Much of my time is spent responding to various attacks on the Bible. There is definitely no lack of attacks to respond to. I am also someone who appreciates Karl Barth and Barth made this interesting statement:
“The maintaining of the Word of God against the attacks to which it is exposed cannot be our concern, and therefore we do not need to worry about it. Watchmen are appointed and they wait their office. The maintaining of the Word of God takes place as a self-affirmation which we can never do more than acknowledge to our own comfort and disquiet. We can be most seriously concerned about Christianity and Christians, about the future of the Church and theology, about the establishment in the world of the Christian outlook and Christian ethic. But there is nothing about whose solidity we need to be less troubled than the testimonies of God in Holy Scripture. For a power which can annul these testimonies is quite unthinkable.” (Church Dogmatics I.21.1)
When I read this, I both agree and disagree with Barth. In a sense, Barth is correct that we do not need to defend the Word of God. The Word of God is not something weak that must be defended. However, in another way there a great need to respond to the attacks of critics. When I respond to attacks, my concern is not to protect the Bible but to address confusion and misunderstandings of people. There are people who reject the Bible over some rumour they have encountered and I seek to keep the Bible on the table as something that needs to be considered. What I do does not strengthen the Bible or change it in any way. It is only about helping people to see the Bible clearly and allowing them to make sound decisions. I do not worry about the Bible, but I do worry about what people think of the Bible and how they interpret it.