"I have many times remarked on the illogicalities of the word literal, and on the absurdity of assuming that in the Bible, for example, the literal (descriptive) meaning must be fundamental, because the Bible could not be true without it."

We talked a little bit in class today about how Frye, Vico, and I assume many others do not believe that the Bible is anything other than the creation of humans. While many will say that believing the Bible to be the ultimate truth is ludicris and pointless, I find it to be an even greater step of faith to say that it is not ever to be taken literally! Obviously, when Jacob describes his son Joseph as "a vine", he is not literally saying his son is a plant...but who is to say that when God says He will bring judgement upon the world in the last days that He is not speaking in a literal sense? I think that Isaiah 53 is a great example of a time when God, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, used a metaphor to relay a very literal message. This chapter speaks of the coming Messiah being lead like a lamb to the slaugher. It also says, "By His stripes we are healed." Gasp! Does this literally mean we are healed by Jesus' wounds? I think it does. Historical fact points to Jesus being crucified. Putting all of that aside, historical fact points to His existense period! How could the Bible not be literal when this prophesy was literally fulfilled? I am amazed and saddened that Frye could miss the main point of the message of the Gospel after all of his years of studying it.