Because he is so original and ignenious, it is hard to know exactly what theories of Frye's to take as fact and which to dismiss as a really really really interesting (if not necessarily accurate) take on what the Bible is doing. To me, one of the most fascinating things that Frye talks about in his book is the idea of the visible and invisible worlds. According to Frye, while some schools of Christian thought insist that the invisible world is (by its very nature) the higher order of reality, the Bible does not see it this way.

Frye uses the analogy of the air as a good example of the existence of the invisible world. If we could see the air, then in effect we could see nothing, as the air is everywhere and we would not be able to see anything but the air. He uses this analogy to explain why God must (by nature) be invisible. He also uses the metaphor of light, which we only see as a reflection. What he is getting at is that something visible must come from something invisible, because of its essence, if it did not, then it would not be created. Frye says that if God were not invisible, then the world could not be visible. While he doesn't expressly say it, from my reading of the text I came to understand another implication of what Frye says. I think that it is logical to say that God must be invisible because, as the Bible says, God is everywhere. So, just like the air, if God were not invisible, we could see nothing, because all we could see is God. As it is, we see evidence of God's hand, but by the very definition of God, we cannot see Him. I don't think that this is a stretch from Frye's original argument, because Frye uses the analogy of air before he explains the relevance of the visible and invisible worlds and Creation, and the Bible tells us that God is omnipresent - thus he is everywhere at the same time - much like air is everywhere.

I also found some interesting evidence that supports Frye's argument. In the first chapter of John, a very famous passage explains how the Word became flesh (Jesus) and how the Word was God and tells of the nature of God. One interesting verse toward the end of the opening passage is verse 5, which states, "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." It seems possible to interpret this verse as supporting Frye's hypothesis. It can be assumed that Jesus is the light, as that is often how Jesus was represented - he is described as a light shining among the darkness and when is transfixed, his face shines like the sun, and his clothes become as white as the light. If Jesus is the light and Jesus is the Word, and if the Word is God, then God must be light. So, in effect, the verse tells us then that God shone through the darkness (or the visible world) and the darkness has not understood it. One can read this passage as telling us, then, that the world that God created has not understood the light, or that the world does not understand God. This is very much a consistent Biblical theme. If that is indeed an accurate reading of the verse, then we see that Frye's theory holds up quite well in the context of the way the book of John describes the nature of God.