The Dangers of Bible Scholars There is a similar article towhat will be written here but it focuses on archaeologists Not biblical scholars.  In some ways these schoalrs are worse than archaeologists as they study the words of God and other ancient mss. and should really know better.  But they don't.  While having the truth right in front of them, they do not see what the Bible is saying and turn away to other ideas they think are more credible. One of the problems that create this situation is that many Biblical scholars seem to put the same weight upon secular manuscripts as they do with the Bible or they make the Biblical mss. to be of lesser value. In doing this these scholars tend to ignore the warnings of the Bible concerning true and false right and wrong doctrines, teachings, and they do not consider copycats or that the cultic adherents would adapt their beliefs to fit what the gospels teach. usually, these people make the false accusation that it was the biblical writers who did the adapting and stealing but can never present a credible argument to back up these charges . When one does some real investigations, they will find that most cultic writings that we have come from a later period than the Bible thus there is no possibility that the biblical writers copied from these false religions. This piece of truth doesn't stop the biblical scholars, and maybe I should make a distinction between christian and secular but that is difficult as many christian scholars also tend to follow the secular conclusions and compromise themselves for whatever reason. Another problem that arises out of these scholars studies is that they tend to over-think a situation or problem.  They resort to human understanding and ideas forgetting thatthe Bible is not a human book and though humans were a part of the writing process they were NOT the sole authors. Though most secular scholars would assume so and try to make it a human product so they can sut there re-writing history without fear. Far too often, these people talk about and search for 'the sources' the biblical writers used.  The spend years theorizing about where this information came from and some (Roinson/Hoffmann/Kloppenborg) actually construct their own source from thin air.  These three are only a few who have sought to re-construct 'Q', the supposed original gospel writings from which the writers of the biblical gospels drew their information.  Problem is, they do not have any copy or even fragment of this so-called source nor even an ancient reference to it and have sought to 'reconstruct' this ms. through a method which hap-hazardly takes a quote from different biblical passages and incoherently join them together to establish the 'Q' source. Such acts ignore what both Paul & Peter stated about the source for the Biblical books--God, the Holy Spirit and the fact that Matthew & John were eyewitnesses to all that Jesus said and did.  Then Mark and Luke had access to those who were apostles and other eye-witnesses thus making a 'Q' source worthless. But I digress, one has to watch carefully what Biblical scholars say because it is easy to think they are christian and many talk like they are and some even worship in churches yet what they say is not of Christ.  Take this example from Dr. James Sanders, in his essay From Prophecy toTestament: an Epilogue, found in the book of the same name edited by Dr. Craig Evans, pg. 258: "The ultimate fulfillment of Torah as prophecy will surely be human recognition that God is truly One, the ultimate Integrity,both ontological and ethical of reality. The One God of all cannot be limited to any one perception of God whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other. This is probably the greatest hurdle most Christians have to face. Not only does popular christianity think the Trinity includes three distinct gods; it is basically idolatrous in its making of Jesus a personal diety. Popular Christianity also makes 'of the devil' a rival deity." If one is not careful they would be surprised and confounded by such heretical teachings by one who considers himself a christian.  This is the danger of listening to much to biblical scholars.  Yes they discover many things we need to think upon and know but most also do not come from a position of belief in God's word, its  manner of writing, its warnings and its teachings nor do they accept what it says in all of these areas. Found on the same page is the following quote,from the same author: "Our first obligation as scholars is to see if we can appropriately understand the canonical thrust of the Bible in critical terms.  To do so, however, cannot limit ourselves to working in an academic box, scoring wscools of thought against each other in a quest for 'the meaning of a text' while packing footnotes to do so." The passage continues the theme that we cannot rely on God to grant us the meaning of the Biblical words but we must lean to our own understanding, allowing false religions to help determine their meanings.  In other words Christianity and the Bible do not hold the truth but it can be found with a collective effort sans God. Most Biblical Scholars start from the wrong source and do not realize that the Bible is not on the same level as other ancient works and that they cannot grasp its meaning without the aid of ther Holy Spirit. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, these scholars are too arrogant to submit themselves to this idea and really learn what is the truth.  One must be careful when listening to a person who describes themselves as Biblical scholars as one needs to investigate who they really are and what they really believe first before giving them an ear.