@masterofthetiger@theres.life
I don't think so, though I'm just starting the book. The above quote, I think, validates both. I object to gnosticism, the idea that only those with the secret knowledge can understand. But I think that we ought to study scripture because there's always more meaning to be obtained.

This author writes that (I'm tooting from memory here, but I think this is right) the study of nature (what you or I may call general revelation) and the study of God in his revealed word (special revelation) do not contradict, are not dichotomies, B but are rather dualistic : both are very different perspectives on the same reality, and as such don't contradict. One either has a faulty understanding of or it the other.

I have seen many church kids leave home with a kindergarten understanding of scripture, to be confronted by many proselytizing atheist PhDs, and their biblical understanding is really shallow so cannot really hold up.

I guess my thought is : Straightforward reading is good, meaningful, and true. Shallow reading without pursuing further depth will be lacking.

I think this book is too encourage the religious to be more engaged in science and the non religious to be more engaged in biblical texts. We'll see.