Sentences with phrase «not ancient texts»

My opinion is based on observable, scientific fact, not ancient texts scribbled by desert nomads.

So we fight back with logic and ask them to prove their beliefs with something substantiative that can be tested without a doubt and not some ancient texts written by MEN (no matter how many times they claim it's «HIS» word).

Not exact matches

Is it a stretch to believe that Christ went 40 days without food, fended off the devil, walked on water, etc., and not believe that a 14 year old boy saw God, found and translated an ancient text with seer stones, or that Catholics invoke stigmata?

Although the texts of the teachings don't change much, societies interpretation of ancient texts evolves as social awareness and social consciousness evolves.

Maybe when we give ourselves to ancient words and sacred texts, and embrace routines and traditions, we can remember that we are not here for what we can get out of worship; we are here to give ourselves away in worship.

reading an ancient text of dubious origin does not const - itute proof.

Dude don't go there, there are more secondary manuscripts of both old and new testament then there are of all ancient text put together.

Although we must not ignore the imagery of the wind and the water in this text, nor must we think that the flood account is nothing more than a ancient myth designed to illustrate a spiritual truth.

But this is an ancient Egyptian text, so you just know it's not going to be another run - of - the - mill,...

(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.)

Gambling your soul away on a guess based on ancient texts out of fear of torture doesn't sound logical at all, especially considering how many other versions of the scriptures have been found and conflict with today's bible.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

The latter in particular appears to have been designed not to explicate ancient texts but to force the Jewish religion into line with his own entirely philosophical preference for a liberal order supportive of individual freedom.

But God was not the author of those ancient texts, because it was obviously penned by men, and being the fallible creatures that we are, there are many mistakes.

And more often than not, it imposes upon an ancient Near Eastern text Western assumptions regarding gender roles and the nuclear family, rendering the woman celebrated in Proverbs 31, for example, into little more than a happy homemaker prototype.

But as I've already stated, a knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern culture plus a study of the Hebrew text itself does not support that interpretation.

What «comes» in the ancient Jewish texts is not the Kingdom but the New Age.

And of course, you don't realize that the bible is firmly rooted in ancient Jewish texts that were interpreted and re-interpreted in their own right.

The specific verses that claim Jesus said this are not corroborated in other ancient texts or gospels.

Finally, if one goes by texts and not anecdotes, the UCC Constitution and Statement of Faith represent who we really claim corporately to be, not to mention the seven recent volumes of The Living Theological Heritage of the United Church of Christ, tracing our lineage from the ancient creeds forward.

The teaching of Jesus, on the other hand, not only regularly uses the verb to come in connection with the Kingdom and avoids the other verbs more characteristic of ancient Judaism, it also never speaks of God «appearing» as king as do the Jewish texts.

Brett:» Please don't try to make misrepresentations an ancient text that describers someone you shouldn't make assumptions about without truly understanding the context it was to be used in.»

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.

Historical criticism is the process by which modern scholars examine the text of ancient documents and try to determine when they were truly written and whether or not they were authored by the person whose name is on the document.

The reading pleasure that results from this conversation — different for different readers — is not merely the simple pleasure of hearing a good story, but the complex pleasures of strong feelings — sometimes violent disagreement, sometimes frustration and sometimes a euphoric recognition, produced by Augustine's text, of the «beauty so ancient and so new,» to which Augustine points through the beauty of his prose.

The bible is an ancient text written by men who CLAIMED to hear god's word... that is not proof.

If you don't choose the right ancient text to believe, you will suffer for eternity in a pit of fire.

There are plenty of ancient texts that do a much better job telling the story of JC then the four gospels that are the foundation of the NT.

The truth of the text is not to be discovered by somehow imaginatively transforming ourselves into ancient Galatian converts or Hebrew tax collectors of the Roman state.

@ Cedar Tree:????? All sorts of miraculous, superhuman nonsense has been attributed to ancient rulers of other figures of yore whose existence was once accepted by this or that group and who may or may not have been based in part on some historical person or persons and absolutely NO ONE these days takes every word in every text written about these figures to be literal truth.

To those theologians who contend that the life and resurrection of Jesus is one of the most documented events in ancient history, both in scripture and recorded history, Berger asks them to produce «one single police report» from a nonpartisan source that wasn't inserted into the text far after the fact!

Yep, that «believer» part and «leading of the Spirit» are two I don't use — they make a big difference when it comes to reading ancient texts.

I like how John Walton points out, that Bible texts were not written to us, but for us, meaning it was written to the ancient Israelites of Moses» day et.

(The leading is a result of being a believer... they are not seperate criteria) Ancient texts or everyday life... I see no difference.

Critical scholarship — not only historical critical scholarship, but also newer approaches to the Bible using critical theory — has pressed our understanding of the texts and traditions of ancient Christianity to the point where organized Christianity, if it were to be guided by such work, would have to begin to rethink some of its basic theological commitments.

Obviously Jesus Christ actually existed because of the existence of the calendar we all use (i.e. BC and AD) but we should all search for answers within ourselves and not out of an ancient text written for the purpose of controlling the mob.

Once we take into account the capacity of the ancient Jewish mind to create a story as a way of expounding and showing the relevance of a Biblical text (this practice will be described in Chapter 9), it is not at all difficult to see how the story of Joseph of Arimathea could have been partly shaped by Isaiah 53:9, «And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,» found in the famous chapter on the suffering servant, which was certainly interpreted by the early Christians as a prophecy of the death of Jesus.

Hidden allusions are never easy to be sure of and particularly is this the case with an ancient text, but one can at least see the reasons why Martin - Achard comes to the conclusion that these verses from the book of Hosea not only apply the idiom of resurrection to Israel's hope for the future, but also show where it came from.

So, when we speak about God's love for the stranger, it is not a conversation that is based on any one particular verse pulled randomly from an ancient text, but a striking truth that is rooted in the entire revelation of God's salvific activity that culminates on the cross.

In the ancient world they were taught separately, so it was not uncommon for one to be able to read (at least enough to get by, or those in holy texts) but not write.

What someone believes / feels / wantstobetrue has nothing to do with what is / isn't true nor does it have anything to do with the validity or not of an ancient text which is the topic of this article.

his text of biblical knowledge is only about 200 years old, so not even close to being ancient.

Just don't base public policy on ideas which he gleams from an ancient text written by men who did not understand science.

When we speak about God's love for the stranger, it is not a conversation that is based on any one particular verse pulled randomly from an ancient text, but a striking truth that is rooted in the entire revelation of God's salvific activity that culminates on the cross.

[9] When this is so, then, it is in search, not so much of answers, but rather of a better understanding and appreciation of «the truth that scientific study of the ancient tradition of the Church is indispensable to success in comprehending the roots of differences and in discerning the centre of Christian theology,» [10] that we ought to approach the texts produced by the early church.

These texts and studies do not exhaust the various ways in which women were perceived, and their roles commented upon, by writers of the early church, but they offer points of departure for a discussion on the contribution of women to the life and witness of the early church without forgetting that the «ancient sources and modern historians agree that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than among males» [13] in the time of the early church.

I do not care what the Bible, Quaran, Torah, or any other ancient text written by men long dead says about the punishment of women.

When the text thus interprets its interpreter, it does so not through re-engaging belief in ancient religious categories but by raising questions about the would - be interpreter's existence — his estrangement from himself and others, his experienced «fulfillment gap» between what he is and what be could be.

Ancient texts are not proof or evidence.

On the other hand, the assertion of nationhood demanded the projection of a distance from Europe... Thus, the Hindu nationalists claimed that the Vedic texts and ancient history had not only expressed India as a nation but had also displayed attributes that colonialism defined as exclusively European.6