Sentences with phrase «means text reads»

The Bad The long display means text reads awkwardly on your wrist.

The long display means text reads awkwardly on your wrist.

Not exact matches

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.

Liturgy commissions used to produce guides (perhaps they still do) with a selection of hymns that had some tangential relevance to the readings, but never to the texts of the introit, gradual, offertory or communion, for which they were meant to be apt replacements.

The sacred text was read with the Fathers of the Church, accompanied by commentaries and catenae, with frequent glosses explaining the meaning of difficult....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We can discuss the text, argue about what it means, and hold each other accountable for doing the reading.

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.

It is important to emphasize that the text's power to assert is by no means curtailed by such a reading.

the point of reading is not to restate the meaning intended by the author but to engage the text in creative thought, often by means of punning play with the text.

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.

if it is all «context» and can be so subjectively read, there is either NO authorial intent (and therefore no permanent meaning) or you are assuming a larger foundation of truth to read along with the text (but that invites all the criticism you are levying against the religious).

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.

We read the Bible «through the Jesus lens» — which looks suspiciously like it means using the parts of the Gospels that we like, with the awkward bits carefully screened out, which enables us to disagree with the biblical texts on God, history, ethics and so on, even when Jesus didn't (Luke 17:27 - 32 is an interesting example).

Content to maintain the tradition, those same evangelicals at times resort to a simplistic reading of a text that distorts its intended meaning.

A case in point is Childs's recurring use of the term «coercion,» by which he apparently means that the text itself, in its deep authority, requires a certain exposition, redaction or reading.

The sermon would be open - ended — but not entirely, for it would point toward the preacher's own reading of the biblical text; the inductive sermon re-creates the process of discovery of meaning in the text.

When I read the text, I reinsert meaning into it; I make it a word again.

What I do believe is that we need to really know Jesus to know God — Although text meaning can change Jesus who is the word of God — His personality doesn't change...... so when you read behind the text and see the personality of Jesus — you get to know Him for who He is and then I can test anything the bible or text say against His character for truth!

The first sign of a prepared reading is one that is loud and clear., All of the meaning of a text is lost unless the congregation hears and understands you.

You will also discover that you will never completely grasp the full complex of meanings or spirit of the texts you read.

One common mistake we make in oral reading is overemphasizing what the text means to us personally.

You will sense that particular gestures are appropriate, that certain words and phrases stand out in your practice readings, and that various meanings of the texts will be coming into sharper focus.

What I am advocating is not a pneumatic or devotional exegesis in which we simply read meanings into the text under the inspiration of the Spirit.

By reading this book, you will gain a better understanding of what the text means when it says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that God loved Jacob but hated Esau.

It just means our culture and upbringing often shape the way we read the text.

Read Warfield and his concurrence model on the issue, read Kevin Vanhoozer (Is There a Meaning in This Text), read Nicholas Wolterstorff and his notion of deputized discourse (in Divine Discourse), read William Alston and so many others that provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the dual authorship of ScriptRead Warfield and his concurrence model on the issue, read Kevin Vanhoozer (Is There a Meaning in This Text), read Nicholas Wolterstorff and his notion of deputized discourse (in Divine Discourse), read William Alston and so many others that provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the dual authorship of Scriptread Kevin Vanhoozer (Is There a Meaning in This Text), read Nicholas Wolterstorff and his notion of deputized discourse (in Divine Discourse), read William Alston and so many others that provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the dual authorship of Scriptread Nicholas Wolterstorff and his notion of deputized discourse (in Divine Discourse), read William Alston and so many others that provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the dual authorship of Scriptread William Alston and so many others that provide conceptual frameworks for understanding the dual authorship of Scripture.

For all I know, Chisholm meant nothing of the sort, and I just have a mind that is in the gutter so that I read things into the text that are not there...

What does not come naturally to us is to read texts in their own clear meaning rather than bringing our notions to it.

That ought to get us past any Marxist reading of this text, in which the indictment of being rich applies only to the economic class that owns the means of production.

Such Bible study usually takes the form of reading the text and leaping immediately to «what it means for us.»

I sometimes wonder at the grace brought to a reading by a lector who bothered to learn about the text and its meaning, and then tried to give voice not only to the words but their power.

At the very moment at the end of the nineteenth century that the universities were consolidating the triumph of objectivism, many of the religious were claiming that religion meant dogmatism based upon a peculiar reading of the Scriptures (Genesis as a geology text.

It must be that Luke was not thinking of Bethany, unless he meant the «Bethany beyond the Jordan» mentioned (if that reading of the text is correct) in John (1:28).

If by ``... not be the most straightforward way of reading the text...» you mean that you are applying your own interpretation, I commend you for your honesty.

This means that a traditional religious education provides no independent language skills with which to read the text critically.

The reading of the Bible can not content itself with the text but has to go to the deep liberating meaning of the biblical plan of God in human history.

To read this text, we must clarify what Aquinas means by heretic.

There are many commentaries out there that were written after Ezra's reading of the Torah to the returning Exiles that have fought with the texts, trying to determine the meaning of the words, the glorification of violence and the various laws.

Steve's claim that the use of the term «all scripture» to mean the whole Bible is «eisegesis» (reading into the text a meaning that isn't there) is itself eisegesis.

Of course, I am not a theologian or well read or educated in the Bible with all the pertinent historical, cultural, or grammatical facts required to understand and interpret the text in my intellectual grasp, so I may have misunderstood your meaning, missed a point, or maybe we're saying the same thing but each from a different perspective, like is said those who misread Paul's Roman epistle and James» epistle.

It must've taken you a while... I mean not just reading it but interpreting and analyzing the texts.

English idiom speaks of different «readings» of a text, meaning different interpretations; and surely that idiom can not be accidental.