Sentences with phrase «when interpreting scripture»

As biblical scholar James Sanders reminds us, when interpreting the scriptures we are to «theologize before [we] moralize.»

«God may be sending revelations but we are talking to ourselves when we interpret our scriptures.»

Not exact matches

One of the so - called tools that goes along with this hermeneutic principle of using scripture to interpret scripture is to favor clear scripture over less clear scripture when comparing similar themes and concepts.

When the commission agreed that Scripture provided no directive concerning the ordination of women, the representatives from Latin America and Africa and other conservatives interpreted this as prohibiting a change of policy, while representatives, and especially theologians, from North America, Europe and Australasia interpreted this as allowing innovation.

It really helped us realize the real - world implications for how we read each other's texts, and how vulnerable we feel when others are interpreting our scriptures in certain ways.

For example --- when I have asked Calvinists to interpret the majority of the Scripture, that reeks with the implication «that man has the inherent ability to accept / believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God» from their «no inherent ability of man to accept / believe or reject» perspective, the usual answer I get is along this line is: «Yes, God communicates with man in a style that implies that man has the inherent ability to accept / believe or reject what is being communicated to them from Him, but God knows that man does not have that inherent ability.»

Therefore when I encounter the very few verses of Scripture text (approximately less than 0.5 % of the Scriptures) that on the surface possibly could be interpreted to contradict that majority precedence (man's inherent ability to accept / believe or reject God's call / drawing, commands, instructions, promises and gifts), I interpret them in light of this majority precedence (which can be easily done).

Christians ought careful how they interpret and use scripture when discussing spiritual matters with non-Christians.

When it comes to scripture though we have a written record that yes must be read and therefore interpreted but has been done so throughout the history of the Church and corrected by the same through the oversight and guidance of God himself and it endures even till today.

Oddly enough, Augustine was writing about the mysteries found within the book of Genesis, when he said, «in matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.

The problem is — what happens when everyone interprets the scriptures differently?

He's entitled to that opinion, of course, but I do wish he would stop accusing Christians who don't interpret Genesis 1 as a literal, scientific text as having a «low view of Scripture» when his piece reveals that his own literalism is as selective as the next guy's.

I hope you don't find it insulting when I say that as is your arguments often require us to accept without any reason that the way you understand some verses is correct yet you can dismiss any verse you chose by saying that their understanding is a «misapplication», perhaps supplying a reasonable approach to how one goes about interpreting Scripture in general could clear up that problem.

The early Christians evidently believed that there were Scripture passages, which, when rightly interpreted, made it clear why a servant of God, of the caliber they had recognized in Jesus of Nazareth, should have ended his life in a criminal's death.

When the two despondent disciples on the road to Emmaus expressed to the stranger their bewilderment that such a powerful prophet as Jesus should have been condemned to death and be crucified, we are told that the risen Christ «began with Moses and all the prophets, and explained to them the passages which referred to himself in every part of the scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?&raWhen the two despondent disciples on the road to Emmaus expressed to the stranger their bewilderment that such a powerful prophet as Jesus should have been condemned to death and be crucified, we are told that the risen Christ «began with Moses and all the prophets, and explained to them the passages which referred to himself in every part of the scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to scriptures».6 The story implies that the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to Scriptures, when properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?&rawhen properly interpreted, made it clear that the Messiah was «bound to suffer thus before entering upon his glory» 7 When finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?&raWhen finally they recognized the identity of this stranger as they shared the evening meal before he vanished from their sight, they said to each other, «Did we not feel our hearts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained the scriptures to scriptures to us?»

Scot McKnight himself changed his position on women and teaching when he realized that his favorite Bible professor, the one from whom he'd learned the most about interpreting and applying scripture, was a woman.

The shades of Marcionism move lively again across the pulpit when the Church, for reasons probably sincere and rooted in a theology of the Word, is unwilling to take up the task of interpreting Scripture for specific contemporary settings.

«But when the rabbis down the centuries look at the scriptures and interpret them in the light of their own time, and when we do that in the light of our modern morality — why bother with the scriptures at all?»

You probably have a list of scriptures (the same ones I once used) for this purpose, but if you look at them honestly they do not mention the Bible, but rather «the law», writings of «men of old», «the Word of God», «this book», «this prophecy», «the scripture» or other specified or unspecified writing (s)-- NOT ONE says «the Bible» or can be reasonably interpreted to refer to the Protestant or Catholic canon WE moderns mean when we talk about «the Bible».

If we did not use reason when reading and interpreting Scripture, people would still use Scripture to defend slavery.

When it comes to interpreting Scriptures your answer will likely forever pigeon - hole you, pitching you into one camp or another.

However by the Reformation in the 16th century, Martin Luther not only translated the Gospels, but he interpreted them in printed sermons as well, and when John Calvin, Roger Williams and others broadly disagreed in print with Luther on such matters as what the scriptures said about the role of government in society, the whole matter of scriptural interpretation was opened to thousands of individuals who for the first time could read (or have read to them) the published documents.

Finally, when I say that God is on the side of the poor, I do not mean that hermeneutically we must start with some ideologically interpreted context of oppression (for instance, a Marxist definition of the poor and their oppressed situation) and then reinterpret Scripture from that ideological perspective.

1) Do you agree that all Christians pick and choose when it comes to interpreting and applying Scripture, and can you think of some other examples?

Ideally, Scripture would be the raw data which, when interpreted, leads to a cohesive theological system.

When he realized Philip was well versed in the scriptures, he invited him to sit beside him in his chariot and interpret the passage.

Blomberg offers as his definition of inerrancy one penned by Paul Feinberg: «Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.»

A guy with an AK 4 - 7 Killed some kids who were half of eleven When the arguments started America parted But when we ask god why god says, uh, well, uh, it's really hard to figure out terms like, well, your whole post, which while yelled, is really rather confusing and doesn't seem to say a lot and needs to be interpreted, just like any ancient scriptWhen the arguments started America parted But when we ask god why god says, uh, well, uh, it's really hard to figure out terms like, well, your whole post, which while yelled, is really rather confusing and doesn't seem to say a lot and needs to be interpreted, just like any ancient scriptwhen we ask god why god says, uh, well, uh, it's really hard to figure out terms like, well, your whole post, which while yelled, is really rather confusing and doesn't seem to say a lot and needs to be interpreted, just like any ancient scripture.

LOL!!!! You make words mean their opposite both when interpreting the bible (predestination scriptures) and when explaining how to read the bible (literal means not - literal... sometimes).