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

[quantumfaith]

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.

No it is not putting anything into the hands of elites. Having some background knowledge simply broadens and enlightens and may even change some of the ways and things we may have cherished.

"Enlighten up" a little. Perhaps become aware of Dr. Walton's thoughts regarding orality and text based cultures.

 

[go2church]

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.

You do need to understand it (whatever has been written) in the manner in which it was written. To do otherwise is to take an epic poem and try and teach science with it and completely miss the point.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Do those mental gymnastics hurt?

 

[annsni]

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.

Wait - so "fact" is relative?

 

[ShagNappy]

The "laws" of proper Biblical hermeneutics is to interpret the Bible literally, historically, grammatically, and contextually. To say we don't need to know anything about the ANE is beyond foolish.

The OT is a Jewish book, written by Jews, for Jews. To interpret it solely through the lens of an American Christian thousands of years removed is so silly as to not be believed.

And if you cannot do this and still come to the conclusion that creation is a literal story of a 6 day creation, please stop trying to interpret the Bible, because you can't.

 

[quantumfaith]

The "laws" of proper Biblical hermeneutics is to interpret the Bible literally, historically, grammatically, and contextually. To say we don't need to know anything about the ANE is beyond foolish.

The OT is a Jewish book, written by Jews, for Jews. To interpret it solely through the lens of an American Christian thousands of years removed is so silly as to not be believed.

And if you cannot do this and still come to the conclusion that creation is a literal story of a 6 day creation, please stop trying to interpret the Bible, because you can't.

:applause::applause::applause: (Well 50% anyway) (Correction 2/3 is approximately 67%)

 

[annsni]

The "laws" of proper Biblical hermeneutics is to interpret the Bible literally, historically, grammatically, and contextually. To say we don't need to know anything about the ANE is beyond foolish.

The OT is a Jewish book, written by Jews, for Jews. To interpret it solely through the lens of an American Christian thousands of years removed is so silly as to not be believed.

And if you cannot do this and still come to the conclusion that creation is a literal story of a 6 day creation, please stop trying to interpret the Bible, because you can't.

I agree. We have to understand the context and what the different things meant to the people who it was addressed to but that doesn't negate the fact that truth is truth back then and today. If the Bible tells us that God created the sun, that is truth. If the Bible tells us that the Israelites walked through the Red Sea on dry land, that is truth. It may have greater nuances than it does for us because of cultural things back then but bottom line is that our God is a great and mighty God who has control over nature and to think anything else is wrong.

 

[quantumfaith]

Wait - so "fact" is relative?

It is my understanding that facts and truth do not change. Rather it is our understanding of the facts and truth that does often change and even "evolve".
Life and observation reveal to us that the universe is in a state of constant change, in face, the mathematics of calculus was developed to efficiently and symbolically describe and model that change.

 

[annsni]

It is my understanding that facts and truth do not change. Rather it is our understanding of the facts and truth that does often change and even "evolve".
Life and observation reveal to us that the universe is in a state of constant change, in face, the mathematics of calculus was developed to efficiently and symbolically describe and model that change.

How would, say, the virgin birth be a fact that would evolve?

 

[quantumfaith]

How would, say, the virgin birth be a fact that would evolve?

For the Christian (you and I) the virgin birth is greater than the notion of fact, it is absolute truth.

 

[annsni]

For the Christian (you and I) the virgin birth is greater than the notion of fact, it is absolute truth.

Is there a difference between fact and truth? According to Merriam-Webster, fact is:

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

 

[Revmitchell]

Liberal doublespeak is truly amazing

 

[go2church]

Do those mental gymnastics hurt?

Not any more than trying to believe the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not any more than trying to believe the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[go2church]

Wait - so "fact" is relative?

No. The ancient mind used story to communicate a greater truth. Creation epic as an example was about the WHO of creation, not the how. They used story to communicate a greater truth.

 

[annsni]

No. The ancient mind used story to communicate a greater truth. Creation epic as an example was about the WHO of creation, not the how. They used story to communicate a greater truth.

So man made up these stories? What stories in the Bible are true and which ones are not? How do we know that the creation story is wrong but the resurrection is right?

 

[go2church]

So man made up these stories? What stories in the Bible are true and which ones are not? How do we know that the creation story is wrong but the resurrection is right?

The lens you're using creates a dichotomy that wasn't in play for the ancient writers. God was revealed to them in the manner and method they understood and could communicate to those around them. Epic stories, brilliant poetry and retelling of miraculous victories in battle and life narratives where what they knew and understood. God could have laid out the physics of creation, but to what end? How would they have understood it? God graciously worked through the people as they were.

To know the difference between the creation stories and the eye witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection is an exercise in biblical interpretation. Seeking to understand the now historical context surrounding the author, their purpose in writing and the overall grammar of the text. What did this mean to the people who were the first to read it?

By the time the Gospel authors are writing, language, context and style had changed so we look at those accounts different applying the standard of their time and not the standard of centuries before them. By that standard we see that more than a story about God is being told, we see the Gospel authors penning what they saw and had reported to them. In a nutshell, so to speak.

 

[Revmitchell]

The lens you're using creates a dichotomy that wasn't in play for the ancient writers. God was revealed to them in the manner and method they understood and could communicate to those around them. Epic stories, brilliant poetry and retelling of miraculous victories in battle and life narratives where what they knew and understood. God could have laid out the physics of creation, but to what end? How would they have understood it? God graciously worked through the people as they were.

Ok well none of this is remotely true or even believable. It assumes, like many liberal scholars do, that Israel was just like every other culture. The problem being that it sets aside the direct contact and interaction of God whereas all the other cultures had none.

 

[go2church]

Ok well none of this is remotely true or even believable. It assumes, like many liberal scholars do, that Israel was just like every other culture. The problem being that it sets aside the direct contact and interaction of God whereas all the other cultures had none.

Oy vey! Talk about mental gymnastics.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, unfortunately, Israel was too often like the cultures which surrounded them. In fact, in scripture they were repeatedly warned and chastised not to be so. They were impacted by the traditions, religions and values of others. It makes perfect sense, logical and theological that God would inspire those to write what would become our scripture ( but remember also that during the time time we think of a "biblical time") it was not written but told, retold and passed on in oral tradition format.