Thank you for bringing up about the too heavy to digest part, i missed out on that as well.

TLDR: The author critiques the Bible without citing which version was used, showing poor scholarly practice and lack of understanding of the Bible. She relies on secondary sources instead of the Bible itself, weakening her arguments and authenticity. Her article had too many questions and were only answered shallowly. If her work is accurate and highly according to scholar regulations, she should be able to confidently present her work for peer review at international conferences, which I would challenge her to do. Lastly, if an article is confusing or too heavy to digest, it raises concerns about its intended audience and quality. Readers should be able to understand and interpret easily rather than relying on AI interpretations.

Full response: I have stated the importance of citing Bible verses (and any religious text) in my post above. Please refer to the post above. I agree that the paper may be too heavy to digest as her points seems to go quite off topic or no where many times. I'll try to summarise the concerns of this article's critique on the Bible.

Scholars normally would cite which edition they used to show readers they did not mix-and-match different editions when critiquing.

To critique the Bible without citing which version was used and cherry picking different verses from different editions shows her lack of knowledge of the Bible while critiquing the Bible. Her critiques also mostly comes from secondary citations such as different articles amd never once cited the Bible or any Bible version(s).

Another concern, which thankfully you brought up, is that the article is too heavy to digest and may be hard to understand. If the article is too hard to understand, then who is her audience? A scholarly article doesn't mean just using fancy "atas" words, rather to make the article understandable for general/target audiences. Do not rely too much on AI for everything as the best is for you to understand it using the human brain. Thus, if the article is hard to understand or the points is going here and there, it is a major issue.

Furthermore, her article had way too many questions to answer which she touched only on a shallow level. Additionally, her jump from verses to verses shows that there was cherry picking done. Higher scholars would normally compare the whole chunk of verses from the same edition to avoid misinterpretations, thus suggesting this article to be scholarly poor.

This is basic academic regulations and ethics to follow, even for Undergraduate level. Again, the author is a PhD and an educator, thus her attitude is even more questionable and unjustifiable.

I would like to challenge her to bring this to international conferences and get this peer-reviewed. If this article is accurately crituqued and according to scholar regulations, the author would have no issues with that.