“The Bible is a book that record many human experiences with God, Angles, and various other forms of “Heavenly” communication”
So is the Qur’an, and the Book of Mormon.
”The Bible is not a Science text, it is a theology book”
That does not stop it from including many claims about nature which are subject to scientific investigation. Claims which were impossible to test at the time of writing (so the authors likely assumed they could never be proven wrong) but which have since become possible to test.
”If you go to any Science Text (even History text) of 100 years ago, there are many misunderstandings.”
Are there no misunderstandings in theology? How many denominations of Christianity are there again? How come nobody can agree on the correct interpretations?
”for example the BIG BANG THEORY is more in keeping with Biblical Understanding than it was with Scientific Understanding of the late 1940s”
It is not really remarkable to correctly predict the universe had a beginning, because your odds of being right are 50/50.
However, keep in mind that Genesis specifies an order of creation which contradicts science. It says Earth existed before the sun, the sun before all other stars, and birds before land animals.
You focus only on the one single coincidentally correct assumption (that the universe had a beginning) and carefully ignore the thousands of other assumptions in scripture which were proven wrong.
Somehow, by the magic of apologetics, the places where the Bible was wrong are purely metaphorical but the one time it was right about anything not known at the time of writing, it was literal. Fancy that.
”….. what we know about the universe changes all the time …. And that is not what the Bible is about…..”
Sort of. It doesn’t randomly, completely change from one day to the next. It’s more like a developing photograph which gets gradually clearer.
For example, ancient man thought Earth was flat. Then we found out it was round. Then we discovered it’s not a perfect sphere, but an oblate spheroid. Is that a total 180? Are we likely to discover tomorrow that Earth is a cube?
No, it’s just a slightly more accurate refinement of what came before. That is what you mean when you say “science changes all the time” and that’s a good thing. Being able to admit when you’re wrong and incorporate new data into your understanding is better than holding tightly to a book which disallows that it may ever be updated.
It’s “angels” btw.