Scan barcode
lneff514's review
5.0
This book was the right message/tone/delivery at the right time for me. Helpful, funny, inviting. As someone who grew up in a conservative, literal-reading-of-Scripture tradition, this was very refreshing.
emeliestegbornblixt's review against another edition
3.0
First off, the intended audience for this book is believing Christians, especially Evangelicals or Christians who are adjacent to evangelicalism. That's... not me. This is a book that explains what the Bible is (a collection of historical documents, all of which are very much of their own time) and what it's not (a cohesive single narrative which despite being ancient somehow functions like a post-enlightenment document, which is what it's often treated like).
I'm completely on board with Enns' central argument, and I found this book to be highly readable, but I also struggled a bit to connect. As I said, I'm not the intended audience, so that "but" isn't really a problem but an indication that in reading this book I was listening in on a message not intended for me. I also didn't gain a lot of new knowledge or perspective - since deconverting I have studied the Bible in the context of academia where the central argument of this book is just assumed.
I just wish I had read this book when it first came out - when I was closer to being part of that intended audience. It could have made the intellectual journey I've been on since then a bit smoother and easier to navigate. All in all, I would recommend this book for people belonging to the intended audience who are open to hear Enns out. It's a good book, but unfortunately not a great fit for me at this particular time. But I'm glad I finally read it.
I'm completely on board with Enns' central argument, and I found this book to be highly readable, but I also struggled a bit to connect. As I said, I'm not the intended audience, so that "but" isn't really a problem but an indication that in reading this book I was listening in on a message not intended for me. I also didn't gain a lot of new knowledge or perspective - since deconverting I have studied the Bible in the context of academia where the central argument of this book is just assumed.
I just wish I had read this book when it first came out - when I was closer to being part of that intended audience. It could have made the intellectual journey I've been on since then a bit smoother and easier to navigate. All in all, I would recommend this book for people belonging to the intended audience who are open to hear Enns out. It's a good book, but unfortunately not a great fit for me at this particular time. But I'm glad I finally read it.
mliztucker's review
4.0
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Well thought out, good information, and a delightful read.
reinhardt's review
4.0
A jocular style for a serious topic. I think he is trying to soften the bluntness of the smack on the nose that he gives in the book. To boil the book into one sentence: the Old Testament is unreliable not just in its historical aspect, but its theology as well, but it's a heck of a good story.
Truly the Bible as a timeless "rulebook" is fatally flawed. The narrative aspect as well as the social and historical setting cannot be ignored when trying to make any sense of the coherence of Scripture. This is where the book shines as it directs our attention to some of the narrative patterns that are missed in the 'rulebook' reading.
His pointed criticism are difficult to ignore, but what the book lacks is a positive case on how in his view the Old Testament especially carries any more authority than Aesop's fables. No doubt the Old Testament has been and often still is misconstrued and misused. But it is difficult to see how it has any authority left in his scheme.
Overall, a comedic read that might leave you on your mental backside. But I would recommend it, even if you can't quite swallow its conclusions.
Truly the Bible as a timeless "rulebook" is fatally flawed. The narrative aspect as well as the social and historical setting cannot be ignored when trying to make any sense of the coherence of Scripture. This is where the book shines as it directs our attention to some of the narrative patterns that are missed in the 'rulebook' reading.
His pointed criticism are difficult to ignore, but what the book lacks is a positive case on how in his view the Old Testament especially carries any more authority than Aesop's fables. No doubt the Old Testament has been and often still is misconstrued and misused. But it is difficult to see how it has any authority left in his scheme.
Overall, a comedic read that might leave you on your mental backside. But I would recommend it, even if you can't quite swallow its conclusions.
davehershey's review
5.0
Growing up as a Christian, there are a variety of subjects from the Bible that lead any thinking person to ask questions eventually. How does the creation story relate to modern science? How could the God revealed in Jesus command the extermination of the Canaanites? What about all those other weird, even horrific and immoral, rules in the Bible?
A variety of answers are available, some more and some less satisfying. Peter Enns, in his book The Bible Tells Me So:Why Defending Scripture Has Made us Unable to Read it, offers his answers to these questions. This is one of those books that can be both liberating and confusing at the same time. The answers Enns offers are liberating in helping the reader realize that such answers are acceptable within a serious Christian faith. At the same time, they are confusing because you realize that many other Christians will see such answers as questionable, perhaps even un-Christian.
For example, the Canaanite genocide is often explained by saying that God is just and can judge whomever he wants whenever he wants. All people deserve judgment and it was their time, the answer goes. I have found this answer both true and satisfying at times. At the same time, it often leaves a lot unsaid or unanswered. Sure, God can judge people of evil. But does this include viciously exterminating even children? Enns' answer is to question whether God actually commanded this. The Bible is an ancient book written by ancient people. They, as we do today, filtered their views through their culture and worldview. In those days it was common for gods to command extermination of enemies. So the Israelites thought this was what God wanted. As Christians, with our clearest revelation of God in Jesus, we realize God does not command exterminations of people. To avoid making God appear schizophrenic, ordering death and execution on one page and commanding we turn the other cheek on the next, Enns' reading realizes the human element. So we do not need to spend loads of time and reams of paper trying to reconcile these two contradicting views of God. As Christians we read scripture through the lens of Jesus.
Enns' book is helpful and challenging. To some, he is tossing out too much and ought to be considered a dangerous heretic. To others, he is offering liberation from awful views of God, perhaps allowing people to remain in the faith who were going to walk away. At the very least, he has offered a helpful book for Christians that will make any reader think deeply about who God is, how God speaks and what God demands. And if our faith truly is centered on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus then we should be willing and able to debate and discuss the sorts of things Enns discusses here.
Enns' main point is that rather then defending the Bible we need to let the Bible be what it is. It is a waste of time to try to prove the historical truth of various stories or to prove that all the stories in the Bible portray Jesus alike. Instead the Bible reflects different people's stories from various times through history. And that's okay. Enns argues that God loves stories. So God wants these stories in scripture, even if their picture of God is not correct.
I think Enns' book is really an argument for a form of progressive revelation. All Christians accept that through scripture more of God's character is revealed. There is a fuller understanding by Paul then by Moses, for example. Where Enns differs is that he is more open to saying that Moses' view was wrong in light of later understandings. Other Christians would try to hold earlier writers as correct in what they said with later writers extending these truths in deeper ways. Perhaps the question is, does Jesus contradict and overturn what came before (not all of it) or does Jesus extend and fill out what came before?
From a practical standpoint, I wonder how to teach Enns' view in the church setting. I imagine my experience is typical - I learned the stories as a kid, took them as just the way things happened. Later in life I relearned them, coming to realize things were not as simple as when I was a kid. Perhaps this is just the way it is and there is really no other way to learn the Bible. This is personal to me, because I have a three year old daughter. Sometimes we read story books of Noah and the flood. Eventually she might learn about Joshua and the battle of Jericho. How does Enns' understanding play out in a child's sunday school room? For example, do we simply teach our kids that Noah's flood covered the whole earth and later on teach that maybe it did not literally cover the whole earth? Do they have to learn at one point only to unlearn and relearn later? Or do we try to bring some of that nuance into a children's classroom? And how would we do that?
That aside, this is a fantastic, funny and engaging book. I want to emphasize that it is readable. To some degree this book reminds me of Bart Ehrman as Enns is seeking to make mainstream scholarship accessible to the church. But where Ehrman does so as a skeptic, Enns does so as a Christian. For that reason, Enns and his work is valuable for the church.
A variety of answers are available, some more and some less satisfying. Peter Enns, in his book The Bible Tells Me So:Why Defending Scripture Has Made us Unable to Read it, offers his answers to these questions. This is one of those books that can be both liberating and confusing at the same time. The answers Enns offers are liberating in helping the reader realize that such answers are acceptable within a serious Christian faith. At the same time, they are confusing because you realize that many other Christians will see such answers as questionable, perhaps even un-Christian.
For example, the Canaanite genocide is often explained by saying that God is just and can judge whomever he wants whenever he wants. All people deserve judgment and it was their time, the answer goes. I have found this answer both true and satisfying at times. At the same time, it often leaves a lot unsaid or unanswered. Sure, God can judge people of evil. But does this include viciously exterminating even children? Enns' answer is to question whether God actually commanded this. The Bible is an ancient book written by ancient people. They, as we do today, filtered their views through their culture and worldview. In those days it was common for gods to command extermination of enemies. So the Israelites thought this was what God wanted. As Christians, with our clearest revelation of God in Jesus, we realize God does not command exterminations of people. To avoid making God appear schizophrenic, ordering death and execution on one page and commanding we turn the other cheek on the next, Enns' reading realizes the human element. So we do not need to spend loads of time and reams of paper trying to reconcile these two contradicting views of God. As Christians we read scripture through the lens of Jesus.
Enns' book is helpful and challenging. To some, he is tossing out too much and ought to be considered a dangerous heretic. To others, he is offering liberation from awful views of God, perhaps allowing people to remain in the faith who were going to walk away. At the very least, he has offered a helpful book for Christians that will make any reader think deeply about who God is, how God speaks and what God demands. And if our faith truly is centered on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus then we should be willing and able to debate and discuss the sorts of things Enns discusses here.
Enns' main point is that rather then defending the Bible we need to let the Bible be what it is. It is a waste of time to try to prove the historical truth of various stories or to prove that all the stories in the Bible portray Jesus alike. Instead the Bible reflects different people's stories from various times through history. And that's okay. Enns argues that God loves stories. So God wants these stories in scripture, even if their picture of God is not correct.
I think Enns' book is really an argument for a form of progressive revelation. All Christians accept that through scripture more of God's character is revealed. There is a fuller understanding by Paul then by Moses, for example. Where Enns differs is that he is more open to saying that Moses' view was wrong in light of later understandings. Other Christians would try to hold earlier writers as correct in what they said with later writers extending these truths in deeper ways. Perhaps the question is, does Jesus contradict and overturn what came before (not all of it) or does Jesus extend and fill out what came before?
From a practical standpoint, I wonder how to teach Enns' view in the church setting. I imagine my experience is typical - I learned the stories as a kid, took them as just the way things happened. Later in life I relearned them, coming to realize things were not as simple as when I was a kid. Perhaps this is just the way it is and there is really no other way to learn the Bible. This is personal to me, because I have a three year old daughter. Sometimes we read story books of Noah and the flood. Eventually she might learn about Joshua and the battle of Jericho. How does Enns' understanding play out in a child's sunday school room? For example, do we simply teach our kids that Noah's flood covered the whole earth and later on teach that maybe it did not literally cover the whole earth? Do they have to learn at one point only to unlearn and relearn later? Or do we try to bring some of that nuance into a children's classroom? And how would we do that?
That aside, this is a fantastic, funny and engaging book. I want to emphasize that it is readable. To some degree this book reminds me of Bart Ehrman as Enns is seeking to make mainstream scholarship accessible to the church. But where Ehrman does so as a skeptic, Enns does so as a Christian. For that reason, Enns and his work is valuable for the church.
allisonh59's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
fast-paced
3.75
tdblaylock's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
5.0
This is one that I'll have to sit with and wrestle over for a while. Enns gives a new (but actually old) way for reading the Bible. His argument is that we have turned the Bible into a creation of our own, putting fences around it, and trying to make it behave the way we want it to. While being both academic and humorous, he walks the reader through how the Bible should be read- not as an historical analysis of Israel, but as a story written by a particular people in a particular time showing how they relate to God in the present by writing about the past. If that sounds confusing, that's because it is. Thankfully, Enns goes into great detail and explains this very eloquently. This book will definitely make me we the Bible in a new light, by not seeing the Bible as an instruction manual, but a place to find Godly wisdom in different phases of life as God meets me where I am.
twotoes's review against another edition
5.0
One of the easiest books I've read on a difficult subject. Although the subject is biblical hermeneutics, Enns wrote a real page turner. It surprised me how much humor there was and how easily it fit the flow of the book. I had no idea I would enjoy this so much.