Sentences with phrase «interpreting our scriptures in»

We may assume that at least some forms of black theology and Minjung theology are thus affirmed, for they both interpret Scripture in just such ways as these.

It really helped us realize the real - world implications for how we read each other's texts, and how vulnerable we feel when others are interpreting our scriptures in certain ways.

Did King Josiah close his eyes so he would forget she was a woman as she read and interpreted Scripture in his presence, explaining, directly and personally, how that Scripture would affect Israel and its king?

We can together learn to interpret the Scriptures in faithful attentiveness to the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, the same Spirit who Christ promised would lead the Church into all truth (John 16:3).

I hope you don't find it insulting when I say that as is your arguments often require us to accept without any reason that the way you understand some verses is correct yet you can dismiss any verse you chose by saying that their understanding is a «misapplication», perhaps supplying a reasonable approach to how one goes about interpreting Scripture in general could clear up that problem.

We're free to interpret Scripture in light of our own reason and experience.

This means more than interpreting Scripture in sermons.

YOU made the choice to interpret your scriptures in this fashion.

They felt free to interpret their scriptures in the light of new knowledge and fresh experience.

We can interpret the scriptures in lots of different ways.

The torah seemed like an odd target to me too, as I have found jews to generally interpret their scripture in a way that is conducive to a good life on earth, rather than ranting and raving about the end - times like Christians

Israel, surrounded by Arab nations that interpret Scripture in quite a different fashion from Jews or Christians, would lean on the weakest possible support if its claim to its 1967 border were to rest even partially on Scripture.

For example, quoting scripture «bear fruit and multiply» can be a perversion if we don't interpret scripture in context.

Jennifer Wright Knust is interpreting the Scriptures in her own way.

His study of the Bible particularly, and his capacity to interpret Scripture in the light of contemporary social movements and political and world events have sensitized him to the need and demands of persons very different from himself.

Not exact matches

And we seem to have some differences as well — in what we believe, in how we interpret Scripture, and in how we define truth.

Grace and mercy must be included in how we interpret scripture and look at our fellow man.

It is only the Atheist that comes in and feels that they are the first to question or interpret the scripture differently.

Thus, Scripture never exists sola; rather, it is understood and interpreted via the collective wisdom of the Christian church in all ages and communions.

Yet, in every age and cultural context Scripture must be interpreted, consensually, by the Christian community.

I was at a church retreat where one guy suddenly said in response to my asking a legitimate question about how they were interpreting scripture that Satan was in me and got the whole group to pray that Satan leave.

There is therefore a sound basis for the use of the allegorical method in interpreting the Scriptures.

It's refreshing to read through Bessey's spiritual and theological narrative peppered with thoughtful and insightful reflections on interpreting Paul's biblical stance on women, and a beautiful litany of women in scripture and world history whom God has equipped and used to further God's purposes in the world.

It also makes sense to hold every piece of Scripture to the whole of Scripture, and interpret every single passage according to the Spirit of the passage's context, the book in which it is found, and of the entire Bible.

Revelation — Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the Apostolic Succession — takes us a step further by placing the male / female relationship in a liturgical context.

I come to wonder, if what we read out of scripture needs a proper interpretation of it following some basic principals to be in the proper context and we don't follow those simple rules, then what we interpret creates in our minds a false will of God and we follow this so called «Gods will» are we going down the wrong path?

As I said last week, this general guide for interpreting and applying the Bible makes sense to me.It's not about discounting the historical / grammatical method in favor of forcing a Jesus message into every last page, but simply looking at Scripture through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ just as Christians should look at everything through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

She had attacked the theology of the ministers, and by emphasizing the personal operation of the Holy Spirit in revealing the truth of Scripture, or truth apart from Scripture, she was denying the very foundation of the holy experiment — that of Scripture as interpreted by the ministers in the midst of the congregations.

We speak of the «deposit of faith» which is found in Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the apostolic tradition under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you agree with a person's view of Scripture, and you agree with their rules of interpreting Scripture, you will also agree with them in almost everything relating to their theology.

Following on the British government's decision in favour of promoting English rather than Oriental or Vernacular education in India, and to seek the help of private agencies in the task, the Missions started Christian colleges for imparting education in Western culture and modern science with the teaching of English literature at the centre of secular courses and spiritually interpreted by the teaching of Christian Scripture.

The Catholic basis for denying this tension lies in the argument that Scripture must be read as interpreted in the ecclesiastical tradition.

It will be useful at the outset to distinguish two matters that the very title of this response tends confusingly to run together, viz., (1) «Hermeneutics,» in particular hermeneutics as shaped by commitments to the conceptuality and doctrines of process philosophy, and (2) the use of Scripture - as - interpreted in the course of doing theology.

If «Scripture is to interpret Scripture» and all the other references to an «unquenchable fire» in the OT and NT are fiery judgments on the Nations / Peoples... either Israel or the Enemies of Israel... does that mean «the Lake of Fire» is to be interpreted likewise?

«We were reading and discussing certain Hebrew scriptures,» he says, «and one of the Jewish participants in our group suddenly broke down and told us how painful it was to hear the way Christians were interpreting «his» texts.

The Pope puts into practice the methodological principle found in Dei Verbum, 12: he reads and interprets the Scripture «in the sacred spirit in which it was written».

To be fair, both sides of the gender debate have been guilty of sliding down a slippery slope, which in my view is unnecessary, given the wealth of excellent resources available to help us accurately interpret Scripture on issues related to gender, sexuality, and faith.

The very arrangement of the biblical books in the Hebrew canon of scripture presupposes this definition of prophetism.1 Between the first division of the Law and the third division of the Writings, the central category of the Prophets embraces not only the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets from Hosea to Malachi (all together termed «Latter Prophets») but also the historical writings of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings («Former Prophets») In this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting historin the Hebrew canon of scripture presupposes this definition of prophetism.1 Between the first division of the Law and the third division of the Writings, the central category of the Prophets embraces not only the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets from Hosea to Malachi (all together termed «Latter Prophets») but also the historical writings of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings («Former Prophets») In this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting historIn this way the Hebrew Bible formally and appropriately acknowledges that prophetism is more than the prophet and his work, that it is also a way of looking at, understanding, and interpreting history.

Rice «methodically tied Blanchard in knots over how to interpret the proslavery implications of specific texts» while «Blanchard returned repeatedly to «the broad principle of common equity and common sense» that he found in Scripture, to «the general principles of the Bible» and «the whole scope of the Bible»» rather than specifics.

Of course, process theology can not fulfil this responsibility without interpreting Scripture, and the separation of process theology in recent decades from the close involvement in Biblical scholarship of the earlier Chicago school has led to critical weaknesses which are only now being addressed.1 Nevertheless, for process theology the appropriate relationship to the Bible can not be exhausted by hermeneutic.

(b) What is it about Scripture - as - interpreted that makes it important to attend to in this way?

In other words, Bonhoeffer was trying to interpret the scripture from the church's point of view.

In James» view, the Reformation led to a chaos of doctrines, as independent authorities began interpreting scripture for themselves, thus proving the value of Catholicism's centralised body of teaching centred on the authority of the Pope.

The crucivision approach to Scripture allows the revelation of Jesus to be the guide and lens by which we interpret the rest of the revelation about God in Scripture.

At this level the question has to be answered primarily in terms of revelation, as it comes to us through Scripture and tradition, interpreted with the guidance of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

On the one hand, by our historical amnesia we break our continuity with historic Christian faith as did the liberals and, on the other, we accord to some preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics do!

Does that mean you must sit in a dark corner somewhere and contemplate the meaning of scriptures that are apparently being interpreted to mean playing a game is not rest.

Principles of interpretation (Hermeneutics) 1) Literal Principle — Scripture is to be understood in its natural, normal sense, read literally 2) Grammar Principle — Deal with what it says in the way it says it, be it using metaphor, simile, narrative, etc. 3) Historical Principle — Read the Bible in its historical context 4) Synthesis Principle — No one part of the Bible contradicts any other part (Scripture interprets Scripture) 5) Practical Principle — It contains a practical application 6) Illumination of the Holy Spirit — It is the job of the Holy Spirit to enlighten the child of God to the meaning of Scripture, without Him, one is without the ability to interpret Scripture

Upon re-examining the biblical narratives in the light of these insights I find new ways of interpreting them which involve no immoral Scripture - twisting.

That person would surely acknowledge (even if wincing while doing so) that preachers, in attempting to interpret Scripture and guide the faithful, are free to draw on a variety of resources to make their points, and that such attempts will not always please everyone.