Sentences with phrase «biblical texts do»

2) Biblical texts do not deal with homosexuality as a psycho - sexual orientation determined at birth or developed as a relationship between consenting adults.

Other writers — e.g., Virginia Mollenkott and Paul Jewett — admit that various biblical texts do inculcate male domination, but that such «problem texts» (problematic only to feminists, note) should be ignored in favor of the implicit thrust of other, egalitarian texts such as Galatians 3:28.

When Rob Bell released Love Wins, a book that made a compelling biblical case against the exclusivist theology that all non-Christians will be condemned to eternal conscious torment in hell, the Southern Baptist Convention released a resolution that stated: «Being troubled, even deeply troubled, by the implications of the biblical text does not give us a reason to abandon the text or force it into a mold that rests comfortably with us.

But being troubled, even deeply troubled, by the implications of the biblical text does not give us a reason to abandon the text or force it into a mold that rests comfortably with us.

Never in any Biblical text does it ever say God wants all ppl to be exactly the same.

The biblical text does not use the omni words — obviously.

Not exact matches

I feel like the author spends more time doing theology based upon his feelings than he does based upon the Biblical text.

= > no fiction book ever says that I pointed out the text analysis that person did to juxtapose it with the authenticity of the biblical narrative.

It has about as much to do with the Biblical texts as Humpty Dumpty.

There is a proper way to understand the Biblical text, and the rules for doing so are really no different from reading and comprehending any written doc.ument.

Almost all the stories surrounding Jesus (if he did exist, some scholars say their is no proof of a historical Jesus) were borrowed from earlier myths and used word for word... as well as the rampant literary corruption and forgeries of Biblical Texts... It is also impossible for God to exist in the Christian version or form they created.

While the report acknowledges that no single «Christian'tax policy can be pieced together from biblical texts, the report argues that some clear directions do emerge, some of which may be controversial.

This is not at all a fair or even representation of the Biblical text TGM, and I don't think emotive put downs of this sort do much to advance constructive debate on the subject!

It is all so outdated for the human race... I don't understand why so many people need such strong faith in a biblical text to carry out their lives happily and productively.

If experience is more important than doctrine, and no doctrine is immune to revision» both of which are conclusions of Olson's postconservatives» how do we know that our fresh readings are not derived as much from our experience as from the biblical text?

the only remaining biblical argument (that the text is culturally bound) requires a NEW hermeneutic — but now you are asking conservatives not simply to «listen to their Bibles» (as MLK could do) but rather to ABANDON them.

Does Piper's response not «reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts» and rely on a bit of «technical ingenuity»?

Since the mere recitation of Biblical passages does not suffice, these professionals require guidance as to how to move from text to sermon.

And secondly, with regard to what these essays say and do concerning the bearing of Scripture thus construed on doing theology, it will focus the discussion to ask two further questions: (a) How are Biblical texts brought to bear on the making of theological proposals?

As you can see, Christians advocating for the preservation of slavery did not characterize their abolitionist opponents as simply disagreeing with them on the interpretation of the biblical text, but instead tended to accuse them of not taking the Bible seriously at all.

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

One doesn't have to like this, but as far as the biblical text is concerned, that's all you've got.

Calvinists believe that their understanding of the biblical text is the only proper understanding, and if people disagree, it is because they don't want to submit to God's revelation of Himself in Scripture.

My first point registers the conviction that the primary hermeneutical principle arises from the decision how to approach the biblical text, whether to view it as I do as God's written Word or to see it in a reduced mode such as is common today.

Elsewhere, Schüssler Fiorenza explains: No biblical patriarchal text that perpetuates violence against women, children, or «slaves» should be accorded the status of divine revelation if we do not want to turn the God of the Bible into a God of violence.

Or this: «Why do our evangelical theologies give so much attention to questions relating to only a few obscure biblical texts while completely ignoring the topic of «poorology» to which are devoted hundreds of clear texts?»)

We read the Bible «through the Jesus lens» — which looks suspiciously like it means using the parts of the Gospels that we like, with the awkward bits carefully screened out, which enables us to disagree with the biblical texts on God, history, ethics and so on, even when Jesus didn't (Luke 17:27 - 32 is an interesting example).

This doesn't make the biblical text powerful any more than a written sermon is as powerful as the original spoken sermon.

The biblical theologian does not build on isolated proof texts but first seeks the locus classicus, the major biblical statement, on a given matter....

From Enns: «As a biblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical textbiblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical textBiblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.»

and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

It does not matter that all the biblical texts speak of the calf in the masculine; that the Bible tells us clearly that a bull is called a «calf» in order to ridicule it, or that we know concretely that such worship was related to the masculine fertility cult and to the bulls of Canaan or Babylon.

Disagree with the other person if you want to, but recognize that they are trying to understand and explain the text just as much as you are, and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

The clinical and officious formatting of many Bibles today does precisely the opposite, dampening any imaginative engagement with the biblical text and quickly exhausting the reader.

Now that the author has seemingly done damage to the integrity of the biblical text to the point that we can apparently know nothing more, or do nothing more, than feel our way around in the dark never being certain of what God's Holy Word says I ask this question:

Regrettably, she does little more than provide us with a reminder of a textbook example of eisegesis (reading «into» the biblical text one's own ideology) rather than exegesis (reading «out of» Scripture with attentiveness to historical and literary context, even if it conflicts with one's own personal views).

«Where else in the world do you find non-Christians so engrossed in biblical texts?»

If you don't like to think about the violence in the biblical text, you might want to ask yourself why...

No, you do nt have any contemporary extra biblical texts to support your claim.

This is such a truism that one is almost ashamed to pen the words, and yet it remains a fact that, in a great deal of the more conservative biblical scholarship, it does seem to be assumed that the appeal to factual accuracy would he as valid and important a factor in the case of ancient Near Eastern religious texts as it would be in a modern western court of law or in a somewhat literally - minded western congregation.

If this were done, then the inevitable danger which every dogmatician must, confront [and here lies the dignity and greatness of his task] would be more clearly recognized: namely, the danger that he may not remain upon an extension of the biblical line, but rather interpret the biblical texts primarily ex post facto, from the point of view of his «going beyond the New Testament.

When I speak of preaching from the law, I mean preaching that takes as its source the texts of Torah, but I also want to include all biblical texts that speak in the imperative voice, texts that teach what we are to do and what we are not to do.

Though most African and Asian churches have a high view of biblical origins and authority, this does not prevent a creative and even radical application of biblical texts to contemporary debates and dilemmas.

The candidate did not open up a biblical text and carefully explain its meaning in the way that I am sure Dr. Broggi had been trained to do at Dallas Theological Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

«I am hopeful because a growing number of New Testament scholars have done excellent work on the biblical texts that some believe severely limit a woman's function in the church, showing that we have been misreading these texts.

I did not mind too much about the way the movie strayed from the biblical text.

As reality did not need to be interpreted, it was mistakenly concluded that the biblical text could be read in a straightforward manner without interpretation.

With this haunting quotation, we are ready to see what Ricoeur does with biblical texts.

«No one who pretended to any sort of theology or religious reflection at all wanted to go counter to the «real» applicative meaning of biblical texts, once it had been determined what it was, even if one did not believe them on their own authority,» he remarked.

The question is what we are invited to do with the biblical text.