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.
C14 production depends on the strength of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. If there is something blocking them, there is inaccuracy. It has been shown that C14 dates are wrong before about 2000 BC. We do know the times listed in the Bible. We know Abraham lived when the Bible indicates, who the pharaoh was that he saw, and even have statues of Sarah from that pharaoh's time. Since Sarah was a bust to the pharaoh's plans, the statues that he had made celebrating her new position were given to his chancellor and were recently found in that chancellor's tomb. Everything in the Bible is being confirmed, especially the chronology. The Bible is the truth. Much of science is based on circular arguments and wild assumptions. Velikovsky was full of crap. I read his book too and found it terribly wanting. The Flood completely changed the face of the earth, so geology properly starts at that year.
We know precisely what a year was in the Bible. We know that generations weren't skipped because of the chronology's accuracy. Creation happened in six literal days of time. I don't "assume" anything when I read the Bible. It is actual accurate fact, as proved over and over.
There is no point in making an argument about carbon-14. I acknowledged its variability at the outset. You are merely confirming my view.
We don't know anything from early Genesis, independently of the Bible, and that book of the Bible was given to a man (Moses) educated in the world view of the Egyptians for communication to the Hebrews. Using the words and concepts at his command he did so. God was not delivering a textbook on geology and astrophysics; He was summarizing creation in terms intelligible to the Hebrews of the day. Today we read God's Word (Creation) directly from scientific instruments, but not without errors of understanding. It is, as they say, a "work in progress."
The flood would not have changed the energy states of atomic nuclei, which is the basis of radioactive dating. There is evidence that the present Mediterranean Sea was formerly a gigantic geologic depression, with the oceans being held in check by the rock dam at the current Pillars of Hercules. At some point in human habitation, the rock dam failed and the sea gushed into the Mediterranean basin, constituting a flood of the known world.
There is also the fact that by knowing the distances to the far stars, we view a history that is thousands, maybe millions of years old.
I believe there are ways in which our present understanding can be reconciled with the Biblical account, but we should not imagine that a human account is going to be more truthful or more accurate than the actual substance of God's Word.
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.
C14 production depends on the strength of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. If there is something blocking them, there is inaccuracy. It has been shown that C14 dates are wrong before about 2000 BC. We do know the times listed in the Bible. We know Abraham lived when the Bible indicates, who the pharaoh was that he saw, and even have statues of Sarah from that pharaoh's time. Since Sarah was a bust to the pharaoh's plans, the statues that he had made celebrating her new position were given to his chancellor and were recently found in that chancellor's tomb. Everything in the Bible is being confirmed, especially the chronology. The Bible is the truth. Much of science is based on circular arguments and wild assumptions. Velikovsky was full of crap. I read his book too and found it terribly wanting. The Flood completely changed the face of the earth, so geology properly starts at that year.
We know precisely what a year was in the Bible. We know that generations weren't skipped because of the chronology's accuracy. Creation happened in six literal days of time. I don't "assume" anything when I read the Bible. It is actual accurate fact, as proved over and over.
There is no point in making an argument about carbon-14. I acknowledged its variability at the outset. You are merely confirming my view.
We don't know anything from early Genesis, independently of the Bible, and that book of the Bible was given to a man (Moses) educated in the world view of the Egyptians for communication to the Hebrews. Using the words and concepts at his command he did so. God was not delivering a textbook on geology and astrophysics; He was summarizing creation in terms intelligible to the Hebrews of the day. Today we read God's Word (Creation) directly from scientific instruments, but not without errors of understanding. It is, as they say, a "work in progress."
The flood would not have changed the energy states of atomic nuclei, which is the basis of radioactive dating. There is evidence that the present Mediterranean Sea was formerly a gigantic geologic depression, with the oceans being held in check by the rock dam at the current Pillars of Hercules. At some point in human habitation, the rock dam failed and the sea gushed into the Mediterranean basin, constituting a flood of the known world.
There is also the fact that by knowing the distances to the far stars, we view a history that is thousands, maybe millions of years old.
I believe there are ways in which our present understanding can be reconciled with the Biblical account, but we should not imagine that a human account is going to be more truthful or more accurate than the actual substance of God's Word.