If anything, "(1) and (2) [faith and revelation]" were obstacles to real learning for millennia (just as they continue to be in the Muslim world to this day). Furthermore, faith and evelation" led primarily not to "confidence" in the reliability of "the first 7"This is yet another reason to segregate the different categories of knowledge. To me, they speak of different matters, and thus there should be no conflicts. It's because they're too often mixed together that conflicts result.
To the contrary, I assert that Spiritual understanding overarches everything to believers and thus trumps all other forms of knowledge.
However, as betty boop says, God is author of both revelations: Scriptures and Nature - and therefore, we believers expect them to agree. I have personally never been disappointed.
Nevertheless, when a believer is unable to reconcile between the revelations he must conclude that either he does not yet understand Scripture or he does not yet understand Nature (or perhaps both). But, in the end, a believer will always defer to God. After all, there is no scientific argument against the notion that God created "all that there is" five minutes ago.
In sum, my worldview as a sample Christian is that "all that there is" is God's will and is unknowable in its fulness, that the physical realm is a manifestation of that reality. Hence, I am also Platonist concerning math and physics - that universals, including mathematical structures, exist 'beyond' space/time. For me, it is elegant and peaceful that all other "types" of "knowledge" fit neatly within that context.
And, btw, the radical Platonist theory (Level IV) of Max Tegmark's is the only closed cosmology known to me.