I realize that this section of this paper is intended only as a summary of the law however a bit more
detail about interpretation would have been helpful.
When learning how to read critically, remember that it's all right to be unsure about a text's meaning or to change your
mind about your interpretation of a text.
That's because their disagreements are not
just about interpretations of scientific data, but about how they assess the risks, amid the uncertainty over global warming's future impact.
Maybe you would care more
about interpretation of results while the other person cares more about describing a solid methodology.
Christians have always agreed that the Scriptures are foundational, but whence comes the authority to distill biblical teachings, form specific guidelines for practice and belief, and adjudicate
disputes about the interpretation of Scripture?
The whole
debate about the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, at least concerning the issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried, could very easily have been avoided.
Evangelicals have not always noted the complexity of the hermeneutical task; indeed, sometimes they have let themselves speak as if everything immediately becomes plain and obvious for believers in biblical inerrancy, to such an extent that
uncertainties about interpretation never arise for them.
So, what I get from the well written article and the comments on this message board, is the thousands of years later we are still
arguing about the interpretation of the Bible...
Richard Rosen, a meteorologist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, is
skeptical about the interpretation of the data in the paper and is not convinced that the pool actually plays a role in day - length variations.
But hiring nonunion staff could raise other legal issues because Madison's current collective bargaining agreement with Madison Teachers Inc. requires district schools to employ union staff — although Howard said there's
disagreement about that interpretation.
While however the life of the community was thus being reconstructed under the inspiration of the prophetic faith, we trace a growing sense of something incomplete or
inconclusive about the interpretation of history upon which it all rested.
So while I agree that this is an example of how long some of these teachings went, even here they were interactive discussions, and while we can not be certain, the discussion was
probably about the interpretation and application of biblical texts.
It's really kind of pathetic that they can't distingush between conversations about general philosphical probabilties and
conversations about interpretations of particular texts.
At the same time, however, we may be permitted to entertain
reservations about some interpretations of revelation, such as that of Karl Barth and his followers, which make revelation so absolutely interruptive and «different» that it casts all of our natural aspirations in a suspicious light.
Bergson was
worried about the interpretation of relativity theory proposed by Minkowski in which time is a fourth dimension of space and in which the experience of temporal relations is analogous to shining a flashlight through the fourth dimension and finding the things that are «already there» (timelessly there).