Sentences with phrase «text to teach»

Duolingo works with a combination of images, spoken words and text to teach you Spanish, German, Italian, French, Portuguese, Russian and Dutch.

The senior insurance discount course uses videos, graphics and text to teach important concepts such as proper adjustment of safety restraints, what to do in different emergency driving situations, how to handle your vehicle in bad weather conditions, and many other topics.

This book uses colorful photo illustrations and informative text to teach children about cats.

This instructional guide is filled with rigorous cross-curricular lessons and activities that work in conjunction with the fictional text to teach students how to comprehend complex literature and help them understand the life lessons in this story.

This First Christmas Story Retold pack is jammed full of beautiful images and text to teach your students about the Nativity.

English teachers at The Forest Academy secondary school and sixth form have claimed they are choosing new texts to teach students, after curriculum changes came into effect across the UK last September.

Three poems to use in shared or guided reading or as modelled texts to teach poetry writing.

Not exact matches

In the text below, i will be teaching you how to start a business from scratch using the power of leverage.

Shopping at the supermarket and wandering around the aisles teaches a lot more about how to write effective pay - per - click (PPC) advertisement text than we might...

I just don't like it when people cherry pick their religious sources or, in the case of this article, outright go against what their religious texts teach to try and appear more politically correct.

Mr. Jenson is too in love with the «preaching and teaching and hymns and prayers and processions and sacramental texts» to recognize that these are exactly a Christian version of pharisaism.

The definition of «biblical» ought to be the best explanation of what the text is explicitly teaching «ought» to be the case.

Whether it is changing text books to teach religion as a «science,» making laws that prohibit stem - cell research which would without question help those in need, to stopping of any kind of gay rights, trying to put religion (christianity) into schools, a woman's right to choose, etc, etc...

The Protestant Reformation was not a reinterpretation of the Biblical texts, rather, it was a return to proper Biblical teaching after the Council of Nicea in 325 created the hellish religion of Roman Catholicism.

The fact that the pope, or a council, can address contemporary situations and issues directly, and tell us how the biblical teachings apply to them, is another reason why we can expect the utterances of the contemporary magisterium to resolve disagreements more effectively than the biblical texts themselves.

Gary: I think I agree with your point that «if 1 man and 1 woman was a normal teaching of Paul's» for all believers, then it follows that the text either means «this is only for the elders and higher positions» OR that the text was referring to some other situation, such as marrying a divorced woman.

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.

The great irony is that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their «table», and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality, to do the opposite.

Though many Calvinists use Ephesians 2:5 and Ephesians 2:8 - 9 to teach that «regeneration precedes faith» and «faith is a gift of God,» a careful examination of these texts reveals that they teach the opposite.

Because in every area of the Bible, from the writing of the text, to the collection of the books, to the transmission, translation, and teaching of the text, extra-biblical tradition and authority is required.

It reflects the theology of those who thought of Jesus exclusively in apocalyptic terms, and were prepared not only to go through the tradition and substitute «the Son of Man» for his simple «I,» but also to insert appropriate quotations or paraphrases of their favorite apocalyptic texts in order to give his life its appropriate setting — as they assumed — and his teaching its proper interpretation.

The text teaches us that everything does not have to have a political signification and that everything is not necessarily a concern of political powers.

As to whether or not we must affirm that the flood encompassed the entire orb of the earth, the text would seem to teach this and subsequent texts would tend to corroborate this, but there is some flexibility with regards to the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, as expressed in the encyclical «Humani Generis» of Pope Pius XII:

The proper meaning of the Church's teaching on this point becomes clearer when one sees the official Latin text, which rather than «open» says, «perse destinatus», which refers to the objective status of the act per se.

Biblicism falls apart, Smith says, because of the «the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism,» for «even among presumably well - intentioned readers — including many evangelical biblicists — the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics... It becomes beside the point to assert a text to be solely authoritative or inerrant, for instance, when, lo and behold, it gives rise to a host of many divergent teachings on important matters.»

I see these stages as complementary rather than exclusive; and if Thomas's teaching is not clear from this one text, we should look for other texts and trustworthy commentators to help out.

And why did the Church hold to positions such as dyothelitism — the teaching that the person of Jesus had two wills, one human and the other divine, which seemed alien to the simple text of Scripture?

I don't see anything remotely wrong or uncoufe in this suggestion; to the contrary, I see it taught not only in scripture, but in the VAST majority of texts on human nature.

She said: «It is clear that weaknesses in current legislation allow some organisations to teach school - aged children religious texts full - time... and avoid proper scrutiny.

But to claim some biblical justification for something so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ is (I think I have said this before) a perversion of the text.

Bringing life to a dried fish (this is only present in later texts)(First group) 3 Miracles — Breathes life into birds fashioned from clay, curses a boy, who then becomes a corpse, curses a boy who falls dead and his parents become blind Attempt to teach Jesus which fails, with Jesus doing the teaching 3 Miracles — Reverses his earlier acts, resurrects a friend who fell from a roof, heals a man who chopped his foot with an axe [1]

The teaching of Jesus, on the other hand, not only regularly uses the verb to come in connection with the Kingdom and avoids the other verbs more characteristic of ancient Judaism, it also never speaks of God «appearing» as king as do the Jewish texts.

No unambiguous definition of «liturgy» has been attempted, and because of this it is not clear why episcopally instituted and controlled devotions (or, for example, the rite of the Corpus Christi procession) are not to be regarded as liturgy, as this text presupposes rather than teaches or states explicitly.

Before the flourishing of Bultmann's career, New Testament scholarship had been dominated by literary criticism, which attempted to uncover the secret of how the texts were compiled; by investigation of the Hellenistic background, especially the mystery religions surrounding the early church, as part of a sociological critique of the history of religion; and by excitement about the apocalyptic content of the teaching of Jesus as a first century Jew.

The violent texts have some amazing things to teach us, and are inspired and inerrant.

So if what Jesus said to Philip can't be used to teach us about the nature and character of God because it's historical narrative, then this same argument applies to every text in the Bible, and you can also not use anything from the Law, the Writings, the Prophets, the Gospels, or the Epistles.

Another cause for concern is the way the christian agenda is pushed right here: christian religious beliefs to be taught as science, christian religious texts on public buildings, christian prayers at public meetings, christian beliefs as law, etc..

Then they would go on to teach some sort of dangerous idea about how a favorite «prophecy» doesn't actually point to Jesus, or how a favorite text doesn't mean what most Christians think, or how the misuse and misunderstanding of a particular point of theology could lead to sin.

As I taught my fledging course in spiritual formation, using Ephesians as my text, I learned the difference between information and wisdom, and that wisdom was all that mattered to these three women.

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 remainder of the book (chapters 4 — 7) provide a detailed explanation of how to study and teach the texts of the General Epistles, beginning with interpreting them from the Greek and moving on into exegetical outlines and homiletical exposition.

All religious texts have such incidents described or alluded to — take them all strictly in a literal sense and you end up being a fanatic and likely manipulated rather than being a truly spiritual being who imbibes the best that the religion is trying to teach.

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.

If our critical readings lead us away from trusting the grace of God in Jesus Christ, then something is amiss, and we would do well to interrogate the methods and presuppositions that have taught us to distance ourselves arrogantly or fearfully from the text and to miss scripture's gracious word of promise.

So the reason THE FEDERALIST is LIBERAL EDUCATION is that's a great tool for teaching how to follow partisan but deep political arguments in tough — but not that tough (each FEDERALIST is pretty self - contained and short, for one thing)-- texts.

Gadamer, of how the inspired text, which we question in order to find its meaning and relevance, questions, criticizes, challenges and changes us in the process -» Some who today raise the proper question, whether there are not culturally relative elements in Paul's teaching about role relationships (an the material has to be thought through from this standpoint), seem to proceed improperly in doing so; for in effect they take current secular views about the sexes as fixed points, and work to bring Scripture into line with them - an agenda that at a stroke turns the study of sacred theology into a venture in secular ideology.

But over the course of study, teaching, and writing, have come to a different conclusion of what those texts mean.

Instead of teaching the Bible as a collection of isolated texts, each to be interpreted literally, they endeavored to treat each book in the Bible as a whole.

We might be surprised to discover what these texts actually teach.

The authors are most helpful when they focus not on proof texts from Jesus» teaching but on our relationship of praise and devotion to the God incarnate in Jesus Christ.