Sentences with phrase «biblical language as»

There is nothing sacred about the biblical language as such in relation to God.

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.»

Not exact matches

Please list your credentials as an expert in the original languages to validate your disapproval of the work done by dozens of BIBLICAL SCHOLARS who created the English Bibles.

Patrick was immersed in the language and thought of Scripture, and Moore provides alongside the text the biblical references, as well as unobtrusive footnotes explaining historical obscurities.

It could also mean developing new competencies, such as pastoral counseling, a biblical language, or mastering the accounting principles or computer software used in managing the church's financial affairs.

As a scholar of the biblical languages, Peterson was frustrated that his parishioners in Maryland couldn't see how revolutionary the text was, during their Bible study classes.

Sometimes I get the idea that folks in the mainline are so frustrated with how evangelicals have wielded the Bible and faith in the public square, they avoid language, practices, and teaching that might be construed as overly religious, overly biblical, or overly exclusive.

For the over-all result of the great reaction has been a sophistication of the true simplicity of the gospel, the use of a jargon which the common man (and the intelligent one, too, often enough) can not understand, and a tendency to assume that the biblical and creedal language as it stands need only be spoken, and enough then has been done to state and communicate the point of the Christian proclamation.

The loss of biblical language in public rhetoric or in public education may have telling effect (Lincoln might be incomprehensible today) Sunday school and other agencies of biblical education, where the texts can be restored and minds can as well be re-stored, are neglected, signaling that citizens are not really serious when they ask for more religion in the schools.

As for biblical language, it also seems to be in decline.

The critique of religion, as we enumerated it in the preceding paragraphs, confronted Bonhoeffer immediately with a new problem: finding a non-religious language to interpret the Biblical and theological concepts.

The immediate awareness of the Holy, the mysterium tremendum, ecstatic participation in the Sacred: this is language he can understand and with which he can identify, as is evidenced by his first book, Oriental Mysticism and Biblical Eschatology.

Each biblical statement is a sentence which must be understood in terms of the vocabulary and grammar of its original language (Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek), but the better modern translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, have made it possible for one who understands English vocabulary and grammar to read and study the Bible without being seriously misled on most points.

It is an affirmation and not, as many conservative evangelicals have reflexively assumed, a questioning of biblical authority when the language of liberation and empowerment prove fruitful in understanding further dimensions of what salvation always meant according to the scriptural witness, even though we had not previously been pushed to see it that clearly.

Within the Jewish - Christian tradition, this refreshment and companionship is given a supreme and clear statement in the language in which the biblical writers speak of God as the living one who identifies himself with his creatures, works for their healing, enables them to experience newness of life, and enters into fellowship with them.

As to the meaning of a text, it is not proper to give to Biblical language a current - day nuance that was foreign in its day.

First of all, responsible liturgical revision can not consist only in the use of more contemporary language or in the avoidance of what are known as «sexist» phrases (which are so dominantly masculine that women often feel excluded from what is going on) or in a return to biblical idiom to replace other (perhaps medieval) terminology.

The Church needs to see that women — and men — will not stand for this kind of language, as it is degrading, hurtful, and not even remotely biblical.

In «Myth and Truth» he maintains that the truth of mythical utterances can be shown only by restating them in nonmythical terms.113 Yet adequately to demythologize Christian myths will require not just any nonmythological language but one, such as process philosophy provides, which can do justice to the biblical view of God.

First, it is interesting that in the fourth century, the road to Constantinople in 381 is not paved by blunt appeals to church authority but by extensive wrestling over biblical texts and fine - tooling of extra-biblical language (most notably the term «hypostasis») in an attempt to establish which exegetical claims made sense of Scripture as a whole and which fell short.

Furthermore, there are first - rank theologians and biblical scholars who, though they have rejected the crude literalism of a descent of Christ through the clouds as the mythological product of a prescientific age, nevertheless use the language of a second coming to designate the final consummation of the kingdom.

So, in the biblical account the tower of Babel was destroyed by God as judgement about them and then confusing them with giving them different languages so they didn't understand each there for making it impossible to work together to build another tower.

Disillusionment with the welfare state, combined with the weakening of the languages of biblical religion and civic republicanism that traditionally moderated Lockean individualism, led many to take the market maximizer as the paradigm of the human person.

Despite the best efforts of apologists to refer to biblical slavery as merely indentured servitude or as bf does here as merely «volunteers,» the plain language betrays these interpretations.

But then, having reduced the fullness of biblical discourse to bare kerygma Bultmann feels no need to ask how the actual language of the Bible functions as a vehicle of meaning.

The agnostic note certainly creeps into St. Thomas's doctrine and one reason is that he saw the paradoxes involved in combining the view of God as simple, immutable, and impassible with the biblical language about God as Father, Son, and Spirit, begetting the Son, and Creating and Redeeming the World.

His subject, as one might expect, was theology and the philosophy of science, and he argued that the biblical concept of the Holy spirit may provide the missing link, so to speak, in the controversy over whether mind or language has precedence in the creation of human thought.

This is what biblical language about God is as well: It was contemporary to its time, relevant and secular — God as shepherd, vinekeeper, father, king, judge and so forth.

Kelly's summary of the trends in the curriculum of Oberlin Seminary applies to many others as well: «The program of study was changing from the dogmatic to the practical, from the ecclesiocentric to the socio - centric... «34 More recent examinations show the continuation of these emphases in our time though they also show a revival of interest in systematic and exegetical theology and in the Biblical languages.

From Bultmann categories in theology, which polemic needed only to be enlarged to include biblical - kerygmatic as well as objective - interventionist theological language about God to become very radical indeed.

Behind the best of our languages they find, as Tocqueville did, relatively inert traditions that all five authors presumably wish were more active: biblical thought and imagery, and republican discourse and institutions.

And again, through the work of other scholars like Bultmann and Buri, with their frank recognition of the mythological element in the biblical story, we have come to see that the affirmations of Scripture have their abiding significance, not in spite of, but precisely because of their being stated in language which can only be described as highly metaphorical.

Much as biblical theology is embedded in scriptural language, the biblical self is profoundly embedded in, and subordinated to, communal identity.

On Coptic language have been made several Gnostic false gospels as the purpose to distort genuine Biblical gospels.

Hebrew language and literature, Jewish history, modern Jewish theology and philosophy, even undue absorption in the study of the biblical text — all are proscribed as evidence of defection from Torah - true Judaism.

In this book, as elsewhere, Levenson's sensitivity to biblical language guides his own style of theology.

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.

And then comes: the taboo subjects; talking about people as if they are not there (or as if they are an «issue», not a person); assuming everyone (who counts) is of a certain race, ability, class, language, sexuality or gender; various non-biblical behavioural rules; the targeted enforcement of church rules (whether «biblical» or not) on particular groups; and the general reluctance to see things from another's perspective (even if this is a skill that churchgoers use all day, every day, outside thw church).

The biblical notion of nations and languages or tongues needs to be understood positively as it is amply demonstrated in the Bible:

Aramaic or Greek), not in the receptor language (the language into which the translation is being made) In my work as a consultant for the United Bible Societies in West Africa and South America, helping to organize and supervise translation projects in such places as Ouagadougou, Bobo Dioulasso, Timbuktu and Tamale, and checking translations in such languages as Bobo, Bwamu, Gourma, Pila - Pila and Kabiyd, I have discovered another kind of difficulty: obligatory categories in the receptor languages which do not exist in the biblical languages.

The more serious effort to concern itself primarily with ethical rather than theological problems, as the followers of Bonhoeffer have done, has led them outside the framework of biblical language and judgment, and has tended to dissolve their religious answers either into personal morality or social activism which, while serious in its intention, has made them weathercocks turning freely in the cultural winds.

Ladouceur utilizes a language that will be blurrily familiar to many of us, subconsciously quoting comic / cartoon characters we faintly remember from childhood, as his characters guide our boggled understanding of the world's belief systems across visions of totem poles, lotus blossoms and piles of elephant heads; all the while new age gurus, goofy mystics and Biblical actors flex and fumble through their roles as spiritual advisors, leaving us to sort it out for ourselves.