Sentences with phrase «same biblical text»

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

The clearest association I make, of course, is with the gender equality discussion within evangelicalism — not only because it's an issue near to my heart, but also because we are dealing with many of the same biblical texts.

Not exact matches

Furthermore, a Sumerian text from Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of domestication of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel's milk... For the early and middle second millennium BC, only limited use is presupposed by either the biblical or external evidence until the twelfth century BC.

His point seems to be that since any interpretation of the Bible must be communicated with words, the same interpretative problems that pertain to the biblical text must inevitably reappear at the level of the magisterial utterances.

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.

My problems with this book are the same problems I have with nearly all books about biblical criticism: I believe the presuppositions of most of those who engage in biblical criticism are inherently flawed, and as a result, short - circuit the creative thinking that is necessary to discover solutions to the so - called problems in the biblical text.

Contemporary authors create their texts from literary quotations, in the same way that the medieval hagiographer Epiphanius the Wise weaves biblical quotations into lives of saints.

We remember other biblical texts written in the same vein: «Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors» (Matt.

We must at one and the same time interpret both the social situations and the literary idioms of the biblical texts and the social situations and literary idioms of ourselves as interpreters / actors.

For the Biblical literalist the text of the Bible is sacred in much the same way.

Never in any Biblical text does it ever say God wants all ppl to be exactly the same.

At the same time, printing allowed religious authorities to demand adherence to «standard» forms of worship, «approved» hymns, and «authorized» biblical texts.

3) No Biblical text presents an extensive discussion of same - gender behavior or same - gender relationships.

Today we finally begin our discussion of those biblical texts often used to condemn same - sex relationships.

And although I'd decided I was enemy - free, there's no indication from the biblical text that Jesus would see it the same way.

It's also false to think that all Christians interpret God or the Blible in quite the same way — any basic analysis of the biblical and apocryphal texts would show you that God isn't gendered when, frequently, God is refered to as male.

Others — most notably Ricoeur — have made the same observation, arguing that metaphor contributes to the multivalency of biblical meaning and thus to the enduring appeal of biblical texts.8 But Frye's argument is different.