Proof-Texting- To Use or Not to Use

[icy_crusader]

I am curious to hear some opinions on this matter. My Christian community is very limited beliefs wise and I would like to hear some other opinions on this. Personally, I believe the Bible should be held in historical, textual, and intentional context being read and interpreted like any other piece of literature. But, also, I have heard some convincing arguments or the use of proof-texts and the such and would just like to hear some ideas.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have heard some convincing arguments or the use of proof-texts and the such and would just like to hear some ideas.

Hi. Could you explain what you mean by proof-texts so I can have a better idea of how to give some ideas? Thanks.

 

[icy_crusader]

I suppose I use the term meaning any verse can apply to any situation, or the 'out of context' approach.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I suppose I use the term meaning any verse can apply to any situation, or the 'out of context' approach.

If a verse can be applied in any situation, doesn't that effectively render it meaningless?

 

[MrGoodbar]

I'm curious to hear what you think are good arguments for proof-texting. I think you're right on target to believe that everything should be read in its historical and literal context.

Considering that all of Paul's letters are "occasional," it is ridiculous to apply what he said to a specific situation to all situations. Historical context is key.

 

[icy_crusader]

I guess the idea that the Bible is complete Truth and truth is applicable everywhere no matter what. I think it's interesting, but like I said before I just wanted to hear some other ideas. I'm really not interested in a debate.

 

[MrGoodbar]

I believe that the Bible is Truth. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm just curious. I think Paul lays down some principles in nearly every ethical situation he encounters that are applicable no matter what. But they aren't just "at the surface." Self-denial, giving up "liberty" for the good of others, etc... Hard to bring that out by citing one verse.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi all ,

All them disciples called out and up into Gods will , all spoke from personal experience AS THE HOLY SPIRIT dwells within them , teaching them and chasting them and Spoke for them to me
and I love that about the Word of God , knowing that in context , many mysteries are reveals as the Scripture interpts Scripture by the Holy Spirit ,
thats how we learn by them examples and how we also experience the dwelling of the Holy Spirit moving within us as well teaching us chasting us and changing us being converted is not done at once to me but in an spiritual growing experience from children to mature /complete [perfect] End ...

I have some examples of them growing in truth and grace showing us as they changed as we are also changed from death to Life/born again in Christ
peace C

 

[TimRout]

If proof-texting means "taking one or more Bible passages out of context in an attempt to support an otherwise unsupportable proposition", then no, I would not recommend such an approach.

If, however, proof-texting means "accurately relating a variety of topically relevant Scriptures in support of a proposition", then I might very well recommend such an approach. Theologians often short form their work, allowing for certain general assumptions when making a point. For example, when discussing the humanity of Jesus Christ, I might make a passing reference to kenosis without thoroughly exegeting Philippians 2:5-11. Am I wrong to do so? Only if my conclusions depart from a correct understanding of the cited text.

 

[MrGoodbar]

Agreed. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you're going to mainly find the former around here.

 

[martymonster]

Let Me give you an example of something that most christian's today would accuse of being out of context.

Luk 1:80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

Sa 2:26 And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men.


Now if you have a look in any decent study bible, you will see that the verse in Luke is a quote from Samuel.

Now ask yourself, where's the context in this?

You should be abel to deduce that there is something wrong with the idea of keeping everything in context.

Unless you think Luke didn't know what He was talking about!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Let Me give you an example of something that most christian's today would accuse of being out of context.

Luk 1:80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

Sa 2:26 And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men.


Now if you have a look in any decent study bible, you will see that the verse in Luke is a quote from Samuel.

Now ask yourself, where's the context in this?

You should be abel to deduce that there is something wrong with the idea of keeping everything in context.

Unless you think Luke didn't know what He was talking about!

Yeah, that's good, because those two verses really are related. If you didn't know that, it would seem out of context. But all too often I see verses quoted that really are out of context.


Matthew 27:5 (King James Version)

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.


Judges 7:17 (King James Version)

17And he said unto them, Look on me, and do likewise: and, behold, when I come to the outside of the camp, it shall be that, as I do, so shall ye do.


Surely this proves from the Bible that we should all hang ourselves?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

If proof-texting means "taking one or more Bible passages out of context in an attempt to support an otherwise unsupportable proposition", then no, I would not recommend such an approach.

If, however, proof-texting means "accurately relating a variety of topically relevant Scriptures in support of a proposition", then I might very well recommend such an approach. Theologians often short form their work, allowing for certain general assumptions when making a point. For example, when discussing the humanity of Jesus Christ, I might make a passing reference to kenosis without thoroughly exegeting Philippians 2:5-11. Am I wrong to do so? Only if my conclusions depart from a correct understanding of the cited text.

Agreed. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you're going to mainly find the former around here.

All too often, though some do it right. Usually when I quote scripture, I try to make sure the context is clear.

 

[Chickapee]

If proof-texting means "taking one or more Bible passages out of context in an attempt to support an otherwise unsupportable proposition", then no, I would not recommend such an approach.

If, however, proof-texting means "accurately relating a variety of topically relevant Scriptures in support of a proposition", then I might very well recommend such an approach. Theologians often short form their work, allowing for certain general assumptions when making a point. For example, when discussing the humanity of Jesus Christ, I might make a passing reference to kenosis without thoroughly exegeting Philippians 2:5-11. Am I wrong to do so? Only if my conclusions depart from a correct understanding of the cited text.

I looked on the web and found an example and study of what your saying TimRout here ........


Kenosis - Christ "emptied Himself" (Philippians 2:7)

as i briefly went though it , i wondered , if we see this so literal we are so limited [bound ]
but Spiritually speaking we can go far beyond the letter that kills
I know the Spirit makes alive we can only see what Gods Light [knowledge] sheds abroad upon our hearts to see though and Jesus Christ is the Way to Life ........

unless the single eye of [perciving ] be dakness /knowledge

Matt6 ;22"(AB)The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.
23"But if (AC)your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light/ knowledge that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! there is many a warning of perverting/Twisting

the Truth like a serpent

peace C

 

[martymonster]

The Bible is one giant parable containing many little parables, so if you don't understand Christs parables you won't be able to understand the Bible!

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

I'm sure someone will think that I am taking something out of context here.

 

[oldsage]

Sometimes language barriers can cause problems for those who proof-text. At times we don't always understand what we read and try to use it.

KJV Genesis 24:64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.

See, it is ok to smoke, especially Camel cigarettes.

I see not so drastic but things done in this vein.

Blessings,
Chris

 

[icy_crusader]

So I guess no one here is willing to support the universal truth of scripture(out of context)? I guess thats good, but I was hoping to hear an explanation. Anyway, some responses now.

To the question of a verse becoming meaningless when applied to any situation, no, I think it is supposed to make it universal, or like a universal truth.

martymonster, I don't think connecting two scriptures which directly quote the other or have obvious ties would be called out of context. It's an obvious literary allusion made by the a(A)uthor to a previous passage.

Tim Rout, I agree this seems sensible and scholarly, but it also leads to trouble. It is with these sort of scripture quoting matches that you find teachers listing 20 different Bible references some of which support their statement and some of which have nothing to do with it. A game of Bible ping-pong can occur with this as well with two individuals throwing verses back and forth trying to support their argument.

This is why I wary of using Bible verses. I try to recognize there were a few century of Christians who studied without verses and chapters and that the Bible is essentially on big story about Jesus. The things before and leading up to Jesus, Jesus' time on earth, the time after Jesus, and the time when Jesus comes back. To pull it apart verse by verse seems strange to me. I'm still unsure of parts of this opinion and how to finally handle Bible verses, so some comments would be appreciated.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

This is why I wary of using Bible verses. I try to recognize there were a few century of Christians who studied without verses and chapters and that the Bible is essentially on big story about Jesus. The things before and leading up to Jesus, Jesus' time on earth, the time after Jesus, and the time when Jesus comes back. To pull it apart verse by verse seems strange to me. I'm still unsure of parts of this opinion and how to finally handle Bible verses, so some comments would be appreciated.

I totally agree!

So, when I do quote Bible verses, I try to make sure I've given enough to understand the context, and not just the one verse I need. Sometimes I've referred people to entire chapters, such as Galatians 3, to explain why we're under Grace now and not the Law. Pulling just a verse or two or three out of Galatians 3 doesn't seem right; it makes a hash out of Paul's carefully developed argument.

 

[Chickapee]

This is why I wary of using Bible verses. I try to recognize there were a few century of Christians who studied without verses and chapters and that the Bible is essentially on big story about Jesus. The things before and leading up to Jesus, Jesus' time on earth, the time after Jesus, and the time when Jesus comes back. To pull it apart verse by verse seems strange to me. I'm still unsure of parts of this opinion and how to finally handle Bible verses, so some comments would be appreciated.

Hi Icy Crusader ,

Here Jesus done it quoting Isaiah,weaving/tie together in the prophecy ,knowing from John in Rev the testimony /witness of Jesus Christ IS The Spirit of Prophecy
seeing this is done to show us the usage of events and when its applied

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted/turned , and I should heal them.

than went on to explain


I have noticed that Paul does this often too, just quoting a couple of scriptures and than goes on to explain them with more enlightenment /understanding revealing many mysteries
such as Union of man /woman and Christ /Church etc .

and to actually understand what context means i had to look it up and it helps to know clearly what it means ,and see it as helpful
context - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I think the difference is Interpreting
the tying them /connecting in the same purpose =make Strait strait - Definitions from Dictionary.com , strict meaning

verses twisting them to make it say what ever they want it to say crooked for gain if it be for profit ,greedy gain Paul spoke of men stealing and I believe this is what he was talking about here as far a religion goes ...
Deu 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.


1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

making them slaves to their teaching

God bless C

 

[artybloke]

To the question of a verse becoming meaningless when applied to any situation, no, I think it is supposed to make it universal, or like a universal truth.

1) Without a context, anything is meaningless. Or severely limited in its meaning, vague.
2) The use of prooftexts often seems to me to be almost treating the Bible like a series of magical formulae. It's almost pagan in its veneration of the text.
3) I'm not even sure that the term "universal truth" has any meaning to the Biblical writers, who mainly deal in specific situations: they tell stories set in the real world even when, as in the parables or certain books like Job, they were using fictional devices.
4) In quoting a passage, many Christians assume that the story is already known by the reader/listener so that they'll immediately "get it." But even a lot of Christians are not always aware of the full context, and many non-Christians nowadays don't ever pick up a Bible. So don't assume that one Bible verse is somehow going to clinch an arguement, rather than make someone puzzled.
5) Try and read a whole book of the Bible rather than just a few verses. There's usually an argument or the thread of a story that unfolds over the reading of it (St Paul's epistles, for instance, are essentially arguments.) Verses quoted out of context mean you miss the argument, and you can end up down some very strange alleys.