The Search For Truth

[shunyadragon]

The Bible is accurate where history is concerned; when it touches on science; regarding fulfilled prophecy...
It's ahead of its time, and is timeless.
You can test these to see if this is true.

Actually no, the time frame of the Bible cannot be stretched beyond 5-10 thousand years for the age of the Created physical existence, and the time frame facts of Exodus do not fit archaeological evidence. Science and archaeological evidence have tested the Bible and found it an ancient tribal collection of narratives and not historically accurate.

Your Genesis reference to water in the womb of the earth apparently refers to the water that rose up and cause the flood by God's command, which is far outside any physical possibility based on the Noah flood, There is absolutely no evidence of any possible flood such as described in the Bible,

 

[shunyadragon]

See here. If that's not enough, and you believe you need more, you can let me know.


Well, the Bible got quite a number of things right, well before scientists discovered them.

Actually none.

I mentioned a few in the OP. See here. If that's not enough, and you believe you need more, you can let me know.

Nothing mentioned in the OP indicates the Bible has anything to do with science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The one everyone seems to be missin

No, there's at least two that everyone is missing.

 

[sayak83]

It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world.

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

The age of the universe, too, may be adjusted. Universe Older Than Previously Thought


In many cases, science has drawn a blank.
In other words - just can't answer... as in, don't know.

For example...
The origin of water on Earth is the subject of a body of research in the fields of planetary science, astronomy, and astrobiology. Earth is unique among the rocky planets in the Solar System in having oceans of liquid water on its surface. Liquid water, which is necessary for all known forms of life, continues to exist on the surface of Earth because the planet is at a far enough distance (known as the habitable zone) from the Sun that it does not lose its water, but not so far that low temperatures cause all water on the planet to freeze.

It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

Where did Earth's water come from? Not melted meteorites, according to scientists
...researchers analyzed melted meteorites that had been floating around in space since the solar system's formation 4 1/2 billion years ago. They found that these meteorites had extremely low water content -- in fact, they were among the driest extraterrestrial materials ever measured.

These results, which let researchers rule them out as the primary source of Earth's water, could have important implications for the search for water -- and life -- on other planets. It also helps researchers understand the unlikely conditions that aligned to make Earth a habitable planet.

"We wanted to understand how our planet managed to get water because it's not completely obvious," Newcombe said. "Getting water and having surface oceans on a planet that is small and relatively near the sun is a challenge."​

What if the answers to many of these questions have been there, all along, but they are ignored?
An aged old book seems an unlikely source of truth, but the Bible has answered quite a number of questions about our world, and has gotten them right.
For example ...
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

It's worth considering then, if the Bible does have an answer on the origin of water.
Surprisingly, it does .
Job 38:
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb [No. It's not the womb of a woman],

9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,

10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,

11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?

The Bible long ago says that the source of the water is the earth's womb.
Millions continue to use the Bible as a source of truth - not for answering questions about the material world, but for life's most valued and important questions, for which the Bible provides reliable answers.
It's good to know that the Bible's answers are accurate, when it touches on things of a material nature.
It does reinforce the fact that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

You do understand that none of the articles have anything to say about the age of the earth at all?
The inner core is the innermost section of earth that became a distinct layer after it solidified. Originally we had a fully liquid core, but as the earth has cooled over time, the inner part of it solidified creating a 2 layer core structure. The article is discussing ideas about WHEN this happened rather than when earth formed.

 

[sayak83]

It's said that science attempts to discover truths about the material world.

Yes, they have discovered some truths. Oftentimes though - not getting into where certain assumptions must be used - science has failed to provide accurate answers about our world.

For example, scientists were convinced that their method of estimating the age of the earth was so accurate, they declared the age to be 4.54 billion years old... give or take .05 billion years.
However, time will tell if that changes.

Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

The age of the universe, too, may be adjusted. Universe Older Than Previously Thought


In many cases, science has drawn a blank.
In other words - just can't answer... as in, don't know.

For example...
The origin of water on Earth is the subject of a body of research in the fields of planetary science, astronomy, and astrobiology. Earth is unique among the rocky planets in the Solar System in having oceans of liquid water on its surface. Liquid water, which is necessary for all known forms of life, continues to exist on the surface of Earth because the planet is at a far enough distance (known as the habitable zone) from the Sun that it does not lose its water, but not so far that low temperatures cause all water on the planet to freeze.

It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

Where did Earth's water come from? Not melted meteorites, according to scientists
...researchers analyzed melted meteorites that had been floating around in space since the solar system's formation 4 1/2 billion years ago. They found that these meteorites had extremely low water content -- in fact, they were among the driest extraterrestrial materials ever measured.

These results, which let researchers rule them out as the primary source of Earth's water, could have important implications for the search for water -- and life -- on other planets. It also helps researchers understand the unlikely conditions that aligned to make Earth a habitable planet.

"We wanted to understand how our planet managed to get water because it's not completely obvious," Newcombe said. "Getting water and having surface oceans on a planet that is small and relatively near the sun is a challenge."​

What if the answers to many of these questions have been there, all along, but they are ignored?
An aged old book seems an unlikely source of truth, but the Bible has answered quite a number of questions about our world, and has gotten them right.
For example ...
The Bible says the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)
The Bible says the earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)
The Bible says rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)
...and more.

It's worth considering then, if the Bible does have an answer on the origin of water.
Surprisingly, it does .
Job 38:
8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors
When it burst out from the womb [No. It's not the womb of a woman],

9 When I clothed it with clouds
And wrapped it in thick gloom,

10 When I established my limit for it
And put its bars and doors in place,

11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther;
Here is where your proud waves will stop’?
Have you gone down to the sources of the sea
Or explored the deep waters?

The Bible long ago says that the source of the water is the earth's womb.
Millions continue to use the Bible as a source of truth - not for answering questions about the material world, but for life's most valued and important questions, for which the Bible provides reliable answers.
It's good to know that the Bible's answers are accurate, when it touches on things of a material nature.
It does reinforce the fact that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

Secondly. The idea that earth has an empty cavern like space like a womb inside her where water is kept locked up, till God opened the Gates is the most Unscientific explanation of the origin of the oceans.....

 

[gnostic]

The real values that the OT Bible tried to teach, are the moral messages behind the OT stories, @nPeace, and not on biblical accuracies in science or in history.

Number 1, is a tie, between to worship God & to obey God.

Everything else, relate to how one should treat one another, including not to sin…hence to obey the laws (Torah) that were given to Moses.

Underlying the whole OT, from Adam to the people building a new temple after their exile in Babylon, is the relationship between God and his people. But on top of that, it is the stories of the people - the Hebrews, the Israelites, the Jews - some good, some bad, the moral messages behind the narratives, and the reward/punishment outcome.

The Bible provide no real understanding of the nature of earth (and certainly the OT really have no understanding about the galaxies and the universe), nor the understanding of life, particularly biology.

The description of human biology is very rudimentary in the bible, providing no explanations as to how the muscles, brains, hearts, eyes, ears, stomach, etc, how they all work. It has no concepts of cells.

So, whenever creationists quote verses in the bible or some other scriptures, and then either claim the passages matched with modern sciences, or that the passages are superior than the information from sciences, then I become very dubious about their education in sciences.

The creationism, and the recent Intelligent Design, that creationists have created is nothing more than farce and distortion of the natural reality.

 

[nPeace]

No, you don't understand. 4.54 billion years minus 2.5 years does not make 1.3 billion years.

look at it like this:

4500000000.00
-..................................2.5
= 4499999997.5

The fact you said ths, show you did not pay any attention to what I said.
Consider if this is true... Earth's core is a billion years old
Now add 2.5 years to it. Do you get 4.5 billion years?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I understand that. But I don't think @nPeace does.

I still don't. So can you or someone else explain in baby steps, so that I can... hopefully.

 

[fantome profane]

I still don't. So can you or someone else explain in baby steps, so that I can... hopefully.

Under strong gravitation forces time itself moves more slowly. Approaching a black hole time actually stops.

Time moves faster for objects in orbit than they do for objects on the surface of the planet. And the closer you get to the core time moves slower. Now this difference is very small, but over 4.5 billion years this small difference in the rate time passes adds up to 2.5 years. That is why the earth's crust and the earth's core can be created at the same time, and the the core can be 2.5 years younger. It does not mean that the earths crust and the core were created at different times.

 

[nPeace]

nPeace, a large part of the Old Testament are stories, from Adam to Solomon.

You are right, it isn’t science textbook, but it is the modern creationists who have been treating them or interpreting them, particularly Genesis “Creation” as “science”. That’s whom I arguing with, creationists like you.

You have cited some verses in your OP, eg from Genesis, Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah & Amos, claiming that these verses have answers that science don’t have. You are not just treating these verses as science, that they are superior than science.

in what ways, these verses are superior? They explain nothing, and using analogies or metaphors, such as comparing the source of waters to the “womb”, those are not explanations, they are bloody metaphors or analogies, that often leads to many possible interpretations that take the verse out-of-context, further leading to confusion.

Do you have a problem with interpretation?

You wrote:




Do you know who uses metaphors and analogies? Poets, bards, songwriters, hymn writers, scriptural authors.

I have read some great poetry, which were about reality.
For example, someone using the expression "burst from the womb", to describe water bursting out to cover earth's surface, is being poetic, yes, but at the same time, creating a mental picture the reader can understand and relate to.
You seem to have a problem with poetry and song, to relate reality.

That would be a problem with you, wouldn't it?

The problems with using analogies & metaphors, they are often comparing something with something else that are really unrelated, which are flimsy and open to very wide interpretation.

That's not true at all. Such an opinion is clearly biased driven.
Jesus used illustration throughout his ministry, because of its power to reach hearts, and expose them as well.

Use of illustrations, is a powerful teaching aid.

My first reply, I gave you a quote from Job (40:9) about thunder, and demonstrated how inaccurate that verse is.

...can your voice thunder like his?
How is that inaccurate?

I refuted that verse in my own words, explaining what thunders are natural phenomena, of the shockwaves, caused by both temperature & expanding of air pressures. What I did mention is that when people hear the low roaring or rumbling sounds of thunders, it is because from distance the thunder will echo, as the sounds bounce around many solid objects. What I failed to mention, is that real sound of thunder, the sound will sound like sudden crack for where the lightning strike in close vicinity to people.

So the closer people are to lightning strike, they will hear sudden crack. But the further away people are from lightning strike, the more thunder sounds long and low roaring or rumbling, due to reverberations of thunder, hence they are hearing echoes.

Whoever wrote Job have no understanding of natural phenomena, like the winds, rain, storm, sea, etc, so as any author of his time, he would use inaccurate metaphors or analogies.

It's not talking about thunder.
Obviously, you don't understand that more things than pressure released from clouds, can thunder.
That's unfortunate, imo.

but back to your silly womb analogy.

A womb is organic matter, which we know as uterus, while the Earth isn’t organic and has no uterus. Hence, not only is Job inaccurate and unreliable, so are your interpretations of Job’s womb verse.

How could you read the OP and then write something as silly as this.

Creationists, like you, also treated the Bible as if these stories (for examples, from Adam to Solomon) were “history“ too.

There are no history to any parts of Genesis or to Job.

In regards to reliability of history, it depends on two main things:

1. Independent sources that can verify the events and the people involved in those events. Such sources, eg historical accounts or annals, etc, need to be contemporary or the very least “near contemporary” as possible to the events, for reliability.
2. Or, physical objects that can be dated to those events, hence for archaeological evidence to be reliable, the evidence must be contemporary.

The Genesis and Exodus and Joshua cannot provide no such things, as they were written in the 6th century BCE, and not between the late 16th century (eg when Moses was born, Exodus) and early 14th century BCE (to the end of invasion of Canaan, hence book of Joshua).

why do you think I chose these centuries, from the 16th to 14th centuries BCE?

Why have they not found the bazillion of fossils that are supposed to have been found?
Use that same standard, if you want to be reasonable.
If you expect to find archaeological evidence for every iota in the Bible, then you should expect them to find every iota in the fossil record.

In 1 Kings 6:1, it claimed on day Solomon ordered to begin construction of the Temple, it stated that the exodus from Egypt started 480 years prior to his 4th year as king. Which would means the Israelites left Rameses in 1447 BCE, so that would put Moses‘ birth to about 1527 BCE, and death to 1407 BCE.

The Israelites left Egypt in 1513 B.C.E.
So, 480 years after, takes us to 1034 B.C.E.
You cannot work out Moses' time of birth without guessing an arbitrary year.

But there are no books, scrolls or tablets dating to 15th & 14th centuries as Exodus is attributed to Moses, and Joshua were attributed to Joshua. The story of Moses and Joshua don’t app in texts until the 6th century BCE, for example, when Jews were living in exile in Babylon.

That's your opinion, based on misinformation.

Second. There are no independent sources, like from Egypt or from Canaan about either 2 leaders (respectively Moses & Joshua). I know more about Egypt than I do about Canaan, and if Moses was a real living historical figure, when why do the Exodus could never name the King and his daughter in Exodus 1 & 2?

This is frivolous nit picking.

they are nameless, but if Moses was truly born in 1527 BCE, then he as the author should know the name of princess that adopted him. 1527 BCE would put Moses’ birth in the reign of Ahmose I (reign c 1550 to 1525 BCE). Ahmose have 2 daughters, Meritamun & Sitamun, and neither of them were ever reported to adopting a Hebrew baby.

You are grabbing at straws here.
The Bible does not name countless people, because it focuses on important details.
It doesn't even mention the names of all the sons and daughters in the generations of Israel.
What do you take it for... an Encyclopedia?

the Exodus couldn’t also name the king, when the Israelites left Rameses (exodus 12:37), which would have been Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE).

It doesn't even mention the names of Egypt's gods either... It's supposed to glorify Egypt too?
This is nothing to do with the Bible and history.
It is just not relevant to anything here.
I believe you have nothing better.

not only that, Ahmose had never built Rameses, or in Egyptian Pi-Ramesses, which means “House of Ramesses“. Pi-Ramesses was named after Ramesses I, but the city only began construction by his son Seti I (reign c 1294 - 1279 BCE), but the city wasn’t completed until more famous grandson Ramesses II (1279 - 1213 BCE).

Ahmose was the founder of the 18th dynasty, Ramesses I was founder of 19th dynasty.

Since the Exodus cannot named the kings contemporary to Moses, it demonstrated that the author really didn’t know the history of Egypt, and the lives of Ahmose and Thutmose were well-documented. Their lives were commemorated on their respective stone stelae. Hence, exodus is unreliable, in historicity.

Seems to me you just wanted to show what knowledge you have of Egypt's history.
That was not the purpose of the history recorded in the Bible. It's history of people who God had dealings with. From Adam, right down to the followers of Christ.
It's not Egyptian history... or the worship of Ra.

 

[nPeace]

If you're really interested, you'll find sources to review.

There are no sources which provides "proof that the "history" in the Bible is not accurate".
That's why you can only make the claim, but can find no source to support the claim.
I'm interested in actually information, but not just unsupported claims that are false, at that.

 

[nPeace]

You do understand that none of the articles have anything to say about the age of the earth at all?
The inner core is the innermost section of earth that became a distinct layer after it solidified. Originally we had a fully liquid core, but as the earth has cooled over time, the inner part of it solidified creating a 2 layer core structure. The article is discussing ideas about WHEN this happened rather than when earth formed.

Then, would this not be misleading?
Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

If the core is 2.5 years younger than the crust, and the core is 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old ... I'm confused.

 

[sun rise]

There are no sources which provides "proof that the "history" in the Bible is not accurate".
That's why you can only make the claim, but can find no source to support the claim.
I'm interested in actually information, but not just unsupported claims that are false, at that.

To be explicit, there are a very large number of studies about the historicity or lack thereof from the Bible. I'm not going to do your research for you. But a couple of notes:

It depends on what you're looking for. There is scientific evidence that part of the stories in the Bible OT depict actual events and phenomenon. There is, for example, a study that shows that the "REED" (not red - which is a mistranslation) could have parted due to natural phenomenon. So there's a possible natural explanation that did not involve God nor Moses stretching out his hand (presumed miracle) but just Moses knew a bit about the affect of wind on the Reed Sea.

The Jericho battle story OTOH seems more oriented around theology than historicity based on dating of fragments. Maybe the writers of that story created a myth out of an event that happened earlier. See, for example, the history of the Cargo Cults which illustrates how this can happen.

 

[nPeace]

Secondly. The idea that earth has an empty cavern like space like a womb inside her where water is kept locked up, till God opened the Gates is the most Unscientific explanation of the origin of the oceans.....

Not really.
How did Earth get its water?
Earth's water could have originated from interactions between the hydrogen-rich atmospheres and magma oceans of the planetary embryos that comprised Earth's formative years, according to new work from Carnegie Science's Anat Shahar and UCLA's Edward Young and Hilke Schlichting. Their findings, which could explain the origins of Earth's signature features, are published in Nature.

Interactions between the magma ocean and the atmosphere in their simulated baby Earth resulted in the movement of large masses of hydrogen into the metallic core, the oxidation of the mantle, and the production of large quantities of water.

Even if all of the rocky material that collided to form the growing planet was completely dry, these interactions between the molecular hydrogen atmosphere and the magma ocean would generate copious amounts of water, the researchers revealed. Other water sources are possible, they say, but not necessary to explain Earth's current state.

A study suggests much of the water originated in rocks from which Earth is built.
We just grab the material that was there, where Earth formed, and that's where the water comes from.

Because Earth's D/H ratio has increased significantly over time, the D/H ratio of water originally delivered to the planet was lower than at present. This is consistent with a scenario in which a significant proportion of the water on Earth was already present during the planet's early evolution.


If the rock on earth produced this water, you cannot say it was not distributed from a source described as the womb.
In Job 38:21, God asked, Do you know this because you were already born And the number of your years is great?

 

[nPeace]

To be explicit, there are a very large number of studies about the historicity or lack thereof from the Bible. I'm not going to do your research for you. But a couple of notes:

My homework has been done.
You need to do yours.

It depends on what you're looking for. There is scientific evidence that part of the stories in the Bible OT depict actual events and phenomenon. There is, for example, a study that shows that the "REED" (not red - which is a mistranslation) could have parted due to natural phenomenon. So there's a possible natural explanation that did not involve God nor Moses stretching out his hand (presumed miracle) but just Moses knew a bit about the affect of wind on the Reed Sea.

The Jericho battle story OTOH seems more oriented around theology than historicity based on dating of fragments. Maybe the writers of that story created a myth out of an event that happened earlier. See, for example, the history of the Cargo Cults which illustrates how this can happen.

...and? What does this have to do with your claim being false?
These do not provide "proof that the "history" in the Bible is not accurate".

 

[Alien826]

Then, would this not be misleading?
Earth's Core Is 2.5 Years Younger Than Its Crust
The age of the Earth's inner core revised
By creating conditions akin to the center of the Earth inside a laboratory chamber, researchers have improved the estimate of the age of our planet's solid inner core, putting it at 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old.
The results place the core at the younger end of an age spectrum that usually runs from about 1.3 billion to 4.5 billion years

If the core is 2.5 years younger than the crust, and the core is 1 billion to 1.3 billion years old ... I'm confused.

I did answer this earlier, but I don't mind repeating myself.

The first link refers to the difference in "age" between the outside layer of the Earth and core. It is to do with the way mass affects the passage of time. The nearer you get to a large mass, the slower time goes. This results in a 2.5 year difference as noted in the article. I'll try to explain, though I don't understand the math involved. First, we need to examine the concept of "time", and we find there is no absolute time that is ticking away behind everything. I'll quote a scientist I saw on TV once. "Time is that which is measured by a clock". So when they say the core is younger than the outside of the Earth they mean that if it had been possible to have two clocks, one in each place, then they would differ by 2.5 years. Of course there are no clocks, it's just a calculation based on an estimate of the mass of the Earth. It might help to imagine the clocks being "squeezed" by gravity and running slower. That's not accurate but it helps me to imagine it.

Now we examine the second link, which is totally separate from the first. The core of the planet formed some time after the planet itself, and there is an "inner core" that formed later. The whole thing has been around for whatever time, but parts of it formed at different times. If you want an example, think of brewing beer (a subject dear to my heart). The volume of the original mix is say 10 gallons, and the volume of alcohol in it is a number that varies over time, ending at maybe 0.5 gallons if the ABV is 5%. Once again, there is no way to actually measure these things, and what they have done is do experiments that they think represent conditions in the inner core as it formed. Naturally, the number they have come up with is just the latest calculation, and they'll probably change it again.

 

[Alien826]

There are no sources which provides "proof that the "history" in the Bible is not accurate".

If so, is it not equally true that there are no sources which provide proof that the history in the Bible is true?

 

[nPeace]

I did answer this earlier, but I don't mind repeating myself.

The first link refers to the difference in "age" between the outside layer of the Earth and core. It is to do with the way mass affects the passage of time. The nearer you get to a large mass, the slower time goes. This results in a 2.5 year difference as noted in the article. I'll try to explain, though I don't understand the math involved. First, we need to examine the concept of "time", and we find there is no absolute time that is ticking away behind everything. I'll quote a scientist I saw on TV once. "Time is that which is measured by a clock". So when they say the core is younger than the outside of the Earth they mean that if it had been possible to have two clocks, one in each place, then they would differ by 2.5 years. Of course there are no clocks, it's just a calculation based on an estimate of the mass of the Earth. It might help to imagine the clocks being "squeezed" by gravity and running slower. That's not accurate but it helps me to imagine it.

Now we examine the second link, which is totally separate from the first. The core of the planet formed some time after the planet itself, and there is an "inner core" that formed later. The whole thing has been around for whatever time, but parts of it formed at different times. If you want an example, think of brewing beer (a subject dear to my heart). The volume of the original mix is say 10 gallons, and the volume of alcohol in it is a number that varies over time, ending at maybe 0.5 gallons if the ABV is 5%. Once again, there is no way to actually measure these things, and what they have done is do experiments that they think represent conditions in the inner core as it formed. Naturally, the number they have come up with is just the latest calculation, and they'll probably change it again.

I understand the younger older part. It's the math I am not understand.
Thanks for trying. I'd better leave it alone, before my brain blows a fuse.

 

[nPeace]

If so, is it not equally true that there are no sources which provide proof that the history in the Bible is true?

I never claimed proof. So that's unnecessary.

 

[nPeace]

Actually no, the time frame of the Bible cannot be stretched beyond 5-10 thousand years for the age of the Created physical existence, and the time frame facts of Exodus do not fit archaeological evidence. Science and archaeological evidence have tested the Bible and found it an ancient tribal collection of narratives and not historically accurate.

Your Genesis reference to water in the womb of the earth apparently refers to the water that rose up and cause the flood by God's command, which is far outside any physical possibility based on the Noah flood, There is absolutely no evidence of any possible flood such as described in the Bible,

How could that verse be referring to the flood of Noah's day, when it plainly says...
(Job 38:10, 11) 10 When I established my limit for it And put its bars and doors in place, 11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther; Here is where your proud waves will stop’?