Reddit reviews The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It

Peter Enns wrote a book about this: The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It

I realize you may be trolling to spark debate but let me take a crack at this... I can no longer take the bible literally, only literary. Have you heard or read of any of Pete Enns' books? In this old blog series, Enns writes: "The biblical flood story (Genesis 6-9) has certainly taken a beating over the last two or three centuries. The problems began in earnest once geologists realized that a literal submersion of the entire earth in water is contradicted by clear scientific evidence.

There are similarities between the biblical flood story and two older Mesopotamian versions, Gilgamesh and Atrahasis.

The literary evidence from ancient Mesopotamia makes it very likely that Genesis 6-9 is Israel’s version of a common and much older ancient Near Eastern flood story. The similarities are clear, but the theology of the biblical story goes off in fresh directions.

The biblical flood story must be understood in the context of what humans were created to be. He formed the first man from dust and breathed life into him, rather than forming him out of the blood of the slain god Kingu. Humanity is the chief of creation, not a class of slaves so the gods can be in repose.

Humans downfall, and the cause of the flood, was in their failure to live up to this high and honored status. Though made in the image of God, they chose their own path. What had been “very good” (1:31) was now “only evil all the time” (6:5).

The truth of the biblical flood story is not found in how accurately it reports actual geological events. It is found in the theological message understood in its ancient setting.

For both contextual and scientific reasons, the biblical flood story is clearly not a statement of vital historical information. It is a powerful expression of theological identity among the other peoples of the world.

I understand this does not satisfy everyone. Some feel that for the flood story to have any theological value for readers today, it must be historical in nature. I hope this is not the case. If the flood story’s theological value depends on all of the earth’s population being wiped out a few thousand years ago, we have a problem. We will have erected an impassable obstruction between the present state of knowledge, scientific and biblical, and any hope of a viable Christian faith that is connected to the Bible.

maybe you should have a read of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272020

I came to accept this more historical critical view on scripture after reading and being intrigued by Peter Enns' "The Bible Tells Me So". He does a good job in there explaining how the fundamentalist/literalist perspective doesn't fit in well with our current understanding of science or recent archaeological findings. Enns' book is a pretty easy read so I would definitely give it a go if you want an easy introduction to integrating modern academic findings with the big ideas of scripture. Previously I was in the Calvary Chapel literalist/fundamentalist camp but had trouble integrating evolution and the accounts of the Old Testament conflicting with archaeology.

If you truly want an interesting perspective, check out this book by Peter Enns.

I bought the book after listening to this podcast which is specifically relevant to your question, and also has the author voicing his opinions.

Both offer valuable insights.

You might want to ask Peter Enns in his AMA here at 3:00 EST (roughly one hour from now). He just released a book which indirectly addresses this question: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Tells-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272020/

For The Bible Tells Me So by Peter Enns

Inspiration and Incarnation also by Peter Enns