Of course for the modern, there is no such thing as revelation. All that one can trust is what can be valided through the senses and by deductive reasoning. Knowledge which has its source in revelation is outside those two systems is a priori knowledge, and of course is a trump card. One arguement that the modern has against the idea of revelation is that it is not open to other forms of validation.
The scientific method is a way to use deductive reasoning to make sense of experimental data. The scientist cross checks theories with observations and experiments. Experiments and observations are cross checked with systematic thinking; definitions, descriptions and deductions.
For quite some time I have been thinking about the nature of revelation. I don't beleive that the writers of scripture simply put the pen in hand and it all just flowed out. It was NOT some sort of divine automatic stream of writing in which the writer had no control. I really beleive God's acts of providence and miricles cross checked the prophet's and apostle's Words. The words gave interpretation to the events. (Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection was God's ultimate divine act but without interpretation of the events, it is simply a political murder.) In a sense, there is a cross checking validation of revelation. It is very different from that of the scientific method but cross checking none the less.
For the Christian with a modern point of view, they often would like to cross check revealed knowledge in the Bible with archeological data and other scientific evidence. While not entirely off track, the cross checking should be from within revelation itself, not from an outside source.