Sentences with phrase «biblical texts which»

However, we are also heirs of a false and one sided understanding of the biblical texts which deal with the Christian attitude towards a state and authorities.

Victoria, my book looks at the biblical texts which allegedly teach what you are saying they teach (that Christmas trees are idols, etc) and shows how that understanding is a terrible misunderstanding of those texts.

The Greek word used in the biblical texts which use this word is dokimos.

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).

Daniel Fuller believes that in non-revelatory matters, there is «error» in the Biblical text which was included deliberately by the authors in order to communicate effectively with their readers.

Again, the narrative itself, as read by the sympathetic and sensitive reader, constitutes its own best commentary; and again, therefore, we call brief attention to points in the biblical text which, in our judgment, ought to be specially noted:

Not exact matches

While the report acknowledges that no single «Christian'tax policy can be pieced together from biblical texts, the report argues that some clear directions do emerge, some of which may be controversial.

It was never originally written in Latin, only translated... the first translation by St. Jerome — the Vulgate which was a translation of a group of biblical texts known as the Vetus Latina.

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?

Much of the information that has come down to us by tradition about the authorship, place and date of biblical writings, about differences of text and translation, and the like, is the outcome of intelligent critical discussion which took place between the first century and the fourth.

But if we can stop arguing about inerrancy, we can return instead to what has true value, which is actually discussing the biblical text itself.

Theology in the Reformation tradition has explored other alternatives, as in the «Andover theory» which views biblical texts such as 2 Peter 3:19 «20 and 4:6 and Christ's descent to the dead referenced in the Apostles» Creed as warranting belief in the Hound of Heaven pursuing the last and the least.

Theological hermeneutics should have a «spiral structure» in which there is ongoing circulation between culture, tradition, and biblical text, each enriching the understanding of the other.

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

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.»

[It should be noted here that complementarian notions of manhood and womanhood tend to be based on culturally — influenced stereotypes, many of which project idealized notions of the post-industrial revolution nuclear family onto biblical texts rather than taking those texts on their own terms — a topic we've discussed at length in the past and will continued to discuss in the future.]

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.

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

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.

If you're interested, here are some links to our Mutuality 2012 Series, which explores the topic — and some of its relevant biblical texts — more thoroughly:

In Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation they recommend that the definition of rhetoric be broadened to its fullest range in the classical tradition, namely as «the means by which a text establishes and manages it relationship to its audience in order to achieve a particular effect.»

In interpreting his biblical texts Bultmann made use of these ideas with a vigor which promises that his basic principles of interpretation may survive, still seem valid, when the misty vocabulary of Heidegger's early philosophy no longer seems compelling.

Those who have had basic courses in the biblical languages and are willing to devote 20 minutes a day to such language study should gain enough language ability to base their sermon text study on the original text, and they should have enough linguistic skill to use the best of the great philological commentaries, which often cite words from the original languages.

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.

A significant strand of feminism has used literary methods, exploring the ways in which biblical texts construct and represent an image of women that may function in the service of particular ideologies.

Creationism is a simpleton's interpretation of biblical text, which is often written in hyperbole and parable.

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.

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.

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?

Or this: «Why do our evangelical theologies give so much attention to questions relating to only a few obscure biblical texts while completely ignoring the topic of «poorology» to which are devoted hundreds of clear texts?»)

We read the Bible «through the Jesus lens» — which looks suspiciously like it means using the parts of the Gospels that we like, with the awkward bits carefully screened out, which enables us to disagree with the biblical texts on God, history, ethics and so on, even when Jesus didn't (Luke 17:27 - 32 is an interesting example).

And the way the film interprets that particular text makes that biblical verse directly related to the governor of Illinois» recent decision to ban the death penalty, a decision which was reportedly informed by the Bible.

Rollins instead advocates a more pre-modern approach to the biblical text, which requires a type of voluntary «second naïvete» on the part of today's devotional reader.

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.

The reason I am summarizing it is because I want to begin looking at some of the key biblical passages which are affected by my proposal to see how we can read and understand these texts.

Once we take into account the capacity of the ancient Jewish mind to create a story as a way of expounding and showing the relevance of a Biblical text (this practice will be described in Chapter 9), it is not at all difficult to see how the story of Joseph of Arimathea could have been partly shaped by Isaiah 53:9, «And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,» found in the famous chapter on the suffering servant, which was certainly interpreted by the early Christians as a prophecy of the death of Jesus.

He has a take on angels, Satan, and demons which I have never heard before, and which seems to fit the biblical text in a way that, if true, would cause me to read much of Scripture in a whole different way, and which would cause me to view life, and governments, and cities, and politics, and animals, and plants and pretty much everything in a whole new way also.

But evangelicals are included in the «others»; no less than liberals they seek to understand Scripture according to the particular historical contexts in which biblical texts were written ¯ with the one difference being that they consider themselves bound to receive what they conclude the text to say as authoritative rather than open to improvement.

The biblical text seems to serve as a source of proof texts to manipulate the laity into accomplishing the churches agenda, some of which is good (fellowship, salvation, prayer, etc.), some of it is not.

If the minister feels lost at first with a body of ideas without a skeleton, he may adopt the form in which the Biblical text is presented.

Though nothing new is here, the discussion of questions of context (liberal, modern, neo-orthodox; ecumenical, realist, biblical), texts and contexts (matters of biblical interpretation) and the way in which Christian affirmations are appropriately translated into particular settings is stimulating.

One can point to the emergence of a variety of critical approaches to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, which have contributed to the breakdown of certainties: These include historical - critical and other new methods for the study of biblical texts, feminist criticism of Christian history and theology, Marxist analysis of the function of religious communities, black studies pointing to long - obscured realities, sociological and anthropological research in regard to cross-cultural religious life, and examinations of traditional teachings by non-Western scholars.

If this were done, then the inevitable danger which every dogmatician must, confront [and here lies the dignity and greatness of his task] would be more clearly recognized: namely, the danger that he may not remain upon an extension of the biblical line, but rather interpret the biblical texts primarily ex post facto, from the point of view of his «going beyond the New Testament.

An ancient rabbinic method of exegesis called midrash, which sought out and inevitably found the solution to problems perceived in the biblical text, resulted in the creation of an abundant mythology that eventually took on a life of its own.

To quote Kenyan feminist theologian Musimbi Kanyoro, «Those cultures which are far removed from biblical culture risk reading the Bible as fiction,» Conversely, societies that identify with the biblical world feel at home in the text.

- The 40 - page Inspired Reading Guide (PDF), written entirely by me, which includes questions for reflection and discussion, ideas for creative engagement with the relevant biblical texts, and loads of additional resources.

A common objection is that the Bible is unreliable because it has been altered from (a now unavailable) original which would have been identical in teaching to the Quran, and this is evidenced by variant readings in the biblical text.

A new approach to theology is needed, one which focuses on the Biblical text, and emphasizes both doctrine and practice.

«Listener to the Christian message, «2 occasional preacher, 3 dialoguer with biblical scholars, theologians, and specialists in the history of religions, 4 Ricoeur is above all a philosopher committed to constructing as comprehensive a theory as possible of the interpretation of texts.5 A thoroughly modern man (if not, indeed, a neo-Enlightenment figure) in his determination to think «within the autonomy of responsible thought, «6 Ricoeur finds it nonetheless consistent to maintain that reflection which seeks, beyond mere calculation, to «situate [us] better in being, «7 must arise from the mythical, narrative, prophetic, poetic, apocalyptic, and other sorts of texts in which human beings have avowed their encounter both with evil and with the gracious grounds of hope.

Just as those who wrote the Biblical texts had no concept of the science that would prove the earth actually revolves around the sun, so they had no concept of homosexuality (which wasn't defined until the 19th century.)