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...
I spent a week listening to 80 paleoclimatoligists and climate modelers
argue about the interpretation of the data from ice and sediment cores, how it eliminated some proposed explanations for what was driving the changes in temperature and rainfall, and how it suggested other possible explanations.
Not exact matches
Writing
about the data misuse scandal in the Harvard Law Review, David Vladeck, the FTC's former director,
argues there are now only two
interpretations of Facebook's actions vis - a-vis data protection and user privacy: Cluelessness or venality.
well, considering that most of»em don't agree with their
interpretation of the bible, it is understandable that they can't
argue about an objective understanding of it hey... I get it, this is a very difficult topic.
Maybe this once - a-priest-now-a-professor might want to think
about searching for spiritual guidance himself rather than
arguing over some scholarly
interpretation of the Bible.
I have yet to meet anyone who claims to have been convinced that what the Bible says is true, or who claims to have been convinced
about the correctness of a particular
interpretation of any Biblical passage by someone who wanted to
argue those points.
Rather, it is so much easier to
argue about our theological profundities, our
interpretations and our supposed revelations.
But, for the record... I see a tremendous amount of Christians
arguing with other «Christians»
about what God really means and who's got the right
interpretation of which Bible verse.
Jesus himself in gospel passages that I can not even count at this moment —
argued and debated with people constantly
about beliefs — whether that was in question format or conversation... but it always involved scripture and
interpretation.
Before getting into a more detailed analysis of the various biblical passages involved, Matthew takes Chapter 2 to
argue that new information
about sexuality ought to compel Christians to rethink their
interpretation of Scripture.
I know some that would
argue that God is patriarchal and that is how the church should operate bu that is
about their
interpretation.
It's a controversial idea, of course, and people love to
argue about it, but this «many worlds»
interpretation, as it is called, keeps the integrity of the mathematics.
Or they can
argue that the wave function is just a mathematical tool, which represents our lack of knowledge
about the status of the poor cat, sometimes called the «epistemic
interpretation».
You are
arguing about the reason for refusal, which might well be, as you say, a misinterpretation (or possibly even correct
interpretation) of Jones's request.
We have to come to some sort of agreement
about what these terms mean from a quantitative point of view, otherwise we just
argue over different
interpretations of what those terms mean.
Do you want to end up in court
arguing about which
interpretation controls the contract — your explanation or the mandated language?
Writing
about the data misuse scandal in the Harvard Law Review, David Vladeck, the FTC's former director,
argues there are now only two
interpretations of Facebook's actions vis - a-vis data protection and user privacy: Cluelessness or venality.
Third, in my submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title inquiry into CERD and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998, I
argue that the government's arguments
about a margin of appreciation misunderstand the scope of the Committee's
interpretation of the meaning of racial discrimination.