A Critique of Dr. Peter Enns’ Book The Bible Tells Me So

[go2church]

I'm don't know what your definition of inerrant or infallible are or if Enns would be in agreement, but in the link provided by quantum Enns speaks to inerrancy, you tell me.

 

[annsni]

Can I ask those who have the book and who have read it if this is a true reflection of what Enns said in the book?

As might be expected, however, Enns goes much further than just correcting modernistic expectations about history. He argues that many of the historical accounts are just “invented” (76), “contradict each other” (76), and engage in “creative writing” (80) and even “myth” (119). The Gospel stories conflict all over the place—from Christ’s birth to his resurrection. Matthew made up the story of the star over the manger (83). He also made up Herod’s massacre of children (84). Luke may have invented the story of the angelic choir at Jesus’s birth (85). The virgin birth may have resulted from Matthew and Luke being “innovators” (82). Matthew “created” the story that Roman soldiers were asked to guard the tomb (87). Samuel/Kings contradicts Chronicles regarding Israel’s monarchy; they “tell two irreconcilably different stories of Israel’s founding kings” (96). The Exodus event never happened; it was probably just a “few hundred” slaves who left Egypt and made their way to Canaan (118). The ten plagues never happened either, but were crafted as a story to challenge Egyptian gods. The flood is a myth, too, as is the creation account itself. Sure, they’re probably rooted in some real events, but the stories as we have them are all reworked to tell Israel’s story. Thus, Enns concludes, “‘Storytelling’ is a better way of understanding what the Bible is doing with the past than ‘history writing’” (128).

 

[quantumfaith]

Can I ask those who have the book and who have read it if this is a true reflection of what Enns said in the book?

I cannot speak to this book from Dr. Enns.....I have not read it. I have read only one book by him. I would though highly suggest a book that I have almost completed by John Walton.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/083084032X/?tag=baptis04-20

BTW, I am looking forward to the following release later this month

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830824618/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[go2church]

Yes, he wrote those words, but without context the paragraph doesn't really help much in understanding what Enns is fully saying. Works as a pretty good scare tactic though.

Of course it's my opinion about another authors writing while reading only one paragraph. So I guess the phrase, doctor heal thy self is ironically appropriate.

 

[annsni]

Yes, he wrote those words, but without context the paragraph doesn't really help much in understanding what Enns is fully saying. Works as a pretty good scare tactic though.

Of course it's my opinion about another authors writing while reading only one paragraph. So I guess the phrase, doctor heal thy self is ironically appropriate.

So can you tell me what he is fully saying if these words are correct? Bottom line is this to me: Can we trust God's Word as truth?

 

[go2church]

Well...it's a bit cheeky to say but, reading the book in full does the explaining. I think the link quantum posted a few posts previous gives a good idea about what Enns thinks about the bible being true.

 

[Revmitchell]

I would be interested to know in what "context" does that paragraph get better.

 

[annsni]

So let me ask this. What historical events were invented?

 

[Reformed]

I cannot speak to this book from Dr. Enns.....I have not read it. I have read only one book by him. I would though highly suggest a book that I have almost completed by John Walton.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/083084032X/?tag=baptis04-20

BTW, I am looking forward to the following release later this month

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830824618/?tag=baptis04-20

Boy. That is a pretty fast distancing of yourself from Enns.

 

[Reformed]

So let me ask this. What historical events were invented?

Ann,

Enns believes in the "Genesis Myth"; that the early chapters of Genesis were heavily influenced by ancient near eastern literature and tradition; ergo the creation narrative is not trustworthy. Dismiss the creation narrative and the remainder of scripture is called into question.

 

[go2church]

I would be interested to know in what "context" does that paragraph get better.

You'll have to read the book. I don't know if that will make it better for you or not.

 

[go2church]

So let me ask this. What historical events were invented?

Oh, probably all the ones you're thinking of. If you interpret the bible from a strictly literal, inerrancy point of view, you'll most likely not like what he has to say.

Enns developes the idea that the modern lens, how we define history and even what is true, is very different from the time the bible was written, how the ancients understood those concepts. If we are to read "accurately", we must return to ancient understandings as much as possible.

 

[go2church]

Ann,

Enns believes in the "Genesis Myth"; that the early chapters of Genesis were heavily influenced by ancient near eastern literature and tradition; ergo the creation narrative is not trustworthy. Dismiss the creation narrative and the remainder of scripture is called into question.

Don't think he would say it's not trustworthy, just not written as a be all to end all science book.

 

[quantumfaith]

Boy. That is a pretty fast distancing of yourself from Enns.

You have never seen me as an Enns devotee. I do appreciate his courage and willingness to ask questions. I am not "distancing" myself from him.

 

[quantumfaith]

You'll have to read the book. I don't know if that will make it better for you or not.

This sort of reminds me of Nancy Pelosi.....You will have to read the book to find out what is in it.

 

[annsni]

Ann,

Enns believes in the "Genesis Myth"; that the early chapters of Genesis were heavily influenced by ancient near eastern literature and tradition; ergo the creation narrative is not trustworthy. Dismiss the creation narrative and the remainder of scripture is called into question.

Not to mention that then we have to question the integrity of Jesus since He looked back at the creation "story" and considered it as fact.

 

[Reformed]

Don't think he would say it's not trustworthy, just not written as a be all to end all science book.

It does not matter whether Enns would say that or not. His view on the early chapters of Genesis causes that result.

 

[Reformed]

Not to mention that then we have to question the integrity of Jesus since He looked back at the creation "story" and considered it as fact.

You are Correct.

 

[Reformed]

The Bible is a timeless book. It is meant to be understood by all generations. To say that we need to understand ANE tradition in order to understand Genesis is to put the scriptures in the hands of elites (think Rome). Scholarship is important but not at the expense of dumbing down the priesthood of believers.

 

[go2church]

Not to mention that then we have to question the integrity of Jesus since He looked back at the creation "story" and considered it as fact.

You don't have to. Creation considered fact to the degree the Jews understood the story to be "fact" from the very beginning. This is not the same way we understand "fact" in our modern world.