Because they poo
Archaeologists may disagree about interpreting archaeological evidence due to several reasons. Firstly, interpretation often relies on fragmentary and incomplete evidence, leading to multiple plausible interpretations. Secondly, archaeologists have differing theoretical perspectives, which can influence their interpretations. Lastly, biases, personal perspectives, and subjective opinions can also contribute to disagreements among archaeologists when interpreting the past.
Biblical archaeologists have varying opinions about Israel Finkelstein. Some support his theories and methods, which emphasize a more critical and scientific approach to interpreting archaeological findings related to the Bible. Others may disagree with his conclusions or interpretations, particularly those that challenge traditional views or historical timelines. Overall, Finkelstein's work has stimulated important discussions and debates within the field of biblical archaeology.
This depends as you could be talking about either St. Peter or St. Paul, both of whom are believed to be buried in Rome. St. Peter, by tradition, is buried under the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, where the Holy Pontiff celebrates Solemn Mass, and St. Paul is said, as of only about a decade ago, to be buried under the main altar of St. Paul Outside the Walls, also in Rome.Sidenote- some may disagree that Rome, which I speak of as including Vatican City, is not actually Vatican City. This is true.
It is estimated that tens of thousands of workers were involved in the construction of the pyramids in Egypt. The exact number of people may vary depending on the size and complexity of the pyramid, as well as the time period in which it was built.
No, not exactly, although you would be understood. In conversational English, we disagree "with" something or someone. Or we have a disagreement "about" something. So, "I love my best friend, but I sometimes disagree with her about politics." Or, "Sometimes my best friend and I have a disagreement about politics."
It's job is not to unite, but to interpret law to see if it is constitutional. There will always be people who agree or disagree with its decisions.
They did not find the remains of the long-storied horse, but recently archaeologists have found remains of a war near present day troy and the Greek city-states supposed to be involved. So many archaeologists think it did happen. Others though disagree.
It may be more beneficial to focus on understanding each other's perspectives and finding common ground rather than proving right or wrong. Communication, active listening, and compromise can help resolve conflicts and foster better relationships.
No. However, they can change the way it is interpreted. I disagree, my friend. They can change the way CATHOLICS interpret the Bible, i think is what you mean?
improvements of the idea
When two people or more disagree with each other and they express their opinions. Sometimes the argument can be friendly and sometimes unfriendly.
Unless the rabbi was a Messianic Jew he would disagree. A Catholic priest would agree with the claim that Jesus was God.
If you respect each other and don't make the disagreement personal nothing will go wrong.
I think the Supreme Court would settle it, because it's the Judicial branch's job to interpret the Constitution.
Disagree
Absolutely. Even US Supreme Court justices disagree with each other's interpretation of the Constitution, which is why there are seldom unanimous votes.While the President and members of Congress may disagree with certain Supreme Court decisions, the justices are the final arbiters of the Constitution. The other branches of government must abide by the Court's opinions.