- Really? Couldn't find a single Lutheran with something to say about Justification or how the Reformation has affected our understanding, but you squeezed in two Reformed perspectives because one is "Nuanced"?
- Anyone know if this is coming from a particular eschatological position, or if it addresses the text from multiple positions?
- I read the first edition as part of my BA coursework in 2009, and my mind is still blown. The class was a seminar format, so we had many of the "healthy conversations about the Bible" mentioned in the praise for the print edition; none of them reflected well on Enns' position. In a sense, I think that Enns has created a problem where no problem really existed. The "inadequate theological presuppositions" and "preconceived notions" referred to above are simply the idea that the events recorded in the Old Testament actually happened that way. For example, there are many stories in the Ancient Near East that correlate with the biblical creation and flood stories. Enns says that this is a problem, and perhaps it is if you don't believe the Bible to be a true account of historical events. His solution is that God used this ANE literature as a basis for His own creation and flood stories. He argues that since those were the stories people were used to, God used the same elements in His accounts in order to show that He is the creator/preserver/law-giver/etc. as opposed to the gods mentioned in the other stories. What Enns fails to mention even once as a possibility is that maybe the Biblical accounts are true and literal history of the way things actually happened, and the other stories are based on the oral tradition of those events that actually took place. The effect is that all God is saying in the OT is that He is the one who did it rather than the idols, but He revealed nothing to us about how He did it because His versions are just based on myths. This rips the truth out of God's mouth and puts the biblical accounts on the same level of authority as the other stories (the idols say they did it; God says He did it). The idea that God, through the Old Testament, has revealed Himself AND His work is diametrically opposed to Enns' position. According to this book, the Old Testament is merely relative truth...more true than the other stories simply because it is God's version of the same old myths. In short, this book is dangerous. It CAN be used for teaching, but only in the right context and in conjunction with "The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism" by G.K. Beale which is a direct response to "Inspiration and Incarnation."
- Excellent review. I like this point: "According to this book, the Old Testament is merely relative truth...more true than the other stories simply because it is **God's version of the same old myths.**" RIGHT. What kind of God is that to serve, who just tells other peoples myths and lies? People are searching for truth, and a god like that is not one worthy to be served, he would just then be another liar and another teller of myths. The entire 2nd letter of the apostle Peter dealt with such claims. 2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 2:1
- Free book of the month...glad I looked at the preview first. It totally discounts the authority of Scripture in the creation story. Without that, the whole foundation of Scripture is lost. Sure, I wouldn't have to pay for it, but I wouldn't want this clogging up my library.
- Bradley: is your objection that this commentary does not support Young Earth Creationism?
- Mark = The author views much of Genesis to be Hebrew "legend" and "exagerration." An example quote: "The Biblical Narrative, under the symbolism of primitive folk-lore, represents, as in a series of parables, fundamental religious ideas respecting the beginning of things. It is neither history nor science." It's not a mere rejection of 6-day creation, but that much of anything in Genesis is literal. (It's no surprise then that he also denies Mosaic authorship.)
- John -- thanks for the clarification -- I have an extensive library on Genesis already, but added this book to see what the defense is of that perspective. To be clearer, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve.