Barry Hofstetter and Edward D. Andrews also ask, "What then are the strengths and weaknesses of redaction criticism?" However, they come to two different conclusions.
I am not going to enter into any general tirade against criticism, but it is useless to deny that a great deal of what is called criticism is responsible for the uncertainty and unsettlement of feeling existing at the present time about the Holy Scriptures.
For most who are concerned about the wellbeing of the church, they have missed the forest for the trees and the genie is out of the bottle is appropriate sayings. What do I mean?
NO ERRORS, MISTAKES OR CONTRADICTIONS IN THE ORIGINAL BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS They are Bible Difficulties 40+ authors writing 66 books over 1,600 years in three different ancient languages, from hundreds of historical settings and cultures. Then, you have a modern-day reader imposing his 21st century thinking into the Bible instead of taking the meaning out of... Continue Reading →
Higher critics have taught that much of the Bible was composed of legend and myth, that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, 8th century Isaiah did not write Isaiah, there were three authors of Isaiah, 6th century Daniel did not write Daniel, it was penned in the 2nd century BCE. Higher critics have taught that Jesus did not say all that he said in his Sermon on the Mount and that Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees in Matthew 23, as this was Matthew because he hated the Jews. These are just highlights for there are
World-renowned Bible scholars, such as Robert L. Thomas, the late Norman L. Geisler, Gleason L. Archer, F. David Farnell, and the late Gleason L. Archer Jr., among many others, have fought for decades to educate readers about the dangers of higher criticism.
What has happened to our modern-day evangelical Bible scholars? Daniel B. Wallace wrote, "The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations." This is pessimistic, not optimistic. It has a tone of excitement about telling the Christian readers that they cannot really have confidence in anything textual scholars do, i.e., cannot have confidence in the trustworthiness of their New Testament.
Modern objections to the Book of Daniel were started by German scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural. Daniel foretells events that have occurred in history. Therefore, argue these scholars, the alleged predictions must have been written after the events. But the supernatural is not impossible, nor is it improbable if sufficient reason for it... Continue Reading →
Bible critics would tell us that the book of Isaiah is like a tapestry, with many hands contributing to its greater unity. Scholars recognize at least three distinct authors in the text. Is this true?
For about twenty-five centuries no one dreamt of doubting that Isaiah the son of Amoz was the author of every part of the book that goes under his name; and those who still maintain the unity of authorship are accustomed to point, with satisfaction, to the unanimity of the Christian Church on the matter, till a few German scholars arose, about a century ago, and called in question the unity of this book. What is true?