Peter Enns writes the next major section in this book. He believes that the evangelical formulation of inerrancy obscures the Bible for what it really is: a human book. He explains:
Scripture is a collection of a variety of writings that necessarily and unashamedly reflects the worlds in which those writings were produced. The implication of this metaphor is that an understanding of those historical settings can and should affect interpretive conclusions. This process, I believe, is what is presumed when we are dealing with a God who, in Christ, seems to be quite ready and willing to walk among us rather than keep his distance.
Enns believes that the evidence stacks up against the evangelical view of inerrancy, which takes the Bible too much out of the context in which it was written and places standards upon that are unreasonable for the time period in which it was produced.
I think Enns is right that when taken too far, inerrancy can dominate a text rather than expound it. I’ve said before that Genesis 1 is not a polemic against evolution. When we read it as such, we do not allow it to speak with full force the message it intends to convey. Such are the dangers of proof-texting – making individual bits of Scripture to take on more significance outside of the narrative/poetic/epistle/gospel/etc. context in which it lies. The abuse of inerrancy can also flatten interpretation such that one piece of Scripture drives the interpretation of the whole.
I agree that we should allow Scripture to declare, with all its voices, the acts and character of God. But is maintaining that voices of Scripture speak truly about what they see really consonant with denying the humanity of Scripture? I wonder if Enns’s model denies God his own voice. God’s self-revelation to people in actual history has an effect on those people; it changes them. He intended that his revelation shape the way they view, himself, themselves, and the world they live in. Thus, the Bible isn’t just another text. The Bible is a reliable testimony to God’s character and acts in actual history.
The Bible was written in the past by a people of much different culture than ours. Scripture was written for them and by them. We should honor that. Yet, Scripture was also written for us. The significance of that fact does not mean that we stand at a distance in appreciation of the thoughts and expressions of the ancients about the Deity but recognize that such thoughts are inappropriate for us today. Scripture speaks truly about God in the cultural forms of the ancient Israelites and the early Christians, and those forms are an accurate description of who God is and what he has done in history.
nathanielcooley 
You said in this article, “Genesis 1 is not a polemic against evolution.” I can understand why you said that. However, when you examine the five issues in Genesis 1 emphasized by repetition and compare them with the five fundamental tenets of evolution, you find that each of these are in direct opposition to evolution. God knew that evolution would be widely taught and believed. It seems that the main, repeated points in the Creation Account are that God directly opposes every aspect of evolution. Genesis 1 is a polemic against evolution.
Thank you for responding to my post! I do want to clarify my point, if you don’t mind. I would want to make the distinction between what the text was intended for and what it it could be used for. Moses did not have evolution in mind when he wrote the text. I would say that Genesis 1 was intended to teach more than that the naturalistic philosophy maintained by most evolutionists is wrong. I think we ought to be careful not to limit the meaning of the text based on some cultural milleu. I would definitely agree, though, that Genesis 1’s teaching stands directly against naturalism. I would be cautious about saying that Genesis 1 was mainly intended as polemic against evolution. I hope that makes the point clear! Thank you once again for interacting with this post!
Thank you for your gracious reply. Your willingness to examine different viewpoints is refreshing. The reason I see more scientific information in Genesis 1 is that I do not see Moses as the initiator of the information, but rather the transcriber. I think the ‘toledoth’ structure of Genesis is used by Moses to identify the author/initiator of various eye-witness accounts that he transcribes and compiles. This structure indicates that God is the author of the creation account. He is the only one who knew that information. If He is the original author, then it could be very scientific (God is the ultimate scientist) and could be designed to defend against future attacks (evolution). I find it amazing that the five areas emphasized by repetition in the creation account directly oppose each of the five essential tenets of evolution.