Sentences with phrase «meaning of the text in»

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.

To be true to the Incarnational Principle expressed by Pius XII we must seek to understand the meaning of the texts in their historical, cultural context.

Finally, the midrashic tradition also maintains the original meaning of the text in that Dan.

The first post dealt mainly with Hessick's views about how corpus linguistics relates to ultimate purpose of legal interpretation, which is to determine the legal meaning of the text in dispute.

Not exact matches

A vast 86 percent of new grads felt positively about text messages being used in the hiring process... And research has found that 83 percent of Millennials open text messages within 90 seconds, meaning it can improve efficiency by reaching candidates through a channel they respond to quickly.

You're limited to 160 characters in your text messages, and that doesn't even mean that you need to use all of them.

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.

Oftentimes, this has meant McIlroy and his fiancee, Erica, have been woken up in the middle of the night because Woods has texted McIlroy from the gym.

If you aren't paying attention to what you're doing, you could accidentally include the wrong link in a tweet, or paste a chunk of text that was only meant for the eyes of a colleague.

Any - To - Any means an entirely new range of visual collaboration options for small businesses Imagine a world in which people had to use the same wireless carrier to talk, text or -LSB-...]

The public isn't allowed to know what is specified in the full text of the TPP, which means that public knowledge of the agreement is limited — and according to one poll, most Canadians aren't even aware the agreement exists, despite the fact that one of the many rounds of negotiations was held in Canada -LSB-...]

The public isn't allowed to know what is specified in the full text of the TPP, which means that public knowledge of the agreement is limited — and according to one poll, most Canadians aren't even aware the agreement exists, despite the fact that one of the many rounds of negotiations was held in Canada during an unpublicized Ottawa meeting from July 3 to 12, 2014.

But why would he know — he can not comprehend the accumalation of the texts and history after them on the debate of Torahnic law... which Jesus himself participated in (this banter back n forth on what the Torah means in certain sections — or interpretation of how the law is used in daily life).

However examinations of putting the land animals in the known area is certainly feasible and backed up by other creation accounts — this was the known world at the time and the meaning of the text.

TORAH TORAH TORAH > YHWH YHWH YHWH < HAROT HAROT HAROT you get the picture This CAN NOT be done by any man and still retain the meaning of scripture / or the text in which it is written.

This is precisely why he argued that judges often need, through careful historical analysis, to consult the original meaning of the words in the legal text.

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

Man was created in the first chapter of Genesis by Elohim (origional text meaning god / gods (male / female / plural).

Just because certain texts were omitted from the bible doesn't mean they are not true, it simply means their message was not in line with the agenda of the assemblers of the bible.

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.

In other words, the quote is being used within the context of a theological position and it means what they assert it to mean (or don't even bother to assert, but merely assume we should see) at least partially because of their presuppositions with which they come to the text.

Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term «Biblical exegesis» is used for greater specificity.

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.&raquIn 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.&raquin 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.»

Just because Christ is shown doing or being certain things for the church in the Ephesians 5:21 - 33 text, does not mean that husbands are to do or be each of those same things for their wives.

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 passagIn 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 passagin his view, they often obscure the plain meaning of the text as they explore the linguistic and historical context of a passage.

: 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.

The tension I mean is in regard to texts like 1 Tim 2 & 1Cor 14 alongside Christ's elevation of women in the Gospels & how women served with Paul.

After the Apostle had been called by Allah, the ulama — those leaders who were well - versed in Islam — recognized that there were two types of texts in the Qur» an: those which are clear and definite and those which could have more than one meaning.

This is significant not only because it is a biblical text, but because it seems for her to sum up in a decisive way the meaning of her self - discovery.

One: What makes a mode of interpretation of texts an exercise in precisely process hermeneutics — that it is the application of some distinctively process theory of interpretation, or the use of a characteristically process conceptuality to formulate a proposal about the «meaning» of a text?

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

When discussing Calvinism with Calvinists, there are two texts that are almost always brought up in defense of God's right to do anything He wants with people, even if it means deciding from all eternity to send billions of them to everlasting punishment in hell.

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.

Any person who reads into the history of Christianity will find that there were many competing schools of thought when the religion was founded, and there are nuances of meaning within the text that were lost in translation.

We also frequently speak in terms of finding four levels of meaning in Torah: the simple / surface meaning, the hinted - at or allegorical meaning, the midrashic meaning, and the deepest secrets of the text at its root.

In order that there be no ambiguity about what I mean I would like to cite briefly the Declaration of Independence, and also the Gettysburg Address which represents a rededication to and renewal of that primary text:

I put this question out to some of my Rabbis Without Borders colleagues, and in addition to seconding the Bereshit Rabbah idea, they recommended Searching for Meaning in Midrash: Lessons for Everyday Living by Michael Katz and Gershon Schwartz and Reading the Book: Making the Bible a Timeless Text by Rabbi Burt Visotzky.

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)

Honoring reason in the reading of scripture means «giving up merely arbitrary or whimsical readings of texts, and paying attention to lexical, historical considerations,» says Wright.

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.

So when the text says that God opened her heart, I take this to mean that God helped her see the truth of what Paul was proclaiming, that the Hebrew Scriptures which she learned and followed pointed to Jesus Christ, and that the Hebrew God which she worshipped appeared in the flesh in Jesus Christ.

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).

Gadamer talks about a «fusion of horizons» in which both our own questions and perspectives and everything we can learn about the author's context contribute to a text's meaning.

In spite of the great influence of the King James Version at the time when the first Indian versions were made, later versions have been made chiefly under the influence of the English revisers of the Bible which was published in 1885.35 The two Malayalam translations, the Bible Society of India Version and Hosanna version, are from the English translation.36 The use of translations other than the original source for translations created distorted meaning of the texIn spite of the great influence of the King James Version at the time when the first Indian versions were made, later versions have been made chiefly under the influence of the English revisers of the Bible which was published in 1885.35 The two Malayalam translations, the Bible Society of India Version and Hosanna version, are from the English translation.36 The use of translations other than the original source for translations created distorted meaning of the texin 1885.35 The two Malayalam translations, the Bible Society of India Version and Hosanna version, are from the English translation.36 The use of translations other than the original source for translations created distorted meaning of the text.

On page 169 she paraphrases this text to mean «the divine concrescence is never in the past of any occasion,» which in turn is construed to mean that all times are copresent in the divine consequent nature.

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.&raquIn 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.&raquin 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.&raquin order to achieve a particular effect.»

By that he meant that, had the founding happened before about 1770 or after 1805, the controlling texts of our constitutional order would have been much more explicitly Christian in character.

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.