Sentences with phrase «use human words»

And yet, it is only by keeping these birds in captivity that we have been able to observe that they are capable of learning basic mathematics, and use the human words they learn not just as parroting refrains but even as phrases that show true comprehension.

Usually when theologians say that the Bible is a human book, they mean that the Bible has human authors who use human words to discuss human ideas to human readers with human ways of thinking.

Thus God uses human words and human language, human culture and human imagery, human existence and human nature.

Not exact matches

According to the latest neuroscience, the human brain uses neurons in the left visual cortex to process written words as whole word units.

Sometimes, we tend to forget that putting words out through a computer can rob us of our human voices; one way to reclaim a jovial nature is to use emojis and emoticons.

Some of these options may be perfectly acceptable to you, and will help bring in searchers who use other words to describe the same product as you are selling, but others may wind up showing your ad in inappropriate search results (e.g., when someone is looking for a premium cookie for a special afternoon tea they are planning for a human group).

In 557 words, Tesla sought to counter that alarming photo, using statistics and figures to argue that an artificially intelligent driver is still safer than a human one.

For while this House may be dragged down by dispiriting words and accusations, it is brought lowest by the talking point and the use of precious time and adult human beings in business attire to convey scripted banalities.

«Thus, we see that one of the obvious origins of human disagreement lies in the use of noises for words.»

The very small rock was speaking to humanity and I am human, so I used the words «we» and «our» in the previous post in a reference to me and all other humans.

So, by your reasoning, if «People put so much importance on words» (implying that they don't matter and we shouldn't take thought of how we use them) then I ought to be able to sing along with the lyrics from pac's «hit»em up» with my black friends, curse in a kindergarten class as well as a corporate meeting for my boss... what impression would a client have of my boss if I were cussing in a professional meeting or at a charity event... it doesn't add up, it's a cop - out rebuttal... trying to find loopholes or applying «human reasoning» like» ll take a swearing guy who's helpful» doesn't change Jesus or scripture it's just setting up a what - if scenario and trying to allow that to in some way justify your stance when again, that doesn't change The Holy Spirit or His heart in those who have been born again... the verses (inspired by His own Spirit) speak for themselves.

That said: «But god did not foresee — that man would want a companion» = > «It is not good for the man to be alone» are the words used — so God did know and provided «that the snake would talk to the humans» = > «the serpent was more crafty than any other animal» - deception required capacity to deceive «that the humans would choose knowledge (and why else was that tree there)» = > It was not knowledge but knowledge of good and evil.

Most importantly, note this: I am a Christian, I'm gay, I'm a recovering alcoholic, I believe in Evolution, I believe the universe is 13 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.5 or so billion years old, I believe man evolved from lower primates and that Adam was the first man who God gave a soul and sentience, I do not believe in hell but I do believe in Satan, I do not believe the Bible is a book of rules meant to imprison man or condemn him but that it is rather a «Human Existence for Dummies» guide, I believe Christ was the son of God but I do not believe Christianity is the only «valid» religion, I do not believe atheists will go to hell, while the English Bible says God should be feared, the Hebrew word used for fear, «yara», such as that used in the Book of Job, actually means respect / reverence, not fear as one would fear death or a spider.

Again, the problem is that «Christ» has connotations that Jesus was divine, whereas the actual words used, «anointed one» simply refer to any human called upon by God to aid the Jewish people.

But my experience has convinced me that these are indeed the appropriate words to use when faced with the imperative to end pointless human pain.

Wright uses the word «sovereign» to describe God's purpose «not just to save human beings, but to renew the whole world.»

As Wellhausen once remarked, everything that Jesus said (save, I think, his teaching about God's «seeking the lost») can be found in the highest and best Jewish teaching; although Wellhausen had to add that much more may be found in this teaching which Jesus eliminated or rejected — our Lord's human genius here, if the word may be used, was in his selectivity.

In whichever sense the word «culture» is used, it is a distinctly human phenomenon.

God superintending human authors so that, using their own personalities, they composed and recorded without error his message in the words of the original manuscripts.

But it is also a human word: the human beings who wrote it were also true authors.8 The scriptures therefore share to some extent in the nature of the incarnation: they use human things as the means for God to communicate with us humanly.

As yet, no one has ventured to translate Dasein or Vorhanden, but in order not to disfigure the English translation by the frequent use of German words, I have rendered Dasein as «human life», «human Being», or even «Being» where its human character is made clear by the context.

Many also use 1 Corinthians 2:12 - 13 to defend Inspiration, which talks about expressing spiritual truths with spiritual words taught not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit of God.

Many churches now avoid the use of the word «man» when human being is meant.

However, my protest was that Jesus Himself uses the word of human beings.

Did you ever think when you are typing words, gathering your thoughts, deciding / choosing what to say, and using the best intellect you can find in your brain; that you are conscious in these thoughts / decisions, and that your eyes / hands / brain synapses, are all part of the lense (of the human body) that you are able to see and control to the limitations inherent in its essence?

To Paul, Peter was doing the same as the false brothers tried to do in Jerusalem (the word for compel is used in both 2.14 and 2.3).34 Therefore, if the Galatians choose circumcision, they will no longer be servants of Christ; they will be servants of a human authority, namely those who require circumcision.

Paul refers to the dangerous power of words, all words, when used to dehumanize another human being.

1Co 2:13 When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom.

Not accidentally, common speech uses the word unique as descriptive of human individuality.

(3) third, it aims to equip humans to live in the real world not least of all by «calling the thing what it actually is» to use Luther's words in the Heidelberg Disputation.

Rorty specifically addresses intellectuals who use words and read books in an effort to re-describe themselves and what it means to be human.

So morality (I hate using that word because the concept is really human decency) is actually based in the individual, and imperfectly codified in the cultural; it is not distant or God - based.

The word which the apostolic community used and offered to us is the word «resurrection,» hardly a term derived from or consonant with our usual conceptuality or our ordinary human experience, however rich and varied.

I use the word «named religions» because there are countless moral and social belief systems private to every human which does not have a name...

One can say, therefore, that these sources or foundations, to which all members of a commonwealth are responsible, are «authoritative,» but, strictly speaking, it is an incorrect use of words to say that, in and of themselves and apart from interpretation and application by human agents, they have authority.

Along similar lines, physiologists believe that the human eye is capable of distinguishing among more than six million hues, and yet the fact that we typically use only about a dozen words to describe colors suggests that we see them much less richly than we are capable of doing.3

Just as the word «faith» describes an attitude in man himself, as well as that which fosters the attitude, so «hope» has been used to refer both to a human attitude, and to that which prompts the attitude, namely that to which his mind and spirit look forward.

Human beings have a duty to respect words as bearers of life, and hence to use only words that symbolize what is true and right.

Thus, the human development depends, to use somewhat antiquated words, both on nature and on nurture.

To be more biblical means the greater use of the Bible in sermons as well as in religious education, and instruction as to how to understand the Bible both in its historical setting and as the Word of God speaking to the human spirit in every age.

Therefore the tradition has spoken insistently of judgment — or to use perhaps a better word, appraisal — both moment by moment and at the conclusion of every human life, with a further appraisal made when the entire created order is evaluated in its contribution or failure to contribute to the advancement of the divine purpose in the world.

No GOD didn't wite the bible, man did humans just like you, and as we all know humans make mistakes, or words get mistranslated, the point being is have faith in GOD but he gave you free will to use your brain too.

Augustine and Aquinas, of course, do argue for a plan in history and for a human end of happiness — and for the reality, if one is not too squeamish to use the word, of heaven.

In other words, one of the primary purposes of John is to impregnate the terms «Christ» and «Son of God» with new meaning and significance that can not be used of any other human throughout history.

My friend agreed that this was indeed so for the human use of these words but insisted that when used in connection with God fore - ordination and freedom, predestination and our own responsibility for our end, were compatible.

The word bara (create) is used only three times; for the creation of heaven and earth, the creation of the first animals (the fish and the birds) and the creation of man (i.e. the big bang, the creation of life and the creation of the human soul).

For example, my friend admitted that his words were contradictory for humans, but not, somehow, when used of God.

A major part of the problem is that though Immanuel Kant wrote about dignity in the 18th century and the word was in use even earlier, strong efforts to elucidate and work with it have not been made (as have been made for, say, the notion of human rights, the subject of innumerable books, essays and court cases).

For if it is true, on the one hand, that death is the end of human existence for each and every one of us, it is on the other equally true (to repeat the words I have already used) that death is human life in its finality.

Others would respond that the problem here is that I am using words in their human meanings, whereas I ought to realize that when applied to God these words gain a different and deeper meaning.