why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yom = time

Rubbish ...

וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד

And there was evening, and there was morning, day one.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, Hebrew is awash with terms that can have multiple meanings. That is not license to arbitrarily pick the feel-good one that props up your theology. To relish is to view with great fondness or gusto. A pickle is a difficult situation. Pickle relish is not a preference for the problematic.

 

[sojourner]

if ur going to say that the Bible is not a science book? well dont you think it should be consistant with science because its GODS words? or given by God?

why do Muslims continually try to twist the bible into something it was never supposed to be? The bible never was "God's words."

 

[sojourner]

Again, Hebrew is awash with terms that can have multiple meanings. That is not license to arbitrarily pick the feel-good one that props up your theology. To relish is to view with great fondness or gusto. A pickle is a difficult situation. Pickle relish is not a preference for the problematic.

Mmmm.....

Unexplained pickle relish.....

:drool:

 

[George-ananda]

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy.The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

if your going to argue the Quran also says six days : "Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)

the word used is "ayyamin" meaning (long) periods and NOT 24 hour days like the Bible has it mentioned..


Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

these are just a very few of the errors.. there are many more

and if ur going to say that the Bible is not a science book? well dont you think it should be consistant with science because its GODS words? or given by God?

Because things don't have to be perfect to still be predominately good.

Humans had their hands in what the bible says and what is included so we shouldn't expect it be perfect. We actually get to use our intelligence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

why do Muslims continually try to twist the bible into something it was never supposed to be?

Why do some people continually engage in baseless generalizations?

 

[captainbryce]

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy.The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

You just drew some pretty huge conclusions there based on some faulty logic. "Evening and morning" in this case refer simply to the "end" of one period of time and the beginning of another. But the terms themselves do not define the type of "day" we are talking about. Evening and morning can be used in a literal sense or as a figurative reference. They do not prove the "day" refers to a 24 hour period of time. The proof of that is in Psalm 90:4-7, where it speaks of grass flourishing in the morning and withering in the evening (referring to it's entire lifespan and comparing it to the human lifespan). Suffice it to say, there are many reasons for concluding that the "days" of creation are much longer periods of time than 24 hours. The word "day" in the book of Genesis alone takes on 3 different meanings. The first usage of the word day in Genesis 1 does NOT mean 24 hours.

Genesis 1:5
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

In this passage, "day" does not mean 24 hours. It means the "hours of daylight". That's one definition!

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

In this passage, "day" does not mean 24 hours. It means the "6 days of creation" or "period of time when God created".

So that's just two examples from Genesis where day doesn't refer to 24 hours. The meaning that should be applied to each day of creation is "age" (an unspecified, long period of time), not 24 hours. We can infer that based on what happens on each creation day. The events on day three alone would have taken at least months, and the events that occurred on day six most likely years to accomplish. Furthermore, there is no "morning and evening" for the seventh day of rest, which is inconsistent with previous pattern. This is because we are still in the seventh day of rest. The "eight day" begins when God creates again.

Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

these are just a very few of the errors.. there are many more

and if ur going to say that the Bible is not a science book? well dont you think it should be consistant with science because its GODS words? or given by God?

These are not "errors". They are the result of your lack of understand of how to interpret scripture. The bible does NOT say that the Sun was created on day 4. The sun was created on day 1.

Let's go back and look at what the bible ACTUALLY says:

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In biblical Hebrew, the terms "heavens and the earth" is a reference to the entire creation (the entire universe and everything in it). This means, all matter, energy, space and time was created "in the beginning", sun and all! That was the first thing God did.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

In just a few lines down, we see that A) light exists, B) light is allowed to appear on Earth, and C) it is separated from darkness. These verses establish that the Sun exists and that God has established the rotation of the earth! The sun is the source of light and earth's rotational period is the method by which sunlight can be separated between day and night. As you correctly pointed out, without the sun, there could be no day and no night. And even ancient Hebrew writers with no concept of modern science would have known this simple fact when writing scripture, because day and night without sun is not even logical from a child's standpoint.

So what happens on day 4? Turns out, not very much!

Genesis 1:14
14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened.

Nothing is "created" on day 4. The only thing that happens on day 4 is that "lights appear" in the sky for the first time. In other words, the stars are able to be discerned from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth. The reason they could not be seen before is because when God initially created the earth, the clouds were so thick it wrapped the earth in darkness. When God says "let there be light", he is allowing the light from the sun to penetrate this darkness, so that an observer can discern day from night. On day four, when he says "let lights appear", God removes this cloud layer altogether to allow an observer to actually see the source of these lights. So far, everything recording in genesis (the order) is perfectly consistent with what modern science tells us about the beginning of the Earth. Our planet once had an atmosphere that was much thicker (more similar to Venus) and unsuitable for human life, although carbon dioxide was plentiful and there was light for photosynthesis to take place. The atmosphere becomes thinner and more oxygen based (probably due to the plantlife terraforming it).

Genesis 1:16-18
16 God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

What we see in the later verses on day four do not denote acts of creation. This is merely a recount (in greater detail) of what God had already done. The term is used in all three verb forms, suggesting that whatever was "made", happened at some point prior to day 4. We cannot tell from the way that the sentence is constructed in Hebrew exactly when God made all of these things. It could have been on day 3, day 2, day 1, or "in the beginning". The only thing we know for sure based on this text is that it happened before the end of day 4. However, we also know from previous scripture that God did these things "in the beginning" because that's when God created the heavens and the earth.

The first point of verses 14-18 is to tell us when God allowed those lights to be seen (day 4), not when they were created (day 1). The second point is to tell us what purpose the sun, moon and stars actually serve, not when they were created. The reason God made them "appear" on day 4 is because seeing these lights will be necessary for humans and animal life (which he hadn't made yet). Plant life doesn't need to "see" the sun, moon or stars, they only need "light". But the very next thing God does (on day 5) is create animals (particularly birds who navigate using the stars and determine their migration patterns via the seasons). So from a logical, scientific perspective, it all makes sense to do it in that order.

 

[captainbryce]

You believe God can create the universe, but not in 6 days of 24 hours?

I'm not going to start explaining why it isn't necessarily 24 hour days in the Bible.

I just find it ridiculous that to you it's possible for Him to create the world, but that it would have to take longer than a certain amount of time...

If you believe in an all powerful God, then you should believe He could have done the whole thing in 1 millisecond, if He wanted to...

Nobody is making the claim that it would have had to take God longer than 6 24 hour periods to create the earth. You are quite correct in that he could have snapped his fingers (figuratively speaking) and done it instantly, in a nanosecond if he wanted to. The inverse of that is that he could have taken millions or billions of years (as much time as he wanted to) to create it because God is not constrained by "time".

The question isn't how COULD God have done it. The question is, what DID he actually do, and why? And the evidence (both biblical and scientific) suggests that he took periods of time that was considerably longer than 6, 24 hour periods, and that he has specific reasons for taking long periods of time and for creating in the exact order that he did.

 

[Skwim]

People follow the Bible, errors and all, because they've been told it's the word of god. The errors are routinely dismissed or ignored as irrelevant, typically without any concern for the folly of such an enterprise. It's as if the brain of the believer was compartmentalized wherein everything that conflicts with one's needed belief can be put on cold storage and forgotten: "Don't bother me with Biblical conflicts and contradictions. They're not part of my belief structure." In other cases all kinds of rationalizations are constructed to make sense of problematic passages, even to grasping at straws or to the point of silliness. I've read all kinds of rationalizations, some quite lengthy, but almost none that have not resorted to some kind of fallacious reasoning,

Want to claim that an omniscient, benevolent god wrote or inspired the Bible? Fine. Then I would think he would have at least made sure all its parts would be so clear so as to never raise a hint of doubt about its soundness, or cause even the most minor dispute. Here is a book that has people arguing over the meaning of not only passages, but single words. Meanings that speak to the very nature of its author. One translation says X, while another says Y, and yet a third says Z. What kind of all powerful, all knowing, and all loving creature would do or allow such a thing; purposely create a guide book with pitfalls? It even has people fabricating theological "facts" so as to shore up their belief. Some suggest the Bible is like a word puzzle in which the true meaning is hidden from all but the initiates of the inner circle. Nice, but meaningless when there are so many "inner circles," and there's no way to validate such an assertion; merely a pie-in-the-sky delusion to affirm the correctness of one's belief in a sea of competing beliefs.

Now, I don't really care what one believes as long as it doesn't impinge on the welfare of the world or my happiness, but please don't try to tell me that your particular pig in a poke is genuine when I can see there's no pig in there at all.

 

[Dani]

Going back to Dani's issues with the Bible ...let me suggest to him (Dani) a verse from the Qur'an...

He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 3 - The Family Of Imran

So why tear down the Bible ( the Torah and the Gospel) when it was a revealed book?

no, the bible does in fact have a few miracles here and there about science, because it was the word of God however its been corrupted. thats what we all muslims believe (and so do the biblical scholars lol)

 

[Sha'irullah]

This has now become my primary issue with the Qur'an as oppose to the Bible. The Qur'an places so much unverified emphasis on being the Word of God yet the Bible often dances around this and claims to be "inspired by god(holy spirit)".

The degree of historicity found in the Bible is practically nil if you take their accounts as word for word events.
The Bible has errors because it was written by men and compiled by men. The Bible is an anthology of Semitic folklore that has taken inspiration from many sources. The OT is often regarded as "for the Jews" which is total rubbish considering its fables span every nearby culture surrounding.
The events are myths with truths and lessons and every bit of content in the Bible is to be debated, analyzed and rejected if need be.

There is nothing wrong in treating the Bible as a theological hypothesis told through various compositions.

The mistake with the Qur'an is that it copies these stories and claims them as true not knowing there is such little factual information found in them.
The Qur'an almost discredits itself by doing this to be honest.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

no, the bible does in fact have a few miracles here and there about science, because it was the word of God however its been corrupted.

Hi Dani, Do you believe that what different sects of Islam understand about Quran in our time, is perfectly correct or, do you believe there are many man-made Tafseers and interpretations and doctorines exist in different sects, which are a later additions?
Obviously there are many differences between Islamic sects as how they understand what Islam teaches, or how to interpret Quran. You have Shias, Quranies, Sunnies, Ahmadies, and again each one of these have other schools of thoughts.
What I am getting at is, one of the ideas that was added by some of Muslim Religious Leaders, was that the Bible is Corrupted. You think this is what Quran teaches, but I am about to show you that, In fact, there are evidence that, Prophet Muhammad and early Moslems, did not believe that the actual Text of the Injils or Torah was corrupted. They believed that the meaning of them were twisted and misinterpreted.

Upto 315 years after Muhammad, the recorded Historical evidence show that, Muslims believed the intention of Quran was to say that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted the Text of their Book. For example:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas (Cousin of Muhammad) said [the Jews] alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the words from His book, they alter and distort their apparent meaning” – with this Hadith it is clear that those who walked with the Prophet (PBUH) believed the text of the Torah was original, while holding the view that the Jews perverted their interpretation.


In the year 796 Abu l-Rabi Muhammad ibn al-Layth (a courtier to Kalif Harun al-Rashid ) penned a letter to Constatine VI stating that the word “tahrif” should be read as the Jews had distorted their sense. “Whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned, but the people of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation”. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and he then goes on to use the text of the Torah as proof of the authenticity of the Torah (a belief both he and the kalif share).

300 year after Muhammad still, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani was of the opinion that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original and that the Jews had inadvertently made mistakes in their translations.


It is only in later years, that some of Moslems started to say the actual text of the injil or Torah were corrupted (Perhaps as a way to justify Islam to the people of the Book)
Source:

Islam teaches the Torah is corrupted / tahrif, but what does that mean? | Judaism and Islam – comparing the similarities between Judaism and Islam


Thus as regards to the verses in Quran which Moslems often refer to as corruption of Bible, it seems to me, those verses of Quran are mistranslated and misunderstood.

For example the verse 5:41, here is the translation by Muhammad Asad correctly:


"O APOSTLE! Be not grieved by those who vie with one another in denying the truth: such as those who say with their mouths, "We believe," the while their hearts do not believe; and such of the Jewish faith as eagerly listen to any falsehood, eagerly listen to other people without having come to thee [for enlightenment]. They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context, saying [to themselves], "If such-and-such [teaching] is vouchsafed unto you, accept it; but if it is not vouchsafed unto you, be on your guard!" [Be not grieved by them-] for if God wills anyone to be tempted to evil, thou canst in no wise prevail with God in his behalf. It is they whose hearts God is not willing to cleanse. Theirs shall be ignominy in this world, and awesome suffering in the life to come-" 5:41

al-Ma`idah 5:41

Whenever we do a Tafseer, we need to know the History, and reason why those verses are revealed. We need to know the story behind the revelation of each verse.
The Verses that Quran revealed regarding "Tahrif" It has to do with writing certain Books and Interpretations regarding Injil or Torah, at the time of Muhammad. You would know that if you do your research as to what was the reason those verses were revealed historically.

Yes, There are verses in Quran that talk about "Modification" and alteration by the Religious Leaders. however, those refer to misinterpretations of ONLY particular cases.

One of them is concerning the penalty of adultery, when the prophet was to explain the penalty of Adultry to some Jewish leaders.
Which the Quran reveals "They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context" See Quran 4:44-46

It is clear, in that instance, by perverting the Text is meant "Misinterpretation" and "twisting" as the Torah still contains the verse that says punishment for adultery is death by stone.
Another example is: "A part of them heard the Word of God, and then, after they had understood it, distorted it, and knew that they did so." Quran 2:75
This verse, also indicates that the meaning of the Word of God hath been perverted, not that the actual words in the Text of Bible are changed.

Another example,: "Woe unto those who, with their own hands, transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say: ‘This is from God,’ that they may sell it for some mean price." Quran 2:79

This verse was revealed regarding the Jewish leaders who were living at the time of Muhammad. For they had written false interpretations to refute the claims of Muhammad.

As regrads to 5:13 and 5:14, I believe this is the correct translations, by Asad:

"Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden-[so that now] they distort the meaning of the [re-vealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good."

al-Ma`idah 5:13


Thus again, Quran is saying they distorted the meaning of the Text. It does not say, the actual text was distorted. Forgetting the teachings, also does not indicate, it was ommited from the Text of Injil, it can only mean from their mind. They did not care to follow them anymore.

thats what we all muslims believe (and so do the biblical scholars lol)

Just because Muslims believe this, it does not make it ture.
The Biblical Scholars Never could prove Bible is corrupted. they might have shown there are some minor inaccuracies, but nothing major that can be called corruption in the overall and important teachings.


- Peace

 

[james2ko]

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy.The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?

Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

these are just a very few of the errors.. there are many more

and if ur going to say that the Bible is not a science book? well dont you think it should be consistant with science because its GODS words? or given by God?

The earth, sun, moon and stars had been created in the beginning (Gen 1:1), perhaps billions of years before the first day of the renovation in Gen 1:2 (Psa 104:30). Hebrew scholars tell us the Gen 1 account was narrated from the perspective of the surface of the earth. With this in mind, we can logically piece together the events in Gen 1:

God said let there be "light" [ore] (illumination). In Amo 8:9, the AV translates this term as "clear". The light spoken of in Gen 1:3 was probably a clearing of the mist and thick water vapor/clouds that encircled the earth. The light of the pre-existing sun and moon was unable to reach the watery surface of the earth, until God initiated the clearing of the atmosphere (Gen 1:3-5). Enough was done on the first day and second day to make the atmosphere translucent but not yet transparent. Similar to a very cloudy day during daylight hours.

Plant life was brought forth on the third day. The remaining clouds were cleared away on the fourth day and the atmosphere was finally made transparent enough for the sun to be located from the surface of the earth (vs 14-18). Plant life would have only needed to survive one cloudy day.

 

[InChrist]

Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

The Bible also says throughout that God is Light and gives Light. Then in Revelation (21:23; 22:5) it is revealed that the time will come when there will be no more need of the sun or moon because God Himself will give illumination and the Lamb will be the Light which the nations walk in. So if God created plant life before the sun then I see no problem. Since I believe God is the Source of all life and light in the first place He easily could directly sustain plants for a few days.

 

[captainbryce]

The Bible also says throughout that God is Light and gives Light. Then in Revelation (21:23; 22:5) it is revealed that the time will come when there will be no more need of the sun or moon because God Himself will give illumination and the Lamb will be the Light which the nations walk in. So if God created plant life before the sun then I see no problem.

That verse (and indeed the entire book of Revelation to be honest) is told from a symbolic perspective. It is not literal! "the Lamb will be the Light" is a metaphor (ie: you "light" up my life). It is not saying that Jesus will literally radiate as a light source to physically illuminate everything. And if that is the conclusion you are drawing from such a reading, then you really missing the point of the passage altogether in my opinion.

Since I believe God is the Source of all life and light in the first place He easily could directly sustain plants for a few days.

True, he COULD if he wanted to. But the question isn't what COULD God do, the question is what DID he do. And clearly, the fact that he "separated the light from the darkness" (and called the light DAY and called the darkness NIGHT) tells us that the source of this light was not himself, but the sun. Because rotation of the earth is how light is separated from darkness (by the sun).

 

[InChrist]

That verse (and indeed the entire book of Revelation to be honest) is told from a symbolic perspective. It is not literal! "the Lamb will be the Light" is a metaphor (ie: you "light" up my life). It is not saying that Jesus will literally radiate as a light source to physically illuminate everything. And if that is the conclusion you are drawing from such a reading, then you really missing the point of the passage altogether in my opinion.

True, he COULD if he wanted to. But the question isn't what COULD God do, the question is what DID he do. And clearly, the fact that he "separated the light from the darkness" (and called the light DAY and called the darkness NIGHT) tells us that the source of this light was not himself, but the sun. Because rotation of the earth is how light is separated from darkness (by the sun).

I cannot argue that the book of Revelation does not contain symbolism, but I don't think the entire book is symbolic. I agree that in the scriptures Light usually represents understanding, as in one's mind being enlightened by Christ. Yet, often I think the physical can be a picture of a spiritual truth. Jesus used physical examples to teach spiritual realites when He taught the parables. I believe in Revelation it is shown that God literally will dwell with humanity at the future point of the new heaven and new earth providing light in terms of spiritual understanding and for all life sustaining needs. After all, the scriptures describe God as a consuming fire.

 

[captainbryce]

I cannot argue that the book of Revelation does not contain symbolism, but I don't think the entire book is symbolic.

Revelation is a prophetic vision (a dream if you will) of what John saw, and his interpretation of that vision. It heavily relies on symbolism and metaphors, where certain images are used to represent something else. Yes, there are some passages that are purely literal, such as when God says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End". We know that this is literal because elsewhere in the bible it describes God as being eternal. But what is literal and what is allegory in Revelation can easily be determined just by comparing the scriptures written in the book of Revelation to other scripture. If/when a passage in Revelation seems to contradict scripture elsewhere, then the reader must be misinterpreting it by taking it in a literal sense when they shouldn't be. The Lamb being the light is clearly a metaphor. For one thing, Jesus is not a literal Lamb, he is a person! To take it literally would not make any logical sense. So right there we have a metaphor within a metaphor. The logical reading of the passage would be to conclude that Jesus being the "light" is also a metaphor, and not literal visible "light".

I agree that in the scriptures Light usually represents understanding, as in one's mind being enlightened by Christ. Yet, often I think the physical can be a picture of a spiritual truth. Jesus used physical examples to teach spiritual realites when He taught the parables. I believe in Revelation it is shown that God literally will dwell with humanity at the future point of the new heaven and new earth providing light in terms of spiritual understanding and for all life sustaining needs. After all, the scriptures describe God as a consuming fire.

I agree with all of that. This is a logical and consistent way of understanding scripture based on the context given within the Book of Revelation and outside of it.

But that's not what you suggested initially when you referred to God being the "light" without the sun in Genesis 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you were suggesting that the light that God created in the beginning was literally coming from himself and not the Sun.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The degree of historicity found in the Bible is practically nil if you take their accounts as word for word events.

And this is -- word for word -- one of the most inane sentences I've come across in these forums.

 

[Sha'irullah]

And this is -- word for word -- one of the most inane sentences I've come across in these forums.

So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve? You believe the world was literally created in 6 days?
You believe that Jacob literally wrestled with a supernatural being for hours on end?

I pity you for your imagination.

Please provide the evidence for Abraham, Noah, and Moses's existence.

 

[captainbryce]

So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve? You believe the world was literally created in 6 days?
You believe that Jacob literally wrestled with a supernatural being for hours on end?

I pity you for your imagination.

It would behoove you to save your pity for yourself. The first and last example you gave has nothing to do with "historicity". None of these events can be proven or disproved with any historical records, thus demonstrating the futility of your argument. What you are arguing is whether or not certain events recorded in the bible are "scientifically possible". But you have failed to take into account the supernatural nature of God and angelic beings, again making your comparison futile. The supernatural cannot be proven scientifically. If it could, it would not longer be considered "supernatural", but natural. The whole point of calling something supernatural is that we don't understand it. So it just comes down to a matter of faith. Either you believe in supernatural occurrences (things that defy our current understanding of science) or you don't. But events that allegedly occurred thousands of years ago (of which there is no record of beyond the biblical accounts) cannot be proven or disproved. So your argument that they are NOT historical is essentially baseless.

Please provide the evidence for Abraham, Noah, and Moses's existence.

He doesn't need to provide evidence that those specific individuals existed. Fist of all, the fact that there is a written account of them in numerous writings is evidence enough. The fact that the church decided that all references to these people would be "canonical" and include them in the bible is irrelevant. YOU need to provide evidence that they DIDN'T exist, because you are the one making the claim that biblical record of their existence is false. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you! Secondly, there are other people in the bible who are mentioned by name where there is extra-biblical evidence of their existence (Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, etc). We know that these people existed during the same period of which they were referenced in the bible because there is archaeological evidence that confirms their existence. We also know that certain historical events recorded in the bible actually happened through extra-biblical sources (ex. the fall of Babylon to Persia). So your suggestion that there is practically no historical truth to the bible is simply not accurate. At best you could argue that not all of it can be historically proven. But unless you have direct, extra-biblical evidence that contradicts specific events or discounts the existence of specific individuals mentioned, you have no case!

Regarding the 6 literal days question...YES I believe that the earth was created in six literal days. And any attempt to disprove this scientifically (or through historical accounts) will fail! The question you should first be asking yourself (and probably anyone who claims to believe in this account of creation) is WHICH literal definition of the word "day" are you using? Because that's an important discriminator in the conversation.