>>758695
>I still have a lot to learn, so could you elaborate on all of that?
As a rule, academic circles simply don't believe the scriptures are the Word of God. Once you keep that in mind, everything coming out of their mouths is easier to understand. They question authorship, dates, etc.. all to validate their previous lack of belief. And they cast enough doubts in younger students that these students have to be exceptionally prepared to counter it. Most of them aren't, and often become worse than even their teachers as they finally prepare for minsitry. Each successive generation is worse than the former.
A lot of this Higher Critical approach started in the mid 1800s, but even those guys nowadays are considered "conservative". A lot of scholars who caused controversy back then are used as standards now (for example, think of Strong's Concordance.. James Strong was hardly conservative, but he's treated like that now. Or Westcott and Hort, who gave rise to stranger, New Testament Greek texts that were once in the minority.. but now considered "standard" now). So yeah, each academic generation becomes worse than the former, where they're now writing 5 volume sets on Gender and Queer Studies in the Old Testament (seriously.. I think Oxford or Cambridge has a huge library set like this).