Great way of saying it is a false image, but not a false image. Erosion doesn't count?
I'm open to a good theory on the Grand Canyon, but however quickly it was formed does not prove any argument that the Earth is not as old as it seems. Quick events can occur in the context of a long time frame.
The Bible says so. More and more of the Bible is being proving as absolute fact as the years go by. My logical side has seen all of the arguments on both sides, good and bad. I have to go with the Bible.
BTW, I can scrape something quickly and then set it outdoors to erode slowly. The slow erosion today doesn't prove a thing for certain.
Build a clock, set it to 10:00, and wind it up. People will assume from the rate of advance of the hands and the 10:00 setting that the clock was started at 12:00. So anything you see was either created that way, or you aren't seeing it correctly. Did you know that rates of nuclear decay change over time? Carbon dating suddenly fails during a period of time (I don't have the exact info at hand now), because the rate of decay changed. The dates were absolute dates based on absolute chronology and astronomical events.
The Bible does give an "accounting of years" as you call it. It gives ages of the various people at the birth of sons over a long stretch of time and total times between major events in Israelite history. I have several scholarly papers that have studied chronologies of the various peoples' rulers compared with astronomical data and synchronicities, as well as the Bible's information, and found that all of it leads to a beginning just thousands of years ago. The Flood was in 3170 BC. Gilgamesh lived from 2447 BC to 2401 BC. One of the papers is called "Absolute Chronology of the Ancient World from 2838 BCE to 394 BCE Compared to Carbon-14 Dating" by Gerard Gertoux from 2022. I downloaded the paper from academia.edu. If you want to see what else he has written, go to the site that was listed in the paper: orcid.org/0000-0001-5916-0445.
There is a lot of information available about chronologies and more.
Build an hourglass, fill it and turn it over. People will assume that the glass started when one side was full, but when did radioactive decay start and when was that with respect to the creation of the Earth? As for an hourglass, who can say that the strength of gravity doesn't change over time? Carbon dating is notoriously unsuitable for deep geologic dating. The production of C-14 hinges on the strength of cosmic radiation, which is an unknown over time.
How do we know what the length of a year was in Bible reckoning? How do we know that generations weren't skipped? I have no problem with Biblical correspondences with plausible historical events. I have no problem with the book of Genesis, as long as we understand that "day" most easily means a period of labor...after which one rests. I have read my Velikovsky, many years ago and give him credence.
And I have no problem accepting the fact that the Chicxulub impact was 66 million years ago, leaving behind plenty of evidence. It is one thing to speculate that radioactive decay may be variable with circumstances, but you can't just dismiss it by saying that atoms are lying. And I don't believe that God made His Creation as a deception, so there is no need to battle over the Bible and scientific truth, when a lot hinges on what we assume when we read the Bible.
Great way of saying it is a false image, but not a false image. Erosion doesn't count?
I'm open to a good theory on the Grand Canyon, but however quickly it was formed does not prove any argument that the Earth is not as old as it seems. Quick events can occur in the context of a long time frame.
The Bible says so. More and more of the Bible is being proving as absolute fact as the years go by. My logical side has seen all of the arguments on both sides, good and bad. I have to go with the Bible.
BTW, I can scrape something quickly and then set it outdoors to erode slowly. The slow erosion today doesn't prove a thing for certain.
You quote the passage and I can give you credit. I've read the Bible in three different translations, and there is nowhere an accounting of years.
Hard to scrape uranium nuclei. The slow erosion shows how much time has passed in erosion---i.e., how much time has passed.
Build a clock, set it to 10:00, and wind it up. People will assume from the rate of advance of the hands and the 10:00 setting that the clock was started at 12:00. So anything you see was either created that way, or you aren't seeing it correctly. Did you know that rates of nuclear decay change over time? Carbon dating suddenly fails during a period of time (I don't have the exact info at hand now), because the rate of decay changed. The dates were absolute dates based on absolute chronology and astronomical events.
The Bible does give an "accounting of years" as you call it. It gives ages of the various people at the birth of sons over a long stretch of time and total times between major events in Israelite history. I have several scholarly papers that have studied chronologies of the various peoples' rulers compared with astronomical data and synchronicities, as well as the Bible's information, and found that all of it leads to a beginning just thousands of years ago. The Flood was in 3170 BC. Gilgamesh lived from 2447 BC to 2401 BC. One of the papers is called "Absolute Chronology of the Ancient World from 2838 BCE to 394 BCE Compared to Carbon-14 Dating" by Gerard Gertoux from 2022. I downloaded the paper from academia.edu. If you want to see what else he has written, go to the site that was listed in the paper: orcid.org/0000-0001-5916-0445.
There is a lot of information available about chronologies and more.
Build an hourglass, fill it and turn it over. People will assume that the glass started when one side was full, but when did radioactive decay start and when was that with respect to the creation of the Earth? As for an hourglass, who can say that the strength of gravity doesn't change over time? Carbon dating is notoriously unsuitable for deep geologic dating. The production of C-14 hinges on the strength of cosmic radiation, which is an unknown over time.
How do we know what the length of a year was in Bible reckoning? How do we know that generations weren't skipped? I have no problem with Biblical correspondences with plausible historical events. I have no problem with the book of Genesis, as long as we understand that "day" most easily means a period of labor...after which one rests. I have read my Velikovsky, many years ago and give him credence.
And I have no problem accepting the fact that the Chicxulub impact was 66 million years ago, leaving behind plenty of evidence. It is one thing to speculate that radioactive decay may be variable with circumstances, but you can't just dismiss it by saying that atoms are lying. And I don't believe that God made His Creation as a deception, so there is no need to battle over the Bible and scientific truth, when a lot hinges on what we assume when we read the Bible.