I would say he does understand the bible. The bible was written by many different people with an evolving notion of God, free will, determinism, omniscience as divine foreknowledge and so on. The ideas you put forward are ad hoc contrivances by theologians trying to harmonise the data (different books of the bible) with the classical characteristics and core beliefs (from Christianity) if their God. I would argue that it simply cannot be done, and there IS inconsistency in the bible. Also, divine foreknowledge IS incoherent with free will.
This is not hard, because free will is incoherent on its own, but even if it was not, and even with middle knowledge, there are still huge philosophical issues. which is why it is still hotly debated today, and why there are different exegeses of the bible (Calvinism, Arminianism etc).
I also believe that free will is compatible with determinism. I took this from Wikipedia:
Self-determination is the idea of a positive freedom, a freedom for actions that we originate, actions that are "up to us." Such acts constitute the essence of free will.
Self-determination covers the classic problem of free will. Are our actions "up to us," could we have done otherwise, are there alternative possibilities, or is everything simply part of a great causal deterministic chain leading to a single possible future?
Adler defines the natural freedom of self-determination as that which is not either circumstantial or acquired.
A freedom that is natural is one which is
(i) inherent in all men,
(ii) regardless of the circumstances under which they live and
I don't think free will can be compatible with determinism without re-defining the common-sense understanding of free will. Since determinism means not-free will, as many philosophers have pointed out, this means that free will is compatible with not-free will, which is logically incoherent (see Ted Honderich on this).
So free will gets reinvented as self-determination. It seems you are quoting Mortimer Adler whose work is some 60 years old. He did not have the insights into neuroscience and genetics that we now have. As a result, it seems he bypasses the whole massive issue of internal determinism from genes and neurology. Yes, we all are authors of our own destiny - that is a sort of tautology - we are us, of course are actions are down to us. However, the issue is that you and Adler seem to see volition (as, say Descartes) as an uncaused cause. Is this the soul? Something else?
What this does ignore causality within our own decisions. Essentially it comes down to this: Do you believe we have alternate possibilities? If yes, then how. Mechanistically, how? Because if there is no reason for a decision which is necessitated, it seems, from claiming an uncaused cause 9originator of the causal chain / free will), then it is random. If it has a reason, you need to ask HOW that reason came to be. This is answered by determinism, but there is a hole left by claims of free will.
It comes down to rationality and reasoning. These aren't just out of context nebulous mechanisms that can be controlled by volition magically. These are learnt strategies using logic, prior learning and so on. I teach these skills to kids! So when it comes to deciding whether to run across the road to get the ball, the child uses all the strategies and facultiies they have learnt and possess, as well as experience (whether they know anyone who has been run over, or seen an information film at school about it). all these things provide the causal circumstance, and if we rewind back to the point of the decision again THEY WILL ALL BE THE SAME. The child will have the same tools, the same learning and strategies, the same environment down to the last molecule. They will decide the same again!
Now you can redefine free will all you want, but there are no alternate possibilities.