Sentences with phrase «language approach of»

The pro-employee, strict - language approach of contractual interpretation in the early 2017 decision, he says, has eclipsed the employer - friendly, laissez - faire approach of the 2016 ruling.

Not exact matches

They had hoped the final language would overtly exclude companies that offer a «multi-sig» product (a security approach involving the ownership of two separate private keys), since those companies don't truly have full custody of a customer's bitcoins.

Carla Hudson Kam, a linguistics professor at the University of British Columbia, says the approach to language learning should depend on how you plan to use the skill.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the unpredictable Trump will build on this approach or return to the more confrontational language that has characterised his handling of the North Korean issue.

Ramos, often called the Walter Cronkite of Spanish - language news media, told O'Reilly he wanted to focus on a more comprehensive approach to illegal immigration.

David Nahamoo, manager of the human - languages group, says the company is focusing on specific applications, rather than the general approach taken by Mobile Technologies and Sakhr.

He mentioned the company's plan to hire «dozens» of Burmese language content reviewers as the first part of a three - pronged approach in Myanmar, also noting a partnership with civil society groups to identify hate figures in the country rather than focusing on removing individual pieces of content.

One wonders whether the authors» use of language derived from a medical model is the wrong approach to the sort of narcissism they describe.

And on the other hand the historical Jesus can not for methodological reasons be approached in terms of sayings where kerygmatic language occurs, but only in terms of sayings diverging from the language of the kerygma.

A few years ago when the number of languages into which it had been rendered was approaching the one thousand mark, it was decided to publish a volume in celebration of that event, to be called The Book of a Thousand Tongues, based doubtless upon the old hymn, «O, for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise.»

So if a person wants to read all of the various holy works himself in the original languages (not me) or carefully research the secondary level works of the scholars who do, I think both approaches show their is something special / different about the Bible.

While couched in different language, Catholic social teaching has much in common with this approach, in its overriding concern to safeguard the unique dignity of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, and in its emphasis on the duty of civil authority to foster the common good.

(1) This order is roughly similar to Fred Craddock's approach in his book, Preaching, (2) where reflection on life comes before the interpretation of a text and is followed by the formation and language of the sermon.

My positions on all three are probably still best described as revisionary (Le, the use of a «limit - language» approach to the questions of religion and revelation; the use of process categories for understanding the reality of God; and the use of symbolic literary - critical analyses for interpreting Christology).

Careful use of Strong's numbers allows people without knowledge of the original languages a roundabout approach to word study of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek vocabulary.

11 [Editors note: In Bohm's notes he has written: Bohr made «a kind of metaphysical assumption about language and concepts which means (as always with positivist, operationalist, or phenomenalist approaches) that we fix our concepts to those that have been developed before.»]

But there are two fundamentally different ways of approaching such an explication, and they are correlative with the two primary ways of understanding the language in which the confessional statement is made: the univocal, which takes the language as rigidly discursive, and the imagistic, which sees it as highly analogical or symbolic.

Richard Bernstein calls this approach pluralistic: not a «flabby» pluralism, where we simply accept a variety of perspectives, vocabularies, paradigms, and language games, each on an equal footing; nor a «fortress - like» pluralism, where disparate groups work out of isolated frameworks and there is no communication between them; but rather an «engaged pluralism» where we acknowledge our fallibility and try to be responsive to the claims of others.

The general position of these writers, whose contributions vary considerably in approach and quality, is that Jesus made no claim of divinity for himself and that the doctrine of the incarnation was developed during the early centuries of the Christian era as an attempt to express the uniqueness of Jesus in the mythological language and thought forms of the Greek culture of the time.While recognizing the validity of the patristic theologians» work, which culminated in the classical christological definitions of Nicea and Chalcedon, the British theologians question whether these definitions are intelligible in the 20th century, and go on to suggest that some concept other than incarnation might better express the divine significance of Jesus today.

However, a redeeming feature of the descriptions is that missionaries such as H. Baker, Jr., and A. F. Painter, who were acquainted with the people and local language for several decades, had also an anthropological approach which makes a difference.

Several different approaches are currently being used to explore the linguistic abilities of primates, two of which will be briefly described.8 Premack's work, because it involves a language board, has facilitated the understanding of the abilities of chimps to grasp abstractions and logical relations, whereas Patterson's work uses Ameslan and has been especially fruitful in exploring creative language use.

Even if all religion (and religion always uses the language of myth) were exclusively concerned with the relation between God and man, the existentialist approach would be too narrow to comprehend its whole range.

Whereas the Niebuhrian generation was concerned that what is said theologically make sense in the intellectual climate shaped by modern thought, the new approach is to recognize that all thought is a function of language, and that all language is culturally specific.

A useful way of approaching the varied structures of human existence is through reflection on the meaning of «I.» The use of the first person singular in some way is probably coterminous with language, but its meaning varies widely.

As background for any approach to Christian education through the insights of the findings of the philosophers of language, we need to look closely at the uses of language in the Bible, and especially in the Gospels.

Further analysis of religious language is necessary if we are to clarify our verbal approaches to teaching.

A «new approach» to music, on the other hand, may approach «sonic design» or the «organization of sound» from four perspectives: musical space, time and rhythm, musical language, tone color.»

When we start to approach the brand of eschatology so widely purveyed in current religious media and books, the first obstacle is the language itself.

The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon: you can tell from the change in language, just as you can tell the approach of winter from the change in the color of leaves.

The Greek term psyche (soul), which Christians naturally found themselves using in order to describe the spiritual aspect of a man, already implied the dualistic approach to human nature and introduced a concept for which there had been no verbal equivalent in the language of ancient Israel.26

In the face of the present crisis it seems there are two possible paths to take in our approach to values: either to abandon discourse on values in favor of more traditional ethical language, or to assert the objective foundation of values and hence a system by which they can be compared, evaluated, and judged.

Of the more recent philosophical investigations of language, there are, in the main, two approacheOf the more recent philosophical investigations of language, there are, in the main, two approacheof language, there are, in the main, two approaches.

Now we turn to philosophy to survey several significant approaches to the problem of language and the nature of the experience of communication.

John Maynard Smith and Eörs Sazthmáry considered five major evolutionary transitions, ranging from the origin of life to the beginnings of human language, using an approach somewhat similar to that of Dawkins.10

N. T. Wright supports this metaphorical approach to the language of the future hope.

Persons with immature or malformed superegos (called «character disorder» or «psychopathic personalities» in traditional psychiatric language) need a different type of growth and therefore a different approach to therapy.

In another closely related picture, Christ is the Word of God, God's address to man, the communication of God's thought, the mode of God's approach to his world, and, in accordance with the language of contemporary philosophy, the embodiment of that divine reason which permeates the cosmos, or the intermediary divine link between God and his creatures, the mode in which the transcendent God becomes immanent in the rational creation.

Lindbeck observed that in their emphasis upon the function of religious language as propositional information about objective realities, conservative theologians tend to confirm the approach to religion taken by most Anglo - American analytic philosophers.

One can list problems — triumphalism, commercialism, individualism, a dearth of inclusive language and an uncritical approach to scripture.

One can list problems — triumphalism, commercialism, individualism, and a few we have not touched on here (a virtual dearth of inclusive language and an uncritical approach to scripture)-- but such dysfunctions are also endemic to American popular religion.

I agree with Sarah that some of it IS language — or cultural difference — that colors our approach.

This approach is continued from another perspective in the thinking of Horace Bushnell and Francis H. Drinkwater who work through the language of the heart and provide us with the category of poetic - simple.

And today the linguistic approach would encourage us to treat the language of divine action as an alternative to scientific language, not a competitor with it.

Such language is highly technical, including some complex metaphysical concepts, but it indicates an approach to the meaning of God similar to that of Northrop.

This approach to the understanding of religious education underscores the significance of clarity in the use of language, which is at the same time sufficiently unique to evoke new insights.

In these italicized condemnations the language is very strong, approaching that of infallible definitions.

His philological approach to language, encouraged by Erasmus and the whole neo-classical movement, together with his long training in rhetoric and his love of classical literature, all contributed to his success.

He approaches this through the symbolism of biblical language and focuses on three original human experiences: original solitude, original unity and original nakedness.

More important to us is the work of H. S. Reimarus (1694 - 1768), a professor of oriental languages at a Gymnasium in Hamburg, who, under the influence of the English Deists, wrote a four - thousand - page manuscript Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftiger Verehrer Gottes, a defense of the deistic approach to religion, which he refrained from publishing.

Wittgenstein's suggestion of the great variety of language - games is possibly the most important clue derived from this approach to language analysis.