Sentences with phrase «biblical text for»

The Second Vatican Council called for a common biblical text for each language group, preferably one produced in ecumenical cooperation.

It is not an interactive discussion of a biblical text for the instruction and edification of other believers.

Not exact matches

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.

In this work he commented one by one on all his writings, giving details about the date and circumstances of the work, noting places where he had changed his mind, pointing out passages where he got things wrong, for example where he had cited a biblical text from memory and not gotten it correct.

Spend a half - hour teaching the text for every minute reviewing the latest biblical scholarship.

Furthermore, a Sumerian text from Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of domestication of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel's milk... For the early and middle second millennium BC, only limited use is presupposed by either the biblical or external evidence until the twelfth century BC.

Is there a place for historical criticism in Islam, the kind of criticism Western scholars started applying to the biblical text in the l8thcentury?

It is all so outdated for the human race...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.

Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term «Biblical exegesis» is used for greater specificity.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

This is certainly a problem for those who treat the biblical text as sacred, regard the biblical heroes as models, and suppose that everything said about God is true.

Without sources other than the biblical texts themselves, there are no absolutely certain criteria for establishing historicity.

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.

Within the biblical text can be found a God - intended shape for human life which maintains a crucial balance between work and play.

This is significant not only because it is a biblical text, but because it seems for her to sum up in a decisive way the meaning of her self - discovery.

Origen followed suit, interpreting biblical texts allegorically with a power that made itself felt for centuries thereafter.

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.

One answer takes Biblical texts to function as «lures for feeling.»

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.»

Even while acknowledging some lat.itude in these early chapters, it appears that science is increasingly able to corroborate what we have held in faith based upon biblical texts, including bases for such matters as an ancient deluge, genetic linking back to one mother and possible on father, and the possibility of extended life - spans prior to the deluge.

«Through personal stories, proven experience and a thorough analysis of the biblical text, Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic Church illustrates both the biblical mandate for the multi-ethnic church as well as the seven core commitments required to bring it about.»

Though we long for the Bible to weigh in on these issues and give us biblical perspectives or answers, we dare not impose such an obligation on the text.

1.1 have also been impressed by the excellent sets of questions focusing social aspects of biblical preaching listed by Forbes, «Social Transformation,» 51, and Ronald J. Allen, «Sociological Exegesis: Text and Social Reality,» Contemporary Biblical Interpretation for Preaching (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1984), biblical preaching listed by Forbes, «Social Transformation,» 51, and Ronald J. Allen, «Sociological Exegesis: Text and Social Reality,» Contemporary Biblical Interpretation for Preaching (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1984), Biblical Interpretation for Preaching (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1984), 91 - 93.

This second way of construing the force of Biblical texts, viz., as giving descriptions of actualities, seems part of a quite different enterprise than the first construal of the force of Biblical texts (viz., as expressing «propositions» that are «lures for feeling»).

But the Anti-Defamation League, which found so much to dislike in Gibson's Passion, praised The Gospel of John for at least sticking with the biblical text.

These all are quite accurate translations of the Biblical text, and so are good for preaching and teaching.

For prayers based on specific biblical texts and events, this pattern of interconnections also fosters a theocentric hermeneutic which resists any supersessionism.

To be deep in history is certainly, for instance, to cease to be an evangelical of the kind who allows experience to trump doctrine, who believes doctrine can be read off the surface of the biblical text, and who sees no theological or existential problem that can not be solved with a proof text or two.

But to claim some biblical justification for something so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ is (I think I have said this before) a perversion of the text.

As a Protestant, I could see the exegetical basis for the former, with the dogma developing as the result of debates over biblical texts.

I believe it is the responsibility of all those who disagree with Richard Dawkins» rather superficial and juvenile conclusions about the biblical text, to create space for a deeper discussion around the way in which we work with it and, as a consequence, who we understand God to be.

Increasingly, he suggests as a biblical scholar, historical criticism is having diminishing value for eliciting lived truth from biblical texts.

He thought the narrative character of the biblical texts had some implications for how those texts ought to be interpreted.

For example, if you challenge a particular Reformed understanding of a biblical text based on exegetical arguments, the response you will likely get is, «Well, that is wrong because Augustine and Calvin said this...»

As for the area of creation and science, has not reason compelled us to abandon the referential meaning of the biblical texts in Genesis and forced us to treat them in a theological and even mythological way?

Sugirtharajah says, «rewriting and retranslating are not a simple dependence upon the past, but a radical remolding of the text to meet new situations and demands».48 The translators of this period seek for a wider intertextuality49 which links Biblical texts with Asian scriptural texts.

The biblical text was strictly defined, there were no subtexts, and hermeneutics was more like a home repair manual than an intuitive art, a set of rules for applying textbook formulas to problematic situations.

While I appreciate the approach that DTS teaches, it can really only be followed by expert scholars and theologians, and is not feasible for the average student of Scripture, which indicates to me that it is not the only oven the best way of reading and interpreting the biblical text.

When biblical texts are the only sufficient reason for holding ethical and political views, a dubious «divine voluntarism» results.

(4) Biblical texts must be understood in their human context: for otherwise we shall fail to read their real point out of them and instead read into them points they are not making at all.

They choose, for whatever reason (spiritual experience, fear, apathy) to not waiver from their interpretation and understanding of biblical texts even in the face of reason and logic.

I wanted to learn and to teach a method of publically reading scripture, for example, that respected the intrinsic value of studying biblical texts while enhancing their communicative value in worship.

Is there, then, some alternative method which can make it once more possible for that biblical text to speak, to become again a transformative agent?

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, writes that «a feminist critical hermeneutics of suspicion places a warning label on all biblical texts: Caution!

It allowed me to reconceptualize the study of «women in the Bible,» by moving from what men have said about women to a feminist historical reconstruction of early Christian origins as well as by articulating a feminist critical process for reading and evaluating androcentric biblical texts.

This text brings together four important emphases for setting out a biblical basis for world mission.

In the present text of this narrative, Moses goes up and down Mount Sinai no less than three times, and for a man reputed in the biblical tradition to be in his eighties, that is no small chore.

A doctoral student in biblical studies at Union, her research involves literary strategies for reading biblical and pseudepigraphic texts.

But whatever the reason, these two fundamentally different descriptions and justifications for one's non-work on the Sabbath found their way successively into the inspired biblical texts.