<<It appears to me that when the evidence fits your view (sudden appearances,
etc) you can use it, when it doesn't fit your view then MY theology is
wrong.>>
Huh? The observational data has NOTHING to do with theology. If you think it
does, please demonstrate how that is. How, for example, does the earth's crust
tell me how to do hermeneutics?
<<What I am looking for is an objective rule with which I can know when
evidence is relevant and when it is not. >>
It is very simple. Just as in a court of law, the judge will rule certain
evidence inadmissible if it is IRRELEVANT to the issue to be decided. If the
issue is whether OJ did it, evidence of his football career doesn't help.
When the issue is textual criticism, evidence from geology is IRRELEVANT.
Again, if you think that it is, please clarify how that can be. How does an
observed datum, like a skull fragment from Africa, tell me what rules of
textual approach I should employ?
Jim