Well, that's a non-contextual point. He says that a lot of the biblical literature is relevant but has been put together for the purpose of people control. So, whereas what you said is correct, he is not disputing the value of the texts, but as a whole it has been fucked with so much that it cannot be taken at face value, which is common to many other scholars. If you think who translated the original texts, Chaldeans, Franciscans and Jesuits, it makes perfect sense.
He questions the validity of the Bible and claims the history of the scriptures cannot be trusted.
Well, that's a non-contextual point. He says that a lot of the biblical literature is relevant but has been put together for the purpose of people control. So, whereas what you said is correct, he is not disputing the value of the texts, but as a whole it has been fucked with so much that it cannot be taken at face value, which is common to many other scholars. If you think who translated the original texts, Chaldeans, Franciscans and Jesuits, it makes perfect sense.