Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The deuterocanonical books, [a] meaning 'of, pertaining to, or constituting a second canon', [1] collectively known as the Deuterocanon (DC), [2] are certain books and passages considered to be canonical books of the Old Testament by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Church of the East.
Pages in category "Deuterocanonical books" The following 13 pages are in this category, out of 13 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. ...
In a mixed review, Chicago Tribune dismissed the novel, adding: "The result of this stubborn granularity makes for a sometimes sluggish pace over the course of such a doorstop of a book, an all but fatal flaw in a genre that makes its living off compelling the reader to keep the pages turning."
People in the books of the Maccabees (1 C, 18 P) Pages in category "People in the deuterocanonical books" The following 25 pages are in this category, out of 25 total.
In his letter to Benedetto Castelli, Galileo argues that using the Bible as evidence against the Copernican system involves three key errors. Firstly, claiming that the Bible shows the Earth to be static and concluding that the Earth therefore does not move is arguing from a false premise; whether the Earth moves or not is a thing which must be demonstrated (or not) through scientific enquiry.
Chapters 10, 11, and 12 in the Book of Daniel make up Daniel's final vision, describing a series of conflicts between the unnamed "King of the North" and "King of the South" leading to the "time of the end", when Israel will be vindicated and the dead raised, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Moynihan wrote that the book "contains many points that are common-sensical". [3] Moynihan added that there are some minor errors in fact in the book due to its large scope. [3] Brittan wrote that it is "most illuminating in the cases of dictatorships in the developing world or highly imperfect democracies such as Russia or Iran." [6]
The thesis there is so blatant that the notice in The New York Times opens with the opinion that it "really requires the services of a social historian rather than a book reviewer". [3] One of its targets is the economic inequality resulting from what the book describes as the "savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and ...