Looking at only one part of scripture at a time without looking to oth

[dakota190]

too often someone isolates one or two verses and makes an entire series out of them. i become immediately suspicious if they are intentionally not considering those other verses. i will usually read above and below of a teaching to besure that I have the context right. our pastor teaches verse by verse from front to back, and everything between, but he does not isolate any scripture or attempt to limit the understanding of those verses, so he can make a point, and he won't allow us to either.

the inerrant word of God, must be taught in it's entirity and not by the use of proof texting. too many involved in false doctrine are twisting the Word of God everyday in their teachings to put their personnal spin and interpretation on what they say, in a way that aggrandizes themselves instead of God. then they skip away counting their money all of the way to the bank. feeling really smug i would imagine. he fooled the masses again. too bad the fool does not understand the Word of God, much less understand who God is.

it will become apparent to him/her one day.

[OopsMartin]

here is a good list that tubalcain posted on another thread, Is Everything in the Bible Literal?, post #4

[Guest]

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

Proverbs 29:2

Tubal-Cain wrote:

What meaning did the author intend to convey? How would the original audience have understood the writing?

Dear Brother

Ware

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:15

Beloved

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 John 4:1

Modern Tyrants Steal God's Word

They Read Naturally

But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves

Jude 1:10

Author - Author

Mocking The Writers - Despising The Word

But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

2 Chronicles 36:16

Jesus The Author

The Author And The Finisher

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:2

God The Author

His Child Know His Intentions

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:16

Happy Kids Trust Daddy

Trust

Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

Psalms 40:4

Lunch Anyone

Staff of Life

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4

Want Truth?

Know God.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

Thank You Dear Brother - Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Wingwalker]

[Carol R]

Hi,

When I was reading your post I remember being told that a verse can stand alone, but it is good to read the verses round about it so that you dont take it out of context. I do this and always pray for understanding, as only God can give. I know that I've heard ppl quoting the bible and what has happened is they have taken part of a scripture and used it and it is out of context. We have to be aware of this and make sure that when you take a verse alone it does stand up to scriptural teaching.

Carol R

[Guest]

Watch

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

2 Timothy 4:5

Know

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Romans 8:28

Bow

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Romans 14:11

Love

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 13:4-13

Be Blessed Beloved - Maranatha!

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[OopsMartin]

I don't want to turn this back into another pants argument, but do wish to respond to this post. Let's take pants out of the equation. There is still one lone verse that makes it clear that it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothes or a woman to wear what pertains to a man. Even many that reject this means pants will concede it is saying cross dressing is a sin, yet there is only one lone verse that directly states this, along with the definition of the word effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The idea that something has to be repeated over and over in scripture to make it legitimate is absurd. That is discrediting the validity of portions of the Bible. The only thing that was in debate is whether or not pants are men's apparel, not whether the verse condemns cross dressing.

The main problem with the pants debate is that you are arguing from silence and inferred implications. Pant did not exist at the time that section of Scripture was written.

One needs to start with the Scripture, and determine what it is speaking to before we can seek to apply it to modern terms. Cross dressing speaks to the actual verses. If you could prove that women wearing pants has always been considered cross dressing, then you might stand a chance.

[apothanein kerdos]

I don't want to turn this back into another pants argument, but do wish to respond to this post. Let's take pants out of the equation. There is still one lone verse that makes it clear that it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothes or a woman to wear what pertains to a man. Even many that reject this means pants will concede it is saying cross dressing is a sin, yet there is only one lone verse that directly states this, along with the definition of the word effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The idea that something has to be repeated over and over in scripture to make it legitimate is absurd. That is discrediting the validity of portions of the Bible. The only thing that was in debate is whether or not pants are men's apparel, not whether the verse condemns cross dressing.

The main problem with the pants debate is that you are arguing from silence and inferred implications. Pant did not exist at the time that section of Scripture was written.

One needs to start with the Scripture, and determine what it is speaking to before we can seek to apply it to modern terms. Cross dressing speaks to the actual verses. If you could prove that women wearing pants has always been considered cross dressing, then you might stand a chance.

And as I stated Oops, I am not desiring to go back over that argument in this thread. We have gone around in circles over it already, and I have not wavered in my beliefs, and to my knowledge, neither did those who dissagree with me. I am simply pointing out a problem I see with making an argument that because something is not repeated throughout the Bible, it is not important or doesn't mean what it says.

If it's not repeated in the Bible - and that goes for any command - then it does become difficult for application. There are no supporting texts that lend further light to the issue. Instead, we have to look solely to the cultural context, authorial intent, intended audience, etc...and that makes it quite slippery on modern application.

This doesn't mean the command is any less important, just that application and understanding are harder to come by. It still doesn't negate that the first thing we should seek out in interpretation is coinciding verses that address the same issue.

[OopsMartin]

I don't want to turn this back into another pants argument, but do wish to respond to this post. Let's take pants out of the equation. There is still one lone verse that makes it clear that it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothes or a woman to wear what pertains to a man. Even many that reject this means pants will concede it is saying cross dressing is a sin, yet there is only one lone verse that directly states this, along with the definition of the word effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The idea that something has to be repeated over and over in scripture to make it legitimate is absurd. That is discrediting the validity of portions of the Bible. The only thing that was in debate is whether or not pants are men's apparel, not whether the verse condemns cross dressing.

The main problem with the pants debate is that you are arguing from silence and inferred implications. Pant did not exist at the time that section of Scripture was written.

One needs to start with the Scripture, and determine what it is speaking to before we can seek to apply it to modern terms. Cross dressing speaks to the actual verses. If you could prove that women wearing pants has always been considered cross dressing, then you might stand a chance.

And as I stated Oops, I am not desiring to go back over that argument in this thread. We have gone around in circles over it already, and I have not wavered in my beliefs, and to my knowledge, neither did those who dissagree with me. I am simply pointing out a problem I see with making an argument that because something is not repeated throughout the Bible, it is not important or doesn't mean what it says.

Oh, I'm not wanting to go over that argument here either. Although, I might take a look at it, if I can find the thread now that you've picqued my interest. I'm rather surprised you couldn't find other relative Scriptures.

My point is that you started with something that is not in Scripture - pants. The difficulty there is that in order to discuss it you must find Scriptures into which you can infer your subject. That is a problem from the "get-go".

In Logic induction is a process of introducing an idea into a premise that it does not inherently contain. Deduction starts from the premis and follows it to it's natural conclusion. Exegesis is a process like deduction of a critical examination of Scriptures starting from the contents of the Scriptures themselves. Proper exegesis has several steps. Eisigesis is a process which uses induction to insert a predetermined meaning that is not inherent, into the Scriptures. Thus with eisigesis you tend to draw out what you put in.

The better way to approach something like that would be to research all the Scriptures (keeping in mind their contextual standing) which would be about a similar areas/subject. After finding them all and gleaning deductively what they are about, then you can determine if there is anything in Scripture relative to your subject.

[OopsMartin]

Let's look at another verse in Deuteronomy 22, verse 8.

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

That verse completely stands by itself, yet it is not hard to figure how to apply it. We don't have people walking around on our roof tops today, but we do have laws on the books that relate to leaving hazards laying around in our yards that someone could get harmed by. There are places in the Bible where individual commands that don't directly relate to the previous or next verse come up.

yes, and the first thing you may notice about verses like the above is that they are not seeking to establish eternal principles. In those days and the places where they were building, a battlement for the roof was a very good idea. It's just not an eternal principle. but we can glean some good ideas from it.