I'm enjoying reading this book and don't believe Greg Boyd is making that mistake. Quite the opposite. Of course we are free to agree or disagree with him, but have you read it?

Hi Andrew - yes, I wouldn't post a review of a title I hadn't read.  I'm not sure how you can say Boyd is avoiding that - it's literally the central thesis of the book. Basically he argues that God permitted people to record reprehensible misrepresentations about his nature and commands in scripture, and that this makes sense when you see the cruciform structure of revelation. Jesus stepped into our ugliness and sin and bore it fully on the cross, and that's seen as analogous with God enduring misrepresentations of himself in order to dwell with his people. i.e. we should take the opposite view of scripture to the one that Jesus puts forward - we need to start at the cross in isolation, and only then can we work backwards through error-laden texts, rather than see the incarnation culminating at the cross and resurrection as the fulfilment of the scriptures, which cannot be broken.