Sentences with phrase «as much an interpretation»

Not exact matches

It was fun to see a modern - day interpretation of a silent film, but it didn't bring much more to the table than that gimmick, and it doesn't hold a special place as a memorable and impactful movie the way its fellow nominees «The Tree of Life,» «Midnight in Paris,» and «Moneyball» do.

Although the texts of the teachings don't change much, societies interpretation of ancient texts evolves as social awareness and social consciousness evolves.

Even the various forms of theological activity can be redescribed in narrative terms, as when Newbigin writes of «the congregation as hermeneutic of the gospel»: interpretation of Scripture for Newbigin is not so much what a particular scholar writes as what a particular community of believers enacts.

To ignore these principles of interpretation is to distort the text just as much as if you ignored the principle of reading poetry as poetry with all the rich meaning of figurative language and chose rather to read it like it was a science text book.

I love how some take the words of one supposed «theologian» to another and then tells everyone not to listen to their pastor who has probably had as much experience (if not more) with biblical interpretation than this author.

Further, again, the Author of this article (after whose viewpoint I structured my argument) also takes the much more strict interpretation as described.

Some may use the bible as an outline, but it is apparent with all the denominations that claim to use the same book that it is open to much interpretation.

In this discovery, I owed much to Karl Löwith's lectures on the theological rootage of modern philosophies of history as well as to Gerhard von Rad's interpretation of the Old Testament.

In the end, sound constitutional interpretation is ensured not so much by principles on paper as by judges with certain virtues.

Hence, if we begin with the goal of making sense of Whitehead's intuition, as Ford also understands it, the traditional interpretations have much in their favor.

The people whose interpretations of experience we are studying are not Trobiand Islanders, but Jews of the first - century Mediterranean world; to understand how they interpret their lives, we need to learn as much as possible about the properly historical realities within which they lived: the social and symbolic worlds of Roman rule, Hellenistic culture, and a variegated Judaism.

As much as 93 percent of interpersonal communication may consist of the interpretation of nonverbal cueAs much as 93 percent of interpersonal communication may consist of the interpretation of nonverbal cueas 93 percent of interpersonal communication may consist of the interpretation of nonverbal cues.

The editors correctly chose to present as much descriptive material as possible before turning to interpretation.

@david johson your long response offers no proof of anything, opinions and personal interpretation are not «proof «you admitted as much -LRB-, the old i can't prove a negative) but you impressed the heck out of martin t (not particularly difficult on that, as he appears to thrive on any bs that seems to support his «position») Just a side bar Santa does exist, or rather did, Saint Nicholas, Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the «Coke» version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual person.

The meaning of this last word is much disputed, and amongst those suggested are that Mark was literally an interpreter who translated Peter's Aramaic into Greek, that Mark was Peter's «dragoman» (cf. Acts 13:5), and that Mark «interpreted» Peter's teaching by handing it on and explaining it (Papias speaks of himself as handing on what he had learnt from the elders «with my interpretations»).

Such an approach, for example, led Cyril of Alexandria to interpret chapter one, verse thirteen («My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh, that lies between my breasts») as referring to the Old and New Testaments, between which hangs Christ.52 Not all interpretation that followed through the centuries was as ludicrous as this, although much of it was.

Others among the Sufis held fast to shari`a, but understood it in ways which were much wider and more liberal than the interpretation of the orthodox, looking upon the law as either a system of self - discipline or as a set of symbols representing hidden religious meanings.

What I have particularly in mind is that while there is much talk about taking Jesus as a key to the interpretation of human nature, as it is often phrased, or to the meaning of human life, or to the point of man's existential situation, there is a lamentable tendency to stop there and not to go on to talk about «the world» — by which Miss Emmet meant, I assume, the totality of things including physical nature; in other words the cosmos in its basic structure and its chief dynamic energy.

Interpretation and application could do much to rationalize the arbitrary features of the legal code, but as long as this code was fixed as the past word of God, and as long as God was understood to have spoken in the past rather than in the present, complete rationalization could not occur.

They have been stirred together in a mortar, and the two elements have completely neutralized each other in a compound which is neither history nor interpretation, but mystical rhapsody and poetry of devotion, not so much a theology as a half - Gnostic Christian theosophy — history turned inside out in order to reveal its inner meaning, but ceasing to be history in the process.

This is a much needed corrective to those who have adopted the historical / critical method not only as a tool but also as their principle of interpretation (or «hermeneutic principle», in theological jargon).

Joseph, Perhaps David wasn't implying that the Scripture was wrong as much as he was implying that our interpretation of the teachings from Scripture have been wrong.

As much as I struggle with the things I don't like about the Bible — the apparent contradictions, the competing interpretations, the troubling passages — I'm beginning to think that God allows these tensions to exist for a reasoAs much as I struggle with the things I don't like about the Bible — the apparent contradictions, the competing interpretations, the troubling passages — I'm beginning to think that God allows these tensions to exist for a reasoas I struggle with the things I don't like about the Bible — the apparent contradictions, the competing interpretations, the troubling passages — I'm beginning to think that God allows these tensions to exist for a reason.

In addition, the literal interpretation of the «joy of life» ignores the irony of Zola's title, since the hero in Joie de Vivre, Pauline, perseveres through great suffering (and little joy) as a kind of Christ - figure, much like the hero in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables, Jean Valjean.

I figured as much; you've never taken any classes in religion that weren't taught in YOUR church by YOUR preacher, and you believe that's the ONLY interpretation that could possibly be correct.

I believe we can start by accepting as much of Him as we understand, but I believe that continuous obedience toward Him and contact with Him will steadily convince us that shallow, humanistic interpretations of Him do not fit the facts....

But, he said, «the latter history of this culture is not so much a debate between these two schools of thought as a rebellion of romanticism, materialism and psychoanalytic psychology against the errors of rationalism, whether idealistic or naturalistic, in its interpretation of human nature.

For my part I have been very much taken with — I should say, won over by — the eschatological interpretation that Jurgen Moltmann gives to the Christian kerygma in his work The Theology of Hope.1 As we know, Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer are at the origin of the reinterpretation of the whole of the New Testament, starting with the preaching of the Kingdom of God and of the last things and breaking with the moralizing Christ of the liberal exegetes.

As for myself, through much of my life I tried to figure out Luther on the assumption that Luther interpretation on

The Acts account of the primitive preaching (at least as regards the lordship of Jesus) is not so much a theological interpretation of Jesus as the affirmation of what the early church had found him to be.

But as much as this can not be said for another distinction, of which one often hears, between the historical interpretation of the Bible on the one hand, and an interpretation variously called devotional, religious, or theological, on the other.

First of all, the propositions in question are not simply properties of a text; text and interpretation participate in the creation of a given proposition, so that it is as much «in interpretation» as it is «in Scripture.»

Furthermore, even the identification of the putative content of experience proves to be normed by whatever hermeneutical analysis is employed, for one can only imagine, much less recognize as present, what one can come to identify somehow.16 Finally, some hermeneutical analysis is also presupposed by and, therefore, normative of any argument from experience, whether of the individual or the communal type, since it is only experience as interpretable in terms of some description or other to which one can ever appeal either for the mutual corroboration of such descriptions or for their illustration of a theistic interpretation.

Hence with His own statements, so far as they are His own, such a «proportionate interpretation», in a fine phrase from Bishop Westcott, is required quite as much as it is required for other pieces of biblical teaching.

Vast numbers of people think that the fact of a relatively settled order of nature, along with the scientific interpretation of change and the description of the inner dynamics of human personality (and much else as well), has ruled out once and for all genuine novelty and made change nothing more than the reshuffling of bits of matter - in - motion.

Muhammad wanted a much more logical interpretation to the Bible which he rewrote as the Taurah, Injil, Psalms and added the Quran as his new revelation.

This is clearest in in his portrayal of the Elizabethan settlement as a deliberate via media between Protestantism and Catholicism, an interpretation which has been the target of much of the best writing about the period for more than twenty years.

In view of the scarcity of the historical evidence, it is surely legitimate to indulge in hypothetical reconstruction of the provenance of the tradition, even though much of the hypothesis, brilliant and attractively presented as it is, remains a matter of speculation — that is, it is an interpretation of the surviving evidence rather than a discovery of further evidence.

For example, although David Ford's work is much respected among academic theologians, and he is one of the most important public theologians in the UK, his name is probably unknown to most Christians in the U.S. Educated in Ireland, Germany and the U.S. (as well as in the UK), Ford brings a wide range of intellectual resources to bear on his interpretation of the faith.

The first was was the infallibility of my own church / denomination's interpretation of it as my struggle was very much over what you portray in the cartoon above.

If I were writing a book on Whitehead I should put forward and discuss how much this interpretation was a distortion of Whitehead; I don't believe there is any other view as definite as this that can be got out of him.

I have decided that varying interpretations have as much to do with our own fallibility in understanding the meanings of passages as they do in the numbers of translations that are out there.

Since Hinduism as a mystic religion can not comprehend this historical nature of prophetic missionary religions, it gives them also a mystic interpretation; so much so, Hinduism can not tolerate them until these religions themselves accept the mystic interpretation of the unity and equality of all religions.

The literary criticism of the Gospels, as illustrated by this interpretation of the feeding stories, has much potential to benefit both the academy and the church.

As much as the members of the Court claim non bias in their interpretation of the Consti tution, it simply can not be sAs much as the members of the Court claim non bias in their interpretation of the Consti tution, it simply can not be sas the members of the Court claim non bias in their interpretation of the Consti tution, it simply can not be so.

Dale Van Kley's new book, The Religious Origins of the French Revolution, seeks to revive a sort of Whiggish interpretation of the French Revolution as the struggle for freedom against sacral monarchy, with much of the ideological discourse of the revolutionaries deriving from little expected religious controversies» beginning with the rise and fall of Calvinism in Catholic France, continuing through the struggles over theological Jansenism, and ending in the political struggles of the French high courts of justice, the parlements, with the administrative monarchy of the eighteenth century.

Every biblical text seemed to yield a strangely similar message and that message appeared to be shaped not so much by the text as by a certain «sensible» interpretation of culture.

Balentine again goes his singular way by finding in God's two «whirlwind» speeches a much more upbeat interpretation than do most scholars, who generally deprecate the speeches as a denial of humankind's right to question God.

Writes Schindler: «In sum, West's work provides a paradigm of what is most often criticised today in connection with John Paul II's theology of the body - and rightly criticised, insofar as that theology is identified with West's interpretation: namely, that it is too much about sex and too romantic.»

The meaning of this passage is much disputed (cf. p. 64), but could be understood as indicating that Matthew made an arrangement of Jesus» sayings in Aramaic, the interpretation (or translation) of which was left to individuals.