Sentences with phrase «just up to interpretation»

Again, just up to interpretation.

It just goes to show how careless the translations are of this book and how it is all just up to interpretation.

Not exact matches

There is something very powerful about pulling up a seat to the table across from someone who has a different interpretation, a different lifestyle, a different belief all together, and just saying, «My aim here is not to be heard and to be right, my aim is to listen to you and try to understand you.»

But writing as a piece of communication isn't just an opportunity for different people to try and come up with their own interpretations of texts.

Rather, the judgment essentially says that none of the traditions ever finally measures up to the tradition, just as no criticism or critical interpretation of a work of art ever equals the original itself.

where the struggle is in regards to Jesus» will and Gods will being done is I believe, In Jesus flesh struggling to keep up with the Spirit if you know what I mean... Jesus never asked to be saved John 12:27 but He prayed for strength as His soul was sorrowful even unto death... Obviously due to the separation He would «feel» on the cross (I've read your article on The Father never forsaking Jesus on the cross-Psalms 22:24 and 2 Cor 5:19 but just felt the separation as a man) So that's what I'm leaning towards in this whole interpretation...

People might attempt to use it to justify such things, but, in the end, it's just another ancient text whose interpretation is up to the reader.

Look, we can respect Spencer's position and understand where he's coming from (even though he doesn't return such civility to people that disagree with him), but just like Kenneth Ham and the ICR he's lifting up his interpretation as the only valid one.

Under the circumstances, it is easy for me to understand how the chapter on the double holdout could wind up as just about the most jumbled history of any financial dealing I have ever read, full of wrong data, wrong amounts, wrong conclusions, wrong interpretations.

How he was able to come up with that interpretation on a pretty clear statement is ludicrous, and just plain dumb.

Just what that means exactly is up for interpretation, but some think that this might be a way to bring the deceased Quicksilver back to life.

This can be left up to personal interpretation, but for me to be so happy just looking at it is what counts.

With up to 90 % off the digital interpretations and adaptations of the most - popular Games Workshop titles, the sale provides a cheap and hassle - free way of diving into the world of tabletop gaming without needing to write off a whole day of preparation and organisation just to play one round of one game.

A less charitable interpretation might be that the guy who also said in June that «most likely the primary control knob [for climate] is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in» is not that bright and just trying to stir shit up.

Their secret, I think, is to be able to keep the flow going, throwing in enough rote learned phrases and elaborating on interpretations of meaning and really just making up the derived «truths» or «lessons» as they go.

Assuming the above interpretation of your set - up is correct, either you need to 1) not divide by 6 and just use 390 W / m ^ 2 for each side.

To save time for all of us, we could really just run a script that plays out: wacky interpretation of taxes and government, sincere attempts to explain the issue from various points of view (legal, philosophical, and otherwise), wackier replies to said explanations, finally the Stack system has mercy on us as the downvotes pile up and remove the questioTo save time for all of us, we could really just run a script that plays out: wacky interpretation of taxes and government, sincere attempts to explain the issue from various points of view (legal, philosophical, and otherwise), wackier replies to said explanations, finally the Stack system has mercy on us as the downvotes pile up and remove the questioto explain the issue from various points of view (legal, philosophical, and otherwise), wackier replies to said explanations, finally the Stack system has mercy on us as the downvotes pile up and remove the questioto said explanations, finally the Stack system has mercy on us as the downvotes pile up and remove the question.

While the first two are up to interpretation and the third will probably only be answered after the Second Coming, the missing answers haven't been enough to stop the influx of party - ready PC / console hybrids that have shown up just in time for Santa to leave one under the tree.

But some therapist will just dismiss those feelings as probably not fitting into their line of interpretation (meaning even if they are somewhat interested to work on your case, they might simply find themselves not good enough and fail to admit it) and therefore tell you to shut up because obviously you're interrupting their work, or come up with «denial» etc..