Sentences with phrase «not biblical scholars»

Most are not biblical scholars in that guild's narrow definition but theologians, pastors, and historians whose work reflects a profound engagement with the biblical sources.

Then again, I'm not a Biblical scholar on human sexuality.

I'm not a biblical scholar or member of the clergy... just a writer with a love for the Bible and an insatiable interest in how it is read and interpreted.

The model for students should be not the biblical scholar, but the biblical interpreter — a person competent to help any group of people understand the impact of the Bible in human transformation.

But I am not a biblical scholar just a life long follower, disciple of Christ.

I'm aware of the fact that I'm not a biblical scholar or trained teacher, so I'll be relying on (and sharing) a variety of sources and will certainly welcome input and challenges.

One takes historical stands (J is a woman; she is of the royal house and not a scribe of Rehoboam; she makes this or that wordplay) but then describes these as personal fictions and states with conviction, «I am not a biblical scholar.»

id say at least, but then again im not a biblical scholar haha

Not exact matches

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus and MANY of the biblical stories, it is verifiable and not questioned by any real scholars today.

There's no need to spend a fortune hiring Biblical scholars who don't understand Hebrew anyway, all they have to do is ask a blogger.

These are not stupid, but legitimate questions that serious biblical and theological scholars have asked and written about extensively.

Hmmm... I guarantee there isn't a credible bible scholar out there that would agree with one of her biblical translations.

Besides, not one Biblical scholar would agree with you.

You said, «Besides, not one Biblical scholar would agree with you.»

I have to say I am not a historian or a serious Biblical scholar, so am not in a position to assess — or even be aware of — all the various claims and counter claims, but I'm basically happy to accept this consensus.

Any Biblical scholar will tell you that the Bible is not just translated, it is INTERPRETED.

Mitch Pacwa on EWTN and current Pope Benedict (University professor (while I don't know if he is a Biblical scholar, speaks 5 languages fluently, concert pianist and remembers everything he read)

you guys know, don't you, that there are theological discussions with biblical scholars on both sides of the debate on whether the bible condemns homosexuality and homosexual behavior?

As a scholar of the biblical languages, Peterson was frustrated that his parishioners in Maryland couldn't see how revolutionary the text was, during their Bible study classes.

Virtually all of the most renowned biblical scholars of our era — the names of G. Ernest Wright and Rudolf Bultmann come to mind — either have not investigated the biblical theology of nature or have «discovered» that the biblical approach to nature is substantially the same as the modern theological approach.

Many of the leaders of the movement are scientists and engineers, not theologians and biblical scholars.

I, (and many biblical scholars and fellow Christians), would argue the point of these passages is not that patriarchy is the best foundation for marriage, but rather that the humility and service of Jesus Christ is the best example for marriage... and any relationship.

This accounts for the ecclesiastical opposition to Charles Darwin's work on evolution and to the arguments of critical Biblical scholars, which implied that not all statements in scripture were factually correct.

Pat, most Biblical scholars agree that the books we know as the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written by the guys whose names are on the books.

MOST biblical scholars do not agree with that, SOME do.

And the book also offers a deliberately wide array of approaches to trinitarian issues, including not only historical and systematic theologians, but biblical scholars and analytic philosophers of religion, writing from a variety of theological and communal points of view» Roman Catholic, Protestant, and, in one case, Jewish (the New Testament scholar Alan Segal, who contributes an instructive if somewhat technical chapter on the role of conflicts between Jews and Christians in the emergence of early trinitarian teaching).

For those who do not read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, we must study the research and opinions of biblical scholars who do and who have access to the biblical source documents.

With a number of fellow pastors who became lifelong friends, Rauschenbusch studied, read, talked, debated and plumbed the new social theories of the day, especially those of the non-Marxist socialists whom John C. Cort has recently traced in Christian Socialism (Orbis, 1988) The pastors wove these theories together with biblical themes to form» «Christian Sociology,» a hermeneutic of social history that allowed them to see the power of God's kingdom being actualized through the democratization of the economic system (see James T. Johnson, editor, The Bible in American Law, Politics and Rhetoric [Scholars Press, 1985]-RRB- They pledged themselves to new efforts to make the spirit of Christianity the core of social renewal at a time when agricultural - village life was breaking down and urban - cosmopolitan patterns were not yet fully formed.

I've been encouraged to receive positive reviews from biblical scholars like Ben Witherington, Peter Enns, Roger Olson, Daniel Kirk, and Brian LePort, as well as from conservative evangelical women who weren't necessarily expecting to like the book or who may differ from me regarding some gender issues.

Modern biblical scholars agree that the new testament scriptures were written 35 to 90 years after the alleged events, regardless who wrote them (Piso or not).

@steeler Not being a biblical scholar, I can't remember if HE had a pet dinosaur, or maybe that was a TV show, please, clarify, oh wise one?

i) Bart Ehrman is one of the most — if not THE most — liberal biblical scholars on the planet.

Clearly, Wiebe does not mean that scholars who present papers at AAR conferences affirm miracles or cite biblical prooftexts to clinch their arguments.

The biblical scholar who hopes to gain the layperson's ear can not avoid the question, «What does it mean for me?»

Steve... I think we're floggin» a dead horse here, but for what it's worth, understand that I'm not trying to convince you to think like I do, rather I wd hope that room wd be made for many theological differences.To think discuss and debate theology is well supported by the New Testament and history, and is perfectly within the bounds of what it means to engage our minds with the subject at hand.Theologians and biblical scholars have done this very thing for centuries, revealing a plethora of opinion on the evolving world of biblical studies.Many capable authors have written and debated the common themes as well as the differences between Paul, John, Jesus, the synoptics, etc..

The biblical scholar can not avoid the question, «What does it mean for me?»

Why not get a job as a biblical scholar since you are a BLOGGER who thinks you know more than the professionals.

While I appreciate the approach that DTS teaches, it can really only be followed by expert scholars and theologians, and is not feasible for the average student of Scripture, which indicates to me that it is not the only oven the best way of reading and interpreting the biblical text.

The particular resources of contemporary liberal theology that have especial relevance for a Christian approach to our culture's current difficulties are these: (1) the contemporary historical consciousness, (2) the conclusions of biblical scholars regarding Jesus and the Kingdom of God, and (3) the current «process» understanding of God, Which allows a positive relation (but not a surrender!)

Also, I'm not against reading books written by biblical scholars, I just started down this path because Jeremy stated that this is the best book about Jesus, rather than applying that attribute to the bible itself.

The fact that biblical scholars, many of whom have made it their full - time job to study the origins of the many books of the Bible, can't agree on it's authenticity should at least leave you with some doubt about it's authenticity.

He upheld the new discoveries of Biblical scholars and insisted that such a genuine and honest criticism of the text and authorship of the Bible could not damage the Christian faith.

JM — real biblical scholars (the ones who didn't get their degrees from pretend colleges) all agree that your story from John is a fraud.

As someone who is «other» (as defined by biblical scholars) and thus not bound by the Judeo - Christian - Muslim strictures... the Chik - Fil - A's I frequent actually don't have religious music playing.

The notes in this CTS Bible are a sign that there is some attempt to return to tradition, though the reverential spirit that inspired Catholic biblical scholars until the 1950s is still not there.

From Enns: «As a biblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical textbiblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical textBiblical Inerrancy, doesn't really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.»

His apparent lack of theological formation leads him, in his chapter on evolutionary psychology, to follow the «many» biblical scholars who «do not believe that humans were [originally] created without sin» (p. 122, a case of the blind leading the blind, perhaps?).

Perhaps for one of my gay friends, the fact that some biblical scholars say it's just not clear was enough for them to move on.

Biblical scholar Paul Hanson writes, «Perhaps the best way to begin to understand shalom is to recognize that it describes the realm where chaos is not allowed to enter, and where life can be fostered free from the fear of all which diminishes and destroys» («War and Peace in the Hebrew Bible,» Interpretation, vol.

Citing a biblical scholar, he says: «In the light of the conclusions drawn earlier that there is no explicit Old Testament justification for assuming that wine drinking is ever appropriate for the saint, even in moderation, it is important to indicate briefly that the New Testament evidence concurs with, or at least is not contrary to, this conclusion» (p. 137).