Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
What links here; Related changes; Upload file; Special pages; Permanent link; Page information; Cite this page; Get shortened URL; Download QR code
Matthew 26 is the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, part of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.This chapter covers the beginning of the Passion of Jesus narrative, which continues to Matthew 28; it contains the narratives of the Jewish leaders' plot to kill Jesus, Judas Iscariot's agreement to betray Jesus to Caiphas, the Last Supper with the Twelve Apostles and institution of the ...
This is an outline of commentaries and commentators.Discussed are the salient points of Jewish, patristic, medieval, and modern commentaries on the Bible. The article includes discussion of the Targums, Mishna, and Talmuds, which are not regarded as Bible commentaries in the modern sense of the word, but which provide the foundation for later commentary.
The present manuscript is a clear example of this tradition, as it consists of a fragmentary 14th-century copy of an 11th-century commentary on Hippocrates' Fuṣul (Sayings) by the Persian physician Ibn Abī Ṣādiq al-Nīsābūrī. The Arabic translations of Hippocrates' aphorisms are underlined in red ink, while a remnant of the text ...
Forms of the Old Testament Literature is a series of biblical commentaries published by Eerdmans. The first volume was Wisdom Literature:Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther by Roland E. Murphy (1981). They were initially edited by Rolf Knierim and Gene M. Tucker; Marvin A. Sweeney took over from Tucker in 1997.
The WEB bible, however, moves Romans 16:25–27 (end of chapter verses) to Romans 14:24–26 (also end of chapter verses). WEB explains with a footnote in Romans 16: Textus Receptus places Romans 14:24–26 at the end of Romans instead of at the end of chapter 14, and numbers these verses 16:25–27
The Biblical Application statement was also forthright in its denial of evolutionary thought: "Mainstream Protestantism ... provides a cautionary tale in this regard, for it has erred in a radical way by acquiring the habit of regularly relativizing biblical teaching to current secular fashion, whether rationalist, historicist, evolutionist ...
In his instructions to the contributors, Nichol explained the commentary was not "to crystallize once and for all a dogmatic interpretation". [2] Where there were several notable interpretations, each major view was presented in a fair manner, but a consensus opinion of the editors was also given. [ 3 ]