Scan barcode
A review by alanrussellfuller
The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It by Peter Enns
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.