The laws of interpretation are sadly neglected but to neglect those laws is to start from a compromised position. One cannot interpret something in the past tense and something else in the present tense etc without compromising the outcome. The only way that is possible is for it to go thru a metamorphosis of creation from old nature to new to come to a single interpretation.
I'm not sure whether I agree with that.
By careful exegesis, considering the historical, cultural and religious context. we can get a good idea of the times and mind-set of those who lived during the period when the Scripture was written. Then we can look carefully at the intention of the author, and his motivation for writing what he wrote. Was it in response to a problem, a situation, or questions that arose? Also, we can get clues on how the people who first received the writing actually understood it. I don't think that this type of exegesis can be "short-cutted" if we are to get the best understanding of the passage as it was written for the people for whom it was written.
Before we can hermeneutically determine if and what of the passage can be applied to us in our 21st Century cultural and religious context, we have to gauge the comparisons and contrasts between the understanding of, say. First Century readers, and 21st Century readers, because both time periods are vastly different - for example, First Century readers who have no idea of modern technology, culture, or churches. Therefore we have to examine the passage to see whether it is culturally-dependent or transcultural.
So, hermeneutics is actually determining if and how a passage can be applied to our own culture, technology, and religious situation. Without accurate exegesis, we have no basis to be able to apply hermeneutics without ending up in error and actually twisting the passage to mean something that was never intended.
For example, a passage that refers to the problems about eating food sacrificed to idols in pagan temples, would mean much to First Century believers, but would mean nothing to us today, unless we went and visited a Hindu temple and ate a meal there, which, for most western church believers would not be in the least part of their experience at all. So, hermeneutically, we would have to say that the passage is culture-dependent and not transcultural to be applied to 21st Century believers.
Also to apply First Century cultural Scriptures about women wearing men's clothing and outlawing trouser suits for women, or that long hair on a man is inappropriate, when to have a haircut requires using a pair of scissors, interrupting something that is occurring naturally, is questionable as well.
But having the necessity of having the fruit of the Spirit determine our conduct is transcultural, because it would apply as much to us as it did to First Century believers.
So it is not just a matter of changing the grammatical tense of a passage as I have pointed out. Also I think that studying the evolution of culture, technology and religion over the last 2000 years would be a lot of time and energy which might not be worth the hard work, because once we have the understanding of how, say, First Century believers understood what Paul wrote to them, it is no use trying to understand how believers in succeeding centuries understood what Paul wrote, but we can bypass all that and gauge how we as 21st Century believers should be understanding it.
My view is that if Paul wrote something based on his intention and understanding, and his readers understood what he was writing, then to bring to 21st Century believers that First Century believers did not understand it to read, would be absolute nonsense. This is to change the understanding to something that Paul never wrote at all, but it is a twisting around of what was written to mean something entirely different.
So to maintain that what Paul said to First Century Timothy about women, according to their culture concerning the state and position of women, is still just as applicable to women in today's culture and religious context is nonsense, because the status of women in society and our churches is fundamentally different.
Some of the teaching of churches in the way they twist Scripture out of context is just as ridiculous as saying that if the KJV is good enough for Jesus and Paul it should be good enough for us!