I have presented a “short” version of my ideas on how the Bible and science tell the same story.
It is based on a poetic format. I am trying to not distort the biblical text as stated in the article Christy provided. Sadly I got very little help when I posted. I did get a lot of “Don’t even try.”
I disagree with this statement “If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we should not look here for scientific information about the age or development of the world.” It starts with a faulty assumption, not a fact, but treats it like a fact. Genesis 1 taught the Israelites that the cosmology of their neighbors was false. If God inspired this text, then it should should match nature, its main subject, even if 4000+ years have passed without human understanding. Too many people have accepted that science and theology are not compatible.
I believe Christology is distorted by how we interpret the Genesis texts. Most traditional readings start with a perfect creation followed by a world no longer perfect. Perfection and the loss of perfection are not in the texts. Where God speaks to Eve and Adam, we title the passages with the word curse. God cursed the serpent but the text does not say He curse the people, ground yes, people no. These beliefs distort the relationship God has with humanity.
In most Christologies, the “fall” (concept not in the Bible) dictates the reason Jesus came to redeem people from sin, so the theologies falls apart with a non-historical reading. I believe Jesus had to die because of Genesis 15, not the garden story. The fruit and the humans can be historical or not. Either way, the story holds details that can be supported by science. Death and sin are part of God’s creation. God judges the heart, not our individual missteps. God says that even sin cannot stop His love for us.
I don’t see the story saying there is a break or a fall. As in evolution, it is a point of divergence from what was before. A point where humans become aware of evil. God does not condemn for stupid wrongs as long as we learn to take responsibility and repent of those wrongs.
It is in the correct scientific order if read as circular poetry.
Read my above link
What we understand and what it actually means are probably two very different things.