[dangus]

>>Whoops I forgot the primary rule: Scripture must be interpretted by Scripture first.

I agree

>>and then there's the second one: If science appears to indicate Scripture is wrong, then the science is wrong.

Not really. There is a great capacity for apparent conflict when two agents describe the same thing for drastically different purposes. It is *very* easy to show conflict if I am trying to use one to disprove the other. I would say the issue is understanding the context and meaning of the two statements which appear in conflict.

Here's a little test. Matthew and Luke are both considered infallible. But let's suppose, just suppose, Luke was not in the bible. After you read the geneaology of Matthew, and then Luke, wouldn't it be so easy to presume Luke wrong? There are *serious* discrepancies between the two geneaologies. Only when one understands the context and intent of the two gospels may one understand that they are both true.

[ahadams2]

Certainly context and intent are important considerations within the field of hermaneutics. However (all the English majors out there just flinched:-)) I think there's a major difference between contextualizing different portions of Holy Scripture in relation to each other (which is what you are talking about); and attempting to use extra-Biblical sources as an attempted contextual measure of Holy Scripture, where said Holy Scripture is NOT treated as of greater Authority than the extra-Biblical sources. I know my Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox friends could come up with a few exceptions to that, but I'm trying to keep things simple here, okay? :-)