Sentences with phrase «scribes did»

I'm glad it's not one of those original duplicated books like the monk - scribes did many, many centuries ago.

Its first version in the 7th century was quite regular, but the system was made worse by a succession of changes that paid no heed to ease of learning, starting in the 8th C. - Because monastic scribes did not like the look of a series of short strokes, as in «munth» and «wunder», they changed u to o in the majority of such words.

Local scribes did, and coach Denny Crum didn't play Walls in the Cards» next outing, against Kansas.

The scribes did the first, and the Pharisees (among whom are to be reckoned many scribes) did the second; they formed a kind of brotherhood within the Jewish community.

So yes scribes did make changes.

Doubting because science describes our world differently than his scribes did.

Considering John didn't write the gospel, a trained Greek scribe did and that was about 90 years after the fact.....

Some experts have also noted that the scribe does not seem to have used either of the writing instruments common to the time period: a stylus (Roman metal pen) or a calamus (Egyptian reed pen).

Though the scribes don't stop the narrative from being as chaos - driven as the first, they spare the slow start and allow the visceral thrills to take over more quickly.

The «L.A. Confidential» scribe doesn't quite know what he's going after, so he chases after everything — romance, action, politics and history.

However, Scribe does not seem to come pre-loaded with the tablet, which means the stylus might not have as big a role to play with the Puccini as it has with the Flyer.

Here at MundoRare, we believed that Rare listened to the requests of those that waited for so long in the form of Sabreman Stampede, the supposed sequel to Diddy Kong Racing that was never announced, or properly acknowledged (Scribes doesn't count) after its cancelation as Donkey Kong Racing.

On Monday April 2, 2012, Dr. Frank Fowlie, the Internet Ombudsman, Kari Boyle of MediateBC and your humble scribe did a presentation for the University of British Columbia law school.

Not exact matches

Why did he use scribes instead of writing it himself?

There is little doubt that the Bible is rife with edits and insertions done by lowly scribes over the early centuries.

You do understand that Like the other synoptic gospels, the Gospel of Luke is anonymous, wrtten 200 years after the event by Greek scribes (Papyrus 4).

15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?

The wishful thinking done by P, M, M, L, and J approximately 2000 years ago continued the embellishment and fiction tradition of the Jewish scribes.

I don't know how many planets were known when the Bible was written, for example, but you would think that an all - knowing and omni - present deity would know that some of the «stars» were actually planets, and informed the scribe of such.

Christians of a more intellectual persuasion often believe that the bible was inspired by God, but that God didn't literally instruct the scribes who wrote its various books on exactly what to write.

On the other hand the scribe who fears the Pharisee does not teach the differences between heresy and sound Bible doctrine; nor does he teach the historical views to understanding the Bible.

Comfort is saying that the reasons he chose the textual variants he did, is because he tried to understand the tendencies of the scribe who made the copies!

Even world - class Greek scholars like Comfort «one up» other world - class Greek scholars by saying that the others didn't understand the tendencies of the scribes who copied the texts.

Nor is the problem that so many people rattle off the golden rule without trying to live by it, like the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus criticized on the grounds that «they say, and do not»; probably glib rattlers - off of the revised rule could be expected to fail as frequently to practice what they preach.

... Not only do we need to know the original texts, we also need to know the tendencies of the scribes who produced the texts

does not refer to all of fallen mankind; but (I believe) is a sarcastic summation description (that is, bestial men) for those previously described in chapters 1 and 2 as being the worldly wise, the worldly scribes, the worldly debaters, the mighty of this world, the noble of this world, superior worldly speakers, those that use worldly persuasive words of wisdom, that is, all those who consider themselves to be the wise elite of this world which have given themselves over to the wisdom of the world and men.

The Jewish people of Jesus time, had a perfect text, from the finger of god, to scribes who were meticulous about making copies without translating the text, as we have to do for our bibles.

Even if, by some remote chance, he did exist, his words were never recorded and left for posterity.Those words you are devoted to are made up by scribes and monks, with an agenda.

This is what the scribes and Pharisees were known for doing.

I do mean God, and not some scribe that was hired to write what King James told him to.

Jesus may not be directly accusing his family and scribes of committing such a sin, but he does suggest that they are close to it.

Some of the scribes belonging to the strict Pharisee party accused the disciples: Why does he eat with such riffraff?

Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, «Why does this man speak thus?

And their scribes and the Pharisees complained against His disciples, saying, «Why do You eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?»

Are the accounts of Jesus» death and resurrection accurate or did whatever scribes wrote the accounts in the gospels sit down with Isaiah's prophecies and decide that Jesus fit the description?

The scribes and Pharisees give good advice, but they do not practice their own precepts.

Jesus is indignant that the scribes and Pharisees (1) will not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves and stand in the way of others entering it as well; (2) will do almost anything to win a proselyte only to make that proselyte twice as much a child of hell as they are; (3) confuse people by senseless oaths, telling them that if they swear by the Temple, their oath is not binding, but if they swear by the gold of the Temple, it is binding - the fools ought to realize, Jesus says, that the Temple includes all that is in it; (4) tithe some of their money but neglect justice and mercy and faith, which are weightier moral matters, when they ought both to tithe and perform these greater acts of righteousness as well; (5) are careful about outward cleanliness but careless about the inward disposition, so that they are filled with extortion and greed; (6) appear righteous but really are hypocrites, because their appearance hides all manner of iniquity inside; (7) pretend to revere the prophets of history whom their parents killed but continue to practice the evil of their parents by rejecting those whom God sends to them now (Matt.

When Jesus says, «Woe to you,» he vents his indignation, ashamed for what the scribes and Pharisees are doing.

There are no original copies of the gospel of John, I am not even sure what the earliest copies are dated, it is noted in my Bible that there are copies that do not have this passage.That in itself neither proves nor disproves anything, unless you have personal knowledge of the11th century «scribe «you spoke of.

Whether we are talking about receiving eternal life, OR experiencing the kingdom, either way, you can not do it unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees.

Would the scribes have responded the way «all» are said to do in verse 12 of Mark?

(This passage is as follows, «And Jesus answered and said while he taught in the temple, How do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?

THE GREAT CONTRAPTION (10:3 - 5) Yea, so it shall come to pass that He will descend to the very earth, and He shall touch the tainted sands with His divine noodly appendage and He shall write in the sand and the writing that He shall scribe upon the sand will be writing that does tell of the means to construct the Great Contraption about which He shall write upon the sand.

Remember, when the chief priests and scribes saw what Jesus had done, they looked for ways to kill him.

Jesus treats some prohibitions even more seriously than did the scribes, but for different reasons.

I think Christ hated people like you, scribes and pharasese, than he did the sinner.

He has a presentiment of the dreadful event, that a jealous criticism will many a time let him feel the birch; he trembles at the still more dreadful thought that one or another enterprising scribe, a gulper of paragraphs, who to rescue learning is always willing to do with other peoples» writings what Trop «to save appearances» magnanimously resolved to do, though it were «the destruction of the human race» — that is, he will slice the author into paragraphs, and will do it with the same inflexibility as the man who in the interest of the science of punctuation divided his discourse by counting the words, so that there were fifty words for a period and thirty - five for a semicolon.

Pope Francis has not openly agreed with either side of the debate on divorced Catholics, but he did warn last week against «codifying faith in rules and instructions as did the scribes, the Pharisees and the doctors of law in the time of Jesus».

They are not official personages; they do not speak as the scribes, but as having direct authority.

Jesus was asked by the priests and scribes by what authority he did all the things he did and spoke what he spoke (Luke 20:1 - 8).