Sentences with phrase «understanding biblical texts»

Failure in understanding the events stems from many people not actually understanding Biblical texts.

Indeed this dialectic, worked out in the context of Ricoeur's general theory of discourse in Interpretation Theory, underlies what the philosopher now tells us about understanding biblical texts.

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.

They reflect great insights into the Greco - Roman Mediterranean world and Jewish backgrounds of Jesus so that modern readers can better understand the biblical text, and what it means for today.

Similarly today, Pastors and professors who develop a fresh way of understanding a biblical text are often afraid to share it with others, due to the theological backlash they are sure to receive.

«I'm hoping the data opens a discussion about preachers» eschatological beliefs, why they hold those ideas, and how congregants and faith leaders can better understand the biblical texts,» he said.

Not exact matches

If you're interested in self - inquiry there are a lot of psychological texts written in recent years when the science was far, far in advance of anything understood about humans back in biblical times.

Knust shows absolutely no awareness of Biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, genre, social and historical context, or even a rudimentary understanding of what's prescriptive or descriptive text in some of the historical Biblical narratives.

It is all so outdated for the human race... I don't understand why so many people need such strong faith in a biblical text to carry out their lives happily and productively.

Womanist biblical interpretation enriches every person and every community's understanding of the biblical text.

My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etBiblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etbiblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc..

Both texts are greatly aided by a proper understanding of how adoption worked in biblical times.

Theological hermeneutics should have a «spiral structure» in which there is ongoing circulation between culture, tradition, and biblical text, each enriching the understanding of the other.

In these arguments the move from data consisting of Biblical texts construed in a certain way to conclusions concerning what truly is a tenet in some Biblical theology is warranted by process hermeneutics, strictly understood, i.e., a process theory of understanding.

Calvinists believe that their understanding of the biblical text is the only proper understanding, and if people disagree, it is because they don't want to submit to God's revelation of Himself in Scripture.

I believe it is the responsibility of all those who disagree with Richard Dawkins» rather superficial and juvenile conclusions about the biblical text, to create space for a deeper discussion around the way in which we work with it and, as a consequence, who we understand God to be.

For example, if you challenge a particular Reformed understanding of a biblical text based on exegetical arguments, the response you will likely get is, «Well, that is wrong because Augustine and Calvin said this...»

I have ventured into writing commentaries on the biblical books in Malayalam, approaching the Bible in two senses of the word, layman: namely, inadequate scientific understanding of the text but primarily concerned with response to life - situations.

(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.

They choose, for whatever reason (spiritual experience, fear, apathy) to not waiver from their interpretation and understanding of biblical texts even in the face of reason and logic.

It is, in particular, the second of evangelicalism's two tenets, i. e., Biblical authority, that sets evangelicals off from their fellow Christians.8 Over against those wanting to make tradition co-normative with Scripture; over against those wanting to update Christianity by conforming it to the current philosophical trends; over against those who view Biblical authority selectively and dissent from what they find unreasonable; over against those who would understand Biblical authority primarily in terms of its writers» religious sensitivity or their proximity to the primal originating events of the faith; over against those who would consider Biblical authority subjectively, stressing the effect on the reader, not the quality of the source — over against all these, evangelicals believe the Biblical text as written to be totally authoritative in all that it affirms.

Fuller's understanding seems to blur the distinction between the intention of the Bible as a whole and the intention of a particular Biblical text.

The proper role for the study of the diachronic dimensions of the text lies not in fragmenting or in replacing the synchronic level, but in using a recovery of a depth dimension for increasing an understanding of the theological substance that constitutes the biblical narrative itself.

I have a hunch that one explanation accounts for the silence of evangelical biblical scholars more than any other: the basic fear that their findings, as they deal with the text of Scripture, will conflict with the popular understanding of what inerrancy entails.

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.

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.

Such people (and most Jews) would consider the idea that there is one and only one understanding of some aspect of Biblical text and both naive and uninformed.

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.

The heroes of modern - day evangelicalism, from scholars like N.T. Wright to pastors like Rob Bell, are passionately and unapologetically contextual textualists, working diligently with a host of ancient literary and archaeological sources to make sense of biblical texts as they would have been understood in their day.

But evangelicals are included in the «others»; no less than liberals they seek to understand Scripture according to the particular historical contexts in which biblical texts were written ¯ with the one difference being that they consider themselves bound to receive what they conclude the text to say as authoritative rather than open to improvement.

It is, however, a call for a program of Biblical study and Biblical preaching that is more realistic and more responsible as far as the bearing of the congregation's situation upon understanding the message of the text is concerned.

The emphasis in «process hermeneutics» on texts as proposals led Kelsey to wonder whether the cluster of «propositions» (understood in the distinctively Whiteheadian sense) in a Biblical text are what in Scripture are normative for theology.

Obviously, our formal understanding of these four circles that make up our situation will already have been shaped to a great extent by a history and tradition influenced by the classic texts and events associated with the biblical revelation.

At one level every hermeneutic is exclusive in practice, as when «process hermeneutics» centers attention on the metaphysical claims of Biblical texts about the reality of God (e.g., see MEH).2 But «process hermeneutics» refuses to be reductionist in its theory of interpretation, understanding, and meaning; hence, its inclusive hospitality to «any and all disciplined methods of interpretation,» as Kelsey puts it (compare, e.g., RPIPS, especially 106 - 15).

2) They should find a qualified counsellor who understands their religious beliefs and work through it toward a biblical and spiritual restoration as defined in the text of the Bible in the letters to the Corinthian church, the church in Rome, or the recorded teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

Even when we believe the Scriptures are «infallible» or «without error,» it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error.

I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts.

Victoria, my book looks at the biblical texts which allegedly teach what you are saying they teach (that Christmas trees are idols, etc) and shows how that understanding is a terrible misunderstanding of those texts.

You also now have some Biblical interpretation skills that you can apply to other Biblical texts — those that are your favorites or those that have proven difficult to understand.

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.

However, we are also heirs of a false and one sided understanding of the biblical texts which deal with the Christian attitude towards a state and authorities.

Packer argues that the «biblical texts must be understood in their human context» while Donald Bloesch's christological hermeneutic emphasizes the need to go beyond the literal sense of the text to discern its larger significance.

Anyway, I was pleased to see that this book on the Grand Canyon puts together some of the best scientific research about the Grand Canyon and matches it with some of the best research and understandings of the biblical text.

@Chad «I actually agree with you, as you point out, it's critically important to understand what the biblical text actually says:

It was only in the late fourth century that the biblical text «Thou art Peter» had begun to be understood as a reference to the papacy.

Furthermore, it would be helpful to show that the existing concern for evangelism and church growth could not be pursued apart from the issues raised by the wider social setting without doing damage to the biblical understanding of mission This also had to be done from the text itself, and not from any intrinsic authority given by the congregation to the preacher.

If you do not understand the historical - cultural background to a biblical text, there is almost no way you will properly understand the passage.