Sentences with phrase «which passage you read»

Just ask yourself this: Since the Bible is apparently inerrant, how exactly Noah was able to get 2 of every species (7 of some depending on which passage you read) on a boat?

Not exact matches

If you read to the end of Holder's letter, to the passage where he says, «Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president on the scope of his authority,» it becomes clear that, despite invoking Pearl Harbor and 9/11, even he isn't envisioning a response to an attack in process, which would have to happen immediately.

They are rarely used, and most people groan when you get to the genealogies of Scripture in their Bible reading, but they are often some of the passages in the Bible which help defend it from the frequent attacks that are leveled against the Bible by it's critics.

Based on this idea, we read it into various passages which do not teach it.

A public reading of the passage will reveal which approach the reader takes.

The most striking of the readings is the passage from John which describes the experience of Thomas.

A contextual reading reads the passage not in our own context, but in the context in which it was written.

Yet the context of Christian worship in which a passage from another scripture is read may suggest a particular meaning or interpretation for the chosen passage.

Surely it is with this understanding of Jesus» call that we are to read such difficult biblical passages as Colossians 3:22, which bids slaves be obedient to their masters, as though they were obeying Christ himself.

This reading, as we have noted, was Italianate, Ultramontane, highly emotional and frequently expressed in passages of purple prose, which, as Wilkinson opines, occasionally topple over into «silliness».

However the NIV inserts a word not in the Greek, so 4:6 reads «this is why the Gospel was preached even to those who are now dead...» The translators admit the «now» is not in the Greek but say that they put it there to make clear that the passage doesn't refer to post mortem opportunity which they claim is ruled out by Hebrews 9:27 «it is appointed unto to man once to die and then comes judgement».

I'd also recommend reading through Romans 5:12 — 8:17 (which, as you know, is all about Adam, sin and Christ as the second Adam) and making a mental checklist of how Paul uses the term death in this passage.

The entire passage reads, «In spite of the many kinds of love, which in Greek are designated as philia (friendship), eros (aspiration toward value), and epithymia (desire), in addition to agape, which is the creation of the Spirit, there is one point of identity in all these qualities of love, which justifies the translation of them all by «love»; and that identity is the «urge toward the reunion of the separated,» which is the inner dynamics of life.

Augustine snatched up the «book of the Apostle» he had been reading, opened it, and read in silence the passage on which his eyes first lighted: «Not in dissipation or drunkenness, nor in debauchery and lewdness, nor in arguing and jealousy; but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh or for the gratification of your desires» (Rom.

Nature has just as much beauty, order, love, and wonder as it does death, blood, suffering, and murder, and Scripture has hundreds of dark and disturbing passages which seems to paint a different picture of God than we read about in the Gospels or in 1 John 4:8.

Most never read it or only read it using a book that tells them which passages to read.

Many read this passage as a description of the downward spiral into humility and death which Jesus undertook for the sake of humanity, so that this downward spiral eventually resulted in the worst of all possible humiliations, death on a cross (Php 2:5 - 8).

I read again the passage in «Justification» about Romans 3:21 ff (which the reviewer mentioned) and I think Wright's book clears it up beautifully (cf. pp. 201 - 210).

It is, moreover, easy to be mistaken, on a superficial reading, about the true meaning of passages which may strike us as congenial.

Not surprisingly we read a kindred passage in Professor Abe's review of Tillich's book referred to above, which sets forth a Christian - Buddhist contrast here in fine style:

For example, if you don't feel comfortable leading an emotional prayer time, ask if you could instead read and briefly explain a passage of Scripture which is relevant to the topic at hand.

I interpreted it solely as a divine command... I seized (the book I had been reading], opened it and in silence read the first passage on which my eyes lit: «Not in riots and drunken parties, not in eroticism and indecencies, not in strife and rivalry, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh in its lusts» (Rom.

Ford came to read this passage as saying that there may be some occasions which are natural events and are not complete, whereas for completion such an occasion requires the addition of the mental (FFP 49).

After that passage which is often read out loud at weddings, Paul writes that someday all of our important and inspired words will end, our praying in tongues will end, our knowledge will end but love will be what lasts forever.

A careful reading of the many passages in which Whitehead criticizes the substance - quality mode of thought leads one inevitably to his thesis that it is derived (at least in part) from a «misapprehension» of the true status of «presentational immediacy» (PR 95f.

When we read this passage in the light of the situation today, our eyes are opened to the amazing inroads of the church of Christ in the Third World nations, which may indicate a new Pentecost, a sign of the last times.

I will complete my remarks by reading an extended passage from Whitehead which presupposes the technical matters I have tried to clarify and which gives something of the flavor of what Whitehead himself might have wanted to contribute to a symposium on evaluating education.

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.

The fact is that every one of the passages whose supposed «plain reading» limits women from certain roles has been demonstrated to have significant cultural, contextual, and even syntactical complexity which makes such a «plain reading» highly suspect.

Those who shudder at inscriptions on monuments or passages in history books which refer simply to «the Great War» or «the World War» — written as though what we call World War I would indeed prove to be «the war to end war» — will feel saddened to read her portentous observation that «we have no guarantee that it will not recur.»

I've read and reread the page in McDowell's book and he clearly cites the Talmudic passage as a secondary source which is scholastically sound.

The keynote of the ministry and message of Jesus is summed up in another great passage, this time from his beloved Isaiah which he selected to read in the synagogue on the inaugural day of his ministry:

One might read the passage, «Process,» which is part of Chapter X of Part II, prior to reading the chapter, «Ideal Opposites.»

The year group would be brought together and the Head would break the news, after which the Dean would read a passage of scripture and then I would say a few words and offer a prayer.

(Luke 4:16 - 24) has been compared to a number of other passage and found to be equivalent with the exception of Luke 4: 16 which is the only passage in the list of equivalents that mentions reading:

10:32 f. the passage reads: «Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my father which is in heaven.

Depending on how you read these passages, John could be speaking of one baptism or two: a baptism of the Holy Spirit upon believers and a baptism of fiery judgment upon unbelievers (cf. Matt 13:25 - 30, or one baptism of the Holy Spirit which will come with fire upon believers (cf. Acts 2:3).

One has only to read the sermons of the early New England divines to remark how often and how eloquently this huge land, unknown in detail but known to be there, supplied illustrations for those passages in the sermon which required pictorial language to nail down a sermonic point.

Overhearing a child's game in which one of the participants cried, Tolle, lege, «pick it up, read it,» Augustine quickly flung open his Bible to the passage that changed the rest of his life.

If you read both Timothy and Phillip, there are passages which describe in detail that Jesus was cremated.

Those who think otherwise, have obviously never read the Parable of the labourers in the vineyard, or the Scripture passage which says that God so loved the world, that God gave God's only Son, that whoever believes in God will not perish, but have everlasting life.

And the other example is the startlingly brilliant and heartbreaking passage in which Tolstoy describes the thoughts and internal apprehensions of Anna's child Seryozha in the long days since his mother went away — a scene that is more or less indescribable and that one must read to appreciate.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

If one wants to see for himself how truly great the Old Testament is, he should read in their context at least the passages to which references have been made.

When you read your Bible next time, remember the following passages: «those without sin shall cast the first stone;» «love thy neighbor as thyself;» «turn the other cheek» and «that which you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me.»

So when I saw the faces once again of so many with whom thirty years before and in the decades that followed I had - so often bitterly embattled against the Establishment - faced that challenge, men from whom inevitably I had become separated on my own conversion to Rome; and when I saw their profound happiness at the Pope's great and apostolic act, and their excitement at the prospect before them, I could not fail to remember once more a famous passage from the Apologia pro Vita Sua, which the agnostic George Eliot said she could not read without tears; and certainly, I can not:

Remember those passages from Emerson which I read at my last lecture.

So the comparison is skewed and generalistic — which is a very common Christian motif when reading passages from the generalistic texts that were written.

I'm currently, and coincidentally, reading «Hogfather» in the run up to Christmas and it has a passage which has had me thinking for the last few days (not the usual place to find philosophical material but I «takes it wheres I finds it»).

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders...» — Adolf Hitler