This isn't specific to Genesis, but the entire New Testament radically modifies not only people's understanding of the Old Testament, but people's understanding of God. People are "no longer under the Law."
And yes, this is understood as a modification of the way people relate to God, and not a contradiction. I get that.
But new discoveries in the field of evolution are also a modification of our understanding of the original basic concept.
Incidentally, the New Testament itself outlines how radically different Jesus' teaching was from what the Jewish people (and their leaders) were expecting. Why do you think they railroaded him and handed him over to be crucified?
There are also a couple other problems here.
1) There were many ancient stories of origins that could've been incorporated into the Bible, and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the canon. It is therefore no surprise that the Bible is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.
If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.
2) While Darwin's theory is actually falsifiable (which also means that it is subject to the scientific method), the book of Genesis is NOT falsifiable. Darwin's theory can be TESTED. The book of Genesis CAN'T.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the Genesis account (however you interpret it) is either untrue or inaccurate. But it does mean that it is simply not subject to any known scientific-type test of its proof.
Or, to put it another way: Genesis talks about WHO did something. Evolution talks about HOW a natural process happens over time.
One can be tested. The other can't.
Again, I'm not alleging contradiction between the old and new testaments. But the New Testament CERTAINLY MODIFIED people's understanding of God.
I believe your right about the opposite is happening, but could it be because more and more scientist are trying to come up with a new theory to combat the vacuous holes in the theory of evolution?
Given that Darwin's basic idea continues to gain acceptance, I think you're incorrect about their being "vacuous holes." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe you're incorrect.
Sorry once again. Obviously that should've been "there" rather than "their." I don't usually type the wrong homophone. It's late. :-)
No, Jesus teaching got back to what the OT was really all about. It was the Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had perverted it for their own gain. THAT'S what they hated about Him, was that Jesus exposed them for the frauds they were.
Salvation has always been through faith, not works. The Law wasn't put in place so that men could earn their salvation but to lead us to the Messiah.
It's always been faith in the Messiah that saved, either faith in His coming, or faith in Him once He came.
Again, we are back to “understanding (your point) ” vs. textual changes that would have to be made to meet the understanding (my point). I’ll rephrase the questions to hopefully make it more understandable:
Would you have to make textual changes in Genesis, (or any other book of the Bible for that matter) to meet our understanding of God?
Would you have to make textual changes in Darwin's “Origin of Species” to meet our understanding of the TOE?
“There were many ancient stories of origins that could've been incorporated into the Bible, and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the canon. It is therefore no surprise that the Bible is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.”
And,
“If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.”
Interesting, this reasoning correlates to the first point. Let’s see what happens when I rephrase your statements:
“There were many earlier stories of origins that could've been incorporated into “the Origins of Species” and there were many books that could have been selected from to make up the todays understanding of TOE. It is therefore no surprise that TOE is not made up of a bunch of contradictory books.”
And,
“If they had been contradictory, they never would've been selected to be included in the first place.”
So why do you think this reasoning does not work with TOE and “Origin of Species?”
“Again, I'm not alleging contradiction between the old and new testaments. But the New Testament CERTAINLY MODIFIED people's understanding of God.”
Which, again, leads the main point of my questions above in bold.
“Given that Darwin's basic idea continues to gain acceptance, I think you're incorrect about their being "vacuous holes." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe you're incorrect.”
There may be more scientists that accept the theory of evolution (TOE), there are more people becoming scientists. But given that now there are more scientists than ever that see greater and greater problems in TOE, I see its eventual downfall for a better theory; and sooner rather than later. I’ll agree to disagree with you on this point.
“While Darwin's theory is actually falsifiable (which also means that it is subject to the scientific method), the book of Genesis is NOT falsifiable. Darwin's theory can be TESTED. The book of Genesis CAN'T.
This one can lead into many directions, so it will need an example of what category of science that would include TOE (geology, zoology, etc.). But let us settle one point at a time; so please answer the questions in bold first.
“Incidentally, the New Testament itself outlines how radically different Jesus' teaching was from what the Jewish people (and their leaders) were expecting. Why do you think they railroaded him and handed him over to be crucified?”
Good question, one that we should get into after we settle the first issue. But please, let us settle the first issue, please answer the questions in bold and then we can converse on the rest of the issues.