Seeking to define art form in its most encompassing essence, Hans-Georg Gadamer invokes the considerable bestowal from many great minds as he explores the motivation for philosophy, literature, music, and visual arts. Gadamer leans heavily on Plato, Kant, Goethe, Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Bach—to name only a few greats contributing to a work concerned with creative-interpretation, symbology, and interpreter-creativity. In Foreword, Robert Bernasconi forewarns: ‘This book contains a selection of previously untranslated essays . . . . The main item in the collection is the lecture series “The Relevance of the Beautiful,” Gadamer’s most sustained work devoted specifically to the question of art.’ And in Editor Introduction: ‘We can find in Kant another route which avoids making either taste or genius the ultimate standpoint. This alternative route is by way of Hegel’s lectures on art, whose proper significance has, Gadamer believes, suffered in consequence of its neo-Kantian interpretation. For it is Hegel whom Gadamer has in mind when he writes here of an art where “humanity encounters itself” . . . ‘
            On ancient claims to truth, Gadamer asserts: “. . . this ancient and serious problem always arises when a new claim to truth sets itself up against the tradition that continues to express itself through poetic invention or in the language of art.” Truly, the relevance of beauty construes itself on individual perception; and we have to look no further than modern religion to discern the language of art and artful innovation.
               As Hans-Georg contemplates Christian art contribution, he draws from Hegelian philosophy claims: “. . . to have comprehended the truth of the Christian message in conceptual form . . . . even the deepest mystery of Christian doctrine . . . . and . . . has constantly stimulated the course of thought in the West as a challenge and invitation to try and think that which continually transcends the limits of human understanding. In this ambiance was the content of understanding developed through Middle Ages Christian art, Greek and Roman art and literature revival, and the great social transformations and religious changes with which the nineteenth century began. But only a superstitious egocentricity would allow Gadamer’s primitive reserve to state insolvability in the biblical Symbols and Numbers. For, by the late Twentieth Century, THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified had penetrated and exposed the Symbols barrier, which had long held the Scriptures hostage.
          Art is described as a “religion of culture” on the one hand and ’modern artist’ provocation on the other. Gadamer further describes art as an experience; wherein, its spirit enlivens us. The Relevance of the Beautiful is summarized: “The work of art transforms our fleeting experience into the stable and lasting form of an independent and internally coherent creation.”
             In The Festive Character Of Theatre, Gadamer compares festival and festive and the community constituted ‘immediacy’ displayed by players and onlookers. Here, at the festival, one “can still act for himself and succeed in rising up and letting what presents itself to him exist in the elevated form that crowns the festive moment.”
          Pursuing Composition And Interpretation, we encounter tensions between the artist’s practice and the interpreter. Where: From the artist’s point of view, interpretation appears arbitrary and capricious, if not actually superfluous. And while an artist might ad-lib much of his composition, seeking merely to create a moment pleasing to the eye and flowing into his developed perspective, only the non-artist seeks a hidden meaning in inert expression. For, art plays with a balance of color and objective reference to the form most appealing to artist imagination.
          Carried over into an extended essay, The Play Of Art compares: “Play is an elementary phenomenon that pervades the whole of the animal world and, as is obvious, it determines man as a natural being as well . . . . and in whose formative lay we see an excess over and above what is strictly necessary and purposive.”  Gadamer summarizes the essence of motivation with: “We must not lose sight of the ontological significance of mimicry and mimesis if we are to understand the essential sense in which art possesses the character of play, . . .” And in addressing the finer points of language, we should note the reproduction in mimicry and the imitation in mimesis.
             Further wisdom is injected from the pen of Thomas Mann, on the motivation to art form: “The myth is the foundation of life, the timeless schema, the pious formula into which life flows when it reproduces its traits out of the unconscious.” Joseph Campbell adds: ‘. . . those mythologies themselves will be known to be but the masks of a larger—all their shining pantheons but the flickering modes of a “timeless schema” that is no schema.’ Marett would contribute, ‘. . . in The Threshold of Religion: certain elements of “make believe” are operative in all primitive religions.’ Even here, in the metaphysical, we encounter the art form.
           The artist is a thespian at heart and not unlike the most primitive role-player, painter, or story-teller, is like a child at play’; where the primitive’s evolution to mythos-religiosity can be ascribed to the play-sphere, to the replacement of primitive circumstance with modernism’s supernatural conducts role. Thus, we should reiterate Rene Descartes profoundness, “I think, therefore I am.”  After, Descartes’ example, Jean-Paul Sartes defined mankind’s role-playing to ‘existentialism,’ ‘choosing freedom of choice and responsibility as a decisive factor in deciding the character of fate.’ 
               We can consolidate these ideations into consensus. Thus, in the ‘existentialism’ sphere, mankind plays a role as creative artist: unmindful of psychological repercussions, philosophic debate, or even the pleasure afforded by his endeavor. Gadamer understands the subject and intellectualizes his philosophy. But in the end, these detailed motivations exposes one to excessive banality and require copious refreshment; for the topic is dehydrated, over-stated, and written in vacuous expressionisms.

In, Is The Bible True? introduction, page 1, author Jeffrey Sheler notes: “Those who had hoped that modern science and archaeology would discover some incontestable proof of the Bible’s veracity have been disappointed. Yet have those who once arrogantly anticipated the Bible’s collapse under the weight of post-Enlightenment rationalism.”  While post-Enlightenment rationalism might be envisioned, one cannot detect rationalism in Sheler’s bibliographic assembly.
             Employing an impressive 622 bibliographic testimonials to represent opposing viewpoint, Sheler fairly and logically defended the status quo; yet was there a propensity to exalt the faith cause beyond its evolutionary effect.  A rich assortment of acclaimed academicians and archaeologists, perhaps Bible scholars in the accepted definition, all find the gospels and other New Testament insertions devoid of concrete assertions and some even of complete agreement, thus, they turn to extraneous sources in an endless quest for etiological acclamation. 
             In this critique, Ben Winter suggests: They need not have gone to such extremes; the Bible is its own best witness. All monotheism evidence possible to be discovered resides between its covers. And to investigate its credence is to question the seed line’s God existence. Yet, such enquiry continues and though it can never successfully establish or deny deity existence. More specifically, however, Immanuel Kant did deduce the ultimate generic observation: “No man has the intellect to deny another man’s god.”  In this regard, we can add: “Neither can any intellect prove omnipotent existence.”
            Though impressively arrayed with academe credentials, Sheler’s bibliography is filled with differing viewpoint; and those empowered voices discredit academe’s duty to semantic integrity: that is, one would expect academe to develop a probative reasoning toward unison; but, above all other disciplines, in the metaphysical area, academe’s bulwark of linguistic skills, knowledge, and inescapable amour-propre, must be ultimately reduced to novitiate speculation, unable to transcend personal desideratum. The tendency is not to their discredit, but merely reflects a certainty in Homo sapiens susceptibility. And concerning absolute certainty, Genghis Khan or Columbus existence is no more confirmed than Abraham or Jesus Christ; all must rely on historical records for their immortal place in cognizance. (In reality, Genghis Khan is said to be a nom de guerre; his real name is reported to be Temujin.)
             There remains to be discovered, any pertinent document, substance, or objet d’art, with sufficient integrity to completely remove itself from applicative doubt and thus be elevated to metaphysical surety.  Mostly, consensus or diverging criticism in the metaphysical arena, from any quarter, can be accredited to opinion only and thereby merit its just due. Today’s truth represents tomorrow’s relative laughing-stock.
            In Sheler and other author’s reference to Bible principals, always there exists a consensus of extended utility, generously and generically assigned to reinforce Christian and Jewish utilization. But in this generous accommodation, scholarship is questioned when exegetes ignore multiple nominations sharing the spotlight as Bible principals: i.e., Gentiles, Israelites, Jews, and Christians. Problematically, indistinct New Testament time frames, hidden in difficult language, direct intellect in different directions and confuse the overriding consanguinity in pure blood and exogamous degree, the fulfillment schedule, brevity in the cause espoused, and in principal characterization.
Principal consideration is not propounded in Scheler’s bibliography crying for such particularity. His and bibliographic source do not acknowledge “Ten Ages” in the entire Hebrew God experience; additionally, they invent extensions to the consanguinity restricted to an ethnic few.
            On page 38, and many other pages, the reference to Jewish Christians is a misnomer. If Christianity is a valid nominative, then Jewish cannot be applicative in late first century environs, in succeeding time frames, and in today’s messianism climate; that is, if Christianity is valid and should scholarship address the clear limitation imposed by Ezekiel 37:11-:28. Prior to Jewish underpinnings destruction, the name was proper, but not after.
            Page 40 offers an unacceptable date for John’s Revelation, there assigned to Domitian’s reign closure in early or mid-A.D. 90s. In no reasonable interpretation could John’s cryptic vision be construed as having occurred after A.D. 60 (Ben Winter computation); otherwise, John’s Revelation will have recorded experience and not visionary expectation, however close at hand.
            Disputing the clear language in Luke 8:10 (Mt. 13:11) which withholds awareness from the masses, and in Mark 8:21 where the disciples did not understand, we find the Bible described as a timeless book on page 42 and one speaking an eternal truth to every age and to every generation and written: “for people in antiquity in a language and culture and with literary conventions that they understood.”  Surely, the most naive would question these conventional ideations; when, they are so clearly negated in the only document available to prove or disprove such opinion. That document, the Bible, is cryptic throughout; the words were not intended for the masses to understand. For this reason, symbols, numbers, and parables were used to confuse true meaning and time frames—not impossible to decipher, but made so difficult as to furnish the multiple viewpoints posited in Sheler’s bibliography and to create irresponsible religious disciplines.
            The many errors faulted to bibliographic indiscretion and contributing to Is The Bible True? analysis, can be epitomized in the quote on page 184, from Robert Funk, a new age religionist who would aspire to bridge the gap between biblical academia and real-world religious practice; he would also debunk Jesus as a myth and substantiate a liberalized Christianity, “. . . to raise the literacy level of the public.”  Question: How could such liberality raise the public’s literacy level?
            Continuously, in bibliographic eminence, expert after expert defies Bible semantics in favor of more comfortable definition.  Case in point, page 249, in the John Weldon quote, “. . . the Bible strictly opposes divination. . . .”  I wonder if Mr. Weldon has read II Kings 13:18? In the II Kings instant, (divination was used because the Israel house did not enjoy a God covenant [for about 1000 years]) belomancy was as clear as language could describe its incidence, in no less than Elisha’s instructions to Jehoash.
            As for Bible Codes credibility, we agree with Sheler concerning Bible Code acrostics; random access is said to produce comparable ‘codes’ from any decent sized publication.
     In conclusion, Sheler observed, “It is as a witness to that sacred history, to the mighty acts of Israel’s God in the affairs of nations and in the lives of people of faith, that the Bible most resoundingly sets itself apart from other ancient texts.”  Moreover, Sheler pronounced a precision in the Bible’s historicity, power in its inspired testimony, resonance in its timeless message, and earning trust and fidelity from countless millions. In the above direct quote, in summation, Sheler correctly named the monotheistic eminence as Israel’s God.  In this small measure of truth, he offset a constant procession of opposing viewpoints, illogical emendations to semantics, and unanswered questions lying in the wake of reckless hypothesis.
     Sheler is a good writer; but outside journalistic fervor and the semantic disharmony in a copious bibliography, a new insight awaits Scheler and his bibliographic resource. Viewpoints honored in Is The Bible True? would do well to consult THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified. Here, the least consequence would be a broadened base to comprehend the traditionally neglected “Ten Ages” and to finally understand the Bible symbols, numbers, and parables intent—before attempting so great a title as: Is The Bible True?.

===w===