Bows and arrows are able to kill from the distance too, but during the wars in history they were used simultaneously with swords, while firearms eventually replaced sword as a main direct combat tool- why?
With a few rare exceptions such as Roman legionnaires, swords were never really used as a primary weapon. Swords were usually only pulled out when your actual weapon failed, or used as a status symbol for every day life. Firearms also coexisted with swords for hundreds of years both before and after they were adopted as the standard armament for European Militaries. Interestingly, all the way up until The Great War shock cavalry still used swords or lances (that debate was never quite settled) as their primary armament.
I assume you are thinking of Flintlock muskets in your question, so I will touch on that as well.
In the late 1600s, infantry warfare in Europe was primarily conducted by units of Pike and shot. Musketmen, arquebusiers, and any other ranged units would rain death from afar while pikemen stood by to protect them from enemy cavalry. Horses won't charge into a spikey wall of doom, so when cavalry approached the shooters would hide behind the pikes for safety. These two complimented each other so well that this basic arrangement lasted in some form or another for about 200 years until the invention of the Bayonet.
During that timeframe, the firing mechanism on firearms went from a simple burning wick attached to a leaver to a spark-spitting wheel (like the one in a modern lighter) eventually reaching the flintlock we all know and love. While flintlocks were actually around since the early 1600s it took about 50 years for them to become sturdy enough to swing around, at which point some enterprising souls would stick a knife in the barrel to defend themselves if they didn't have time to reload and thus the Bayonet was born. Of course, plug bayonets had the problem of preventing firing, so the idea was reworked into a sort of side attachment that would allow one to stab their gun and shoot it too! From there, muskets grew long enough to use as a spear and it was a short leap to dropping pikes entirely for muskets with bayonets. This massively reduced logistical overhead, training time, and allowed every man to carry a gun while still being protected from cavalry.
TL;DR Firearms didn't replace swords and pikes on the battlefield, the Bayonet did.
I wrote an extended reply in a similar thread here.
To answer this question specifically, let's briefly evaluate the weapons you reference.
Infantry weapons - the Spear (and sword)
I'm going to twist this slightly as swords were seldom the main battlefield weapon. With the exception of certain civilisations like the Romans, the spear was the primary battlefield weapon with swords being used as a secondary weapon. The spear is by far the most common weapon used in historical warfare. Its effectiveness is measured in numerous ways: the ease of production (basically, make straight pole and forge a spear head, if even that), its ease of use (pointy end at the enemy), its versatility (as a medium-ranged handheld weapon, can be held in numerous ways, can be thrown), and its flexibility in individual combat (with or without shield) and deployment in formations (spear walls, phalanxes, schiltroms, etc.). In short, the spear was the most economical weapon that pretty much anyone can use with modest training, and this was essential not only for trained warriors, but also conscripts and levies.
The Bow
Let's start by debunking a misconception: the bow is not a weapon that everyone can use. It is a specialised weapon. Its manufacture was an artisan craft, which prevented large scale production. While one can make an easy self-bow from a piece of wood, the bows needed for military purposes require more time and skill. The most notable European bows were the English longbow, which were made from imported Spanish and Italian yew, which then had to be crafted through a length process for the quality and strength needed for military use. Then there were the composite bows commonly used by the steppe nomads, and the style was common from the Muslim kingdoms to China, requiring layers of wood, horn and sinew, a process which was extensive in time, resources and crafting skill. Then there's the need to make arrows, a process which, again, was done entirely by hand and shortages were not unusual for military campaigns. The English in their battles against the French at Crecy and Agincourt, for example, lugged around up to half a million arrows - and accounts report that they exhausted this ammunition supply in battle.
Equipment aside, the skill to use a bow for military purposes was selective, and proficiency in the bow was generally regarded as an elite skill above that of "regular" infantry. In warrior cultures, the bow was seen as the most difficult weapon to master and often regarded as the primary weapon of the warrior ahead of the spear and sword (as with the Japanese samurai, who were distinct as mounted archers). For the steppe peoples, archery was a required skill for survival, leading to the widespread ability to use bows from horseback with amazing skill (archery, riding and wrestling at the three "manly" sports celebrated in Mongolia). Great works regarding the training and skill of master archers were compiled (including historical pieces such as Arab Archery - A Book on the Excellence of the Bow and Arrow and Description Thereof c.1500 and Gao Ying's military manual The Way of Archery give a strong insight into the skills and training, which took years to master. In the case of the English, the laws passed by the English kings from Edward III onward mandate the ownership of bows and arrows and regular practice, as such enabling the steady recruitment of skilled archers for defense and campaigning.
The demands of using military bows were excessive of what "normal" civilians could do without specialised training. To even have the strength to use a war bow (the English bows found on the Mary Rose were measured to be over 100lbs with higher specimens, records of requirements to serve in the military in historical Chinese eras rate the bows from 70lbs to 130lbs, and the Turkish bows in the Military Museum in Istanbul also span 90lbs and above) required years of constant training and conditioning, which was perfect for the well-rounded warrior or a specialised corps of archers. Given this specialised training, archers were also warriors and soldiers, capable of bearing arms and armour and being proficient in their use, often doubling as light infantry when needed or using their swords or spears for protection and attack. While you could turn an archer into a spearman or swordsman, the reverse could not be done: a soldier who had never trained in the use of a bow cannot pick one up and use it.
Which leads to the final weapon and the answer to your question.
Firearms
Firearms have several distinct advantages which led to their mass adoption and replacement of most other infantry weapons:
In short, bows weren't that effective and they seldom won battles. Bows provided an important tactical advantage, with impacts on unit cohesion and morale more so than killing the enemy outright. Archers were always used in conjunction with other units to fight the battle, and we often forget that notable "archer" armies also consisted of other fighters (the Parthians who defeated the Romans at Carrhae weren't just horse archers, they rotated with armoured cataphracts; the Mongols used heavily armoured lancers; the English relied in dismounted men-at-arms to carry the fight).
The skill of archery was highly refined and poorly suited to be used in increasingly large battles by more fighters. As warfare became larger, more industrialised and more modernised, it simply wasn't effective enough.
Basically, you can fight a battle without archers, and archers cannot fight a battle on their own.