it through and it tells you how old it is, unbiased-like. The process begins with multiple biases and assumptions (including how old you expect it to be). So yes, there's plenty of proof to disprove current dating methods. The process begins with ASSUMPTIONS which obviously means, if those assumptions are wrong, the entire dating process is wrong.
This is why you can bury chicken bones for a few months, dig them up, submit them to scientific testing as "really old finds", and they come up with million year old estimation when in the end the reality is the bones were only a couple months old. Why? It begins with ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[242006]

I deny the existence of "facts", yes. I can't deny facts that aren't there.
Actually scientific dating methods are all flawed I suggest you do some research into carbon dating, which is the only method other than theory scientists have to base their long dating off of.
The skinny of the method is that the entire process is based off bias. Carbon dating begins with an assumption on how old the object is. You don't simply run it through and it tells you how old it is, unbiased-like. The process begins with multiple biases and assumptions (including how old you expect it to be). So yes, there's plenty of proof to disprove current dating methods. The process begins with ASSUMPTIONS which obviously means, if those assumptions are wrong, the entire dating process is wrong.
This is why you can bury chicken bones for a few months, dig them up, submit them to scientific testing as "really old finds", and they come up with million year old estimation when in the end the reality is the bones were only a couple months old. Why? It begins with ASSUMPTIONS.

It is the idiotic beliefs of you young-earthers that give credibility to evolutionary theory. My daughter has to sit through science class listening to the drivel taught at public schools that evolution is fact -- only because some alleged-christians, like you, take on the moronic viewpoint that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Of course, evolutionists take full advantage of such moronic views as yours. Any fossil dating older than 6,000 years, by default because of you young-earthers, becomes automatic proof of evolution. I would surmise that your young-earth religion has done more to drive away real Christians into the religion of Evolution than any other belief asserted by alleged-Christians.

You clearly demonstrate your ignorance on fossil dating. You need to go do your homework before you continue to embarass yourself, just like the nonsense you just posted.

Have you ever traveled in an automobile?? If so, what do most of them use for fuel?? If you answer, 'fossil fuels', then you know why your young-earth religion is false.

 

[TexUs]

Wow, I certainly enjoy your humility and openness in here.

Any fossil dating older than 6,000 years, by default because of you young-earthers, becomes automatic proof of evolution.

Except that dating isn't a valid method.


What's funny is people that's only defense is "you don't understand" are usually the ones that don't have a legitimate defense.

 

[242006]

Wow, I certainly enjoy your humility and openness in here.

What's there to be humble about?? Some things are pure idiocy. Your young earth religion is one of them.

Except that dating isn't a valid method.

How do you know?? Have you studied it or are you relying upon the other blithering idiots in your religion??

What's funny is people that's only defense is "you don't understand" are usually the ones that don't have a legitimate defense.

No -- what is truly funny is your idiotic accusation/belief. You disregard all science, without a shred of proof of your claim. Nor do you have any real proof of the inaccuracy of the methodology used to date fossils. Yet, without any evidence, you are quick to spout the legitimacy of your moronic religious beliefs.

 

[tomwebster]

Wow, I certainly enjoy your humility and openness in here.

Except that dating isn't a valid method.


What's funny is people that's only defense is "you don't understand" are usually the ones that don't have a legitimate defense.

Well you don't, but you are likely not meant to see it.

 

[TexUs]

What's there to be humble about?? Some things are pure ignorance. Your young earth religion is one of them.

Ahhh, yes. This is certainly a way to go about bringing people to a knowledge of what you'd consider the truth- namecalling and holier-than-thou attitude.

Let's get something straight- I'm not staunchly against your age theory. I realize what the text does and doesn't support. I realize the possibility exists of the earth being older than 6,000 years. I also realize that the text doesn't support it being millions of years old. Blind and jump-to-the-defense faith of one view of the other is generally going to be wrong and that's what we see with your assertions.

How do you know?? Have you studied it or are you relying upon the other blithering idiots in your religion??

I won't toot my own horn- not my style. But yes, I know what I'm talking about and I'm educated in the matter.

You disregard all science, without a shred of proof of your claim.

Even the chicken bones isn't proof that dating methods are to be questioned? I could get straight into the scientific method behind it (it's filled with assumptions), but I really don't want to- especially if you're so unwilling to see anything contrary to your view- it'd be a waste of time.


Now if you want to discuss this further start a new topic- keep this out of my thread.

 

[australia]

Can you show me where it supports a greater time frame?

A greater time frame than what?

You avoided answering my question too.

 

[Butch5]

We've seen the atonement, the cross of Christ, was only intended for a few. See my earlier post.
We've seen that only those whose hearts God has worked in, can come to Christ. See my earlier post.
So this is a part 3, of sorts, though each topic can be taken stand-alone- which is why I broke them up.

Now, I will address the "why?". Why can't everyone come to Christ? Why is it, that we can only come to Christ if it's God's work in our hearts?
This one is fairly short and simple because this is repeated over and over and over again through scripture and the idea is pretty simple.

The answer is because we are described as spiritually dead and spiritually discerned.
Ephesians 2:1, "You were dead in your transgressions and sins."
Romans 7:24, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"

1 Corinthians 2:14; “The man without the Sprit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolish to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually discerned.”
Mankind has a pretty bleak outlook. Paul encompasses all of mankind in 1 Corinthians because we all, at some point, lacking the Spirit of God. Spiritual things are foolish to all people, according to Paul. Only by God's hand (see my prior posts) can light be shed in our hearts.

Now, why are we described this way? What characteristics do we posses that Paul would describe us this way?

Mark 7:21-23; “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’.”
Jeremiah 17:9; “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”
So we are dead, because we are all of these adjectives describing our heart.


Righteousness had no bearing on our lives prior to the work of Christ in us.
Romans 6:20; “When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.”

We are naturally evil.


Ephesians 2:3; “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”
This means we aren't "naturally good". We don't posses the ability to do good. 100% of the time, we pick wrong.

We not only wage war against God, but we can't do any good. We can't submit to him. There is absolutely nothing we can do to please God.


Romans 8:7; “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”
Ask yourself, is coming to Him pleasing to Him? Yes! But this says a sinful person cannot come to Him. Thus once more we see, the only way this happens is by God's work in our lives FIRST. He comes to US.

This idea continues all through the Bible. Once more I'll close with a verse. NO ONE can seek God. HE seeks US.


Romans 3:11; “There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”

My friend, If you put those passages in context you will find that they don't actually support what you are saying.

 

[TexUs]

My friend, If you put those passages in context you will find that they don't actually support what you are saying.

What a wonderful refutation.

 

[Butch5]

What a wonderful refutation.

What is there to refute, they are not in context? I could support just about any doctine by taking verse our of context. You say they mean this and at that, can you show that they mean what you say in the context of the passages?

 

[TexUs]

What is there to refute, they are not in context? I could support just about any doctine by taking verse our of context. You say they mean this and at that, can you show that they mean what you say in the context of the passages?

I know the context and I'll still stand by them.

 

[242006]

Here is a piece that I wrote a few years ago:

There is much written on the subject. The young earthers will use the fact that atmospheric C-14 has proven to vary, therefore it is not a reliable measure for dating a fossil. Let's examine the facts.

Basics Of C-14 Fossil Dating

There are many websites that discuss the mechanics of radio-isotope dating. Here is one that discusses C-14:

http://science.howst.../carbon-142.htm​

The method was developed by Willard F. Libby in the 1950's and is based upon 3 factors:

1. The half-life of the radioactive C-14 isotope.​

​

2. The measured amount of C-14 remaining in a fossil's carbon content.
3. Atomospheric C-14.​

The relationship of these factors can be seen in the fossil dating formula itself:

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2​

​

where,

t = the half-life of C-14 isotope, which is 5,730 years

Nf = the fossil's C-14 content

No = atmospheric C-14 content​

Scientists claim that the method is accurate only up to fossils 50,000 years or younger due to the relatively short half-life of this isotope. The method relies upon the PRESUMPTION that atmospheric C-14 remains constant with time [was the same level when the creature died as it is today].

Young Earthers' Argument

Due to the nuclear age, mankind has slightly impacted the amount of atmospheric C-14 that exists today. Radiation from surface detonations reacted with atmospheric nitrogen, as does cosmic radiation from the sun, to INCREASE the amount of atmospheric C-14 over that which would exist naturally.

Since the method only came into existence within the nuclear age, we have no baseline measurement of nature's atmospheric level of C-14 to accurately calculate age of fossils. So, one has to conclude there is a degree of inaccuracy associated with this method.

Given this inaccuracy, the young earthers attempt to discredit the entire method to support their theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Analysis

A closer examination of the facts belies the young earthers' position. As this analysis will show, the levels of variation required to justify their position are not within the realm of reasonability.

A trip to the Natural History Museum here in Los Angeles would reveal many fossils dating back to 20,000 to 50,000 years [based upon C-14 dating]. I will use 30,000 years as the baseline for calculating the impact of error required to support the young earthers' theory.

Impact of Atomic Age -

As can be seen from the fossil dating formula above, it is the ratio of measured C-14 to atomospheric C-14 that impacts the age calculation of the fossil. Hence, the atomic age would increase the factor No as seen in the formula.

The question is what impact the increase would have on dating fossils. Specifically, does the increased level of C-14 give older or younger actual dates.

From the formula, the baseline atmospheric C-14 is greater then the natural condition due to mankinds atomic age. Hence, for any sample that died before the atomic age, the ratio of Nf/No would, in actuality, would be higher then measured.

However, a higher ratio does not mean an older fossil date. It is just the opposite since the age is based upon the natural logarithm of the ratio. A higher ratio means a younger age.

Accordingly, it is a valid argument by the young earthers that current levels of atmospheric C-14 will yield fossil dates older then what they actually are.

Level of Variation Required to Support Young Earth Theory -

Having concluded that the nuclear age makes fossil dates older then they actually are, the question, relative to the Bible, is what degree of variation is necessary to support the young earth theory.

So, the actual ratio of Nf/No can be calculated by the above fromula for the 30,000 year date and the 6,000 year date. Then, one can solve for the variation required.

For 30,000 year calculation:​

​

set t = 30,000 and solve for Nf/No,

30,000 = [ln[Nf/No]/-0.693] x 5,730

which is the same as,

(30,000)(-0.693)/5,730 = ln[Nf/No]

or,

-3.6282 = ln[Nf/No]

solve for Nf/No,

e^-7.555 = Nf/No

the solution,

Nf/No = 0.02656

For 6,000 year calculation:

(6,000)(-0.693)/5730 = ln[Nf/No]

Hence,

Nf/No = e^-.72565

Solution,

Nf/No = 0.4840

To compare variation, solve each condition for No,

For 30,000 year calculation,

No = Nf/0.02656

For 6,000 year calculation,

No = Nf/0.4840

let Y = variation from atomic C-14 required for 6,000 year fossil to be calculated at 30,000 years,

No {6,000 years} x 'Y' = No {30,000 years}

or,

(No/0.4840) x 'Y' = (No/0.02656)

Solve for Y,

Y = (0.4840 x No)/(No x 0.02656)

Y = 18.2​

Hence, in order for the increase in atmospheric C-14, resulting from atmospheric nuclear explosions, to account for the discrepancy in dates of fossils, the increase in C-14 would have to be 18.2 TIMES that which existed in nature before the atomic age. Logic dictates that mankinds' efforts have not exceeded the sun's output of cosmic radiation to that extent.

Variation In Natural C-14 Levels -

The other argument that natural C-14 levels changed over time. Well, the same 18.2 factor applies to this scenario as well. In order for such a gross misestimate in a fossil's age, there would have to be 18.2 TIMES more C-14 in the atmosphere today then when the creature died.

Of course, if one evaluates that C-14 is naturally produced from the sun's everyday thermonuclear reation producing cosmic rays, then logic dictates that, if C-14 actually naturally fluctuates, it would be less with time -- not more. The sun is a depleting resource.

Conclusion

It would take a combined impact of increasing naturally occurring as well as atomic age C-14 in the amount of 18.2 TIMES that level which existed at the time of the creature's demise to account for the discrepancy in fossil dating from 6,000 years to 30,000 years. This cannot be so since C-14, if anything, would naturally deplete with time and atomic energy has not been that great of a factor in the planet's overall radiation exposure [we would all be dead].

Accordingly, the young earthers never bother with discussing these facts. It is more convenient for them to sit in the cheap seats and issue ad hoc denials based upon partially truthful, but inevidently disproveable, information. Yes, the atomic age has rendered C-14 fossil dating inaccurate to an extent -- but, not to the extent that young earthers can support their theory.

A 30,000 year fossil is likely younger -- but, no where is it close to being 6,000 years old.

 

[TexUs]

Now if you want to discuss this further start a new topic- keep this out of my thread.

What part of this was not understood?

 

[242006]

You opened the door in your own topic -

If you mean I lack the "knowledge" of considering the period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as evidence for a million year gap along with flawed scientific dating, I don't, I just think it's really stupid.

So, if you 'understood' anything, you would know that it is appropriate for me to rebutt your drivel herein 'your' topic !

 

[TexUs]

Now if you want to discuss this further start a new topic- keep this out of my thread.

What part of this was not understood?

 

[242006]

What part of this was not understood?

There is nothing precluding you from starting your young earther topic, And, you can acknowledge your error in raising the subject herein 'your' topic.

The fact remains that a prior age is completely Biblical; and, until you understand it, you will continue to be lost in debating good Bible students on topics related thereto it.

 

[TexUs]

So you're admitting you'll continue trashing my thread until your agenda is fulfilled?

Either we need moderation in these forums or I'm gone because this crap has gone too far when people openly derail a thread with no repercussions.

 

[242006]

So you're admitting you'll continue trashing my thread until your agenda is fulfilled?

The first earth age is germane to answering the topic question. It was you who opened the door by bringing into 'your' topic "flawed scientific dating", which can only mean that you are a young-earther.

Hence, everything that I have written here is in answer to the topic question and/or in rebuttal to your replies. So, if anyone has derailed the discussion, it was you!!

Either we need moderation in these forums or I'm gone because this crap has gone too far when people openly derail a thread with no repercussions.

It is pathetic that you complain when, if any derailing has taken place, it was you who did it. It would only be derailing in your mind because people prove you in error. You would choose to leave rather than acknowledge that you were proven wrong.

 

[TexUs]

The first earth age is germane to answering the topic question. It was you who opened the door by bringing into 'your' topic "flawed scientific dating", which can only mean that you are a young-earther.

I shouldn't have opened that door, then. I think it's a stupid argument and that's all my point was. It doesn't mean I'm a young earther, it only means I think it's unknowable and to take one stance or the other is a stupid argument because neither can be proven by our scientific methods. It could be 6,000 years old, or it could be 5 Trillion. It doesn't matter to me, and neither can be proven.

I have no problem discussing that but what needs to stop is the discussion on the age of the earth. It has nothing to do with the topic.

It is pathetic that you complain when, if any derailing has taken place, it was you who did it. It would only be derailing in your mind because people prove you in error. You would choose to leave rather than acknowledge that you were proven wrong.

You didn't prove anything wrong, I just don't want this topic to be side tracked.

Now please elaborate how you think the ages have anything to do with our current state and the letters written to the church today.

 

[australia]

...what needs to stop is the discussion on the age of the earth.

Now please elaborate how you think the ages have anything to do with our current state...

Sigh..