Seems that more people are worried about visitors to a local church. There will be 3 topics in this post with one more dealing with newcomers to a church. Again, the list is very subjective and not infallible so people are free to disagree with the listed items.
#1. Equip your parking lot team to wave us in with a smile.
This would annoy me greatly as the parking attendant does not know the needs of the occupant or what is being left in the car. They are only trying to fill a spot and sometimes that spot is not what the driver requires. Parking lot attendants should not be dictators but be flexible as they can only suggest to the driver where to park.
2. Have people greet us at the door and offer to answer our questions.
My own personal preference is to be not greeted at the door but let me get accustomed to the new scenario and allow me to form questions first. I do not like a generalized treatment of visitors where it is a one-size fits all mentality. I am sure people have gotten upset with me when i refuse to shake hands when I first meet someone but I have my preferences like everyone else. Greeters need to not over-react when someone does not respond as they expect. Greeting visitors is covered by biblical teaching not secular sales strategies.
This also applies to those believers who follow the secular idea that people want to hear their names a lot. I don’t and get annoyed when someone continues to use it over and over. Don’t insult and do not be insulted because the response may be more to the preference of the visitor and not the church’s.
#4. Don’t point us out in the service.
I totally agree with this one. I do not like attention, especially when I am a visitor. My evaluation of a church is not dependent upon the superficial actions of its church members or they’re doing the ‘easy things’ that comes with church attendance. Anyone, even a bad church, can look good doing the superficial. I like looking beyond the superficial and see how church people really act towards others.
5. Give the gospel clearly enough for us to understand and believe.
Why this guy, who identifies himself as an evangelist, would want to hear the gospel over and over and not receive spiritual meat is beyond me. I do not go to church to be held at square one and continue to hear the same message every week. Feed your people and get them deeper into the faith so I can benefit as well. Having a gospel message every week or for visitors when preaching to your own weekly people is like giving human baby food to teen-agers. They need more than pabulum to grow in Christ.
Also, do not insult the intelligence of your people. I think one of the worst trends in the church was where pastors dumbed down their sermons to the point where their delivery and words were just insulting. You do not need to dumb down or insult to teach. You can always explain if someone doesn’t understand.
6. Have a check in system for kids that is hastle-free and quick.
I guess that means kids are like coats and you get a slip of paper in return after depositing your kids in the cloak room. (I am trying to be a little humourous there) This is a very personal preference and it depends upon the age of the kids, the neighborhood and size of the church. If you are going to learn to trust God we do not need a system that is tighter in security than Fort Knox. This area is up to the individual church and their responsibility.
7. Beware weird Christian things.
To me using the English language correctly or saying Amen is not weird. The word ‘amen’ simply means ‘so be it’ and when a parishioner uses it, he or she is agreeing with what the pastor is saying. The other examples he provides are very weird and if you are trying to be ‘contemporary’ or ‘cool’ then make sure it is biblical first and not a distraction from God. We come to church not to be entertained but to worship and learn, so be prudent and discretionary in your use of alternative worship styles.
8. Give visitors a pass on the offering plate.
Kind of hard to do that when the plate is passed down the aisles and all the visitors are not grouped together. Plus, you do not know how they feel about tithing or being a cheerful giver. Also, they may have missed giving their tithe at their regular church and may want to do so. With that said, just be sensitive for they may not want to give that day.
9. Don’t get too aggressive with the church follow up e-mails.
This is goes with the previous posts point on do not overwhelm. Go with God’s leading and be flexible and ready when he tells you to do something different from you are expecting.
10. Call us after, ask about our experience at the church and invite us back.
This kind of goes with point 9. I would not appreciate such a phone call as I did not attend the service to be a judge of customer care. I rarely fill out visitor cards as i do not know if I want the church to have a record of my visit or not. it all depends.
#2. http://ageofrocks.org/100-reasons-the-earth-is-old/
People have lists for all sorts of reasons and this one deals with a very distracting subject–the age of the earth. Those who do not believe Genesis one tend to be distracted concerning topics about how old the earth is as if that information were vital to life and our life expectancy. There is no biblical teaching instructing us to figure out when God created the heavens and the earth. I am not going to go through all 100 reasons that author presents because they are all unverifiable and their source comes from those who do not believe.
None of those items indicate how God brought the earth into existence. They are merely alternatives IF God had used a natural methods to create BUT we know he didn’t use natural methods because both Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11 state that he spoke and it was. Human time was not invented yet so there is no actual way to determine the real age of the earth. We can only surmise because the vital point of Genesis 1 is not how old but who did it and how
None of those points eliminate the Flood from taking place and having an impact on the geological and geographical formations of the earth. To assume that everything was the same from Adam’s time to our time is nothing but misleading and unfounded speculation. It is ignoring vital data while drawing a conclusion from a preconceived idea.
There is no radiocarbon in old samples, despite claims to the contrary. Geologically old samples of coal, diamonds, and graphite, for example, yield finite radiocarbon ages that are consistent with the expected level of contamination invariably introduced during sample collection and preparation.
The problem with using radiocarbon dating is the fine tuning that secularists do with the dates they receive. They have to use other dating systems to ‘recalibrate’ the radiocarbon dates thus they are not presenting a true date but one more to their liking.
Human occupations of nearly every continent can be demonstrated beyond 10,000 years, e.g. in South Africa, ruling out the possibility that humans repopulated the Earth after being obliterated only ~4,500 years ago.
Confusion reigns in the unchurched world as they think there was a continuation of existence throughout history but they forget to tell you that those conclusions (stated in that quote) come from like-minded people who have no interest in proving the Bible true. That conclusion is just wishful thinking as the Flood was only for one year and there is no way to point out when a civilization actually started in any given location. It is all guesswork on the part of the researchers. Israel Finkelstein has stated that nomads are archaeological invisible so their origin would be impossible to detect.
Of course, how secularists date their items are suspect as they are trying to prove their alternative theories correct and not how true the bible is.
Ötzi the Iceman has frequently made headlines in creationist writings, because they accurately perceive this unique find as a challenge to the young-Earth timeline. The remains of this murdered Alpine farmer date to ~5,300 years old, which YEC’s arbitrarily dismiss as “inflated
To tell you the truth, I do not care how old he is for his existence does not change the biblical timeline.We do not even know if he was actually murdered for even death blows can happen accidentally so to say that he disproves the Bible is nonsensical. We will never know his true story because we do NOT know his actual era, his actual personal beliefs and practices, nor anything else about him that can be verified. The mountains may be older than 5,300 years but that is just obvious not a smoking gun fact, though they would not be older than 10,000 years.
Secular dating systems are not built upon fact or verifications.
If you go through that list, you will see secular, deceived bias permeating all the explanations as well as a very closed-mind. The arguments rest upon scientific assumption about what is found not the truth. The secularist first has to prove that earth’s origin actually took place the way they claim before making these arguments. Right now they are putting the cart before the horse and making claims before they have real evidence demonstrating that their natural alternative is correct.
All evidence actually supports Genesis 1 while the secularist manipulates that evidence to make it say something it does not.
#3. http://tallelhammam.com/uploads/Forty_Salient_Points_about_Sodom_s_Location.pdf
I am not a fan of Dr. Collins merely because he leads people away from the truth of scripture and towards his personal views. But I am going to try to keep my personal feelings out of this section in order not to ruin any spiritual integrity this website may possess. As I have said before, I have discussed his location with him and his supporters on the old BAS discussion forum so I am not saying anything to you that I haven’t already said to him. I have also sent in a response to this article to the media outlet that published it and the response I received was an accusation that I was doing a personal attack on the man. I was actually simply refuting his 40 points.
#1. I have investigated the chronological issues with a rigor, I believe, second to none. I have read
virtually every piece of literature from every period available on the subject. I have
discussed/argued every conceivable point in the discussion with many of the world’s leading
scholars, both minimalists and maximalists, who are capable of interacting meaningfully on the
issues involved. I have personally walked nearly every square meter of the geography and
topography for all proposed Sodom sites. I have traversed the ancient trade routes of the region
and surveyed every known archaeological site in it and adjacent to it. I have now directed the
excavation of the largest Bronze Age site on the eastern Jordan Disk, Tall el-Hammam, into its
third season. I have studied the reports of all excavated sites in the area, including the traditional
“southern” ones. Perhaps I would even qualify as an expert on the subject of Sodom’s location.
By this point in the process, it is safe to say that I have heard every conceivable argument for
every Sodom candidate, and have dealt squarely and scientifically with every question and
objection raised with regard to the identification of Tall el-Hammam as biblical Sodom. While I
am always open to further discussion, I think it is fair to suggest, to the objective observer
The last two lines are not true and this is known by experience with him. The whole quoted text just exudes arrogance on his part and it is meant to stop any further opposing discussion. he may have done all of that BUT that still doesn’t mean he didn’t misunderstand, make mistakes, or is just wrong. He has a personal and professional stake in having the Tell el-Hamman declared the ancient site of Sodom thus his objectivity is suspect. it would be a great feather in his cap if he was correct but unfortunately he is not.
4. Genesis 13:1-12 is the only narrative passage among the Sodom tales marking out the
location of the Cities of the Plain by employing geographical data points and directions in a
conscience attempt to place them in a real-world context shared by the readers.
The problem for Dr. Collins is that the passage in question does no such thing. Those boundaries are edited by him to make it seem like the passage is saying what he claims but when you look at the passage, Sodom is not given a specific location and in fact is not even said to be in the Jordan Valley. You have to do severe eisgesis to say that Sodom is included in that valley.
6. Outside the Old Testament, among the Semitic cognates and Egyptian,
kikkar/kakkar/kakkaru/kerker is never used as a geographical referent, but means only a “talent,
a flat, circular weight of metal” or “circular, flat loaf of bread”; in Egyptian there is also the
meaning “to draw a circle in the sand with a stick.”
Yet he uses it as a geographical marker and boundary, then limits those boundaries to his favored and selected area. His next few points are all on this word Kikkar yet his application of its definitions does not match up with the biblical text for the Bible does not place a limitation on the size of that geographical area.The restrictions are all placed upon those biblical references by dr. Collins himself who is far from objective.
12. The text suggests that Lot viewed with his “unaided” physical eyes the entire Jordan Disk
from the area east of Bethel/Ai (above and W/NW of Jericho); the entire kikkar is, in fact, visible
from the highland’s edge east of Bethel/Ai (which I have pesonally viewed on many occasions).
One does not have to see the whole valley to see that it is well watered. There are indications and clues which bring one to that conclusion which do not require a first-hand overview of the complete site. Dr. Collins ignores this fact in his haste to legitimize his findings.
13. Lot traveled eastward from Bethel/Ai, pitching his tent toward Sodom, one of the cities of the
eastern Jordan Disk, while Abram remained “in Canaan”; i.e., Lot went east of the Jordan River
beyond the formulaic Canaan boundary, remaining north of the Dead Sea all the while, no doubt
traveling along the convenient E/W trade route that passed near Jericho, then crossed the river to
the cities on the far side of the alluvial plain—the Cities of the Kikkar
This is another fine tuning of scripture performed by Dr. Collins, the passage does not say that he stayed in an easterly direction or that he even crossed the Jordan at the point Dr. Collins says is Sodom (Tell el-Haman) the passage is very vague
So Lot chose for himself all the [g]valley of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward. (NASB)
11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east (NIV)
There is no indication that Lot went due east and stayed heading due east. Also, the passage does not say that Sodom was due east, it could have been and was south-east which tells us that Lot could have started out to the east then took a trade route south. Nothing in the passage keeps Lot heading towards Tell el-Hamman.
15. As the Yahwist mentally works his way through the geography of the passage, the Cities of
the Kikkar are perceived to have existed on the eastern Jordan Disk, north of the Dead Sea
Actually, Moses does not indicate any such thing but points bible readers towards the south as Zoar is very definitely south of the Dead Sea. It takes creative reading to place all five cities north of that body of water.
16. The story teller calculated or assumed that Sodom was the largest urban center on the eastern
Jordan Disk as indicated by the fact that (a) it is the only Kikkar city mentioned by itself; (b) it is
always listed first when related cities are mentioned; and (c) the king of Sodom is the sole
“spokesperson” for the Kikkar cities coalition after the Kedorlaomer incident (Gen 14:17-24).
This is not true and assumes that Dr. Collins can read long dead minds and know their intent. It is also based upon scholarly criteria concerning importance not biblical ones. We do not know the size or importance of Sodom or the other cities. What we do know is that Sodom was an evil city and that other kings wanted their territory or possessions. The Valley of Siddim (Gen. 14) is actually located South of the Dead Sea so if Sodom was north, one would expect the battle to be closer to home.
The tar pits are also south of the Dead sea and none are in the area of Tell el-Hamman.
24. Given a MBA date for Abram, archaeologically and geographically speaking, the largest
fortified Bronze Age urban center on the eastern Jordan Disk would be a “most likely” candidate
for biblical Sodom.
‘Most likely’ does not mean actual location and there are many large, fortified ancient cities that could be identified as Sodom. The problem for Dr. Collins is the evidence doesn’t line up with his conclusions. The Bible doesn’t say it was the largest city nor an important one. it does say it was wicked though–
13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.
26. An occupational hiatus of several centuries after a fiery MBA destruction would make that
“Sodom” identification almost irresistible (in the time of Moses and Joshua the eastern Jordan
Disk is called “the wasteland” below Pisgah—Num 21:20)
This doesn’t line up with the biblical record either as the two of the sons of Jacob asked Moses for the area where Tell el-Hamman is located as their inheritance and the land was described as good for cattle, etc. it was very good land. The Bible describes the area of Sodom as a wasteland meant to be an example forever. It can’t be an example forever and good for cattle and people at the same time.
30. Southern Dead Sea sites, such as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, satisfy not a single “Cities of
the Plain” criterion set forth in the Genesis 13 narrative (summarized in Points 20, 23-27 above)
because (a) they were destroyed at the end of the EBA centuries before the time of Abram and
Lot (given a Middle Bronze Age date for Abram); and (b) they are entirely in the wrong place
(whether or not the tales are factual or etiological, and regardless of date!).
Actually they do but they do not meet Dr. Collins’ personal criteria for identification as Sodom. You can read Dr. Wood on this point
40. Given the fact that the Yahwist’s geography unequivocally places the Cities of the Kikkar
north of the Dead Sea and east of the Jordan River, one must conclude that, whether the Sodom
tales are authentically MBA in origin and date, or are late IA etiological compositions, they are
layered over the physical geography of the eastern Jordan Disk where multiple Bronze Age ruins
provided his readers with eloquent physical testimony of the destruction of a bygone civilization.
This isn’t true either as modern geographical names have the Sodom equivalents in the south and nowhere near Tell el-Hamman. It is a glaring point overlooked by Dr. Collins. But this is what happens when one fudges with history and is not being honest with themselves. Dr. Collins restricted his biblical references to support his point of view instead of analyzing all the references to Sodom and he fudges with definitions of Hebrew words to continue his bad justification and support of his ideas.
When one has to do so much altering of the biblical text and history then one should really question themselves and their process of analyzation first before leaping and making all sorts of unsupportable claims. Now he has to continue the archaeological gymnastics just to keep his identification on track even though the evidence says otherwise. But that is the result of arrogance not humility.
theologyarchaeology 
#1. ‘So dendrochronology and U-Th disequilibrium dating are more flawed than radiocarbon? Geologists would reject that characterization unanimously, so perhaps you can elaborate?’
I didn’t use the word ‘more’ in my response. Please stop changing what I have written. Why would you expect geologists to agree wth me? That is their standard to measure something they cannot measure. The problem with the dating systems is that they are based upon the assumption that origins happened the secular scientific way and no amount of fine tuning will fix that error.
The dating systems are not used to find the truth but to support an alternative theory.
#2. ‘And tell me, why do you constantly link to my articles and write a de facto pronouncement that I’m wrong’
Do you know what the word ‘example’ means? There is no agenda but you are wrong for you are supporting a secular idea not a biblical one. The whole Bible supports ‘God spoke and it was supernatural creative act’ so why are you kicking against the pricks and continuing to fight for evil?
#3. “Your critiques are not substantive, and so it can’t possibly be to demonstrate that I’m wrong.”
That is your opinion based upon the idea that I am not using your scientific playing field to point out your mistakes. You forget that I do not have to use your approved methodology to critique your work. I am sure you are following the correct scientific way of approaching a topic but what you forget, science has nothing to do with origins.
The scientific way is the wrong strategy to use. God set the playing field when he said ‘use faith’ Hebrews 11. Secular scientists are trying to avoid God’s rules and want to use their own even though their own do not work for this topic.
So dendrochronology and U-Th disequilibrium dating are more flawed than radiocarbon? Geologists would reject that characterization unanimously, so perhaps you can elaborate?
And tell me, why do you constantly link to my articles and write a de facto pronouncement that I’m wrong? Is there an agenda that I’ve missed? Your critiques are not substantive, and so it can’t possibly be to demonstrate that I’m wrong.
Yet you produce no real link to any of those supposed support. I understand both libby and your work, I just find them tedious, over-stated and that you are putting great effort in trying to convice yourself that you are correct
Do you really understand what I am doing when I quote your work?
You really shouldn’t interpret my words, for then you are applying your ideas to my words and attacking yourself not what I have said.
As for C14 dating, like all secular dating systems, it is flawed and calibration cannot help it for secularists are using even more flawed dating aids. How do you expect to learn anything when you use tools that provide you with misinformation?
Oh, I didn’t miss it. I deemed it not worth my time to comment. 🙂 And it’s not really worth my time to reply to this comment either…but:
“You simply do not believe God.”
I do believe Genesis; aren’t I repeating myself here? What you’re doing is rather arbitrary. Watch how easy it is: “No, YOU don’t believe God.” See, now you’re the unbeliever.
“1. you have no historical confirmation; 2. you cannot replicate the claimed process; 3. you are assuming not proving.”
1. Oh, but we do! 2. Yes, we can. 3. We are disproving that the assumptions were invalidated, which upholds and conclusions based on the model. I detail this on my blog—perhaps you didn’t understand?
“I read the reports when I can and have studied Libby’s intitial work.”
If you can’t understand my blog, how can you understand Libby’s work and radiocarbon lab reports?
“If radiocarbon dating is inaccurate then why appeal to it at all?”
It’s not inaccurate. You’re still missing my point.
“you can talk dates all you want but when the rubber meets the road you can’t answer or produce evidence for the big questions. i.e. gravity.”
Why not?
in case you are wondering where that reference you missed is. you can find it at
You are late. You missed one of my references to your website in another post. if yo do not believe Genesis (Or any book of the Bible) then you are an unbeliever. You simply do not believe God.
God did not say he used a process so if you mae that claim the you are saying God said something he did not say.
Your information is unverifiable for many reasons. 1. you have no historical confirmation; 2. you cannot replicate the claimed process; 3. you are assuming not proving. the list could go on.
I read the reports when I can and have studied Libby’s intitial work. If radiocarbon dating is inaccurate then why appeal to it at all?
we have historical confirmation, both biblical and extra-biblical for one. genetical boundaries are another body of evidence for creation; the fact that the theory of evolution cannot deviate from God’s creation chronology in structuring its theory is another.
why would a non-knowng process create such a sophisticated and complicated genetic structure to make its bodes work? the fact that evolutionists cannot produce the source for the information needed to program & operate DNA and RNA along with the proteins and other microscopice gentic materal is a big thorn in their side.
you can talk dates all you want but when the rubber meets the road you can’t answer or produce evidence for the big questions. i.e. gravity.
Hmm, I didn’t realize you could discredit someone entirely by saying labeling them arbitrarily as unbelievers and calling their information “unverifiable”. Good thing the real world doesn’t abide by this logic, else we’d never make any progress!
“The problem with using radiocarbon dating is the fine tuning that secularists do with the dates they receive.”
In how many radiocarbon labs have you worked? 😉 In any case, you seem to have missed the point (unsurprisingly) of this evidence, because it depends not on the accuracy of radiocarbon.
“All evidence actually supports Genesis 1 while the secularist manipulates that evidence to make it say something it does not.”
Oh? Please elucidate!