Critique of Jeffrey Sheler's Book:
Is the Bible True?
Is the Bible True?
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?.
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===
RSS Feed