Thanks for the review! Great points.

Now, if he had studied the Bible with the intent of finding God, I think he would have discovered more. But since his intent was (at least partly) gimmicky, I'm not at all surprised that he came away a non-believer. Especially since he has the un-open attitude of "If I don't accept Christ" as his basis. So not only are his eyes blind, but he has chosen a hard heart, so there should be no surprise that he failed to find God...the Pharisees et al. were in the very physical presence of God and failed to find Him.

The interesting thing is that Jacobs actually was seeking God. This was a bit more than just an excuse to write a book; he seemed to want to connect with his spiritual heritage, and he wanted to discover that if he obeyed God's law whether a knowledge of God would follow. Here's what he wrote:

I could adopt the cognitive-dissonance strategy: If I act like Jesus is God, eventually maybe I still start to believe that Jesus is God. That's been my tactic with the God of the Hebrew Bible, and it's actually started to work. But there's a difference. When I do it with the Hebrew God, I feel like I'm trying on my forefathers' robes and sandals. ... I've come to value my heritage enough that it'd feel disloyal to convert.

But, as you point out, in the end the Pharisaical nature won out (although Jacobs is much less unforgiving than most of the Pharisees described in the NT).

You wrote:
"It's ironic then that in his quest to live according to the truths of the Bible, he is unable to recognize The Truth for which the book was written. That, in the end, made his exercise the ultimate "vanity of vanities."
______

Perhaps we should pray this is the "beginning" of the author's search, rather than assume it is the end...and hope (trust!) that God has planted seeds along the path of his literary(?) journey that will sprout in God's time and for His purposes.

Perhaps.

Sherry, you're right, of course. As always. ;-)

I think he might be making a good point about legalism and fundamentalism with his efforts. Apparently, Jacobs intentionally makes many of the same mistakes in attempting to "live by" the Bible that many fundamentalists make. That is to say, he approaches the Bible within his experiment under the incorrect presumption that it's unflawed and therefore can be followed without contradiction.

Lest we not forget that, a close second behind God's influence on the Bible was man's. Along with a lot of truly great, inspiring content comes a plethora of human politics, prejudice, and bias. That's why we should always look to God first for direction, the earthly document second.

So in the end, perhaps Jacobs helps further point out that nothing man has a hand in can ultimately be perfect -- the Bible included. That's something I think many a judgemental, pious, fire-and-brimstone Bible thumper could take beneficially to heart.

Actually, Vaughn, Jacobs never made the mistake that I think you're making, claiming that the Bible is flawed.

But you are right in your blanket assumption that anything man attempts to do in his own power and understanding will ultimately fall short of perfection.

That's one reason we need the Bible: to show us where we've fallen short.

A bigger collection of dualities and contradictions than the Bible, I cannot think of. That's not to say it doesn't contain many valuable lessons and inspiring words for the Christian to live by, but to ignore or deny its many blatant imperfections is, in my view, the sure sign of fear-stricken indoctrination. Personally, I refuse to live in fear of free and critical thinking. I can only believe that's the way the Lord wants it, otherwise he'd have not given me such a nature.

He did give you free will and the ability to think critically, and I'm glad to see you apparently recognize the source of those blessings. Doesn't mean you always come to the right conclusions, of course, but nobody's perfect. ;-)