Proof Texts & the Bible

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://atoday.org/the-art-and-practice-of-biblical-proof-texting/

[CoAspen]

Yes...yes and yes!!

[Samie]

I think proof-texting, especially in forum discussions where you can't possibly write an essay in one post and then hope your post to be read, can be resorted to ONLY after one has proven his position in harmony with the totality of Scriptures.

[pierrepaul]

Proof-texts are used by all denominations and movements - we are not alone.

Roman Catholics: Matthew 16:18 for the authority of the bishop;Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:7 for the celibate priesthood; Exodus 15:18-22 to support statues, sculpture and icons in the church

Roman Catholics: Romans 2:6; Matthew 16:27; Revelation 22:12; James 2:14-26 for the emphasis on works;

Lutherans, Calvinists and other Protestants: Ephesians 2:8 for "grace alone through faith alone"

Roman Catholics and Lutherans: James 5:16 and John 20:23 for the practice of confessional and of clergy forgiving sins; Colossians 2:11,12 for infant baptism; Luke 22:19; Matthew 26:26 for the Real Presence

Orthodox: John 15:26 for the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone

Calvinists: Matthew 15:24; John 6:44 for the limited atonement

Arminians: John 3:16; Revelation 22:17 for the doctrine of Free Will

KJV only movement: Psalm 12:7

Word-Faith movement: John 14:13

Prosperity Gospel: Malachi 3:10; Psalm 1:3; Deuteronomy 28

Faith Healers: James 5:14,15

Once saved; always saved: John 6:39

Latter-day Saints: Ezechiel 37:15-17 for the prophecy on the Book of Mormon

Snake Handlers: Mark 16:18

Charismatics/Pentacostals: Mark 16:17 for speaking in tongues

Just about everyone else: 1 Corinthians 13:8 for the cessation of the gift of tongues

Just about everyone except SdAs: Mark 7:19 and Acts 15:28 for abolition of the Levitical dietary laws; Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:14-16 for abolition of the Sabbath; Ephesians 1:13 and 2 Corinthians 1:22 identifying the Holy Spirit as the seal of God.

SdAs: Isaiah 66:23 and Matthew 5:18 for eternal validity of the Sabbath; Exodus 20:8-11 - "name, title, jurisdiction" argument for identifying Sabbath as the seal of God

The "proof-text" method is what gave rise to the observation that one can prove just about any doctrine from the bible. Find a suitable "proof-text" and then explain away all contrary texts by arguing about their context, or the original Greek/Hebrew meaning something different.

 

 

 

 

[joeb]

Some of this guy's criticisms are completely out to lunch.  Saying that Isaiah 28:10 shouldn't be used as a reference to how to study the Bible is ridiculous.  The text is speaking about how God is going to teach His people for the context of the verse is verses 9-13 and then addresses the corrupt leaders and priests by saying, wherefore....  Wherefore refers back to how God is going to wean His people away from the corrupt teaching and religious worship then going on.  He's going to teach them precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little. 

God uses this method to teach us, so to say it is not the way for us to study is out to lunch.

[phkrause]

On 1/24/2017 at 0:54 PM, The Wanderer said:

While this author asks some legitimate questions; I cannot accept his overall conclusion. If the text is in context, then whats wrong with it? Sometimes, as he too mentioned, the text is out of  context, and then of course it is a pretext. I see nothing wrong with it if it is done with sensitivity to the context.

I agree totally! At least for me, when you defend your going to church on Sabbath, at that early of an age, how else do you convince your friends?? Obviously as we age we do it differently, within the context of say a bible study where we show someone why we believe the Sabbath is the correct day, etc.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/26/2017 at 5:27 PM, joeb said:

Some of this guy's criticisms are completely out to lunch.  Saying that Isaiah 28:10 shouldn't be used as a reference to how to study the Bible is ridiculous. 

There are legitimate criticisms of the usual English translations of Isaiah 28:10. 

Because the verse appears in the context of babies, stammering, and foreign languages, there is some evidence that the verse is not to be interpreted as words, but as nonsense sounds.  A translator's note for in the NASB for Isaiah 28:10 says "Heb Sav lasav, sav lasav, Kav lakav, kav lakav, Ze’ er sham, ze’ er sham These Hebrew monosyllables, imitating the babbling of a child, mock the prophet’s preaching."  The Lexham Hebrew Interlinear translates Isaiah 28:10 as "For blah-blah upon blah-blah, blah-blah upon blah-blah, blah-blah upon blah-blah upon blah-blah, a little here a little there."

The English translations of Isaiah 28:10 from the Greek Septuagint are also significantly different than our usual English translations.  The Brenton (1870) translation of Isaiah 28:10 from the Septuagint says, "Expect thou affliction on affliction, hope upon hope: yet a little, and yet a little."  Evidently the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint two centuries before the time of Jesus did not understand the original Hebrew of Isaiah 28:10 as a reference on how to study the Bible.

[Gail]

41 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

There are legitimate criticisms of the usual English translations of Isaiah 28:10. 

Because the verse appears in the context of babies, stammering, and foreign languages, there is some evidence that the verse is not to be interpreted as words, but as nonsense sounds.  A translator's note for in the NASB for Isaiah 28:10 says "Heb Sav lasav, sav lasav, Kav lakav, kav lakav, Ze’ er sham, ze’ er sham These Hebrew monosyllables, imitating the babbling of a child, mock the prophet’s preaching."  The Lexham Hebrew Interlinear translates Isaiah 28:10 as "For blah-blah upon blah-blah, blah-blah upon blah-blah, blah-blah upon blah-blah upon blah-blah, a little here a little there."

The English translations of Isaiah 28:10 from the Greek Septuagint are also significantly different than our usual English translations.  The Brenton (1870) translation of Isaiah 28:10 from the Septuagint says, "Expect thou affliction on affliction, hope upon hope: yet a little, and yet a little."  Evidently the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint two centuries before the time of Jesus did not understand the original Hebrew of Isaiah 28:10 as a reference on how to study the Bible.

Yes, I have read similar about this verse. Adventists have for a long time taken it out of its context and used it alone. I don't want to discount the power of one verse, as who am I to tell another how the Spirit can impress upon a mind? But in context it is not like it has traditionally been used.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Ron, I have a Greek/Hebrew/English  Interlinear Bible here in front of me right now, and there is nothing in it re the "babbling child" comments you make here. I dont understand where you got that from. If one looks at a verse before, and a verse after kind of thing for Isaiah 28:10, it actually does make sense in the context "we" have traditionally used it. I think what happens more is that people say thats what they are doing, (Isa 28:10), but infact they are not.

I agree that people often don't take things in context and compare it to everything else that the Bible says on the topic.

I think I said where I got the ideas from.  Which English translation is used in your Greek/Hebrew/English interlinear?

Verse 13 contains the same sounds/words that are found in verse 10 of Isaiah 28, and it certainly doesn't sound like God is telling the people who haven't listened before how to properly study Scripture -- God says the results of the sounds/words will be, "That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, And snared, and taken."  If that's the result of prooftexting, I don't want any part of it.

A verse before and a verse after isn't enough context to understand the flow of thoughts around a passage. Reading the whole chapter or the whole book of the Bible in which a verse is found would be better if a person is interested in understanding the author's intent.  Where most prooftexters go wrong is that they want the verse to mean what they want it to say regardless of what the inspired author intended -- as if the Bible were a book of magical English phrases that can be pasted together randomly to suit ourselves.

When I grew up and started studying the Bible for myself I was dismayed to find that several of the memory verses I had learned had been taught to me without any regard for the context.  Isaiah 28:10 was one of those.  I could tell that the verse didn't condone prooftexting, even while I was still prooftexting and before I learned that our usual English translation of Isaiah 28:10  was disputed by some translators and contradicted by the Greek Septuagint.

[Gail]

Ron mentioned the translators' note for the NASB, but my translators' notes in my NET bible say the same thing for that verse. In the NET they actually reflected that in the translation itself: "Indeed, they will hear meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there."

I thought, though, that I had read that somewhere else, too.

[Gail]

Just a note- if you are using Green's Interlinear, that would have been translated by him, one man. I have also his literal translation. It's like referring to a Young's literal... The work of one man instead of a translating committee. I find it interesting to follow up on a passage if it has been disputed, to discover why and have a look at the various interpretations.

[Gail]

I hear ya! That is why I said what I did regarding how the Holy Spirit leads. I believe that the HS is important and a deciding factor. People can only do the best they can with what they have.

I was thinking that even a babbling baby is growing and learning. And we are like that in our study, too. We learn bit by bit and hopefully one day we will come to the place where we are coherent.

[Gail]

I have read books and watched instructional videos on textual criticism and the work seems sometimes like solving a mystery. Bart Ehrman, an expert in the field, became agnostic after years in this vocation, working with the human factor of Scripture. For me, though, for such a work to still have the power it does to change lives and show us God makes it even more wonderful.

That is its beauty and mark of God's handiwork. There are some things in the Bible that are simple and yet some subjects will long require digging. I say, Bring it on

[Gail]

Np, LOL

[Gail]

CEV, NET... Lamsa and the Orthodox are different yet, hinting that there is difference between Eastern and Western thought. Rotherham's does translate the same as most of the English ones, but adds this quote: "The repetition and assonance of the short words are intended to set forth mimetically the drunken babble of the scoffers."-Davies' H.L.

All the disputation says is that the passage is one of those that is not clearly and easily brought into the English.

[pierrepaul]

The Bible en français courant renders Isaiah 28:10 as "blablabla". When I first checked it I didn't think it was the same verse (in different languages the chapter and verse divisions are not always the same as in English), but it is the same Isaiah 28:10. I had never noticed this difference before since I mostly use the Louis Ségond version in French.

[Gail]

And interestingly, I did check the Louis Segond! It was like the English majority. Sometimes I learn stuff from my French translations. I do have a français courant as well so now that you say this I have to go look!

You know, the Rotherham Bible is the only one I know of that puts the comma where we do in the verse where Jesus tells the dying thief, "I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." Yet SDAs use it to support our view of the state of the dead. The majority is not always correct and that is a classic example.

I tell my customers, know these nuances. Enhance your own knowledge and your growth. But I cannot stress enough the influence of the Holy Spirit, as He can move in groups or individually. He can bring different meanings to a passage and make it speak to you personally.

Don't you find that all subjects just get bigger the more we look into them? But the gems are there for those who dig. I am thinking that God has determined us for eternity and Bible study is just a taste of that.

[pierrepaul]

I like the Bible en français courant. The French language churches I've attended all use the Louis Ségond (which is rather similar to the English KJV and Spanish Reina Valera), but the BFC often offers a different perspective on the text.

One interesting difference is the KJV-only's favourite proof-text of Psalm 12:5,6,7

(KJV) For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The KJVers hold that the pronoun "them" in v.7 refers to "the words of the Lord". This is the ordinary grammatical interpretation of the KJV translation. This is the proof-text that the Bible has been preserved down the ages without error or modification; that the old translations were the continuation and fulfillment of this promise and that therefore the KJV is infallible (and any newer translation that contradicts the KJV is corrupt). However, in other versions, this interpretation of Psalm 12 is not supported.

Here's the text in the Louis Ségond version;

Parce que les malheureux sont opprimés et que les pauvres gémissent, Maintenant, dit l'Éternel, je me lève, J'apporte le salut à ceux contre qui l'on souffle.Les paroles de l'Éternel sont des paroles pures, Un argent éprouvé sur terre au creuset, Et sept fois épuré.Toi, Éternel! tu les garderas, Tu les préserveras de cette race à jamais.

Again, the "les" would refer to "paroles de l'Éternel"

The Bible en français courant renders the text differently: Mais maintenant j'interviens, dit le Seigneur, à cause des pauvres qu'on opprime et des malheureux qui gémissent.
Je porte secours à celui qu'on écarte d'un revers de main. Les paroles du Seigneur sont franches comme l'or qui est passé au creuset et sept fois purifié. Toi, Seigneur, tu garderas les opprimés, tu nous préserveras toujours de ces individus.

Here the reference of what is being preserved is the "oppressed", not the "words". This parallels the English NIV translation of v. 7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked.

More interesting is the Spanish Reina Valera-Antigua which reads as follows (from v 5) :Por la opresión de los pobres, por el gemido de los menesterosos, Ahora me levantaré, dice Jehová: Pondrélos en salvo del que contra ellos se engríe.Las palabras de Jehová, palabras limpias; Plata refinada en horno de tierra, Purificada siete veces.Tú, Jehová, los guardarás; Guárdalos para siempre de aquesta generación.

Unlike English, French or German, the Spanish plural pronoun has gender. "Los" being masculin, has to refer to a masculin plural noun - which would be "los pobres" and "los menesterosos" in verse 5 (the poor and the needy). "Las palabras" (the words) in verse 6 is a feminine noun, so verse 7 in the Spanish text cannot be referring to the words of the Lord being preserved. It is the poor and the needy being preserved. I am citing the Reina-Valera Antigua version since it was the KJV's contemporary and certainly not some "modern" translation like the NIV or the BFC.

Curiously the Portuguese Joao Almeida version renders v7 as follows: Tu nos guardarás, Senhor; desta geração nos livrarás para sempre. Here the translators applied the 1st person plural pronoun - God will preserve us. 

So what does this all mean? I haven't any knowledge of Hebrew so I cannot offer an opinion on whether or not the Psalmist was saying that the words were to be preserved and protected or the poor, needy and destitute were to be preserved and protected. I would suggest that this example ought to warn us to use caution when using "proof-texts".

KJV-only types OTOH offer this an even more evidence that any version other than English KJV cannot be trusted.

[Gail]

@pierrepaul  Interesting!

[joeb]

I did quite a bit of research into this subject.  I looked at 73 versions of the Bible,and out of those 73, 4 were NT only.  Out of the remaining 69 versions 65 translated the verse in the same manner as the KJV does.  I'd say the vast preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the traditional SDA reading of the verse.  The fact that Ellen White, an inspired prophet, used it the way she did adds a lot more credence to the position. 

That 94% of Bible versions I looked at hold to the SDA position is very significant.  It is the way to study the Bible.  If we did not build precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little we would have an extremely poor understanding of the Bible. I still hold that trashing the SDA's usage of it is simply out to lunch.