Glen B. (glarnerlad) reviewed Amen to That!: The Amazing Way the Bible Influences Our Everyday Language on + 13 more book reviews
It would be easy to imagine how this book could have been greatly improved if it were written by a Christian author, from a Christian perspective. Like another reviewer, I didn't realize when I ordered it that Reader's Digest was the publisher. In more innocent times, even Reader's Digest would have produced a more serious look at Biblical phrases.
First the author seems to imagine a whole lot of things in the Bible as odd or strange. Those of us who grew up hearing Bible stories and memorizing Scripture may have thought this at one time. But we learn to allow the Bible's lessons to teach us. No period of time is without its oddities.
For a book about such a serious subject as the Word of God, it contains a great deal of whimsical comments, usually that detract from the topic. Although the author has a degree of illustrations from classical literature, his affirmed specialty, he seems to have a special place in his heart for post-rock and roll musical genres that people over 45 know very little about, and cannot identify with. This too detracts from the seriousness of the subject matter.
My first hint that the book did not present a Christian worldview came when I read that âit can't be ruled outâ that Jonathan and David had a homosexual affair. It would appear that he has a specific audience in mind to please with the content of the book, and had to throw that in for them. I've never known of a Biblical scholar or preacher to seriously make such a suggestion.
I don't deny that Catholicism is a form of Christianity, but it's the form that Addis seems to be the most familiar with, or wants to promote. He says that Jesus appointed Peter as the first leader of the Christian church. This is a Catholic view. I thought all 12 of the apostles were the first leaders of the church. He says later that Peter became the first Pope, and still later, gives the Catholic interpretation of âupon this rock I will build my church,â thereby assuming that it's a universal Christian interpretation of the passage.
It is related how Peter expressed his opposition to Jesus going to Jerusalem and subsequently facing crucifixion and death. I was shocked to read that when Jesus said, âGet thee behind me, Satan,â he was telling Peter off. I've never heard it put like that. The author did, however, get it right that Jesus was not actually calling Peter, Satan, or comparing him to Satan.
The question of why a world created by an omnipotent and benevolent deity is so full of pain and suffering is brought up. Addis points out that Christians have through the years found many ways to answer the question. He reveals his preferred answer when he states that âthe best answer may be the simplest: God moves in mysterious ways.â This is not an answer, and if he thinks it's a Biblical phrase, it's not. It's a paraphrase from a hymn by William Cowper.
Often the author gives hints that he may not believe what the Bible says, and even that he may not primarily be writing to Christians. He prefaces remarks with such phrases as âaccording to Christians.â The section of the Bible that he appears to be the most skeptical of is Isaiah 53. He says that Christians believe it to be a prophecy about the life of Christ. He goes on to say that âThe lamb, as Christians like to point out, is a common metaphor for innocence in the Bible. . .Isaiah, they claim, is predicting the death of Christ, some five hundred years before the event.â In that entry, on the phrase, The Lamb to the Slaughter, the author continues in further expressing his doubt in the âprophetic powersâ of Isaiah.
Another one of the more shocking things I âlearnedâ from the book is that Jesus âmisquotesâ an expression from the Psalms. That concept is just hard to grasp, that the Son of God could misquote anything. The line in question is from Psalm 8: âOut of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength.â The alleged misquotation by Jesus in Matthew 21 is rendered, âOut of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise.â The author has a degree in Latin and Greek, yet doesn't seem to understand the problems associated with translating ancient languages into English. The truly amazing thing is the enormous impact the Word of God has had through the years in spite of the translation issues. The author would do well to ponder the truth of the words of the Lord as recorded by Isaiah: âSo shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.â (Isaiah 55:11)
The author misses the point of the line from Jeremiah, âCan the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?â He states, âit turns out that leopards actually do change their spots. The spotty markings on a baby leopard's coat mutate over its lifetime into beautiful and complex rosettes.â It's not the leopards themselves who have this ability. They can only do what God allows them to accomplish.
Beyond these, the book contains actual errors in Biblical accounts. The author has the Magi worshiping Jesus in his manger at Bethlehem, instead of two years later. He refers to Joseph's âeleven dowdier brothersâ who attacked him, left him in a hole in the ground and sold him into slavery. It is generally understood that the brothers who did this were Joseph's 10 older half-brothers, and not his younger and only full brother, Benjamin. He and Benjamin had a special love for each other, having the same mother. If Benjamin had been with the brothers, he would surely have reported the incident to his father, knowing how it would have destroyed his happiness.
The basic premise of the book is well taken. The Bible has and still does influence our everyday language. I find myself regularly using phrases and word forms from the Bible. And I did learn some things from reading the book. I learned the difference in meaning between the words, straight, and strait. The former means direct, and the latter means narrow. I just would have enjoyed it more and found more positive things to absorb if it had been written from a Christian perspective.
First the author seems to imagine a whole lot of things in the Bible as odd or strange. Those of us who grew up hearing Bible stories and memorizing Scripture may have thought this at one time. But we learn to allow the Bible's lessons to teach us. No period of time is without its oddities.
For a book about such a serious subject as the Word of God, it contains a great deal of whimsical comments, usually that detract from the topic. Although the author has a degree of illustrations from classical literature, his affirmed specialty, he seems to have a special place in his heart for post-rock and roll musical genres that people over 45 know very little about, and cannot identify with. This too detracts from the seriousness of the subject matter.
My first hint that the book did not present a Christian worldview came when I read that âit can't be ruled outâ that Jonathan and David had a homosexual affair. It would appear that he has a specific audience in mind to please with the content of the book, and had to throw that in for them. I've never known of a Biblical scholar or preacher to seriously make such a suggestion.
I don't deny that Catholicism is a form of Christianity, but it's the form that Addis seems to be the most familiar with, or wants to promote. He says that Jesus appointed Peter as the first leader of the Christian church. This is a Catholic view. I thought all 12 of the apostles were the first leaders of the church. He says later that Peter became the first Pope, and still later, gives the Catholic interpretation of âupon this rock I will build my church,â thereby assuming that it's a universal Christian interpretation of the passage.
It is related how Peter expressed his opposition to Jesus going to Jerusalem and subsequently facing crucifixion and death. I was shocked to read that when Jesus said, âGet thee behind me, Satan,â he was telling Peter off. I've never heard it put like that. The author did, however, get it right that Jesus was not actually calling Peter, Satan, or comparing him to Satan.
The question of why a world created by an omnipotent and benevolent deity is so full of pain and suffering is brought up. Addis points out that Christians have through the years found many ways to answer the question. He reveals his preferred answer when he states that âthe best answer may be the simplest: God moves in mysterious ways.â This is not an answer, and if he thinks it's a Biblical phrase, it's not. It's a paraphrase from a hymn by William Cowper.
Often the author gives hints that he may not believe what the Bible says, and even that he may not primarily be writing to Christians. He prefaces remarks with such phrases as âaccording to Christians.â The section of the Bible that he appears to be the most skeptical of is Isaiah 53. He says that Christians believe it to be a prophecy about the life of Christ. He goes on to say that âThe lamb, as Christians like to point out, is a common metaphor for innocence in the Bible. . .Isaiah, they claim, is predicting the death of Christ, some five hundred years before the event.â In that entry, on the phrase, The Lamb to the Slaughter, the author continues in further expressing his doubt in the âprophetic powersâ of Isaiah.
Another one of the more shocking things I âlearnedâ from the book is that Jesus âmisquotesâ an expression from the Psalms. That concept is just hard to grasp, that the Son of God could misquote anything. The line in question is from Psalm 8: âOut of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength.â The alleged misquotation by Jesus in Matthew 21 is rendered, âOut of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise.â The author has a degree in Latin and Greek, yet doesn't seem to understand the problems associated with translating ancient languages into English. The truly amazing thing is the enormous impact the Word of God has had through the years in spite of the translation issues. The author would do well to ponder the truth of the words of the Lord as recorded by Isaiah: âSo shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.â (Isaiah 55:11)
The author misses the point of the line from Jeremiah, âCan the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?â He states, âit turns out that leopards actually do change their spots. The spotty markings on a baby leopard's coat mutate over its lifetime into beautiful and complex rosettes.â It's not the leopards themselves who have this ability. They can only do what God allows them to accomplish.
Beyond these, the book contains actual errors in Biblical accounts. The author has the Magi worshiping Jesus in his manger at Bethlehem, instead of two years later. He refers to Joseph's âeleven dowdier brothersâ who attacked him, left him in a hole in the ground and sold him into slavery. It is generally understood that the brothers who did this were Joseph's 10 older half-brothers, and not his younger and only full brother, Benjamin. He and Benjamin had a special love for each other, having the same mother. If Benjamin had been with the brothers, he would surely have reported the incident to his father, knowing how it would have destroyed his happiness.
The basic premise of the book is well taken. The Bible has and still does influence our everyday language. I find myself regularly using phrases and word forms from the Bible. And I did learn some things from reading the book. I learned the difference in meaning between the words, straight, and strait. The former means direct, and the latter means narrow. I just would have enjoyed it more and found more positive things to absorb if it had been written from a Christian perspective.
