I would say that everyone does. All doctrine, from the simplest version to the oldest known traditions, to newer ones, is based off of personal interpretation, even if you are not the one who came up with it. But even in the Bible, we see multiple traditions. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were two distinct sects of Judaism with two very different interpretations of the tanakh. Jesus never chose one over the other.
The Bible itself has multiple traditions built into it. They are called biblical seams created by the redaction and inclusion of different sects. Like 1&2 Genesis and 1 Samuel 16&17. There has never been a singular interpretation since before written language was used by the people that became Jews.
Also when it comes to interpretation there are two main things to consider. The first is that language must be translated. We are even translation the commentaries by biblical fathers from 250ad+. Sometimes we find out after 1700 years that a word is actually better translated another way because as time goes, we collect more and more manuscripts , such as papers found wrapped around a Egyptian mummy, or in pottery discovered in caves. Sometimes the way one sentence is understood reshapes how an entire chapter is understood, such as we realize this section was not Paul speaking doctrine but was more likely Paul quoting a teaching he disagreed with.
The other part of translation is not merely word for word, but thought for thought. One developing case of this is centered around a word like homosexual. Within modern context homosexuality is when any man sleeps with another men, even if it’s consensual by both and they are happily married and caring. It’s starting to seem that the word homosexual in the Bible does not refer to consensual sex but was a word used extensively for men , especially straight men, in positions of power who weaponized sex as a form of social dominance over men of less ranking and authority then them. Such as a first class man sexually abusing a 3rd class man as a way to humiliate him publicly and that often, male temple prostitutes we’re not just gay men who chose to be prostitutes, but we’re young men forced into sex slavery so the powerful could use them in violent ritualistic sex.
As time goes, if we can begin to develop all the evidence we need, it would completely reshape the modern concept of what homosexuality as a sin meant to ancient Jewish men.
So as we develop a better translation of the Bible, and we have scholars who help develop what those words actually meant, it reshapes Christianity. To us it looks like tradition is being pushed off, but to others it looks like false narratives are being dispelled in order to get back to a more true version of ancient Christianity.
