Sentences with phrase «biblical texts not»

Is the proper legacy of the historical - critical method a continued concern for intentionality in biblical texts not so much in precanonical but rather in final scriptural form?

Not exact matches

It finds a ready home in the biblical text that curiously» even in its most archaic past» chose not to consign all the righteous to the underworld.

This is not at all a fair or even representation of the Biblical text TGM, and I don't think emotive put downs of this sort do much to advance constructive debate on the subject!

Scientists may ultimately tell us how and when everything happened in ways not articulated in the biblical text, but science will never be able to tell us why.

In the Biblical Manuscript P72, dating from 175 - 200AD, and containing the entire text of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude, in this, we find 2 Peter 1:1 — ``... our God and Savior, Jesus Christ...» proving that the deity of Jesus was NOT a construct of Emperor Constantine (Roman Emperor from 306 - 337) as was proclaimed by Dan Brown in his book «The DaVinci Code,» but rather, this was a central teaching of the disciples from day 1.

How come testimony and doc - umentation is valid in our court systems today but not when we apply it to the biblical text?

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.

The Protestant Reformation was not a reinterpretation of the Biblical texts, rather, it was a return to proper Biblical teaching after the Council of Nicea in 325 created the hellish religion of Roman Catholicism.

It is all so outdated for the human race...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

If experience is more important than doctrine, and no doctrine is immune to revision» both of which are conclusions of Olson's postconservatives» how do we know that our fresh readings are not derived as much from our experience as from the biblical text?

the only remaining biblical argument (that the text is culturally bound) requires a NEW hermeneutic — but now you are asking conservatives not simply to «listen to their Bibles» (as MLK could do) but rather to ABANDON them.

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.

Sameth has based his arguments on his left - of - center sex ideology, and not at all on a credible historical reading of the biblical text in context.

No rational person makes decisions based on such distorted logic in any other area of life, and decisions regarding the textual veracity of the Biblical text should not be an exception to that rule.

Does Piper's response not «reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts» and rely on a bit of «technical ingenuity»?

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.

By providing only fragments from biblical books (in this case part of an oracle from Isaiah, a reassurance from Paul, a parable from Jesus), they leave a suggestive opening, not only to other texts...

My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etBiblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etbiblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc..

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

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.

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.

So while I agree that this is an example of how long some of these teachings went, even here they were interactive discussions, and while we can not be certain, the discussion was probably about the interpretation and application of biblical texts.

Since the mere recitation of Biblical passages does not suffice, these professionals require guidance as to how to move from text to sermon.

It's a matter of biblical history, not interpretation of the texts themselves.

It is not itself a hermeneutical remark, process or otherwise, about Biblical texts.

Many conservative evangelicals, like me, believe that a straight forward reading of the biblical text indicates that new «kinds» of life were specially created, not evolved.

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.

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.»

The clearest association I make, of course, is with the gender equality discussion within evangelicalism — not only because it's an issue near to my heart, but also because we are dealing with many of the same biblical texts.

Note the careful language inspired by, not an actual retelling or exegetical representation of the biblical text.

Christians on both sides, but especially the pro-slavery side, urged followers to simply abide by the «plain meaning» of biblical texts and not allow complicated, nuanced argumentation to cloud their mind.

«This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text,» Noll says.

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.

One doesn't have to like this, but as far as the biblical text is concerned, that's all you've got.

Calvinists believe that their understanding of the biblical text is the only proper understanding, and if people disagree, it is because they don't want to submit to God's revelation of Himself in Scripture.

Biblical interpretation is not finished, rather it is the ongoing, open - ended task of all those who take its text seriously and authoritatively.

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.

When Rob Bell released Love Wins, a book that made a compelling biblical case against the exclusivist theology that all non-Christians will be condemned to eternal conscious torment in hell, the Southern Baptist Convention released a resolution that stated: «Being troubled, even deeply troubled, by the implications of the biblical text does not give us a reason to abandon the text or force it into a mold that rests comfortably with us.

These important observations that remind us that both interpretation and proclamation of the biblical texts are exercises of power in themselves that should not go unexamined.

«Really the Armageddon book is not designed to be this Biblical commentary text on Ezekiel,» Hotsenpiller said.

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.

We will discuss this concept of being «dead» in future posts, and especially the biblical texts which are used to support this idea (which is based not on Scripture, but on Greek philosophy and fatalism).

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.

(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.

Accepting this requirement, I infer from it the way in which theology should seek to be systematic: not by trying to go behind or beyond what the texts affirm (the common caricature of systematic theology), but by making clear the links between items in the whole compendium of biblical thought.

The biblical text can not transform unless it can be related in powerful ways to the concrete joys and anxieties of us folk in the tag - end of this century.

Elsewhere, Schüssler Fiorenza explains: No biblical patriarchal text that perpetuates violence against women, children, or «slaves» should be accorded the status of divine revelation if we do not want to turn the God of the Bible into a God of violence.

The fact that people are tempted to abuse Scripture by calling upon it to support whatever they believe is one of the reasons it is inappropriate most of the time to think that the primary theological debate is about whether the biblical text is authoritative or not.