Sentences with phrase «for biblical language»

It would realize that there is no «direct» way to talk about God, whether the objective route of Barth with his penchant for biblical language or the subjective route of Bultmann with his reliance on existentialist language.

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

Not exact matches

If your ministry is interested and willing to reach unreached and untold in Pakistan with the materials in native languages, I can arrange to translate for messages, bible studies, biblical tracks, books and also Urdu page on your ministry website.

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.

It appears in the end to be that the doctrine of analogy is required only for the preservation of the Biblical language about God.

Two years ago I wrote an article for The Christian Century on the language of hymns and the new biblical translations which I freely confess was more heat than light («Lord, Bless This Burning Pit Stop,» January 15, 1975, p. 36).

Instead of settling for the minimum in biblical languages, I try to teach that minimum and introduce an electronic product that will make translation almost nice.

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.

They learn Bible stories, biblical language, and religious ritual most naturally during the early elementary - school years, for these are the golden years for memorization.

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.

In biblical language, the Spirit «takes of the things of Christ and declares them unto us», always in a manner which is both appropriate to the Church's origin and also available for and intelligible in this or that given moment of the tradition's development.

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.

He is the editor of Christians for Biblical Equality's magazine, Mutuality (@Mutualitymag), and enjoys finding God's fingerprints in history, culture, and language.

The biblical analogy for today's Church is the Tower of Bable, a construction that aims at the heavens but that is impeded by a confusion over language.

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

The use of biblical language to express a Victorian worldview makes it very difficult for most Protestants to remember that the books of the Bible address questions posed in another time in terms of the worldviews of ancient cultures.

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.

A more far - reaching example is when somebody recognizes you for what you are, knows you, to use Biblical language, and accepts that.

Indeed, their paranoid fascination with the fossil record (which includes, almost, surreally, a «creation museum» in Cleveland, Ohio where one can see biblical children playing with dinosaurs) Hell, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, «true» Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred — and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden!!!

This of course is sociological language for the biblical truth of being unable to avoid doing the harm we know perfectly well we are doing (Rom.

But despite the assertions of certain biblical scholars, this does not mean that no metaphysic is implicit in Hebrew thinking; it means only that the language in which the implicit metaphysic was stated was for the Hebrew highly imaginistic, pictorial, symbolical.

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.

It seems to me that Evans leaves us with this dilemma: one must have a biblical onlook in order for Jesus Christ to provide a basis for self - involving language; one can not gain this biblical onlook by exposure to God or Jesus outside this biblical onlook; therefore, unless there is already a biblical onlook there is no basis for Christian teaching.

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

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.

For Ofili, the synthesis of biblical catechism with a contemporary language that integrated violence and humour, was a revelation.