Sentences with phrase «passages do»

However, these passages do not represent a statement of legal principle that in low - impact collision cases, the defendant has the burden of proving the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the collision.

The excised passages do not exonerate Mann et.

Secondary, vertical banding on this patch looks like a blurred reflection such as you might see on the side of a passing train, and thus creates the illusion of rapid movement (which, interestingly, most of these blended passages don't).

It even comes with a built in dictionary, plus note - taking and highlighting tools to mark those special passages you don't want to forget.

A nonstop underscore of Latin pop, as well as several arbitrarily interpolated dream sequences and animated passages don't do nearly enough to make up for the film's unfocused frenzy and lack of genuine comic invention.

Just like we need water to be hydrated, our nasal passages don't do well if too dry.

@Chad, «misguided Christians and atheists seizing on out of context biblical passages do nt really make a huge impression on me»

= > misguided Christians and atheists seizing on out of context biblical passages do nt really make a huge impression on me

These passages do not say that St. Thomas went to all these places or founded churches there by himself.

And when compared, those two passages don't even include the same gospel truths.

What Bible passages do you struggle with the most?

«While is six references to same - sex behavior are negative,» writes Matthew, «the concept of same - sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation» and so these passages do not apply to gay, lesbian, or bisexual Christians in committed same - sex relationships.

This third type is not specifically called «baptism» in Acts 19, but other passages do refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit as a baptism.

If those passages don't mean what they say they mean, the the whole man lying with man probably doesn't mean what it says either!

You say the Bible is the «Holy Word Of God» and must be followed for verses / interpretations that support your PERSONAL position on a subject, but IGNORE the Bible when passages do not support your positions, and you have no respect for freedom of and from religion and Separation of Church and State.

Read your Bible by passages don't just memorize verses.

Now I am not sure these passages don't say what I've always thought they said.

What Bible passages do you want examined through the lens of Jesus Christ?

These passages do not introduce a new ordering of the household, but rather comment on an existing one.

But for goodness sakes what part of these passages do Howard Camping and other misguided people not understand: Matt 24:36 and Mark 13:22: NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT THAT DAY OR HOUR NOT EVEN THE ANGELS OR THE SON (Jesus himself).

For example, the 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 19 passages do talk about how the Gentiles will sing praises to God.

It's so convenient for Christians to quote bible passages when it's something that benefits them, but then leave out all the passages they don't wish to obey or agree with.

Yes, the first part of that passage does say that teachers will be judged more strictly, but it's not my job to judge them at all — someOne better equipped than I will do that.

Notice that nowhere in this passage does it say that God has finished his work, or that the cannon of scripture is completed.

The passage doesn't actually talk about spiritual fires, and putting them out, but the passage is somewhat technical and confusing to understand, so I have employed the picture of a fire to help us understand it.

But — and this is important — the passage doesn't just say, «You husbands and wives, try to generally imitate Christ and the church.»

But the passage does not even necessarily confirm the cultic institution of prophetism, to say nothing of Jeremiah's integral relationship thereto!

Even so, one passage does tie the two foci together: It is explicitly through God's «love and power» that God «shall overcome the substance of created nature» (4.38.4).

So what if a particular passage does not teach a pre-tribulation rapture.

Since the mere recitation of Biblical passages does not suffice, these professionals require guidance as to how to move from text to sermon.

In only two Old Testament passages does the phrase «holy Spirit» occur: once, in a late psalm where a devout soul prays,

I studied your book of fiction long and hard and nowhere in that passage does it say it does not apply to Atheists.

However, there is good reason to conclude that even this passage does not support the traditional side.

However the NIV inserts a word not in the Greek, so 4:6 reads «this is why the Gospel was preached even to those who are now dead...» The translators admit the «now» is not in the Greek but say that they put it there to make clear that the passage doesn't refer to post mortem opportunity which they claim is ruled out by Hebrews 9:27 «it is appointed unto to man once to die and then comes judgement».

From the standpoint of Whitehead's final theory, as interpreted in terms of Hartshorne's distinction between God's abstract nature and concrete totality, it is quite natural to interpret the last sentence as Griffin does: «The passage does not say that God as a whole must be unchanging; it only says that God's nature must remain self - consistent» (PS 15:200).

of nonbelievers specifically in view in the sense that «the passage does not polemicize against the confession of Christ, neither in the original description, nor in Matthew's application of it» (6:71).

I don't want to take that so literally that we assume God will go around collecting swords and bending them, but this kind of passage does seem to indicate that our creations which we meant for destruction, God will transform somehow in the new city.

The second of these passages does not use the term «superjective nature,» but it can be joined with the first since it clearly says the same thing: God's satisfaction qualifies the temporal world.

And while the passage does talk about heaping burning coals on the heads of our enemies, the way to do this, according to Proverbs, is by giving them food when they are hungry and water when they are thirsty.

In this passage he does take some time to consider the problems with outright opposition to war.

This passage doesn't come wholly from the playwright's imagination — Karol Wotjyla was well - known for his outdoorsmanship.

(Note: the Spirit means the «Holy Spirit», which is part of the Holy Trinity) Notice how in this passage it does not say «The Spirit causes...», only that «The Spirit says...».

The use of the term «purpose» here does not warrant, by itself, McHenry's conclusion that an individual organism alters the environment to «its own purpose,» although the passage does not exclude the presence of purpose in individual organisms.

They have intrinsic value, but this passage does not speak of their individual purposes.

I could argue this either way, but the bottom line was that this passage didn't give me much guidance about how to live as a gay Christian.»

Most Christians today understand that passage as referring to the cultural standards of that passage as referring to the cultural standards of the time, and it has far fewer cultural references that the Roman passage does.

But this passage does not teach it.

And by the way, understanding a passage does not simply require you to know what YOU think it means, but also requires you to know what OTHERS think it means.

Actually, upon further review, that passage doesn't say anything about sun, moon and stars traveling under the earth.

Because we disagree on the proper method of baptism, the role of women in the church or the proper interpretation of a certain Biblical passage does not make one of us correct and the other a «false teacher».