In this country the joke is that the guys are Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic etc, and the last one’s an Anglican! But there’s truth in it: Christian doctrine is not the same as one Christian’s opinion.
Yes, I was aware of stating only one side of the equation in the last post, for clarity: clearly science can help with interpretive options. Examples? Theology itself suggests that “stars falling from heaven” is an apocalyptic motif - used by the prophets of the destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar. Literalists reading Revelation might be tempted to take it astronomically (suspending their “knowledge of critical reality”), or scientists to scoff at “ancient science”, but since the very nature of stars rules the literal interpretation out, it points to the apocalyptic understanding. There is no hierarchy of knowledge - all knowledge is mutually informative and corrective, and that includes the spiritual insights of men of God down the centuries whose shoes we are not fit to unlace.
More generally (and I’m not absolutely sure what you have in mind in your penultimate para) the general knowledge of nature shared by both the Bible writers and us tells us what is supernatural and what isn’t. So science doesn’t tell us that the resurrection is impossible, but that it’s not natural - and the disciples’ “science” was quite up to that conclusion, too. The “impossible” claim comes from materialist metaphysics, not science.
Seems to me many problems come from overestimating what we know. Genealogical Adam is a case in point: genetics makes common human descent from a recent ancestor impossible - Y-Adam and all that. Well, no - the genetics was right, but it was the wrong tool to use, because genealogical science wasn’t considered at all. History turns out to be overflowing with UCAs, so the question is, if one was Adam, why is that important?
And, with respect, I suggest the same need for openness is true for the Bible’s stress on genealogy. There is a body of science (so far under-developed) that explores the inheritance of form as some kind of holistic cellular process rather than only a genetic one. Organisms descend from cells, ie other organisms, and not only from genes. That kind of consideration, a few decades down the line, might transform genealogy from being seen as an irrelevant human construct to a fundamental biological principle. I’m not saying that’s the key to original sin and so on, but it does make non-genetic heredity something real to consider.
Meanwhile, we should seek what the Spirit is saying to through these Scriptures, not take this year’s science as our yardstick.