ALL christians view scripture through they eyes of their tradition - as no doubt do you: some state it others do not - and part of that tradition is verses that support their interpretation, so they quote to defend their own tradition which means by the way "faith handed down" which was incidentally the only mechanism in the early church: it would be several hundred years and the authority of the church, before the canon we call the new testament was finally determined and ratified with the power to "bind and loose"
It would be almost another two millenia (very recent history) before all could own and read a bible. So modern day so called "bible christians" - where all argue the merits or demerits of verses is a phenomenon not possible till recent historic times, when now people can read, and afford a bible. So that is why the faith was handed down, "paradosis" "traditions" as the main vehicle. Also why stories were told through pictures in stained glass.
As example: You will find just as vociferous support for "once saved always saved" as for those opposing it, both quoting different verses to do so. There are those resolutely supporting "real presence in the sacrament eucharist " as those saying it is only symbolic or memorial. Because the quoting of verses and ignoring of some, is how apriori traditions are supported. Most of the denominations have "articles" or "creeds" - as do many non denoms as a piece of irony!
Let me pick an example: John 20:23 - which not only gives the power to forgive, it also gives the power to RETAIN sin, so icannot be explained away as "spreading the gospel to result in forgiveness" which does not address the issue of "retain" - sot it must be a delegated power to forgive or retain. ie a sacrament - which does not give people the power themselves, it is delegated by our Lord so a channel for Him.
But If I use that verse:
I have no doubt you will quickly google a rebuttal that doesnt make sense, or alternatively go silent- or hop onto a different subject compeltely . Its what christians do. Or you will do what many christians do. Many are happy to say what some verses DONT mean, ( you will oppose the idea that is sacramental confession, because of your tradition that says it is not) but you will be far less happy to say what John 20:23 does mean instead.
So some of us go back and find out what the first church taught :
those taught by apostles themseleves and we see - in ignatius , he and polycarp taught by John the apostle - a sacramental eucharist valid ONLY if performed by bishops in succession or their appointees, in a liturgical, sacramental church. That is what they taught and as St Paul says "stay true to the tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter".
But that doctrine (and therefore biblical interpretation of John 6) is not possible for a non denom since you have no succession bishops. So that is the meaning of John 6: John was taught by our Lord an knew what it meant, and that is what he passed on. Nobody seriously doubted it for the next thousand years!!!! Only now do people argue!
Only in the reformation did they try to separate the words of scripture from tradition that gave it meaning which is when all the arguments started: and also when all of the "confessions" and "articles" also began as the reformation churches defined their tradition. Faith handed down.
The upshot is you cannot view scripture without authority and traditiona, and it is that which causes some to quote some verses (in support of that cause) ignoring the verses that dont support them.} or simply failing to discuss them.
Catholics are different only in that we acknowledge the vital role of faith handed down to hand down meaning. And it is by studying that early church history and fathers, many of us come back to catholicism from elsewhere including thousands of theologians and ministers of every other denomination. But those stories are rarely heard.
The rest ALL also view scripture through their tradition shaped lenses, but are different only in they fail to acknowledge it - also their "tradition" doesnt start with the earliest fathers in many cases. It appears out of nowhere in middle ages or later. Like the symbolic only eucharist.
So out of curiosity will you discuss John 20:23 with me?
On my many discussions over the years on various different Christian forums, I have discovered that many do not actual discuss or explain all of the verses or portions of Scripture that I bring forth. Instead, some of them will quote their select pet verses from an a-skewed point of view or they go on some kind of strange discussion that is not even found in the Scriptures.
What do you do when Christians will not discuss Scripture with you?