Sentences with phrase «way biblical texts»

Not exact matches

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.

Scientists may ultimately tell us how and when everything happened in ways not articulated in the biblical text, but science will never be able to tell us why.

This is significant not only because it is a biblical text, but because it seems for her to sum up in a decisive way the meaning of her self - discovery.

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.

Together with the opening line of the Letter to the Hebrews («In ancient times God spoke to man through prophets and in varied ways, but now he speaks through Christ, His Son...»), as well as many other biblical texts, this passage reveals to us a startling truth.

This second way of construing the force of Biblical texts, viz., as giving descriptions of actualities, seems part of a quite different enterprise than the first construal of the force of Biblical texts (viz., as expressing «propositions» that are «lures for feeling»).

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.

While we are on this subject, how is it that those who take a high view of the Scriptures are known to produce less by way of creative biblical interpretation than those who either bracket the question or treat the text as a human document?

Along the way, we have observed two basic elements in these approaches to rhetorical criticism, the careful and detailed examination of the biblical text and the broader demonstration of persuasive purpose.

As for the area of creation and science, has not reason compelled us to abandon the referential meaning of the biblical texts in Genesis and forced us to treat them in a theological and even mythological way?

A significant strand of feminism has used literary methods, exploring the ways in which biblical texts construct and represent an image of women that may function in the service of particular ideologies.

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.

Accepting this requirement, I infer from it the way in which theology should seek to be systematic: not by trying to go behind or beyond what the texts affirm (the common caricature of systematic theology), but by making clear the links between items in the whole compendium of biblical thought.

Consequently, we welcome the readings offered by feminists and other interpreters whose experience enables them to hear the biblical texts in new and challenging ways.

The biblical text can not transform unless it can be related in powerful ways to the concrete joys and anxieties of us folk in the tag - end of this century.

Thus there are at least three questions to ask those who would use psychological models to interpret the biblical text: What is wrong with the old ways?

There are at least three questions to ask those who would use psychological models to interpret the biblical text: What is wrong with the old ways?

Yet he refuses to collapse biblical theology into the history of the religion of Israel, distinguishing the two this way: ««History of religion» is concerned with all the forms and aspects of all human religions, while theology tends to be concerned with the truth - claims of one religion and especially with its authoritative texts and traditions and their interpretations.»

But whatever the reason, these two fundamentally different descriptions and justifications for one's non-work on the Sabbath found their way successively into the inspired biblical texts.

In his own wide - ranging and nuanced criticism of both biblical and secular texts, Ricoeur himself moves easily from a close reading of symbols to theoretical reflection, thereby modeling for an entire generation a more conceptually sophisticated way of joining religion and art than had heretofore been practiced.

Not the text itself, because it's pretty hard to overrate Biblical texts, but rather the way the text is interpreted.

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.

And the way the film interprets that particular text makes that biblical verse directly related to the governor of Illinois» recent decision to ban the death penalty, a decision which was reportedly informed by the Bible.

Now that the author has seemingly done damage to the integrity of the biblical text to the point that we can apparently know nothing more, or do nothing more, than feel our way around in the dark never being certain of what God's Holy Word says I ask this question:

@Chad «ok, fair enough, I will amend my earlier statement as such: «While there are several passages that are disputed as having been included in the original text, there is zero evidence that the biblical text has been adapted or changed in any way.

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.

Once we take into account the capacity of the ancient Jewish mind to create a story as a way of expounding and showing the relevance of a Biblical text (this practice will be described in Chapter 9), it is not at all difficult to see how the story of Joseph of Arimathea could have been partly shaped by Isaiah 53:9, «And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,» found in the famous chapter on the suffering servant, which was certainly interpreted by the early Christians as a prophecy of the death of Jesus.

He has a take on angels, Satan, and demons which I have never heard before, and which seems to fit the biblical text in a way that, if true, would cause me to read much of Scripture in a whole different way, and which would cause me to view life, and governments, and cities, and politics, and animals, and plants and pretty much everything in a whole new way also.

«While there are several passages that are disputed as having been included in the original text, there is zero evidence that the biblical text has been adapted or changed in any way.»

«25 This archaeology is aided by two approaches: a sociology - of - knowledge analysis of the cultural role of biblical criticism and a psychoanalytically informed critique of the way we read the text.

Though nothing new is here, the discussion of questions of context (liberal, modern, neo-orthodox; ecumenical, realist, biblical), texts and contexts (matters of biblical interpretation) and the way in which Christian affirmations are appropriately translated into particular settings is stimulating.

In such situations, preaching has to address these easy assumptions and blind familiarities; the text of Scripture has to fight its way through the «almost Scripture» that is everywhere to be found and passes for Biblical support of custom and prejudice.

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

The candidate did not open up a biblical text and carefully explain its meaning in the way that I am sure Dr. Broggi had been trained to do at Dallas Theological Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I did not mind too much about the way the movie strayed from the biblical text.

There were other issues too: The way the accounts of Israel's monarchy contradicted one another, the way Jesus and Paul quoted Hebrew Scripture in ways that seemed to stretch the original meaning, the fact that women were considered property in Levitical Law, the way both science and archeology challenged the historicity of so many biblical texts, and the fact that it was nearly impossible for me to write a creative retelling of Resurrection Day because each of the gospel writers tell the story so differently, sometimes with contradictory details.

We will show how Gregory weaves scriptural resources intrinsically into his pastoral care in such a way that biblical texts and pastoral practice are inseparable, and the one can not be conceived without the other.

Some began to question scriptural authorship and to analyze biblical texts in a scholarly way.

Just as the world of poetic texts opens its way across the ruins of the intraworldly objects of everyday existence and of science, so too the new being projected by the biblical text opens its way across the world of ordinary experience and in spite of the closed nature of that experience.

With biblical «conservatives» he shares reverence for the sense of the given text, the «last» text.8 He is not concerned to draw inferences from the text to its underlying history, to the circumstances of writing, to the spiritual state of the authors, or even to the existential encounter between Jesus and his followers.9 Indeed, Ricoeur, in his own way, takes the New Testament for what it claims to be: «testimony «10 to the transforming power of the Resurrection.

What if someone asked you, «Is there a chance you could be wrong about the way you've interpreted the biblical texts sometimes used to condemn homosexual orientation?»

Not only does Robert Chisholm explain the biblical text in a way that makes sense and reveals the cultural, historical, and grammatical contexts of Judges and Ruth, he also deals with modern questions that the text address, such as the issues of female leadership, the consequences of spiritual compromise, and the often bewildering actions of God in relation to His people on earth.

Think about these Suggestions for Appropriating the meaning of the Biblical texts in relation to your way of interpreting what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Expository preaching on Biblical texts gave way to topical preaching on «living» issues.

Clark Pinnock centers the issue even more pointedly as he asks, «How is it that those who take a high view of the Scriptures are known to produce less by way of creative biblical interpretation than those who either bracket the question or treat the text as a human document?»

In his book, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (I975), David Kelsey provides a helpful starting point by demonstrating that Christian theology is always tied to the biblical text in some way.

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.

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 may mean printing the text and pointing out specific verses or quoting them with sufficient frequency that it becomes clear that these verses are present, that the ways in which the passage was remembered — the past interpretations brought to the present hearing — have overlooked these verses, that these are not the creation of the preacher but are the biblical text.

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