Preachen to the choir

[FanthatSpark]

CF,


It is said never debate religion or politics for long life yet here we are preachen to the choir (me too thus the posts). So, why are we here if we fall under Proverbs 3:5 hooked to 1 Cor 14:33 ? <— That is called "cherry picking" verses, yet how does the Spirit talk to you personally (John4:23-24) if we worship a Living God ? My two cents is in "Discernment" 1 John 4:1. <– thats a whole other sermon there .

Is context -vs- cherry picking just a separation point for the deceiver ? If cherry picking is so detested why does the bible refer you to one verse as you are reading another?

Have you ever read a verse when you where young then reread that verse at a later stage in life and it means something different ?<— Scripture coupled with life experiences tend to do that along with patients to slow down quantity of reading, with quality of reading, hooked to prayer, patients, discernment, wisdom and charity. A lot of scripture can be coupled to that but this is an edification post for me as well as whoever hears and the choir knows the scripture .
What are your thoughts CF?<-- Choir Forum ?HHHmmm Puns....
FTS

 

[NannaNae]

his truth changes us and we have to change most of the time to even hear a new idea or concept.
you are right . because we are different people every time we pick it up. not only is it living but we are living.
we are different and sometimes better some times worse..
but we are moving one way or the other.
the best of times is when he dumps your box of lego's out on the floor and you get to pick them all up and look at them new again before you put them in that familiar box..

 

[Willie T]

Hummmm..... "new every morning". How about that... pretty novel concept, eh?

 

[NannaNae]

yep you got it !

 

[FanthatSpark]

Nice "lego" scenario Nanna . That is really profound if one thinks on it long enough on the mysteries there - in.

 

[pescador]

CF,


<snip>

Is context -vs- cherry picking just a separation point for the deceiver ? If cherry picking is so detested why does the bible refer you to one verse as you are reading another?

<snip>

The bible doesn't refer you to one verse as you are reading another. Those are references added to the bible text to assist you to see where else in the bible that thought is addressed. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bible manuscripts -- nothing. In fact, chapters and verses were added to the bible texts.

Stephen Langton, in the 12th century, added what we use today as the chapter divisions. He did this into the Latin Vulgate. The tradition is that these divisions were later transfered to the Hebrew Bible. From manuscripts dating back to the fourth century, however, some form of chapter divisions were used. In 1551, Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Stephanus) added verse divisions to his fourth edition of the Greek New Testament, while en route between Paris and Lyons, France. The first translation to employ his versification was the Geneva translation of 1557 (whole Bible, 1560)

Notice that our chapters and verses were first added over a thousand years after the texts were originally written. They are a great study aid but unfortunately many people consider them as part of the bible. Again, they are not. Bibles such as the King James bible are printed verse-by-verse leading many to quote single verses out of context to prove doctrinal points, a dangerous practice. Biblical Hebrew (and maybe Aramaic?) had no vowels; Koine Greek had no punctuation nor capitalization, never mind artificial divisions such as chapters and verses. That it why it is so important to leave translation to scholars and experts in related fields who understand the ancient languages as well as the political, social, and economic conditions of the times they were written and understand modern English (in this case) as well as the political, social, and economic conditions of our time. It is a very, very difficult job.

BTW, that is the main problem that I have with the King James version that so many use today. It was translated as well as they could then, with their understanding of ancient languages and the conditions that I mentioned above, but they translated the texts into the political, social, and economic conditions of England four hundred years ago, a world vastly different from ours today. There is no question that the language employed is beautiful, but as far as a reliable translation of God's word to those of us living today it falls well short of the mark.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Now that is edifying info there brother. thanks . I take it you are a context man . I understand that the translation is tampered with due to it touched a mans hand but it still does not negate the cherry picking "added" text to "thought" (<-- there) in a verse can change that "thought". For me, I am a very big believer of Spirit in mysteries of a verse as stated in OP in different terms. I look upon the bible as my foundation.Bible translation I do know is a separation in of itself "too" and now with your input, the term "also" may be applied with cherry picking. Thanks for the input brother .

 

[FanthatSpark]

As one matures , mayhap verse 2 Tim. 3:13-17 starts looking different in concept as one grows.

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

For me, it was all about knowledge under fear. Then Spirit chasing for affirmation. Now love. So, if a scripture taken out of context for instruction in love/righteousness (same thing in concept those two words are ) that seems edifying to the one giving it but lost to the receiver in maturity for they are in the doctrine & reproof part and have not
put love in the equation yet?

Making a follower realize that all knowledge acquired in the Word is for, loves sake, is especially difficult in this format. ????

 

[tremble]

There is no question that the language employed is beautiful, but as far as a reliable translation of God's word to those of us living today it falls well short of the mark.

Why does the KJV translation fall short? I realize you mentioned "political, social and economic conditions" but I'm not seeing how that relates to the actual translation.

Bibles such as the King James bible are printed verse-by-verse leading many to quote single verses out of context to prove doctrinal points,

Considering that "Cherry picking" to prove a point regardless of context is something people will do regardless of whether the text is sub-divided by chapter/ verse/ point/ article etc or not subdivided at all but by sentence, one wonders if maybe you are "cherry picking" the KJV to prove a point right now? ^.^

 

[BryanW92]

That is called "cherry picking" verses

It is actually called "prooftexting" and is a bad way to build your theology.

1) It allows you to lie to yourself. You can get an idea, search for that one verse that seems to confirm your belief, and then you can claim that your personal belief is based on scripture.

2) It is bad scholarship. Try writing a paper for college with only one citation as the proof of your entire thesis.

3) It is misleading to others. So, you found that one verse that proves your belief and you run off to tell others. Perhaps they aren't serious studiers of the bible either and they believe you and start telling people that they believe that too.

You should never go to the bible to find a verse that proves something you believe or think exists in the bible. Instead, you should search the bible for verses that disprove your thesis. If you find scripture that supports and other scripture that disproves your thesis, use both in your discussion and see if others can help you find the truth.

 

[FanthatSpark]

It is actually called "prooftexting" and is a bad way to build your theology.

1) It allows you to lie to yourself. You can get an idea, search for that one verse that seems to confirm your belief, and then you can claim that your personal belief is based on scripture.

2) It is bad scholarship. Try writing a paper for college with only one citation as the proof of your entire thesis.

3) It is misleading to others. So, you found that one verse that proves your belief and you run off to tell others. Perhaps they aren't serious studiers of the bible either and they believe you and start telling people that they believe that too.

You should never go to the bible to find a verse that proves something you believe or think exists in the bible. Instead, you should search the bible for verses that disprove your thesis. If you find scripture that supports and other scripture that disproves your thesis, use both in your discussion and see if others can help you find the truth.

Bryan, Gods blessings,

Before we kick this conversation off please understand that edification is the purpose behind this mans comments, questions or agree to disagree and no emotional ties except love & excitement of discussing a view point in Word exists under ... cherry picking here ---> 2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness... Lets talk of 2 Timothy chapter 3 in a whole and cherry picked for this point of view so open to 2 Tim 3 to shorten this post and to follow along please. Your view may differ and do know, once again, edification is the umbrella for me so lets kick this off !!! .

That verse left to itself leaves it in the realm of knowledge in concept, and is good for the child(verse 15). Child, is for physical sense and Spiritual sense and becomes clouded in the following example... An old professor teaching doctrine in knowledge arena, for knowledge's sake, yet does not possess Spirit<-- (for me this means love) and he may fall under verse 5 and teaches under law and fear<--(knowledge/old testament, we will burn. for one example but not limited to).
That is O.K for the child to learn respect in flesh and cherry picking is where most start, Gospel; correct? Spiritual maturity comes later for those
that knock and is made manifest.Not so for those seeking under knowledge without Spirit, verse 9. Intention of why one is in the Word is manifest in 2 Tim 3 as a whole; correct? 2 reasons, for knowledge's sake and/or Spirits sake to learn love for/of/in God & the persecutor, stealer, transgressor against us as we used to do the same in iniquity(although we put levels on sin from murder to stealing a pencil). Or, Jesus's walk.

This is becoming more complex as it is written Bryan and "theses D)" in length to explain Knowledge vs Spirit is evident. So, assumptions are going to be made that we both come to the Word under love of reading His Word and praying for patients, understanding, longsuffering, wisdom, opening of Spirit in us and most important charity in application of Spirit in day to day activities.

With that said, your post is right and wrong depending on maturity of Spirit. Where we are at, does not necessarily mean the next man is there like you said and can run off with a wrong belief such as, I am going to burn in hell because I...Verse 13.

Knowledge without concept of total forgiveness in Jesus correct? And no "want" to change in Spirit (or inside our heads to outside manifestations in righteousness, love of God and others and-->)verses 10-11.

For some, knowledge in college format brought a believer out of darkness. For me, hard knocks in worldly beat down (with cherry picking under fear ((Southern Baptist)) which made me run even further away for the unknown truth in love; correct? Not fear. Complete brokenness brings this vessel to be filled in His love to share with others. So, yes, agreed with more right than wrong but we all have different beliefs, and all that stuff, in stages of life, that "I", have found necessary to couple to the Word. Is not knowledge the devils play ground? But Spirit coupled to knowledge, now that, should break separation of religions right? Verses 16 last part-17. Last part in righteousness in 16 is love of God, self, others, land, animals, all creepy crawly things to this follower and thus creates a light of hope within. I personally can not find milk of the Spirit in the Word that "disproves" love for me today. Perception of fear/law brought panic of punishment for me in younger times.

Looking forward to response Bryan . Before closing, do know that "I" am a work in progress and claim, no this way is the right way, to you or others here-in. I am a transgressor by my existence. But to realize that we all are in that boat in concept shook me to the foundation in "want" to do better for God.

 

[BryanW92]

I am 52 years old and have studied at the school of hard knocks for a very long time. I am working on my first degree right now at a Southern Baptist university, so do not mistake me for an academic with no real-world experience. I have served in the military and have worked in industry since I was 18 as an electrician, instrument and controls technician, and as an automation programmer. Prior to 2011, I had 3 college credits on my transcript, so I am not some out-of-touch egghead who has never gotten his hands dirty.

But, as I studied the bible I decided that I wanted formal training to go along with my spirit-led exploration of God's word. I began, as most people begin, as a prooftexter (or as you call it, a cherry picker). But, I found that my prooftexting often fell short in a discussion with more educated Christians because they talk from context and experience, while I was speaking from a limited knowledge of context and I was armed with only a few verses while they possessed a systematic theology and knowledge of the whole bible.

I wanted to challenge myself, so I enrolled in Liberty University because they are a bible-believing college. I learned in the first class that they do not do prooftexting there and consider it to be shoddy workmanship.

You quote 2 Tim 3:16, which is hailed as the biblical justification for prooftexting, but keep in mind that "All scripture" is not "Each, individual verse". All scripture is suitable for teaching, etc, but only when used in context with all, other scripture.

I've learned from my formal studies to seek truth in a manner that is provable, verifiable, and in a method that others can follow my reasoning to the truth that I have found. We are all a work in progress, so don't neglect improving your study and reasoning tools as you increase your knowledge of scripture. Our greatest value to the world is as people who can articulate the true message of the Word and not just the words on the page.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Reiteration... I come in edification. The only thing assumed is Spiritual maturity in you and posted such from following a few of your threads. I invest nothing in assumptions in a person on this site but what can be given or gained in the milk of the Spirit/Love/God<-- whatever the vernacular to encompass all that is good .

Here's my thing. The bigger concept of Spirit that no book is written for that covers truth in Spirit except for the Bible. In this site, if one has not the time to go contextually then verse under Spirit applies. We are both guilty of this in posts site wide that refer to one verse. Mayhap for you to show error of proofreading (edifying that term... Thanks) out of context. For me, to post what 1 verse means today under umbrella of love when in the past I read verse under fear. A whole theses can be written in 1 verse under perception ,for me, like Rom.12-2. If I am "taught" to fear then intent is not pure through another proofread 1 John 4:18 correct? Or mysteries of scripture in lifestyles and perceptions going into the Word. Intent ,for me, is where the milk of the Spirit lies. For you, Spirit and context from understanding of post. Mayhap one day I will venture back into mans understanding again but am stuck in another proofread of Prov.3:5. I was brought up in hell fire under southern Baptist and taught fear my God by a man/preacher. For a kid that was a lot of guilt to carry and so trust in religion and people are at a stand still under Prov. 3:5 right now as gaining knowledge through love and His understanding. But, I do study under expositional format under love to incourage. Training this mind to think in Spirit and not flesh is the season for me today.

 

[BryanW92]

Reiteration... I come in edification. The only thing assumed is Spiritual maturity in you and posted such from following a few of your threads. I invest nothing in assumptions in a person on this site but what can be given or gained in the milk of the Spirit/Love/God<-- whatever the vernacular to encompass all that is good .

Here's my thing. The bigger concept of Spirit that no book is written for that covers truth in Spirit except for the Bible. In this site, if one has not the time to go contextually then verse under Spirit applies. We are both guilty of this in posts site wide that refer to one verse. Mayhap for you to show error of proofreading (edifying that term... Thanks) out of context. For me, to post what 1 verse means today under umbrella of love when in the past I read verse under fear. A whole theses can be written in 1 verse under perception ,for me, like Rom.12-2. If I am "taught" to fear then intent is not pure through another proofread 1 John 4:18 correct? Or mysteries of scripture in lifestyles and perceptions going into the Word. Intent ,for me, is where the milk of the Spirit lies. For you, Spirit and context from understanding of post. Mayhap one day I will venture back into mans understanding again but am stuck in another proofread of Prov.3:5. I was brought up in hell fire under southern Baptist and taught fear my God by a man/preacher. For a kid that was a lot of guilt to carry and so trust in religion and people are at a stand still under Prov. 3:5 right now as gaining knowledge through love and His understanding. But, I do study under expositional format under love to incourage. Training this mind to think in Spirit and not flesh is the season for me today.

Prooftext, not proofread. Google it.

Here's where spiritual maturity and a knowledge of the bible comes in handy. The book of Proverbs is the "bumper sticker" book of the bible. Everything in it has no context. You can pluck any proverb out of that book and use it without fear of taking it out of context since they all stand alone. (I love Proverbs for that reason. I use Proverbs a lot!)

What is this milk of the spirit you keep talking about? Are you talking about the spiritual milk in 1 Peter 2:2 or 1 Cor 3:2? If you feel that you still need milk, then ignore all that I have said. You are still a babe and should not delve too deep into context. Drink the milk for as long as you need. You have your whole lifetime after you are ready to eat the meat of the bible.

 

[tremble]

Prooftext, not proofread. Google it.

Here's where spiritual maturity and a knowledge of the bible comes in handy.

You are right, Bryan. Prooftexting is not a good way to arrive at the over-all truth. A general understanding of the surrounding context and the "bigger picture" is always helpful to establish what really is the truth of a matter.

And you are also right that spiritual maturity and knowledge of the Bible are definitely handy, which makes me scratch my head at this next comment from you. It comes from the "giving 100% paycheck to the church" thread, but I'm posting it here because of the "cherry picking" issue you seem to feel so strongly about.

Just a quick bit of background, I posted about a guy who felt God wanted him to give 100% paycheck to his church.

Then another posted mentioned one of Jesus' teachings about selling what we have and giving it to the poor. Here is how you responded.

And God forbid that his teaching be taken out of context. Jesus' call for this man to sell all and give it away is in response to the man's announcement that he has done all he needed to do for salvation. This isn't a general call to all Christians to sell all they have and give it away to the poor.

The poster who made the original comment didn't quote a verse or location where to find this teaching. He only posted the text of the verse.

But, based on your handy bible knowledge from Liberty University you understood him to be referring to "the rich young ruler" and, apparently, on that one verse, gave an explanation as to why "selling all and giving to the poor" was only for that one man and definitely not a teaching in general for Christians.

Are you aware of these other examples where Jesus gives the same instruction to other people?

Talking to a great multitude of people:

LK 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

LK 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Again, to a great multitude of people:

LK 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple..

​

Thousands of Christians in the Early church just after Jesus' resurrection:

ACTS 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

ACTS 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

ACTS 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

ACTS 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Do you see what I'm getting at? You came to a fairly broad conclusion for all Christians, based on a single situation. Were you prooftexting? Or maybe you were just unaware of these other teachings? It's actually quite shocking just how many Christians either don't know about all these example, or just don't care about them.

 

[BryanW92]

You are right, Bryan. Prooftexting is not a good way to arrive at the over-all truth. A general understanding of the surrounding context and the "bigger picture" is always helpful to establish what really is the truth of a matter.

And you are also right that spiritual maturity and knowledge of the Bible are definitely handy, which makes me scratch my head at this next comment from you. It comes from the "giving 100% paycheck to the church" thread, but I'm posting it here because of the "cherry picking" issue you seem to feel so strongly about.

Just a quick bit of background, I posted about a guy who felt God wanted him to give 100% paycheck to his church.

Then another posted mentioned one of Jesus' teachings about selling what we have and giving it to the poor. Here is how you responded.



The poster who made the original comment didn't quote a verse or location where to find this teaching. He only posted the text of the verse.

But, based on your handy bible knowledge from Liberty University you understood him to be referring to "the rich young ruler" and, apparently, on that one verse, gave an explanation as to why "selling all and giving to the poor" was only for that one man and definitely not a teaching in general for Christians.

Are you aware of these other examples where Jesus gives the same instruction to other people?

Talking to a great multitude of people:

​

Again, to a great multitude of people:

​

Thousands of Christians in the Early church just after Jesus' resurrection:




Do you see what I'm getting at? You came to a fairly broad conclusion for all Christians, based on a single situation. Were you prooftexting? Or maybe you were just unaware of these other teachings? It's actually quite shocking just how many Christians either don't know about all these example, or just don't care about them.

I wasn't prooftexting at all. I was speaking of common sense in a society that does not treat itinerant day laborers well. If you sold all that you have and started living day-to-day, you would probably decide to avail yourself of the numerous government programs to help take care of you. Someone else has to work to pay for those programs.

So, you would not really be trusting God as much as trusting Uncle Sugar to take care of you, and the person who has to work to earn the money that you are given would be enslaved to you.

Now, if you joined a church that shared all possessions communally, then you could do that without enslaving another.

We do not live in a Christian nation. So, we have to live within the restrictions placed on us by society. That means that we need a job, a place to live, a way to get to work, etc and we should do that without being a burden on strangers.

 

[BryanW92]

Do you see what I'm getting at? You came to a fairly broad conclusion for all Christians, based on a single situation. Were you prooftexting? Or maybe you were just unaware of these other teachings? It's actually quite shocking just how many Christians either don't know about all these example, or just don't care about them.

You should portray my comments in that thread honestly. I posted on many situations in that thread and even said that the guy should give 100% if he really feels called to do it.

But, my constant point in every situation was that no one has the right to give away all they have and then expect others to give them money, goods, or services to replace that. If it comes through real generosity, good. But, it should not be expected.

You know, the bible also tells you to pluck your eye out and cut off your hand. Have you done that yet? Do you suggest that to people as a means of reducing their desire to sin as the bible tells them to do?

 

[tremble]

I wasn't prooftexting at all. I was speaking of common sense in a society that does not treat itinerant day laborers well. If you sold all that you have and started living day-to-day, you would probably decide to avail yourself of the numerous government programs to help take care of you. Someone else has to work to pay for those programs.

So, you would not really be trusting God as much as trusting Uncle Sugar to take care of you, and the person who has to work to earn the money that you are given would be enslaved to you.

Now, if you joined a church that shared all possessions communally, then you could do that without enslaving another.

We do not live in a Christian nation. So, we have to live within the restrictions placed on us by society. That means that we need a job, a place to live, a way to get to work, etc and we should do that without being a burden on strangers.

I'm trying to see the part where you responded to my comments about how you made a conclusion based on one example (i.e. cherry picking), while apparently ignoring the other examples and surrounding context, but it doesn't seem to be there.

Despite what you, personally, may think of what Jesus said, the fact is that he said more than what you gave him credit for. Based on one example, you declared: "This isn't a general call to all Christians to sell all they have and give it away to the poor."

And yet, there are many examples in the NT to show that your conclusion is not true at all. I listed just a few examples to show you that there is a great deal of context that you missed when arriving at your one-verse-conclusion.

Can you address that?

 

[BryanW92]

I'm trying to see the part where you responded to my comments about how you made a conclusion based on one example (i.e. cherry picking), while apparently ignoring the other examples and surrounding context, but it doesn't seem to be there.

Despite what you, personally, may think of what Jesus said, the fact is that he said more than what you gave him credit for. Based on one example, you declared: "This isn't a general call to all Christians to sell all they have and give it away to the poor."

And yet, there are many examples in the NT to show that your conclusion is not true at all. I listed just a few examples to show you that there is a great deal of context that you missed when arriving at your one-verse-conclusion.

Can you address that?

Did I quote a verse that said that you shouldn't give away all? That would be prooftexting.

I was speaking from common sense, which is God-given and Spirit-led. Those early communal Christian societies died out pretty quick. Human nature always makes communes fail. By the end of the first century, that form of church was mostly gone.

Note that I said "This isn't a general call...". That does not preclude anyone from doing it. It doesn't even say that a majority shouldn't do it. I'm just saying that it might not be for everyone. Even Ananias and Sapphira weren't killed for failing to give away all they had. They were killed for lying and saying that they had. It would be better to joyfully give what you can
than to be forced to give away all and be tempted to hold something back.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Blessings ,

Yes !! You grabbed that which was not written !! A babe! Thus the avatar and limited understanding. Thanks for the reproof on prooftext !!