I just scanned several pages of the book on google books and would like to read the whole thing. I did stumble on the brick analogy and the virgin birth pages and am very concerned about his thinking. It is one thing for an unbeliever to not understand the nuances of the virgin birth and not believe that by faith because he has none. It is quite a different thing for a believer to buy into his argument.
If you want to have these discussions in a theology class that would be the place to do it but to continue to doubt the fundamental tenets of the faith that set it apart from other faith systems is to call God a liar. We've heard all these arguments before: the word translated virgin could mean young woman -- the context of Isaiah make that interpretation improbable. Then you have to throw out the whole speech of the angel to Mary when she questioned him by saying "how can this be since I'm a virgin?" and the explanation to her by the angel. Some of this argument Bell makes comes right from mormon theology.
Yes we need to share Christ - but what Christ are you sharing with others? The Sovereign God of the universe who created it by a word who became one of us or a Christ that had a biological father and some how mystically became God?
I like a discussion as much as the next but this is dangerous thinking if he is suggesting it really doesn't matter whether God created in 6 days or Christ was born of a real virgin. Look how CS Lewis approached these matters --you can't call him an intellectual slouch - he didn't shrink from these matters. Look at the other christian apologists over the years - even down to Bill Craig.
What does Bell say about the death and resurrection? are those metephorical writings too? Where does he draw the line on where he will base his faith??
Let the discussion begin