More on Frye.

Pg 30. "...myth is the linguistic vehicle of kerygma, and...to 'demythologize' any part of the Bible would be the same thing as to obliterate it."

pg 32-33. "Certain stories seem to have a peculiar significance: they are the stories that tell a society what is important for it to know, whether about its gods, its history, its laws, or its class structure."

This reminds me of the complexity theory in theoretical physics. Complexity is that which exists just prior to chaos theory. I remember reading somewhere about how things took hold in society, eventually to impact/influence massively almost at random. The influence of the particular stories that happen to make up the Bible seem like a good example of this. Almost by chance, these words came together to perforate and impact society in every facet of our western cultural life (including many ways that we are probably yet unaware of). I would doubt that the authors of this text had this intention.

pg 40. "The general principle involved here is that if anything historically true is in the Bible, it is there not because it is historically true but for different reasons. The reasons have presumably something to do with spiritual profundity or significance. And historical truth has no correlation with spiritual profundity, unless the relation is inverse." So why do we have this ongoing CONSTANT battle between fundamentalist Christians and evolution? I have never been able to understand why anyone would attempt to take the Bible literally. I guess this relates to the discussion in class about the easiest way to halt learning is by giving an answer. The issue gets rather complicated, because the traditionalist view of the Bible is based on faith; but does this necessarily mean that faith includes faith in the "truth" (in a very modern, concrete and scientific, if you will, sense) of the events that occur in the Bible?

pg 44. "...one should doubtless keep an open mind about them, though an open mind, to be sure, should be open at both ends, like the foodpipe, and have a capacity for excretion as well as intake." I really like this comment. Why is it that we are so stubborn in our beliefs? I guess it is the same with anything; somewhere deep down we are afraid of change in every facet (despite that the whole human experience is change--nothing is static).

Pg. 44. "The first thing that occurred to me was that the Bible itself could not care less whether anyone ever finds an ark on Mount Ararat or not: such 'proofs' belong to a mentality quite different from any that could conceivably have produced the Book of Genesis." So simple, yet so profound and difficult to grasp. Once again, we are limited in our comprehension of the Bible because we are trapped in this time period; with our own pre-concieved notions of the way the world is viewed by humanity. It is difficult to understand such a different world-view and way of thinking. We have no way of experiencing it.

Pg 50. "All human societies are insulated to some degree by a culture that surrounds them and separates them from nature." And yet we continue to try to "return to nature" (at least in modern times, it seems to be a re-occurring trend, probably more pronounced in areas like Bozeman...). I do not really have anything "profound" to say about this quote, but it grabbed my attention.