do you want to see it? my new book? do you? huh? here it is.

The cover design for my upcoming book The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It was just finalized, and I hope you REALLY like yellow.

A while back I posted briefly on the book (here), and I will blog a bit more as we get closer to the release date (late August/early September). The basic idea is When we let the Bible be the Bible rather than what we expect it ought to be–or need it to be–we will find a deeper faith in the process.

Something like that.

"I think you're arguing with what I'm not saying. I'm not saying there are no ..."

the best defense of the Christian ..."
"Don't you have one? Or do you just want to read it twice?"

we have lift off…my new website ..."
"Ooh yes. Free copy of 'Inspiration and Incarnation'?"

we have lift off…my new website ..."
"My first comment. You should get a prize or something."

we have lift off…my new website ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Eric Thurman

    Woot! Congrats, Peter. Look forward to reading it and recommending it to students.

  • Paul Bruggink

    I don’t care much for yellow, but I just pre-ordered it from Amazon and am really looking forward to reading the “controversial Bible scholar’s” new book.

    Is there any particular reason that yellow was deemed to be the appropriate color?

    • peteenns

      To “grab” readers.

  • brianleport

    Looks good! Can’t wait to read it.

  • Just Sayin’

    They should do it in half a dozen different colours. Then true fans would have to buy one of each!

  • Andrew Dowling

    Congrats Peter! Although the yellow dot with the sword looks to me like Pacman with a beard 🙂

  • The basic idea is When we let the Bible be the Bible rather than what we expect it ought to be–or need it to be–we will find a deeper faith in the process.

    Dr. Enns, have you ever considered the dropping of inerrancy as similar to the dropping of Aristotle in science? The tl;dr is that while he had some excellent ideas, dogmatically adhering to every idea of his held back progress in science. What if, just like we do scientific research that will ostensibly go on forever, we are also to do research into what God is like and how he would have us interact with our fellow human beings (as well as nature, ourselves, and him)? What if the Bible isn’t the final word on this “God-research”, but merely something to get us solidly out of the gate?

    Under such a research paradigm, the Bible wouldn’t be ‘wrong’, except in the sense that F = ma is ‘wrong’: it doesn’t work outside of certain domains. But that just means there’s something bigger to discover; to continue the analogy: general relativity. But even that isn’t the final word, because it doesn’t work at black hole event horizons. It’s almost as if there’s always a deeper level to go. Declaring the current level to be The Deepest Level is akin to making an idol, violating the second Word (see note on “likeness” at NET Ex 20:4).

    It seems to me that this scientific analogy helps one make more sense of the initial understandings of Yahweh. They weren’t perfect! But they were improvements over what came before, and we can trace those improvements throughout scripture. Fun fact: in Acts 23:1-5, Paul doesn’t “turn the other cheek”. Oops! Perhaps we will forever be learning to do what Jesus set out as kingdom of heaven ideals. Perhaps that research will go on forever.

  • I needed to hear this today. Your work gives wings to a lot of people who have had to listen to the old guard wax and wane on the dangers of blah blah blah.

  • SpyPlus

    Great Title!

  • Agni Ashwin

    Could use a bit more yellow.

  • It is ironic that the Bible is read aloud in a Catholic Mass more often than in a Protestant service, even an Evangelical one. Our Evangelical brothers tend spend more time expounding than listening to what God has to say in the Bible.

    • Michael Hardin

      BAM! Amen to that.

  • Thanks Dr. Enns for continuing to help serious students of the Bible discover realistic ways to think about the text.

    As an “inerrantist,” I found myself writing papers with the goal of defending inerrancy, and finding through research (only reading/researching conservative evangelical/baptist material mind you) that the already weak case was basically glued together with the “slippery-slope argument.” I get the fear, I guess, but I despised that lazy philosophical argument (Bart Ehrman was constantly used as an example of what can happen–they would dim the lights and shine a flashlight up on the professors face for effect–Ok, that’s a stretch, but not much of one).

    I was raised with a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity and the Bible. About a year and a half into my study, I had reached a tipping point. Closing my eyes to the way the Bible is, at times (i.e., cosmic understanding, genocidal commands, N.T. usage of O.T. texts, subtle discrepancies in theology and details, etc.), became intellectually/hermeneutically dishonest and ethically unfair to the text.

    Not to mention, I did not see any Christians bending other religion’s texts into pretzels, showing that “even though it seems like a discrepancy, it’s not.” You then see those same Christians attacking other religions for not having an “inerrant” holy book. Ugh.

    We wonder why secular society laughs.

    I know you likely haven’t gotten this far, but if you have, thanks again. You have contributed, and continue to contribute, helpful language that has strengthened my faith on what really matters, the cross and resurrection.

    BTW… I have yet to find a way to discuss this subject with family. I will likely be given hell (pun intended).

  • Ooooh! That yellow cover. I think you need a sassy gay friend to help you with your cover art choices!

    My humble suggestion for the 2nd edition:

  • Welcome to the yellow cover club! Cannot WAIT to read this!