I found a definite resonance between Cardinal Ratzinger's
"One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time — from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring."
passage -- and what I try to convey with my "How many galaxies could Moses see?" exercise...
~~~~~~~~~~~
And your
"The only thing I'd add to that is I think it is possible for scientific explanation to benefit from the "big picture" outline of creation given in the Bible. I don't see how science can attack the problem of origin of the universe without it."
Is something I, as a scientist who believes strongly in our Creator and His described creation, might well have written -- except I would have ended it with
"I don't see how science can attack the problem[s] of origin and development of the universe without it."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Notice that I said, "development" (rather than "evolution") -- which reprises what I wrote in my first comment here, #21:
No condemnation of scientific study is needed...
Nor is denial of the fact that our Creator -- in His own good time -- caused all to things to be, and to develop according to His plan, and under His control.
~~~~~~~~~~~
That distinction ("development" vs "evolution") brings me right back to the subject of this thread, and deserves a separate comment, rather than just an "appendage" to this one...
Which is the long-winded way of saying: I entirely acknowledge your point and will keep it in mind.
Thank you, dear brother in Christ!