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.
Give it another 1,350+ years, like the Bible had, and it will.