But as long as you believe «the Bible» instead of acknowledging you believe an interpretation thereof... your mind is going to
be closed to other interpretations.
Not exact matches
The prophecy in the last words of John's Gospel, that if the many
other things which Jesus did
were to be written, the world itself would not contain the books, comes
close to fulfillment in the oft - repeated enterprise of writing a life of Christ or an
interpretation of some aspect of his teaching.
I don't want
to rewrite this article in english, but basically, I came
to the following conclusions 1 - that Scriptures ought
to be used in
close interaction with daily reality (not out the blue, in abstraction, or in academic ivory tower) 2 - it ought
to be interpreted by what we could call «crucified» christians 3 - and that «crucified» christian should interpret in the context of a «crucified» community / church (because
being in a
close knit church
is a very good way
to actually
be «crucified» and sanctified, and because I need insight from
others in my
interpretations.
Doctrinally and cognitively, insofar as worldviews and belief systems or patterns of biblical
interpretation are concerned (though not always stylistically), evangelicalism can not yield its ties
to these two sets of cousins,
being closer to them than
to other forms of Christianity and ecumenically committed
to their advance.
Although some substitutions
are clearly allowable,
others may come
closer to the IRS
interpretation of what constitutes a «substantially identical» security.
Besides critics of these statutory
interpretation concepts, there
are other rules of
interpretation, which seem contrary
to these «
closed book» rules, such as the ability of a court
to «read - in» words or phrases
to a statute
to ensure its constitutional integrity.
[16] The rule and the Official
Interpretations (on which creditors and
other persons can rely) contain detailed instructions as
to how each line on the
Closing Disclosure form should
be completed.