Sentences with phrase «accept this book as»

Lutherans accept these books as authoritative because they understand them to be faithful witnesses to the teachings of Scripture.

The Jews of Palestine became convinced that inspiration came to an end with the period of Ezra and Nehemiah and would accept no book as inspired which they believed originated after that time.

I can accept the booking as he was breaking the rules (if the card was for infringement) but I still think fuchs should have been booked for what he did.

Please accept this book as an expression of our commitment to support all families in our community who are navigating these very important early years.

For those who have not yet had the particular enjoyment of working with those who «think outside the box», they may have some difficulty accepting this book as a work of non-fiction - so outlandish is the premise that were you to suggest it in a novel it would be laughed off as ridiculous.

Best, then, just to accept the book as a prosaic account of Hawking's life, and the film as a lyrical celebration of it.

Not exact matches

These are leaders who, as I wrote in my book Great CEOs Are Lazy, prioritize wearing the «Coach's Hat»: their entire goal is to build a safe and accepting environment where people are encouraged to do their best work.

«The room, board, books and laundry figures are based upon the rates which prevailed during the past academic year, and can be accepted as applicable for the year 1950 - 1951 unless national economic changes require their alteration,» according to the bulletin.

Each ride an Uber driver accepts is a «gig» or a single job, as is each booking a Hassle cleaner makes to tidy a flat or every errand run through TaskRabbit.»

At the time the Market Wizards books were written; late 80's early 90's, technical analysis was not as widely accepted as it is today.

Also Mormons hav added their own Book of Mormon to the accepted canon of the revealed word and that by itself is enough to disqualify them as Christians.

The book of Philemon is a letter from Paul that exhorts the slave owner to accept the return of his runaway slave as an equal... a brother.

If I found some books that justified all the things that happened in WW II, Would read that and accept it as truth?

As a reader trying to be charitable, I face an unattractive choice: accept that His Eminence does hold the mistaken view that mercy is essential to God; or assume that when he emphatically made the multiple important statements at key points in his book that mercy is essential to God, he didn't mean them.

The authors of the books accepted as part of the new testament never had Christ deny his deity.

The books of the New Testament were closer in time to the actual event than most histories of that time or earlier that are generally accepted as true.

Muslims to this day do not accept images and such in their worship and it is confusing as to why Christianity can't follow suit in worshipping an invisible God in doing the same, especially when their history preceded Islam and wrote the book (so to speak) on such pure worship.

Has anyone returned from the dead to confirm this or do you simply accept every 2000 + year old book as reality?

Furthermore, in the book of Philemon, a Christian had a slave that ran away, and was converted by Paul, and Paul told the Christian to accept the slave back as a brother.

but accept the Book of Mormon as the Word of God period.

This is, in effect, a commentary on the material generally ascribed to Q. By today's standards the author accepts material as authentic far too readily, and he conspicuously fails to take notice of form criticism, but this is nonetheless a great book.

Creeds, the canon of scripture (the books accepted as the official Bible) and the institutional structure of the church emerged only toward the end of the second century.

I may be not very orthodox but I think that one of the worst mistakes the early Church Fathers did was to accept the Apocalypsis (Revelations) as a Canonigal book.

If this book called the Bible is accepted as the doctrine for Christianity, then that means all the craziness in Revelation is also accepted.

Besides determining which books were to be accepted as scriptural, the early churches also had to decide which of the variations of the same work was authentic and which were spurious.

And regardless of what you believe about the violence of God in Scripture, these books will present you with a new way of looking at things so that you no longer have to choose between accepting that God is violent or writing off the Bible as hopelessly full of error.

Never - the-less, without accepting the work at face value, it is possible to regard the Book of Mormon as the product of an extraordinary and profound act of the religious imagination.

You know as well as I do that the current accepted canon is not what has always been accepted and there are dozens of 1 century letters and books that were written and included and then removed by the Church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Mormons accept the Bible as inspired (particularly the King James Version), yet they also claim that The Book of Mormon is the Word of God, along with other writings from early Mormonism such as The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants.

Believers used a book (i.e. holy scriptures) as the basis and not personal perception i guess, though it becomes personal perception when perceive and accept it to be true and right basis.

I guess most people don't bother to read the books they claim to accept as scientific!

Of course you... he makes no sense but nor does the book you two think has facts, so it would be natural for two of the same ilk to deny evidence based facts and accept fairy tales as fact.

The five books of the law had been accepted as sacred Scripture for four or five centuries, and for two or three centuries the books of the prophets had been recognized as a second body of sacred literature; but the rest of the Old Testament (known to this day simply as Writings or Scriptures) had not yet been «canonized.»

They also believe that you must accept Joseph Smith as a prophet to be saved, so says LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith in his book, Doctrines of Salvation.They also believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers — Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages on page 15.

We must accept it as a whole or none at all because if the book or collection of books which I would rather say the Bible is wrong in geology then what good is its theology?

Unless you want to become a sci - fi geek, you may as well accept the fact that the «final frontier» is simply something that can be boldly pursued only in one's own solipsistic comic book version of the fate of the America.

Even the legislation in the Book of Deuteronomy, which a moment ago we found guilty of marked favoritism toward the priests, accepts the kingship as a valid institution.

R. E. Hume's book, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads, 29 contains a translation of those which are rather generally accepted as basic to a study of Hindu religion and philosophy.

One needs to work hard to get out of these lies... one should spend time to study the basic principles of the all the books we have around us this time which include the book of Mormon and LDS... then you think what make sense and what not... the accept the true one... I can assure you that there is only one Truth as two can't be truth... you just have to look for it and use ur intellectuals...

Everybody wants to do what is right in their own eyes and frankly, I am growing weary of media statements that suggest «well, everybody knows that the Bible is just a book of myths and that it's irrelevant, etc.» as though everyone accepts this as understood.

As Theophilus read this book, he was faced with a choice — to accept or deny the message, to live as he had up until then, or to change and live in light of what Luke wrotAs Theophilus read this book, he was faced with a choice — to accept or deny the message, to live as he had up until then, or to change and live in light of what Luke wrotas he had up until then, or to change and live in light of what Luke wrote.

Jesus also tells the Sadducees that life after death is clearly implied in books of the Law, which they accept as canonical.

It is significant that from the second century to the nineteenth, when modern historical scholarship became current, theories about the Bible were held which no competent historian now accepts, such as that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) including the description of his own death.

For the purpose of this book, an alcoholic is defined as a person who has become dependent on the drug alcohol, consequently drinking more alcohol than the socially accepted norm for his culture; his excessive drinking damages his health and his relation to his family, friends and job.

In response to Mormonism where is the factual evidence from what this Faith is based on: 1) Prove that reformed Eygptian is a true language 2) Provide a map showing the journey in American the Nephites and the Moronites took to establish themselves will validating their establisments 3) The Book of Abraham has been proven false so why is still accepted as scripture 4) Joseph Smith was not a Jew or part of the tribe Levi, but believed that the rights of the priesthood was given to him.

Yet this was a most important oversimplification, for it made possible for the Jews to accept their fate as the just punishment of God, and to accept the Torah as the book by which they would live.

Given the tremendous insights offered by the use of Aristotle's Metaphysics (which he called first philosophy) for speculative philosophy itself as well as theology, other writings of his were accepted as equally as insightful, including his book, the Physics.

What was read in a book was accepted as true while serious attention to spoken words waned.

As I contend in a forthcoming book, Death on a Friday Afternoon, this falls far short of an encounter with the God of Israel who accepts defeat by our definition of the game in order to expose the error of our definition.

Midgley, a retired philosophy professor from Newcastle, has published many provocative and insightful books in the past 15 years, combating various streams of uncritically accepted suppositions in science, ethics, philosophy and modern culture as well.