Bible way to Heaven

[Randys brother]

Not every single part of the bible,can be found so this why we use faith.

Sweetie, what did and didn't make it into the bible was decided by simple vote of majority during the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD....16 out of the 20 gospels didn't have the luck. Care to explain what basis they used to determine which of the many many writings were truly the word of god....even if they referenced ones that weren't?

Don't bother, I can tell you: they kept what was popular and cut the rest. It's laughable really, that anyone would take such a misstitched Frankenstein's monster of a book seriously.

Again,another Fool! the Vatican put together the bible.

---

elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospel and the general epistles such as James, 1 & 2 Peter) as provisional documents by St. Paul to address to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g. 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.”
The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books have been left out of the canon? Again who decided?
The Catholic Church did. A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the Book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?
The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All christians wether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical and no others.
Have you ever even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries older that the originals. Like it or not, you are trusting in the Catholic Church for that in fact those copies are accurate as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures.
If you happen to have the writings of the early Church Leaders, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are, at least in the case of the Apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you can demonstrate that these writings seem every bit as orthodox and inspiring (not to confuse the term with “inspiration”) as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or some other short canonical book.
What’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading? Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture? It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in them–and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.
Again neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian meat in these other, non-canonical writings (that is–if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors)– then how can you say it’s obvious which books are inspired and which aren’t?”
The fact is, the only reason we have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine (an early church leader) put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.’ Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
The reason people accept these books is that they were in the Bible someone gave them when they first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of “Tradition”, because Tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on Tradition rather than on Scripture itself!
The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Most can not give satisfactory answer and aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture alone or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.
After you answer that question–and there’s really only one answer that can be given–you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Protestants even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’
We Agree on the Essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters.
Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the justifying process?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible. All claim to be ‘Bible only Christians,’ but which Protestant Church is right?”
If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God–if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth–why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many bibles?
The Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles which were collect and burned by the Catholic Church in times past, were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the Holy Word of God. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisers: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those “Bibles” precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were indeed replaced by accurate editions. No Christian scholar today will dispute that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations that the Catholic church is accused of collecting up and burning, were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics alike.

BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION
The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition. Many assume that only the writings of the apostles are the word of God. However, their oral transmission of the faith is also considered the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
1 Cor 11:2 – hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 – hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 – shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 – not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 – heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20:35 – Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2 Tim 1:13 – follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 Tim 2:2 – what you heard entrust to faithful men
2 Pet 1:20 – no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1 Pet 1:25 – God’s eternal word=word preached to you
Rom 10:17 – faith comes from what is heard
1 Cor 15:1-2 – being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 – go to whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 – chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
St. Athanasius (360 AD): “let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian …. “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28. Origen (c. 230 AD) “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.

---

[Nay_Sayer]

Sweetie, what did and didn't make it into the bible was decided by simple vote of majority during the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD....16 out of the 20 gospels didn't have the luck. Care to explain what basis they used to determine which of the many many writings were truly the word of god....even if they referenced ones that weren't?

Don't bother, I can tell you: they kept what was popular and cut the rest. It's laughable really, that anyone would take such a misstitched Frankenstein's monster of a book seriously.

Again,another Fool! the Vatican put together the bible.

---

elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospel and the general epistles such as James, 1 & 2 Peter) as provisional documents by St. Paul to address to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g. 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.”
The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books have been left out of the canon? Again who decided?
The Catholic Church did. A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the Book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?
The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All christians wether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical and no others.
Have you ever even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries older that the originals. Like it or not, you are trusting in the Catholic Church for that in fact those copies are accurate as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures.
If you happen to have the writings of the early Church Leaders, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are, at least in the case of the Apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you can demonstrate that these writings seem every bit as orthodox and inspiring (not to confuse the term with “inspiration”) as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or some other short canonical book.
What’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading? Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture? It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in them–and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.
Again neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian meat in these other, non-canonical writings (that is–if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors)– then how can you say it’s obvious which books are inspired and which aren’t?”
The fact is, the only reason we have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine (an early church leader) put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.’ Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
The reason people accept these books is that they were in the Bible someone gave them when they first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of “Tradition”, because Tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on Tradition rather than on Scripture itself!
The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Most can not give satisfactory answer and aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture alone or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.
After you answer that question–and there’s really only one answer that can be given–you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Protestants even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’
We Agree on the Essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters.
Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the justifying process?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible. All claim to be ‘Bible only Christians,’ but which Protestant Church is right?”
If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God–if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth–why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many bibles?
The Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles which were collect and burned by the Catholic Church in times past, were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the Holy Word of God. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisers: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those “Bibles” precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were indeed replaced by accurate editions. No Christian scholar today will dispute that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations that the Catholic church is accused of collecting up and burning, were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics alike.

BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION
The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition. Many assume that only the writings of the apostles are the word of God. However, their oral transmission of the faith is also considered the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
1 Cor 11:2 – hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 – hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 – shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 – not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 – heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20:35 – Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2 Tim 1:13 – follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 Tim 2:2 – what you heard entrust to faithful men
2 Pet 1:20 – no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1 Pet 1:25 – God’s eternal word=word preached to you
Rom 10:17 – faith comes from what is heard
1 Cor 15:1-2 – being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 – go to whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 – chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
St. Athanasius (360 AD): “let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian …. “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28. Origen (c. 230 AD) “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.

---

Did a very poor job of it too.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Reasons why I don't trust carbon dating!

---

Chapter 7
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
by  on September 20, 2007

Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth. Note that, contrary to a popular misconception, carbon dating is not used to date rocks at millions of years old.
Basics

Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons make up the center (nucleus) of the atom, and electrons form shells around the nucleus.
The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element. For example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all atoms of nitrogen have 7 protons, and all oxygen atoms have 8 protons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary in any given type of atom. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or possibly eight—but it would always have six protons. An “isotope” is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon.
Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called “radioactive decay.” Since this process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for potentially dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth using uranium, potassium and other radioactive atoms.
The atomic number corresponds to the number of protons in an atom. Atomic mass is a combination of the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. (The electrons are so much lighter that they do not contribute significantly to the mass of an atom.)
Carbon-14 Dating
Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.
When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

1. Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
   
   
2. Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?
   
   
3. Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?
   
   
4. Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?
   

All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?

The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.
There are three different naturally occurring varieties (isotopes) of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C.
Carbon-14 is used for dating because it is unstable (radioactive), whereas 12C and 13C are stable. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called “beta decay”) a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. By losing one neutron and gaining one proton, 14C is changed into nitrogen-14 (14N = 7 protons and 7 neutrons).

If 14C is constantly decaying, will the earth eventually run out of 14C? The answer is no. Carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere. Cosmic rays from outer space, which contain high levels of energy, bombard the earth’s upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays collide with atoms in the atmosphere and can cause them to come apart. Neutrons that come from these fragmented atoms collide with14N atoms (the atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen) and convert them into 14C atoms (the neutron is accepted and a proton is ejected from the nucleus).
Once 14C is produced, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere (12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C and 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C and 12C in them as in the air we breathe.
How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works
Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an “Accelerator Mass Spectrometer” (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. In order to actually do the dating, other things need to be known. Two such things include the following questions:

1. How fast does 14C decay?
   
   
2. What was the starting amount of 14C in the creature when it died?
   

The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. For example, a jar starting with all 14C atoms at time zero will contain half14C atoms and half 14N atoms at the end of 5,730 years (one half-life). At the end of 11,460 years (two half-lives) the jar will contain one-quarter 14C atoms and three-quarter 14N atoms.
Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed.

Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C.
When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change. The amount of 12C will remain constant, but the amount of 14C will become less and less. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. The following illustration demonstrates how the age is estimated using this ratio.
Percent 14C Remaining
Percent 12C Remaining
Ratio
Number of Half-Lives
Years Dead(Age of Fossil)
100
100
1 to 1T
0
0
50
100
1 to 2T
1
5,730
25
100
1 to 4T
2
11,460
12.5
100
1 to 8T
3
17,190
6.25
100
1 to 16T
4
22,920
3.125
100
1 to 32T
5
28,650
T = Trillion
A Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
Magnetic Field of the Earth
Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.



If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.
Genesis Flood
What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.
Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.
The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

• Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
  
  
• Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
  
  
• Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
  
  
• John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
  
  
• Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
  
  
• Steven Austin, PhD Geology
  
  
• Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
  
  
• Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
  

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.8 Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.
Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standardevolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bibleand challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.
The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Conclusion
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.
Copyright Source:https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

---

To simplify that

---

---

Bwahahahaha I just read that... they think C-14 is the only type of material used in radioisometric dating, and since C-14 decays so rapidly (it does), it proves that the geologic column can't be older than 100,000 years!!!



Holy shit dude, that's funny as fuck!

Here, man... I'll just let the United States Geological Survey (USGS) tell you about why that's so funny:

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

Get the fuck ooooooooooooutta here with that pseudoscience! 

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Just wondering what everyone else is giving this guy out of 10 for his trolling attempt?

Maybe a 1? A 2? I like the user name and the bee avatar, but the posts are pretty shit. Not enough U mad bro IMHO or attempts to flame. the constant use of the 'fool' is pretty amateurish tbh.

[Crossless2.0]

@Randys brother (or as I'll hereafter refer to you, Poe): Your "evidence" for the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating is an amateurish cartoon clip in which radiocarbon dating is not mentioned once?!? As for the actual content of the video, why don't you do a little research? I'm sure, if you're honest, you'll soon enough discover the Mack truck-size holes in the presentation.

And if you're not honest about it, you will only (1) confirm my dim view of what passes for Christian honesty, or (2) confirm to me that you are a Poe.

[Randys brother]

Again,another Fool! the Vatican put together the bible.

---

elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospel and the general epistles such as James, 1 & 2 Peter) as provisional documents by St. Paul to address to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g. 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.”
The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books have been left out of the canon? Again who decided?
The Catholic Church did. A study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the Book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?
The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All christians wether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical and no others.
Have you ever even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries older that the originals. Like it or not, you are trusting in the Catholic Church for that in fact those copies are accurate as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures.
If you happen to have the writings of the early Church Leaders, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are, at least in the case of the Apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you can demonstrate that these writings seem every bit as orthodox and inspiring (not to confuse the term with “inspiration”) as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or some other short canonical book.
What’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading? Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture? It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in them–and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.
Again neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian meat in these other, non-canonical writings (that is–if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors)– then how can you say it’s obvious which books are inspired and which aren’t?”
The fact is, the only reason we have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine (an early church leader) put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.’ Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
The reason people accept these books is that they were in the Bible someone gave them when they first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of “Tradition”, because Tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on Tradition rather than on Scripture itself!
The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Most can not give satisfactory answer and aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture alone or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.
After you answer that question–and there’s really only one answer that can be given–you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Protestants even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’
We Agree on the Essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters.
Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the justifying process?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible. All claim to be ‘Bible only Christians,’ but which Protestant Church is right?”
If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God–if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth–why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many bibles?
The Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles which were collect and burned by the Catholic Church in times past, were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the Holy Word of God. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ’s Gospel. King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisers: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those “Bibles” precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were indeed replaced by accurate editions. No Christian scholar today will dispute that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations that the Catholic church is accused of collecting up and burning, were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics alike.

BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION
The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition. Many assume that only the writings of the apostles are the word of God. However, their oral transmission of the faith is also considered the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
1 Cor 11:2 – hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 – hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 – shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 – not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 – heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20:35 – Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2 Tim 1:13 – follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 Tim 2:2 – what you heard entrust to faithful men
2 Pet 1:20 – no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1 Pet 1:25 – God’s eternal word=word preached to you
Rom 10:17 – faith comes from what is heard
1 Cor 15:1-2 – being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 – go to whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 – chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you
St. Athanasius (360 AD): “let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian …. “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28. Origen (c. 230 AD) “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2.

---

Did a very poor job of it too.

---

The Bible was given to us by the Holy Spirit as discerned by the early bishops of the Catholic Church. There was no Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity. The first official list of Scriptures was done in 393 at the Council of Hippo, then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. The Church did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent, when it was called into question by the Reformers, in 1556.
Partial criteria for determining the canon is as follows:

• special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
  
  
• apostolic origin;
  
  
• used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.
  

There were two different forms of the ancient Scriptures in use, the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. The Septuagint has its influence from the Greek Jews in the Diaspora (outside Israel) whereas the Masoretic text was used by the Jews still in Jerusalem.
The Church has always used the  as its base for the Old Testament. The Septuagint has a few more books than the later established Masoretic texts. In fact, the Masoretic canon was set by the Jews after the Christians accepted the Septuagint version as their Scripture. This makes sense considering the non-messianic Jews were not too crazy about Jesus so why would they accept the same books as the Christians?

Source :http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/how-was-the-bible-written-and-created/

---

[TheRocketSurgeon]

@Randys brother (or as I'll hereafter refer to you, Poe): Your "evidence" for the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating is an amateurish cartoon clip in which radiocarbon dating is not mentioned once?!? As for the actual content of the video, why don't you do a little research? I'm sure, if you're honest, you'll soon enough discover the Mack truck-size holes in the presentation.

And if you're not honest about it, you will only (1) confirm my dim view of what passes for Christian honesty, or (2) confirm to me that you are a Poe.

Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. When I see someone posting stuff that's that blatantly  dishonest about the subject, I can no longer take them seriously enough to waste my time interacting with them.

1. Liar
2. Poe
3. Accepts that the USGS is not insane, and that there's a rational basis for radioisometric dating.

I also agree that if the dating methods were used to confirm that a piece of wood was Jesus's cross (or somesuch), they'd be all about it.

[Randys brother]

@Randys brother (or as I'll hereafter refer to you, Poe): Your "evidence" for the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating is an amateurish cartoon clip in which radiocarbon dating is not mentioned once?!? As for the actual content of the video, why don't you do a little research? I'm sure, if you're honest, you'll soon enough discover the Mack truck-size holes in the presentation.

And if you're not honest about it, you will only (1) confirm my dim view of what passes for Christian honesty, or (2) confirm to me that you are a Poe.

I don't trust carbon dating,and that's there might be evidence for it,but I assume there still too weak and so I totally reject the idea.

---

@Randys brother (or as I'll hereafter refer to you, Poe): Your "evidence" for the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating is an amateurish cartoon clip in which radiocarbon dating is not mentioned once?!? As for the actual content of the video, why don't you do a little research? I'm sure, if you're honest, you'll soon enough discover the Mack truck-size holes in the presentation.

And if you're not honest about it, you will only (1) confirm my dim view of what passes for Christian honesty, or (2) confirm to me that you are a Poe.

Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. When I see someone posting stuff that's that blatantly  dishonest about the subject, I can no longer take them seriously enough to waste my time interacting with them.

1. Liar
2. Poe
3. Accepts that the USGS is not insane, and that there's a rational basis for radioisometric dating.

I also agree that if the dating methods were used to confirm that a piece of wood was Jesus's cross (or somesuch), they'd be all about it.

Your the real liar,didn't you lie before?

[Longhorn]

I've got to admit, the similarities between him and Randy are striking. Plagiarism, copypasta instead of a response, and a complete inability to contemplate the opposite side's point....

[Fidel_Castronaut]

@Randys brother (or as I'll hereafter refer to you, Poe): Your "evidence" for the untrustworthiness of radiocarbon dating is an amateurish cartoon clip in which radiocarbon dating is not mentioned once?!? As for the actual content of the video, why don't you do a little research? I'm sure, if you're honest, you'll soon enough discover the Mack truck-size holes in the presentation.

And if you're not honest about it, you will only (1) confirm my dim view of what passes for Christian honesty, or (2) confirm to me that you are a Poe.

Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. When I see someone posting stuff that's that blatantly  dishonest about the subject, I can no longer take them seriously enough to waste my time interacting with them.

1. Liar
2. Poe
3. Accepts that the USGS is not insane, and that there's a rational basis for radioisometric dating.

I also agree that if the dating methods were used to confirm that a piece of wood was Jesus's cross (or somesuch), they'd be all about it.

I'm surprised you guys are drawing this conclusion from your attempt to discourse reasonably with him (I'm actually really surprised at what you've managed to get him to say) and not from the fact that he is quite obviously a troll.