Sentences with phrase «meaning of the text as»

In another essay he casts a distrustful eye to learned commentaries — in his view, they often obscure the plain meaning of the text as they explore the linguistic and historical context of a passage.

I would expect that a good translation would render the original meaning of the text as accurately as possible, so this would involve finding a way to express the meaning of an idiom in the source text, rather than merely translating the words used.

Not exact matches

Amidst the preference for social media and texting as a primary means of communication, it seems communication styles end up being more functional and less formal and often don't follow traditional etiquette rules.

As a matter of fact, there is no point in denying that by all means clichés surely increase the number of words in the text, which is clearly seen in this sentence.

Try texting as a means of communication with customers who are hard to reach.

That means they'd rather look at pictures or watch videos than read text, yet most of us still use text as our main method of communication.

Owen Fiss urges judges to avoid an «arid and artificial» focus upon the words and original meaning of constitutional provisions by instead reading «the moral as well as the legal text» of the Constitution.

To ignore these principles of interpretation is to distort the text just as much as if you ignored the principle of reading poetry as poetry with all the rich meaning of figurative language and chose rather to read it like it was a science text book.

CNN: My Take: The 5 key American statements on war Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of «The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation,» explores five texts that have served as «scripture» of sorts in American public life, each of which contemplate the meaning and ends of war

The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6 — 8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text.

Gary: I think I agree with your point that «if 1 man and 1 woman was a normal teaching of Paul's» for all believers, then it follows that the text either means «this is only for the elders and higher positions» OR that the text was referring to some other situation, such as marrying a divorced woman.

(For example, given Wright's understanding of what the Reformers meant by «literal,» I wonder if they wouldn't be open to scholarship that interprets Genesis 1 as an ancient Near Eastern temple text — see John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One — rather than a scientific explanation for origins.)

In the complementarian manifesto, the Danvers Statement, egalitarians are accused of «accepting hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.»

: Schools, published in December by Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster, the actual text of which many of you will already have acquired, the reaction to which, however, — both hostile and the reverse — needs also to be registered as part of its necessary import: for, there is not much point in being a Sign of Contradiction if nobody notices, and the secular reaction to a subversive religion like Catholicism is part of its authentic meaning.

This means not only that we are approaching the texts as fully human productions — I point out that statements of divine inspiration are statements concerning ultimate origin and authority, not method of composition - but even more that we take seriously that aspect of literature of most interest to cultural anthropologists: how it gives symbolic expression to human experience.

It's simple: You don't get to say what marriage is or is not based upon the bible or the so - called word of god (whatever that is... think about that for a minute... unless you speak 1st century aramaic you have no idea what the original writers of the ficto - mythic texts you now presume as the word of god even means!)

If you mean an official membership of some kind then certainly that is just as unknown in the Text.

It seems to me that almost all of the alternative hermeneutics propose to do precisely what we have agreed can not and ought not to be done: provide a conceptuality into which to translate what the texts originally meant in such a way as to preserve that self - same essence of meaning but render it more intelligible today.

He goes onto note that the traditional way to «overcome» this negative factor was to try to establish what the text meant at or near the time of its composition and treat that as a kind of «essence» of the text's meaning which thereafter is taken as the retrospective norm by which all proposals of what the text might mean now are to be assessed.

We experience God and revelation as perennially - unfolding, which means there's always room for new ways of understanding divinity and sacred text, especially when the old ways of understanding them (e.g. antiquated readings of Leviticus 18:22) turn out to be hurtful or to seem misguided.

Most of the text below is taken from: (Later in the book, Marcus Borg explains the meaning of the language as understood biblically and by the early church)

What the text of the Bible meant when it was written, as far as that can be determined, is part of interpretation, but it can never be the last word, nor even the most important word.

For, recognizing that «there is a difference between translating what the text means and translating what it says,» he emphatically elects the latter, thus reconnecting the genre of modern Bible translation with the ancient practice of reading aloud and, as a result, conveying much of the texture of the Hebrew in ways that other translations can not.

When I, as a Baptist, or my sister, as a Catholic, reads the verse «this is my body,» a flood of opinions pour out as to the meaning of that text.

Historical criticism causes us to miss the message the original author was trying to convey, what issues their audience was dealing with, and as a result, we completely miss the message and meaning of the text.

This is most obvious in her own discussion of the text «God is fluent» (PR 528), which she interprets to mean that «the divine consequent nature acquires fluency as it ever expands in its ongoing absorption of finite achievement» (p. 170).

There are multiple ways of explaining and understanding this text, and I will present a few below, but would love for you opinion as well on what 1 Corinthians 9:145 means when Paul says that the Lord commanded that those who preach their gospel should get their living by the gospel.

As a result, we completely miss the message and meaning of the text.

But Peter Cotterell and Max Turner comments, «One of Barr's most important emphases was that it is not words which provide the basic unit of the meaning, but the larger elements of discourse, sentences and paragraphs».26 The attempt of using terminology and concepts without analyzing the text as a whole, will bring the literal translation of the text.

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.»

This does not mean that the interpreter must become a metaphysician in the sense of making metaphysical judgments — although, at some point these become unavoidable and are in fact implicitly at work from the beginning, as in all thought — but rather that he or she is responsible for recognizing the metaphysical question which the thrust of the text implies.

Jacobs finds merit in Hegel's observation that the demand for neutrality generally means that the interpreter of a text should expound its meaning as if he, the interpreter, were dead.

I do not elsewhere «skewer» conservatives for their devotion to the founders» intentions because of its resemblance to the principle of sola scriptura — I note this mostly as a bemused observation — but because, apparently unlike Reilly, I do not subscribe to a «Great Man» view of historical agency and historiography in which the mens auctoris provides the definitive key to the meaning of texts or historical events.

This history is at best only a clue to what the text says; the text is not supposed to be used as a clue to this history, for then the text would only be indirectly related to the meaning of the Christian faith.

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?

When you read in the Bible about proclaiming Jesus as Lord, following Jesus, taking up your cross, eternal reward, inheriting the Kingdom, life in the Spirit, faithful living, and on and on and on, the author who wrote that text was primarily thinking of how we should live as followers of Jesus so that we can experience the life God meant for us to live.

Reading receptively and trustingly does not mean accepting everything in the text at face value, as Paul's own critical sifting of the Torah demonstrates.

Gadamer, of how the inspired text, which we question in order to find its meaning and relevance, questions, criticizes, challenges and changes us in the process -» Some who today raise the proper question, whether there are not culturally relative elements in Paul's teaching about role relationships (an the material has to be thought through from this standpoint), seem to proceed improperly in doing so; for in effect they take current secular views about the sexes as fixed points, and work to bring Scripture into line with them - an agenda that at a stroke turns the study of sacred theology into a venture in secular ideology.

In a modest sense, this is the approach followed in this book, as we examine «texts» in the world of television and construct a «reading» of them in order to surmise their meaning for society as a whole.

For example, he brands as «rubbish» Francis Watson's complaint that historical criticism treats «texts as historical artifacts whose meaning is wholly determined by their historical circumstances of origin.»

As to the meaning of a text, it is not proper to give to Biblical language a current - day nuance that was foreign in its day.

Rather than struggle to understand the cultural background of the text and the alternate meanings suggested by recent historico - grammatical research, Jewett is content to judge the text as reflecting Paul's rabbinic conditioning and disregard it.

The tract to the Hebrews speaks of Jesus as having «learned through what he suffered»; and the Greek verb in that text means «experienced» rather than suffering in the more obvious English sense of the word.

This would involve moving from the existing recognition of the socio - political character of the text in its original setting to that of the socio - political meaning of the text in the contemporary setting as well.

If understanding is a closure of meaning that includes an encounter with the alterity of the text, how can the production of meaning comprehend the complexity of the text as both a «cultural speech performance» (29) and a code of linguistic signs?

The reader and the text are partners collaborating as co-creators in an aesthetic event of understanding that, by generating an experience of meaning, originate something that did not exist before.

The alleged subordination of the gospel to Karl Marx is illustrated, for example, by charging that «false» liberation theology concentrates too much on a few selected biblical texts that are always given a political meaning, leading to an overemphasis on «material» poverty and neglecting other kinds of poverty; that this leads to a «temporal messianism» that confuses the Kingdom of God with a purely «earthly» new society, so that the gospel is collapsed into nothing but political endeavor; that the emphasis on social sin and structural evil leads to an ignoring or forgetting of the reality of personal sin; that everything is reduced to praxis (the interplay of action and reflection) as the only criterion of faith, so that the notion of truth is compromised; and that the emphasis on communidades de base sets a so - called «people's church» against the hierarchy.

«Understanding belongs to the meaning of a text just as being heard belongs to the meaning of music.

If understanding is a closure of meaning that requires the irony of interpretation to develop an openness to textual otherness, the text itself must not be regarded as a shell - like container from which its otherness can be extracted as a «thing».

(6) The parabolic statement of the binding of the strong man in Mark 3:27 affords another opportunity to see Jesus Christ as the hidden and sometimes the explicit meaning of the scriptural text.