Much biblical language is refined and elevated, and while many Englishmen were doubtless delighted to discover Pharaoh had a proper butler, the KJV often sounded artificial and abstruse to them because the translators frequently followed biblical idiom and syntax and not the language and idiom of their contemporaries.
Not exact matches
It was not Kierkegaard or Chesterton or Barth — Updike's
much - admired knights of Christian faith — who called God «the eternal not - ourselves» or who spoke of
biblical language as a human net «thrown out at a vast object of consciousness.»
Such immersion in the
biblical world and its
language leads to
much richer interpretation than either quoting proof texts or picking and choosing passages we like.
Much as
biblical theology is embedded in scriptural
language, the
biblical self is profoundly embedded in, and subordinated to, communal identity.
What literary critics and
biblical scholars share, according to the editors of The Literary Guide, is not so
much an interest in the referential qualities of the
biblical texts as an interest in their internal relationships, particularly as these relationships are controlled by
language.
Catholics have not used the
language of primordiurn
much because they see
biblical history within the tradition and the tradition within history, but the conservatives are often primitive in their views about origins of episcopacy and papacy, and contemporary moderates often try to settle things by going back to
biblical accounts of early ministry and communal life.