Sentences with phrase «writers of scripture»

Precisely when and exactly through what process this consummation is to be reached the writers of Scripture do not specify in terms which the historian can pin down to exact details.

Examples of these human marks include the fact that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, that the Old Testament world was a world of temples, priests and sacrifice, that Israel as well as the surrounding nations has prophets that mediated divine will to them, that Israel was ruled by kings, that Israel's legal system shares striking similarities with those of surrounding nations, that the creation narrative and the story of Noah resemble other ancient stories of the time, that the writers of Scripture operated within the paradigm of ancient cosmology, etc..

Is it possible that some of the writers of Scripture were themselves giving us their «interpretations» of what they had experienced?

Citing multiple examples from Genesis to Revelation, Enns shows how the many writers of Scripture used stories, poems, letters, and accounts written in their own voice, with their own assumptions and agendas, to tell the story of God, which, in various and complex ways ultimately bears witness to Jesus Christ.

I think that the writers of Scripture often used verbal and written sources that they thought were reliable.

However, that being said, our final arbiter of the meaning of Greek words should be God Himself, as voiced through His amanuenses, the writers of Scripture (where one is available.)

Even an appeal to the Bible as a source of information about God is not the solution, because the writers of Scripture faced the same problem as secular thinkers when it came to putting on paper the way in which the deity manifested itself to them.

Those who advocate for «biblical equality» often overlook those passages in which women are clearly regarded by the writers of Scripture as less than equal.]

Obviously Jesus and the writers of Scripture treat some sins as more severe than others (see pp. 5 — 8 of this article), even though Eichenwald mocks anyone who thinks this as showing «that they know next to nothing about the New Testament.»

The writers of Scripture sought to be faithful to available tradition, with all the limitations of oral culture, and were not necessarily averse to adjusting narrative to Old Testament prophecy, iconic stories of their culture, and theological proclamation.

Yet the writers of Scripture often tried to find a way to subvert the current culture and to move us further ahead on God's arc of justice even within unjust systems.

The human writers of scripture certainly though so, and they also thought God felt this way too, but does it «make sense?»

The ancient writers of Scripture seem to affirm what all women know -

It's easy to get frustrated with the writers of Scripture, who are so careful to name and distinguish the Twelve, but who often blur the Women together.

This seems to be consistent with the views of other writers of the scriptures.

Do you think that the things that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Scriptures to write did not intend them for you?

fishon posted «Your argument is with the writers of those scriptures.

Not exact matches

Stephen Despite having the Jewish scriptures to use as a guide in creating Jesus's story, the Gospel writers could not invent him building the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26 - 28), gathering all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5 - 6), ushering in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease (Isaiah 2:4), or spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one (Zechariah 14:9).

Also, I couldn't quite get this into words as I was writing before, so: I am believe that I am correct in my view of Scripture as it has been handed down to me from teachers, preachers, writers and others; I believe that I am correct in my beliefs about who God is, and about His self - revelation, in the same way that all people believe that the opinions they hold are true.

The cultural and linguistic barrier between you and the original writer likely means that much of time, their original intent will will not be what seems to you to be the «plain sense of Scripture» or the «primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning».

Generally, when we cherry pick we acknowledge that the Scriptures were not composed systematically and we are using our context, our sitz im liben, after the example of the Scripture writers who did the same with the saying they had at hand.

The Bible has long been a source of inspiration for writers — most people don't realise just how many phrases from scripture have become embedded... More

The authors and writers may not have intended this, but the longings, desires, and ideas that connect most with people, are the longings, desires, and ideas that are found everywhere within the story of Scripture.

But most of the verses we want to quote pre-existed the context the scripture writers created to set them down.

Few children's book writers manage to capture the message of Scripture as beautifully as Matthew.

Calvin, for whom Job is a vehicle for communicating the transcendence and inscrutability of God, cites some of Eliphaz's utterances as if they were Job's, assuming, as did other Jewish and Christian writers, that all Scripture delivers the same message, irrespective of the speaker.

It is true that Jewish Rabbinic writers often wrote about «the Holy Scriptures,» but it is also true that many Rabbinic writers could be accused of almost deifying the Bible.

It should be the work of Christian teachers in every generation, first, to understand the Scriptures, to distinguish what gives unity to the message of the Bible from what is peculiar to this or that writer, what is central from what is peripheral, what is essential from what is accidental; and then, on the basis of such understanding, to develop a doctrine of the act of God in Christ which will be intelligible, or at least not meaningless, to the contemporary mind.

Hence, the Christian Bible writers repeatedly quoted from and alluded to the former Bible writings, carrying forward and expanding many of the themes and promises set forth in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Another staggering mishandling of Scripture occurs when Piper claims that the household codes of the New Testament, wherein the biblical writers urge wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives, are unique to the Bible and that «there's nothing like it in any culture in the world.»

Thus the scripture writers speak of God anthropomorphically and God becomes a father with two bewildered sons in Jesus» parable or as God was for my grandparents, a lawyer and a doctor.

Throughout, Novak draws on the riches of Hebrew Scripture, Talmud, and rabbinic commentary as he engages political theories propounded by Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and more recent writers such as Tillich and Rawls.

Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers.

There is so much wealth of knowledge in the scriptures only because the writers give glory and praise to the Living God who Inspired them to write HIS thoughts not their own.

Now it is no longer «men of God writing Scripture as they were moved by the Holy Spirit» but rather, something like this: «Men of God having inspired ideas which they provided to a professionally - trained letter writer, who then composed the letter according to standards and guidelines found in a letter - writing manual before getting the approval of the man of God to send the letter out to its intended recipients.»

Although the early Christian writers had the Old Testament as their Scriptures, not one of them had any idea that he was writing something that would itself become Holy Writ.

Even in his classic account of the plenary inspiration of scripture, the 19th - century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge acknowledged that «the sacred writers impressed their peculiarities on their several productions.»

My constant purpose was and is to adumbrate on every subject I handle a genuinely canonical interpretation of Scripture - a view that in its coherence embraces and expresses the thrust of all the biblical passages and units of thought that bear on my theme - a total, integrated view built out of biblical material in such a way that, if the writers of the various books knew what I had made of what they taught, they would nod their heads and say that I had got them right.

It is fashionable these days for Scripture scholars to look for substantive differences of conviction between biblical writers, but this is in my view an inquiry as shallow and stultifying as it is unfruitful.

Dr. W. F. Albright puts it this way: «To the writers of the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible was Holy Scripture and they were the direct heirs of its prophets.

The mention of Calvin, that most ecumenical of writers, prompts one last question: how, in seeking a canonical interpretation of Scripture, do I relate to church tradition?

My question to you is that being aware that the Creation scriptures do not, just state an instant «all at once» creation by God, but detailed steps of Creation, can you explain how the writer of Genesis came to see these steps when it would take mankind hundreds of years to attempt to define the steps as evolution?

While I could chalk this up to learning a lot about blogging (which I did), or learning a lot about theology and Scripture (some of which is documented on this blog), most of this increase is due to you — my friends and fellow blogger / writers in the online community.

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.

For a Biblical concept of justice has been the real concern of a few of these writers.58 Evidence is of course mixed, but the overwhelming thrust of Scripture's discussion of «social justice» suggests the following Biblical definition: «to each according to his or her needs» Rather than act on the basis of society's most common definitions of «social justice» those of merit or equality - the Christian seeking a Biblically derived social ethic must respond, first and foremost, on the basis of need.

Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye · shu ′ a `, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, I · e · sous ′.

Theologians who come to Scripture must overcome the gap that separates their world from that of the Biblical writers - a gap that involves language, thought - forms, cultural practices, and historical situations.

First, «it implies a precision alien to the minds of the Bible writers and their own use of Scriptures.»

According to Enns, the only way we can begin to understand why New Testament writers handled scripture this way is to understand the hermeneutical conventions of their time, which are rooted in the literary conventions of the Second Temple period, and to appreciate the degree to which the apostolic writers positioned their reading of Scripture in light of the life, death, and resurrection scripture this way is to understand the hermeneutical conventions of their time, which are rooted in the literary conventions of the Second Temple period, and to appreciate the degree to which the apostolic writers positioned their reading of Scripture in light of the life, death, and resurrection Scripture in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

In this interview with Catholic writer and lay theologian Peter Williamson, given in Rome on January 14, 1997, Vanhoye reflects upon key issues in Catholic interpretation of Scripture....