However, my contention has been that we need to have high esteem for both science and Scripture and we should never let one be the primary dictator of how the other is understood. When one allows science to determine how they read Scripture, which leads to an inconsistent or nonsensical hermeneutic, then Scripture ceases to be authoritative (i.e. this is just a myth or mere parable with no basis in actual history). Likewise, if someone wants to look at Scripture as though it were some sort of wooden document that ignores the presence of God around us in his creation, then that also leads to a strange hermeneutic that often does not consider the context, genre or intent of the authors as they wrote (i.e. the Scripture writer was giving us an exact timeline to trace back to the creation through the genealogies, and all the language must be viewed as completely literal depictions). To be sure, the authors were not 21st century scientists. Yet, that does not mean they were not communicating mere moral stories that have no foundation in actual historical events, either. Christians need to maintain a balance. I feel I have been consistent in that message throughout my conversations on this board.
