Sentences with phrase «reading biblical texts»

We must rediscover myth and symbol in reading biblical texts, and help our people to escape the leaden touch of literalism.

Wright's strength in this is due to his insistence on reading the biblical text, not with twenty - first century eyes and sixteenth - century questions, but with first - century eyes and first - century questions.

The critique of historical criticism's limit the standard one: it is reductionistic, it claims to subordinate the text to scientific methods when in fact it has philosophical presumptions, and it tends to read the biblical text as a set of fragments rather than as a unified whole.

As we read the biblical texts, we note how often major strands of the tradition emphasize God's fidelity to the promise made to Abraham.

Not exact matches

he has a very detailed chapter on your worm... I think if you read real science text books on evolution you will get the facts rather than just a rebuttal based on biblical stories.

There is a proper way to understand the Biblical text, and the rules for doing so are really no different from reading and comprehending any written doc.ument.

If experience is more important than doctrine, and no doctrine is immune to revision» both of which are conclusions of Olson's postconservatives» how do we know that our fresh readings are not derived as much from our experience as from the biblical text?

Sameth has based his arguments on his left - of - center sex ideology, and not at all on a credible historical reading of the biblical text in context.

The biblical hermeneutic of Christian Zionism distorts biblical texts by reading them out of their canonical and historical context, making them seem more like such fictional works as the «Left Behind» series than the whole Word of God.

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.

That is why we can all read the same biblical text and reach opposite conclusions.

Many conservative evangelicals, like me, believe that a straight forward reading of the biblical text indicates that new «kinds» of life were specially created, not evolved.

«This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text,» Noll says.

To be deep in history is certainly, for instance, to cease to be an evangelical of the kind who allows experience to trump doctrine, who believes doctrine can be read off the surface of the biblical text, and who sees no theological or existential problem that can not be solved with a proof text or two.

Phyllis Trible subtitles her book Texts of Terror, «Literary - Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives,» packing several «new» methodologies into a phrase.

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.

(4) Biblical texts must be understood in their human context: for otherwise we shall fail to read their real point out of them and instead read into them points they are not making at all.

Consequently, we welcome the readings offered by feminists and other interpreters whose experience enables them to hear the biblical texts in new and challenging ways.

Levenson's reading of biblical texts suggests a view of creation as «combat» against the onslaughts of chaos.

I wanted to learn and to teach a method of publically reading scripture, for example, that respected the intrinsic value of studying biblical texts while enhancing their communicative value in worship.

By its nature, as a method seeking to reflect in its own structure the qualities of the text being read, «biblical realism» must be pluralistic with regard to styles and formulation.

It allowed me to reconceptualize the study of «women in the Bible,» by moving from what men have said about women to a feminist historical reconstruction of early Christian origins as well as by articulating a feminist critical process for reading and evaluating androcentric biblical texts.

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).

A doctoral student in biblical studies at Union, her research involves literary strategies for reading biblical and pseudepigraphic texts.

In his own wide - ranging and nuanced criticism of both biblical and secular texts, Ricoeur himself moves easily from a close reading of symbols to theoretical reflection, thereby modeling for an entire generation a more conceptually sophisticated way of joining religion and art than had heretofore been practiced.

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.

and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

Disagree with the other person if you want to, but recognize that they are trying to understand and explain the text just as much as you are, and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

Regrettably, she does little more than provide us with a reminder of a textbook example of eisegesis (reading «into» the biblical text one's own ideology) rather than exegesis (reading «out of» Scripture with attentiveness to historical and literary context, even if it conflicts with one's own personal views).

By contrast, a teaching such as the Immaculate Conception, as with so much Marian dogma, makes claims that not only stand on a highly contestable reading of an extremely narrow scriptural base but also seem to stand in tension with, if not even in contradiction to, significant biblical texts.

The reason I am summarizing it is because I want to begin looking at some of the key biblical passages which are affected by my proposal to see how we can read and understand these texts.

While I know that my proposal wreaks havoc on many traditional ways of reading some biblical passages, please know that just as with Romans 8:34, I am aware of these texts and simply understand them in a different light — in the light of the love and beauty of the crucified Christ.

He has a take on angels, Satan, and demons which I have never heard before, and which seems to fit the biblical text in a way that, if true, would cause me to read much of Scripture in a whole different way, and which would cause me to view life, and governments, and cities, and politics, and animals, and plants and pretty much everything in a whole new way also.

J.I. Packer probably is a good representation of the historic view: «Reference to a second blessing has to be read into the [biblical] text; it can not be read out of it.»

«25 This archaeology is aided by two approaches: a sociology - of - knowledge analysis of the cultural role of biblical criticism and a psychoanalytically informed critique of the way we read the text.

Working through the biblical account step by step, Ellul reads the text carefully, finding hints of how God works through people, those who are faithful, as well as those who are not.

It is not uncommon to find Victorian dualisms read into a biblical text about the family or sexual ethics.

For those watching such things, keep in mind that most atheists have never read the Bible through even one time, even though they seem to be perfect experts of the biblical texts.

To quote Kenyan feminist theologian Musimbi Kanyoro, «Those cultures which are far removed from biblical culture risk reading the Bible as fiction,» Conversely, societies that identify with the biblical world feel at home in the text.

- The 40 - page Inspired Reading Guide (PDF), written entirely by me, which includes questions for reflection and discussion, ideas for creative engagement with the relevant biblical texts, and loads of additional resources.

A common objection is that the Bible is unreliable because it has been altered from (a now unavailable) original which would have been identical in teaching to the Quran, and this is evidenced by variant readings in the biblical text.

As reality did not need to be interpreted, it was mistakenly concluded that the biblical text could be read in a straightforward manner without interpretation.

Written in informed engagement with current debates over the possibility of knowledge and truth, this small book will reward careful reading also by those who may dispute the author's interpretation of biblical texts.

Again, the narrative itself, as read by the sympathetic and sensitive reader, constitutes its own best commentary; and again, therefore, we call brief attention to points in the biblical text which, in our judgment, ought to be specially noted:

In many cases homiletical texts recommend a method of reading scriptures aloud to gain an experiential perspective on biblical texts and also to understand their bases in orality.

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.

The modern genre of historical - critical commentary has become ossified, and the vast majority read like summaries of recent scholarship rather than fresh engagements with the biblical text.

A literal reading of the Biblical text, after all, must take literary factors into consideration.

Without casting Enlightenment rationalism as categorically evil, Wright details some of the problematic consequences of Enlightenment assumptions regarding the biblical text: false claims to absolute objectivity, the elevation of «reason» («not as an insistence that exegesis must make sense with an overall view of God and the wider world,» Wright notes, «but as a separate «source» in its own right»), reductive and skeptical readings of scripture that cast Christianity as out - of - date and irrelevant, a human - based eschatology that fosters a «we - know - better - now» attitude toward the text, a reframing of the problem of evil as a mere failure to be rational, the reduction of the act of God in Jesus Christ to a mere moral teacher, etc..

I remember reading somewhere that Martin Luther was so well acquainted with the Greek and Latin biblical texts, that his mind worked like a Bible concordance in both Greek, Latin, and German.