In a comment on DH 21, David Bokovoy made the following statement.
By what criteria are LDS apologists using biblical scholarship? I believe accepting or rejecting biblical scholarship on the basis of how well it accords with one’s own religious assumptions is a problematic academic approach.
This statement raises all sorts of hidden implications which are rather unclear to me. David, could you answer the following questions to help me understand what you mean/
– Is biblical scholarship a set of methods, or a set of conclusions?
– Are the ideas of biblical scholarship monolithic? Or are multiple interpretations possible when using biblical scholarship?
– Is biblical scholarship inherently inimical to “religious assumptions”?
– Are secular or atheistic assumptions less problematic in interpreting the Bible than religious assumptions?
– Does biblical scholarship inherently and necessarily undermine LDS theological beliefs?