The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

Let me translate what you are actually saying: 1) If God decides to write a book, he has to write it the way you want it to be written regardless of what his purpose is for writing it or that he clearly explains how it should be interpreted in other parts of the book. 2) You expect God to write something that would be considered scientifically accurate by today's standards even though that would cause it to be considered scientifically inaccurate by people who lived in the previous three millennia. 3) What you're saying is the equivalent of a mother trying to explain where babies come from to a four year old and you calling her stupid because she told him nothing about fallopian tubes and ovaries. 4) Out of more than a thousand chapters in the Bible God devotes one chapter to the beginning of history so he can explain where sin came from and you insist that this chapter should have been a science textbook. 5) You read the text in English and think every word can only be interpreted in a very specific way even though what you are reading is actually a translation of a translation. 6) You think that if God writes a book he should use the opportunity to teach science when God is actually trying to save people from eternal damnation. If your son was in a burning building, you wouldn't be giving him science lessons. I never said there could have been billions of years IN BETWEEN the first and second day of creation (the evening and morning.) I said there could have been billions of years BEFORE the first day. Read carefully: (1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ------------- insert billions of years here (3) Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (4) And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Verse 1 says God created the heavens and the earth IN THE BEGINNING. Only in the third verse does the creation week begin. There is no explanation as to how long ago 'the beginning' was and there's no reason it could not have been eons ago. So in the beginning God created the entire universe and at some point he also created our solar system, including the earth. The earth was in bad shape probably due to all the volcanic activity. It was covered in water and was dark probably due to all the volcanic ash. The fact that there was water shows that the solar system had already been created as water would freeze or vaporize unless the planet was already at the right distance from the sun. Then, on the first day of creation God said, 'let there be light.' Now you read this as saying that God created light for the first time then and there while I read it as God cleaning up the volcanic ash from the atmosphere so that the light from the sun could get through. But, the sky was probably still covered in clouds so the sun, moon and stars were not yet visible until the fourth day when the clouds were dispelled and these became visible as well. Maybe this was done because prior to that the atmosphere was not yet ready to protect the planet from UV light. And, because all this was written down by someone actually watching the events occur from the ground (in vision), all they could see is darkness prior to the first day, then light on the first day and then the sun on the fourth day and that's how he wrote it down. As already mentioned, the only part of all this that comes into direct conflict with modern science is the creation of plants, animals and people. And, like already mentioned, this is a problem with science, not with the Bible. You think my detective illustration is bad since scientists never rule out anything. The way science works is that when scientists try to figure out how something happened, they come up with a hypothesis and then make predictions based on that hypothesis. So let's use an example that is not part of evolution but still applies, abiogenesys. At this moment in time scientists don't have a working model of how the first living cells emerged from non-living matter. They have some ideas but they are nowhere near solving the puzzle. So you would think that at least some scientists might consider the possibility that God created those first living cells. But you can search all the reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals you want and not once will you find a single scientist proposing a hypothesis and researching the possibility that God created those first cells. With all the scientists trying to solve abiogenesis not one is studying the possibility that God did it, and that is the very definition of bias. Saying that science does not have a bias for naturalism and against God is like saying that there has never been any form of racism in the United States. Of course, if you exclude God from the equation from the beginning and only look for natural explanations for everything you will end up finding only natural explanations.