Galileo has given the best definition for the role of expanding (present) truth and I agree with him.
"The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.
With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies."
I was dismissive of his argument (not him) that tradition has something to do with how we understand what God says is immoral. Tradition has normally been used to justify transgression of the law (refer to Christ’s arguments). Gay sex is transgression of the law, therefore tradition has nothing to say about it.
Bryan was dismissive of my argument against the hypocracy of Pete whatshisname when he said my argument was irrelevant. I haven’t done anything to Bryan that he didn’t already do to me.