@fredsbend I don't want to sound like I am arguing it isn't scholarship, with research, argument and logic.

I've argued before that there are many different mechanisms that people use to search for the truth: courts of law, mathematics, philosophy, prayer, arts. Scientific skepticism is just one. But I think exegesis is a different one.

Asking a question that needs exegesis here means you won't get experts in hermeneutics answering and voting on it; you will get scientists. I don't think anyone wins in such a scenario.

We could ask here: Who performed a better gymnastics routine in the finals of the last Olympics, and demand people provide references to support their claims, but it wouldn't be a good use of our time. We can point to gymnastics judges instead, and say even if they don't use references the way we do, they do have careful rules and mechanisms to determine the winner.

@Oddthinking Well, you're right here. There's a large swath of Biblical hermeneutics experts that are superbly biased.

But as for making drastically different conclusions, that doesn't occur as often as you'd think.

It's like any science topic we cover a lot. There's consensus on much of it. Then there's minority opinions. Then there's dissenters (read "obscure" or even "crackpot" opinion).

Where interpretations differ more frequently is the pews. Even from the pulpit, priests and pastors simply don't talk about the verses that make their peculiar beliefs difficult to justify.

@Oddthinking But then there's this, and you're right. Damn my pragmatism! Always does it beat my optimism.