Scan barcode
greenhedgehog's review
5.0
I really loved this and the resources in the back of the book are worth checking the book out from the library again. Will need to re-read sometime this year.
aliendaydreamer's review against another edition
4.25
The narrative voice was trying too hard to be relatable but I liked what he had to say.
levinels's review
4.0
While I was disappointed that this work was largely a retread of the same ideas found in Inspiration and Incarnation, this is still a worthwhile read in its own right and discusses some very important concepts for anybody interested in how to reconcile the weirdness of the Bible (especially the OT) with modern life. Some of the concepts were less revelatory to me because I had read I&I, so much so that it almost feels as if The Bible Tells Me so is a retelling of Enns' previous work just in a different, lighthearted voice. Some may find his brisk, irreverent (albeit humorous) tone enjoyable, but I found it a bit distracting.
So, if you you're looking for the "TL;DR" version of some of Enns' worldview-changing themes (he even has a specific chapter towards the end that summarizes the book in 250 words or so), choose this one, but if you want a more dense, scholarly, heavily-footnoted unpacking of the ideas, pick up Inspiration and Incarnation. Both have helped me immensely!
So, if you you're looking for the "TL;DR" version of some of Enns' worldview-changing themes (he even has a specific chapter towards the end that summarizes the book in 250 words or so), choose this one, but if you want a more dense, scholarly, heavily-footnoted unpacking of the ideas, pick up Inspiration and Incarnation. Both have helped me immensely!
divinawest's review against another edition
3.0
3.5/5 stars!
Favorite quotes:
“Knowing god is a form of not knowing god”
“An unsettled faith is a maturing faith.”
“If your present community sees your spiritual journey as a problem because you are wandering off their beach blanket it may be time to find another community
Not impulsively, but if after a time you are sensing you don’t belong, that you are a problem to be corrected rather than a valued member of the community, maybe god is calling you elsewhere and that “they” aren’t so bad after all.”
I will say, I didn’t love the audiobook version. The narration was monotone and I found myself losing focus. But I enjoyed the content. I believe the author accomplished what they set out to do with this book. It was informative, in terms of hermeneutics it was simple enough to understand, and I enjoyed the bits of comedic relief in there even if it was a bit corny at times. It was redundant at times and likely could have been even shorter. But I still enjoyed it.
These are my take aways:
This book gave me a greater understanding of the Bible as an ancient and historical text. Not in a way that lessens it’s value as holy and spiritual but that compliments it. And is also confusing. But this book reminds us that we honestly should be confused. The Bible is not a Sunday school book or children’s story. It is complex and ancient.
This book gave me greater perspective on the Old Testament as it was written but deeply tribal people that we cannot put our 21st century lens on.
Furthermore, the Bible is not an owners manual. We actually cannot find answers to everything in there. The Bible is a lens through which we look at God and Jesus. It is a tool, efficient in some ways but ultimately written by men. My favorite part of this book was when he breaks down the gospels and other books within the historical context of the author of each book. He points out how each author skewed the story to serve their own story telling. Realizing this doesn’t mean we throw out the whole book. But we do need to read and interact with it different.
We shouldn’t expect of the Bible what we don’t expect or see in Jesus.
Jesus did not behave and we should not expect the Bible to. The Bible is not orderly and simple, just as Jesus was not.
I appreciate the author and it’s validated my spiritual journey so much. It honestly makes me more comfortable with the Bible and evangelical religion in that it has affirmed my deconstruction.
Favorite quotes:
“Knowing god is a form of not knowing god”
“An unsettled faith is a maturing faith.”
“If your present community sees your spiritual journey as a problem because you are wandering off their beach blanket it may be time to find another community
Not impulsively, but if after a time you are sensing you don’t belong, that you are a problem to be corrected rather than a valued member of the community, maybe god is calling you elsewhere and that “they” aren’t so bad after all.”
I will say, I didn’t love the audiobook version. The narration was monotone and I found myself losing focus. But I enjoyed the content. I believe the author accomplished what they set out to do with this book. It was informative, in terms of hermeneutics it was simple enough to understand, and I enjoyed the bits of comedic relief in there even if it was a bit corny at times. It was redundant at times and likely could have been even shorter. But I still enjoyed it.
These are my take aways:
This book gave me a greater understanding of the Bible as an ancient and historical text. Not in a way that lessens it’s value as holy and spiritual but that compliments it. And is also confusing. But this book reminds us that we honestly should be confused. The Bible is not a Sunday school book or children’s story. It is complex and ancient.
This book gave me greater perspective on the Old Testament as it was written but deeply tribal people that we cannot put our 21st century lens on.
Furthermore, the Bible is not an owners manual. We actually cannot find answers to everything in there. The Bible is a lens through which we look at God and Jesus. It is a tool, efficient in some ways but ultimately written by men. My favorite part of this book was when he breaks down the gospels and other books within the historical context of the author of each book. He points out how each author skewed the story to serve their own story telling. Realizing this doesn’t mean we throw out the whole book. But we do need to read and interact with it different.
We shouldn’t expect of the Bible what we don’t expect or see in Jesus.
Jesus did not behave and we should not expect the Bible to. The Bible is not orderly and simple, just as Jesus was not.
I appreciate the author and it’s validated my spiritual journey so much. It honestly makes me more comfortable with the Bible and evangelical religion in that it has affirmed my deconstruction.
juliasilge's review
5.0
This is less academic than the other couple of books I've read by [a:Peter Enns|157907|Peter Enns|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1409176219p2/157907.jpg]; it's funny, engaging, and important. Some of Enns' points are really challenging for the faith background I come from but his overall thesis here is extremely compelling. The Bible is an ancient near Eastern document written in a specific cultural context and we do it as a document (that we want to take seriously!) and ourselves a disservice when we minimize that, or even ignore that. A really helpful book for processing why I have often thought or believed certain things.
thebrianikeda's review
4.0
A clearly articulated and engaging point-of-view on how Christians should engage the Bible. It creates many more questions than answers. Be prepared to search for more books on this topic.
alanrussellfuller's review
1.0
Peter Enns says he is a Christian who "does Bible" for a living. He reached a turning point when he learned that some rabbis taught a rock followed Moses around the desert. He then found out that the apostle Paul taught the same thing.
(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
"He is speaking for God and so he’s not supposed to say stupid things like rocks follow people around in the desert to give them a drink." (p. 17).
Paul calls it a spiritual rock and a spiritual drink. He also teaches that spiritual means not literal (2Co 3:6). Enns takes it literally. That pretty much explains Enns' understanding of the scriptures.
"It’s hard to appeal to the God of the Bible to condemn genocide today when the God of the Bible commanded genocide yesterday." (p 30)
If you've ever had a discussion with an atheist about the Bible, you can be pretty sure that's one of the first things they're going to bring up. Enns says the Canaanites were actually pretty nice guys.
"The Canaanites’ main sin was their street address. That is why they had to be eliminated." (p 51)
Enns doesn't say much about the list of abominations found in Deu 18 or Lev 18, but then he doesn't think the Bible should be used as a rulebook. In second temple Judaism, it was taught that part of the inherent evil in the land was because of the Nephilim and their descendants. Again, barely a mention and no explanation from Enns. Would God be just if He didn't punish evil? Even though Enns considers the Canaanites regular folks, he does bring up child sacrifice.
"We even have some rather disturbing examples from the Bible where child sacrifice seems to be something God is perfectly fine with." (p. 51)
Like any skeptic, Enns points out God's command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and like any skeptic, he fails to mention the explanation offered in Hebrews 11:17-19.
"...what are we supposed to do today with a Holy Bible that makes up lies?..." (p 61)
"This is how they connected with God—in their time, in their way." (p 61)
Enns explains God's atrocities as simply a cultural thing. They stole fanciful myths from surrounding peoples to legitimize their own existence. So why did God give us a Bible like this?
"Even if I don’t have the final answer to these questions, a way forward has become clearer for me: maybe God likes stories." (p 129)
So what about Jesus?
Jesus Gets a Big Fat “F” in Bible (p. 167)
Psalm 110 doesn’t say what Jesus says it says.(p 176)
If any of Enns students understood the Bible like Jesus and the apostles, he wouldn't give them a passing grade.
"Jesus didn’t mean for the disciples to root through their Bibles to find the places where a dying-and-rising-from-the-dead messiah was hiding—like a first-century Where’s Waldo?" (p. 202)
What about John 5:39?
"John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
"So according to Matthew, the return of Jesus (God’s Son) from Egypt is predicted by the prophet Hosea about seven hundred years earlier. Only it’s not." (p 203)
Matthew was wrong when he said Hosea was talking about Jesus. Hosea was talking about his political situation. What does Hosea say?
"Hos_12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."
Hosea says the prophets saw visions and used similitudes. So who is right, Matthew or Enns? Must be Enns since Matthew didn't have a Ph.D. from Harvard.
"If you saw Jesus walking down the street back then, you wouldn’t notice anything all that special—no glow around his head or lightning bolts shooting out of his eye. And, like the rest of us, he had periods of suffering and then eventually died." (p. 243)
What does Enns really believe? He talks about the resurrection as though it happened, but he never mentions Jesus' miracles or any other supernatural event as though it really took place. Most historical-critical scholars don't believe in the supernatural.
This was a disturbing book for me. It is disturbing because so many people rate it so highly. Is that where we are today, an errant Jesus and apostles, and a lying Bible? That's not a belief that is acceptable to me.
(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
"He is speaking for God and so he’s not supposed to say stupid things like rocks follow people around in the desert to give them a drink." (p. 17).
Paul calls it a spiritual rock and a spiritual drink. He also teaches that spiritual means not literal (2Co 3:6). Enns takes it literally. That pretty much explains Enns' understanding of the scriptures.
"It’s hard to appeal to the God of the Bible to condemn genocide today when the God of the Bible commanded genocide yesterday." (p 30)
If you've ever had a discussion with an atheist about the Bible, you can be pretty sure that's one of the first things they're going to bring up. Enns says the Canaanites were actually pretty nice guys.
"The Canaanites’ main sin was their street address. That is why they had to be eliminated." (p 51)
Enns doesn't say much about the list of abominations found in Deu 18 or Lev 18, but then he doesn't think the Bible should be used as a rulebook. In second temple Judaism, it was taught that part of the inherent evil in the land was because of the Nephilim and their descendants. Again, barely a mention and no explanation from Enns. Would God be just if He didn't punish evil? Even though Enns considers the Canaanites regular folks, he does bring up child sacrifice.
"We even have some rather disturbing examples from the Bible where child sacrifice seems to be something God is perfectly fine with." (p. 51)
Like any skeptic, Enns points out God's command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and like any skeptic, he fails to mention the explanation offered in Hebrews 11:17-19.
"...what are we supposed to do today with a Holy Bible that makes up lies?..." (p 61)
"This is how they connected with God—in their time, in their way." (p 61)
Enns explains God's atrocities as simply a cultural thing. They stole fanciful myths from surrounding peoples to legitimize their own existence. So why did God give us a Bible like this?
"Even if I don’t have the final answer to these questions, a way forward has become clearer for me: maybe God likes stories." (p 129)
So what about Jesus?
Jesus Gets a Big Fat “F” in Bible (p. 167)
Psalm 110 doesn’t say what Jesus says it says.(p 176)
If any of Enns students understood the Bible like Jesus and the apostles, he wouldn't give them a passing grade.
"Jesus didn’t mean for the disciples to root through their Bibles to find the places where a dying-and-rising-from-the-dead messiah was hiding—like a first-century Where’s Waldo?" (p. 202)
What about John 5:39?
"John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
"So according to Matthew, the return of Jesus (God’s Son) from Egypt is predicted by the prophet Hosea about seven hundred years earlier. Only it’s not." (p 203)
Matthew was wrong when he said Hosea was talking about Jesus. Hosea was talking about his political situation. What does Hosea say?
"Hos_12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."
Hosea says the prophets saw visions and used similitudes. So who is right, Matthew or Enns? Must be Enns since Matthew didn't have a Ph.D. from Harvard.
"If you saw Jesus walking down the street back then, you wouldn’t notice anything all that special—no glow around his head or lightning bolts shooting out of his eye. And, like the rest of us, he had periods of suffering and then eventually died." (p. 243)
What does Enns really believe? He talks about the resurrection as though it happened, but he never mentions Jesus' miracles or any other supernatural event as though it really took place. Most historical-critical scholars don't believe in the supernatural.
This was a disturbing book for me. It is disturbing because so many people rate it so highly. Is that where we are today, an errant Jesus and apostles, and a lying Bible? That's not a belief that is acceptable to me.