Top Ten Misused Scripture Quotes.....

[PostmodernProphet]

That's the SECOND most mis-used, out-of-context scripture EVER

this comment from another thread inspired this one......

what are your nominations for most misused.....

I propose....Matthew 5, particularly selected verses which parallel this thought....

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"

These verses are often held up to Christians as standards to which they should strive.....when Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount, the purpose of these verses was to show the futility of trying to earn salvation by our own action, the very impossibility of compliance that some expect us now to reach if we are not "hypocrites"......

[Abbey Marie]

Judge not, that ye not be judged. (Matthew 7:1 KJV), often misused to scold Christians for speaking out against sinfullness.



...
One could not read Matthew 18:16-18 seriously and conclude that we never judge anything. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul takes the people of God to task for not judging the right things the right way.
...
The mystery clears up when we realize that the word “judge” can be used in different ways in different contexts. Understanding the context is the key to interpreting what kind of judging we are speaking about.

Ralph Walter in his small book, Tortured Texts, notes the differences:

“Consider first the Greek word Krino, translated judge in our text. If you look at a concordance of the King James Version, you will find the word has been translated: conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, ordain, think and then judge 87 times. Other Greek scholars say that Krino means to call in question, conclude, decree, esteem, determine, think and sentence. From all of this I think it would be safe to say that the word our Lord used means to condemn or to pass judgment upon someone maliciously; while the context shows that we have the responsibility to properly evaluate a thing or an act” (pp. 28-30).
...

Peter, Paul and John did a lot of judging the right way. Every second epistle is a judgment on apostasy. In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul judges and warns about a man named Demas. In the same epistle (2:17) he warns of the heresies of two others by name. Paul did a lot of judging and evaluating when it came to false teachers. We are mandated to judge false doctrine.

Jesus in John 7:24 says: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Jesus is saying “judge without maliciousness and by all means have the facts.” To find a balance between legalism and mysticism we must judge righteous judgment.

First Corinthians 6:3-5 demands that we judge certain matters. We can judge the overt and gross sins mentioned later in verse 9. However our judgment must always be tempered with a desire to restore, not punish. The goal is restoration.
http://pfo.org/notjudge.htm

[Hagbard Celine]

Judge not, that ye not be judged. (Matthew 7:1 KJV), often misused to scold Christians for speaking out against sinfullness.

Doesn't "cast the first stone" apply here?

[darin]

Doesn't "cast the first stone" apply here?

...that has to do with punishment for sin, not acknowledgment of Sin.

I have to add the line from the post which inspired this thread:

"Don't place a stumbling block" -

Here's something I wrote years ago in a thread about Beyonce claiming to be a Christian, yet she's all sexy and stuff..


So stop stumbling? I mean, seriously...If you cause somebody to stumble, you have sinned. What does that really mean? In the way you are using it, it implies we aren't responsible for our lusting ways - it's BEYONCE who CAUSED my stumbling. I contend Your Human Nature caused your stumble. Also, is a moment of lust, should it occur, a 'stumble'? If i find myself in the midst of sin, I stop, repent, and move on. That's not a stumble - that is a STEP. That's growth. I believe that scripture is trying to address false teachings, and creating dissent amongst the 'brethren'. I'm not sure I'm educated enough to PROVE that belief...but I still think I'm right.

What's wrong w/ topless churches? I mean, actually, if the congregation were sitting there nude, it'd be no less holy. Nudity isn't wrong nor sinful. People who lack discipline are the people who get all hot and bothered every time i set of jugs passes by.
Maybe I'm weird, or European, or gay....but I have absolutely NO Issues when faced with a set of round mounds. None. If said Globes were being parlayed upon my body, in a suggestive manner, then I'd likely develop some situations, depending on the circumstances.

There are some guys who get all hot and lusty by looking at feet. By using the 'Causing to Stumble' scripture as many in this thread are, Beyonce should NEVER go barefoot - lest she cause a foot-guy to 'stumble' thru his lust. There are some guys who really get lustful by having women wear clown suits, should Beyonce never entertain as "Bozo" during a birthday party?


and


(some people claim) Beyonce entertains to CAUSE people to lust? Seriously...I hope that's not what you meant.

Dancing and such is 'entertainment'. I can't speak for her, as I don't know her enough to judge her 'fruits', but I am pretty sure MOST entertainers do so for the love of entertaining. To insinuate, or flat out claim (as you've done) that the motivation is to cause lust isn't right...it just isn't right.

You are creating your own made-up-idea of what her motivation is.





She Entertains.


Fact.



She dances as a stripper.


Opinion. She 'dances'. When have you last been to a strip club to compare styles?



She does it for the love of entertaining.


Opinion. Nobody can say for certain her motivation. It's likely...but we can't be sure, can we?



The people who are being entertained are watching her move as a stripper and removing clothes.


Opinion. People are entertained by the quality of her voice, and the quality of Production of her show.



The people who are being entertained are watching her move as a stripper and removing clothes are lusting. Call it what you want but it's lusting.


Opinion. Weak-willed/poorly disciplined/highly repressed people lust after a lot of things - the fact it MAY be this woman is irrellivant. As I wrote earlier, people get all horny for many different reasons. If she were Waltzing across the stage, I'm sure SOMEBODY could get 'wood'.



She loves people lusting over her (entertaining them).


Opinion/Slander. You are being ridiculous now...

You are using poor logic by stringing together one - MAYBE two facts, and drawing conclusion. Do painters creating images because they want or expect people to lust after them? That's asinine.



If it was her music that people wanted she would not have to dress and dance the way she does.
If I sit and watch her dance and strip sooner or later I will be lusting too.


Perhaps you have some issues on lust? If you do, stop watching her, because frankly, you'd be turned on eventually whether she were standing at a mic, or gardening, or knitting on stage.



Good witness? I don't think so. To witness we must be making an effort to be like Christ.
Sorry but when I see her I don't see a good witness, I see one of his sheep that has strayed and trying to take as many of the flock with her!



She doesn't sing to be a witness, i'd GUESS. She sings because she loves it. She loves making music because it's in her genes. You are sounding exactly those who spoke against John the Baptist...I mean, LOOK at him!! He's all crazy looking, eating bugs! I do NOT see a witness there!!

:-/

Nobody is perfect in their walk. No-Body. Tell me how I'm not being a good witness as a Strategic Planner for the Army. I mean, I'm creating a publication as a learning tool for the Fort Lewis Transformation Campaign Plan. In the publication I've got photos of GUNS used for KILLING...I've got NO mention of Christ. I blatantly get up in front of meetings with others and speak ONLY of 'worldly' issues such as "Balanced Score Card". Ya know, the way I turn, to write on the white-board MAY be causing some of the meeting attendees to lust after my bulk of a body...I must be a horrible witness.

It doesn't matter if I do my work in front of 20 people or 200 Million - It's just a job. People are still people. With Strengths and weaknesses.

Brother, I understand the point you are trying to make - but I cannot allow that it's biblical, nor beneficial towards a closer walk w/ Christ .... My banter here doesn't mean I'm angry or impassioned against you. I drag things out, and hang on so tightly because I know that I know I am 'Right' in certain areas. My motivation is not to be proven as such, but to perhaps help somebody to gain a better, more clear? understanding of who Christ IS...

-d

[Abbey Marie]

Doesn't "cast the first stone" apply here?

A good example of another misunderstood verse. Jesus was being tricked into speaking out against the current law. This was His way around it, and a chance to give a lesson in forgiveness at the same time. Context, as dmp said.

But more importantly, Jesus didn't just forgive the adultress, and send her on her merry way. He told her to "go, and sin no more". The part that is often conveniently left out in discussions. Repentance and a true change in behavior is key.

[JohnDoe]

A good example of another misunderstood verse. Jesus was being tricked into speaking out against the current law. This was His way around it, and a chance to give a lesson in forgiveness at the same time. Context, as dmp said.

But more importantly, Jesus didn't just forgive the adultress, and send her on her merry way. He told her to "go, and sin no more". The part that is often conveniently left out in discussions. Repentance and a true change in behavior is key.
But in order of importance Abbey, He forgave her first, then He asked her to sin no more. Forgiveness was given to her BEFORE she even had a chance to repent.

He did not require the repentance first, He did not say "now sin no more", and then say, "your sins are forgiven". He did the opposite....and I believe that this was intentional by Him.

It would not be a "gift" of forgiveness if one had to do something to EARN it....

It would be a "reward" perhaps, if we HAD to do something to receive it....but we have been told through Christianity that it was a "gift", and I believe that this is a key to Christianity.

And I believe because we are given such a wonderful "gift", that we in turn, repent out of joy, out of respect, out of love, for the giver of the "gift".

jd

[darin]

But in order of importance Abbey, He forgave her first, then He asked her to sin no more. Forgiveness was given to her BEFORE she even had a chance to repent.

He did not require the repentance first, He did not say "now sin no more", and then say, "your sins are forgiven". He did the opposite....and I believe that this was intentional by Him.



...Her repentance would be verified by her 'not sinning anymore' - you're really twisting scripture to imply we don't have to repent to be forgiving.

[Abbey Marie]

...Her repentance would be verified by her 'not sinning anymore' - you're really twisting scripture to imply we don't have to repent to be forgiving.

Exactly. "Order of importance" is only an issue if one is looking for forgiveness without repentance and change.

[JohnDoe]

...Her repentance would be verified by her 'not sinning anymore' - you're really twisting scripture to imply we don't have to repent to be forgiving.
No, I am not Darin....scripture might be twisted, but it is not me that is doing it...I am repeating what Christ said and IN THE ORDER that he said it.

He did not require the repentence before He gave her His forgiveness and it is as simple as that to me.

Forgiveness of sins was a "gift of Grace" not a reward for doing something, not by our own "works".

I believe that if one understands this Gift given to them, that they WILL repent....because the gift of Grace, again, if truely understood, was so awesome and so loving, that one accepting this gift would overwelmingly feel the need to repent, to take that "second chance" and show the giver of this "gift of Grace"... that they appreciate it.

I don't believe that this "gift" of forgiveness always automatically changes the nature of the human being from the nanosecond that they are given it....with some it will, but with others it may take time for them to change...but that they will repent to the fullest of their ability, eventually. One follows the other, and the "gift/Grace" of forgiveness, is given first.

Forgiveness is a "gift" not a "reward", and if you can show me where "forgiveness of sin" is described as a "reward" for our own actions, contradicting that it was a "gift" from God, then I may change my mind.


For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9


jd

[JohnDoe]

Exactly. "Order of importance" is only an issue if one is looking for forgiveness without repentance and change.

I respectfully disagree. Order of importance is essential to understanding Christ and what He did for us, through His sacrafice, through his death.

Those that want to ignore the order of importance, want to give credit to themselves, want to reward themselves for their own actions and "boast" of such imo.


For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9


Please explain what this verse means, if not what it directly says?

jd

[darin]

No, I am not Darin....scripture might be twisted, but it is not me that is doing it...I am repeating what Christ said and IN THE ORDER that he said it.

He did not require the repentence before He gave her His forgiveness and it is as simple as that to me.

How do you know? How do you know she wasn't repenting to him? Do you know her heart? Bringing up the 'order of the words he spoke' is an attempt by you to twist God's plan in an effort to imply NOBODY needs to really REPENT...it's trying to make excuses for sinful behaviour.



Forgiveness of sins was a "gift of Grace" not a reward for doing something, not by our own "works".


Irrelevant.


I believe that if one understands this Gift given to them, that they WILL repent....because the gift of Grace, again, if truly understood, was so awesome and so loving, that one accepting this gift would overwhelmingly feel the need to repent, to take that "second chance" and show the giver of this "gift of Grace"... that they appreciate it.

Irrelevant.


I don't believe that this "gift" of forgiveness always automatically changes the nature of the human being from the nanosecond that they are given it....with some it will, but with others it may take time for them to change...but that they will repent to the fullest of their ability, eventually. One follows the other, and the "gift/Grace" of forgiveness, is given first.


So what? That has nothing to do with anything. You're filibustering. One cannot 'partially' repent. One either does, or does not. You're really REALLY corn-fused.


Forgiveness is a "gift" not a "reward", and if you can show me where "forgiveness of sin" is described as a "reward" for our own actions, contradicting that it was a "gift" from God, then I may change my mind.


What the hell are you talking about now? Stop putting words in my mouth. Nobody is talking about 'rewards' - we're talking about how Christ forgave that woman with the instruction to Stop Sinning. He forgave her past. She seems to have accepted (although we can't be sure). Any further sin in her heart would have to be dealt-with later, if any.


For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9


You have NO understanding of what that scripture means, do you? It's like - you think, based on how you throw that out there, nobody has to do ANYTHING but breathe and EVERYBODY will go to heaven. Because 'asking forgiveness' and 'stopping one's sinful ways' equates to 'works'. Its...what's the word? It's SILLY.

[darin]

I respectfully disagree. Order of importance is essential to understanding Christ and what He did for us, through His sacrafice, through his death.

Those that want to ignore the order of importance, want to give credit to themselves, want to reward themselves for their own actions and "boast" of such imo.


For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9


Please explain what this verse means, if not what it directly says?

jd


JD you're stuck on stupid. Really. You throw out these false delimma and force people to agree with you. Nauseating, really.

[JohnDoe]

JD you're stuck on stupid. Really. You throw out these false delimma and force people to agree with you. Nauseating, really.

??????
Does Scripture bother you Darin???

HOW am I forcing anyone to do anything???

And why would a difference of opinion be nauseating???

No need for YOU to get nasty Darin, take a deep breath and realize we are on a debate board discussing religion and false impressions that some may have regarding Scripture.

And can you explain the the Scripture I quoted?

I also HAVE NEVER SAID that repentence would not follow if one through Faith accepted Christ's gift to us....because I too believe that Faith, without works, is dead. And I explained above why I believe we repent or change our lives, following the gift of grace, the gift of forgiveness...


jd

[avatar4321]

Judge not, that ye not be judged. (Matthew 7:1 KJV), often misused to scold Christians for speaking out against sinfullness.

id have to go with this one. Although Matthew 16:16-20 is pretty misused too

[avatar4321]

I respectfully disagree. Order of importance is essential to understanding Christ and what He did for us, through His sacrafice, through his death.

Those that want to ignore the order of importance, want to give credit to themselves, want to reward themselves for their own actions and "boast" of such imo.


For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9


Please explain what this verse means, if not what it directly says?

jd

Another really misused and misunderstood scriptures.

[Abbey Marie]

I respectfully disagree. Order of importance is essential to understanding Christ and what He did for us, through His sacrafice, through his death.

Those that want to ignore the order of importance, want to give credit to themselves, want to reward themselves for their own actions and "boast" of such imo.


For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9


Please explain what this verse means, if not what it directly says?

jd


Who said anything about boasting or rewarding oneself? Who said salvation is earned through works? Who denied the sacrifice of Christ? If you say I said any of those things, you are either sorely mistaken or trying to obfuscate.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The simples fact are, repentance is key, actually changing your sinful behavior is key, and Jesus did in fact tell the woman to go and sin no more. No matter how you parse it, or put things in some supposedly important chronological order, it does not change those three facts. Anything else is "feel good" Christianity, and less than half the story.

[darin]

??????
Does Scripture bother you Darin???

HOW am I forcing anyone to do anything???

And why would a difference of opinion be nauseating???

No need for YOU to get nasty Darin, take a deep breath and realize we are on a debate board discussing religion and false impressions that some may have regarding Scripture.

You are perverting the intent of scripture to make it 'feel good'. That disgusts me.



And can you explain the the Scripture I quoted?

Sure.

[JohnDoe]

You are perverting the intent of scripture to make it 'feel good'. That disgusts me.



Sure.

I'm all ears.....explain it.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9
Another really misused and misunderstood scriptures.

??...that one I have always understood as pretty fundamental to the Protestant religions, at least, since the Reformation....and it is part of Catholic doctrine since at least the 60s.....what about it do you think is misunderstood?......

[PostmodernProphet]

actually changing your sinful behavior is key

not for salvation......failure to change behavior might be indicative of a lack of sincerity when it comes to an expresssion of faith, but the only "key" to salvation is faith.....

[avatar4321]

??...that one I have always understood as pretty fundamental to the Protestant religions, at least, since the Reformation....and it is part of Catholic doctrine since at least the 60s.....what about it do you think is misunderstood?......

its often used as an excuse not to do anything. Simply because what we do doesnt save us, doesnt mean its less important to do good thing. We dont do good things to be saved. we do good things because we love Christ and because we want to do good.

[PostmodernProphet]

its often used as an excuse not to do anything. Simply because what we do doesnt save us, doesnt mean its less important to do good thing. We dont do good things to be saved. we do good things because we love Christ and because we want to do good.

that I can agree with....I don't think I have ever met anyone who used it as an excuse not to do anything, but I suppose it if happened it would qualify as a misunderstanding......

[avatar4321]

that I can agree with....I don't think I have ever met anyone who used it as an excuse not to do anything, but I suppose it if happened it would qualify as a misunderstanding......

ive met quite alot of them. Ive actually had people tell me its a sin to try to do good because it mocks the grace of God.. and i was just like... wah?

[JohnDoe]

not for salvation......failure to change behavior might be indicative of a lack of sincerity when it comes to an expresssion of faith, but the only "key" to salvation is faith.....

Precisely. I don't in any way believe that the verse in Ephesians gives anyone a "free pass" to go off and sin all they want.....no way, Jose! And those that do use this as an excuse to do such imho, do not understand Christianity or ...are as you said, simply lacking in their own sincerity, or in Faith.

Anyone who truely understands the incredible sacrafice that Christ gave us through his death, (dying for our sins), will want to repent, will want to change their sinful ways for the ''gift giver'', and I believe if their Faith is sincere, they will repent....it may not be on my humanly time table, but it will happen.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

ive met quite alot of them. Ive actually had people tell me its a sin to try to do good because it mocks the grace of God.. and i was just like... wah?

what a strange belief.....

[April15]

I do need some advice regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11: 6-8 that touching the skin o a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds o tread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24: 10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[PostmodernProphet]

April, the last time you posted that and didn't acknowledge it was a cut and paste from someone else I neg repped you.....are you still pretending it's original?

as far as responding to it, perhaps you will get lucky and find we have some Hassidic Jews on line.....

[JohnDoe]

You are perverting the intent of scripture to make it 'feel good'. That disgusts me.

PLEASE explain how i am perverting this verse??? I am just reading it, and understanding what IT SAYS....those are NOT my words, are they?



Sure.

please explain what YOU think it means, i don't think that is asking too much at all from someone who just spit on me for quoting it!!!

[JohnDoe]

Who said anything about boasting or rewarding oneself? Who said salvation is earned through works? Who denied the sacrifice of Christ? If you say I said any of those things, you are either sorely mistaken or trying to obfuscate.

i never said those things about you abbey, just like YOU didn't say that people who believe in what the Bible actually says about our GIFT of salvation are people who just want to try to TWIST WORDS to make themselves feel better...right?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The simples fact are, repentance is key, actually changing your sinful behavior is key, and Jesus did in fact tell the woman to go and sin no more. No matter how you parse it, or put things in some supposedly important chronological order, it does not change those three facts. Anything else is "feel good" Christianity, and less than half the story.

Yes, Jesus did say to the woman to sin no more after he forgave her, and i am not denying he said this after he forgave her. I believe repentence follows the gift of forgiveness.

I am not comparing apples with oranges, i am simply quoting scripture, and saying what it means to me without mincing any words.

WHAT does this verse in ephesians mean, in your own words? Can you answer this?

i am open to debate its meaning if you differ with what it says...

jd

[April15]

April, the last time you posted that and didn't acknowledge it was a cut and paste from someone else I neg repped you.....are you still pretending it's original?

as far as responding to it, perhaps you will get lucky and find we have some Hassidic Jews on line.....I have had it for so long I don't have a clue where it came from, but I do think it is funny as hell. I don't expect any sane response.

[5stringJeff]

I have had it for so long I don't have a clue where it came from, but I do think it is funny as hell. I don't expect any sane response.

It's been around the internet, and around these boards, for so long, that I think you ought to just Google yourself a response.

[5stringJeff]

But in order of importance Abbey, He forgave her first, then He asked her to sin no more. Forgiveness was given to her BEFORE she even had a chance to repent.

He did not require the repentance first, He did not say "now sin no more", and then say, "your sins are forgiven". He did the opposite....and I believe that this was intentional by Him.

It would not be a "gift" of forgiveness if one had to do something to EARN it....

It would be a "reward" perhaps, if we HAD to do something to receive it....but we have been told through Christianity that it was a "gift", and I believe that this is a key to Christianity.

And I believe because we are given such a wonderful "gift", that we in turn, repent out of joy, out of respect, out of love, for the giver of the "gift".

jd


...Her repentance would be verified by her 'not sinning anymore' - you're really twisting scripture to imply we don't have to repent to be forgiving.


Exactly. "Order of importance" is only an issue if one is looking for forgiveness without repentance and change.

Actually, I think that the woman in question would already have realized taht she was in the wrong while she was being dragged out to be stoned, and probably had shown penitence in her heart already. And, since Christ is omnipotent, He would have known that she was repentant. So in a sense, repentance did come first. Nevertheless, JohnDoe brings up the greatest point of all: God's forgiveness comes through faith, not by works, and is a free gift to anyone who believes.

[Hobbit]

I'm going to go with the following, though I don't have chapter and verse for all of them.

"Judge not, lest you yourself be judged." and "First, remove the plank from your own eye..."

These two are in the same chapter on the same subject, so I'm lumping them together. First off, there's a difference between judging a person and judging their actions. Christ forbade Christians from allowing sinfulness to go unchallenged, but reminds us to 1) remember that he loves all people, and that pointing out another's sinfulness should be done in a loving, rather than condemning fashion, and 2) remember that we should deal with our own issues before telling others to deal with theirs. Note that the verse goes on to say that you will be judged the way you judge others and also that once the plank is removed from your own eye, you are to help remove the speck from your brother's eye, not ignore it because you once had a plank in your own.

These two verses are often used by those who know they are doing wrong, but don't want to hear it. By claiming that judging their actions is the same as judging them, they all but claim they are two weak to give up those actions. Mostly, though, it's just a lame excuse.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Not quite the above, but still the same point. Christ was reminding those present that they were all sinful and that sin should be forgiven. He did not claim that what she did wasn't wrong, just that they should remember their own crimes before looking down on her so. Remember, the verse ended with 'go an sin no more.'

On a side note, it is worth mentioning that the man she adultered with wasn't there, in violation of the law.

"Wives, submit to your husbands."

If you quote this in an argument, you have lost. The previous verse says to submit to each other and the one after it says, 'Husbands, love your wives as I have loved the church."

"And your women shall keep silent in the churches."

Paul wrote this letter to a specific church. Women in the early church were quite liberated, but the ones in this church felt so liberated that they talked out of turn, such as during the sermon. This statement was to make sure the women behaved properly, not a gag order on all women as soon as they entered the building.

"It is done."

The closer translations is "It is accomplished." Jesus wasn't saying his life was over, but rather that he had accomplished his mission to save the world.

The entire book of Jonah.

You all know the story. Jonah was scared to go to Nineveh, so he fled, but was hit by a storm. In a moment of repentance, he had the crew throw him overboard, prayed forgiveness in the fish, then went back to do what he was told, right?

Wrong. While there's other stuff that's more in-depth, there's 3 things I'll point out here.
1) Jonah wanted to make the ship's crew murderers, to 'take them down with him.' Otherwise, why didn't he just jump overboard or tell them to turn around.
2) Cross-reference the verses of the prayer of Jonah. Every verse is a quote from a paragraph elsewhere in the Bible that basically says, "God, help me. I'm the only righteous man surrounded by evil pagans."
3) When Jonah preaches in Nineveh, he spends one day preaching, though the Bible calls it a 'three day trip,' and he doesn't leave until well after he's done preaching. He also preaches only destruction, leaving of the 'if' that repentance will save them.
Jonah was a douche bag.

"And on the sixth day..."

When an old guy says 'back in the day,' is he referring to a specific, 24-hour period? Probably not. I prefer to keep an open mind on the definition of 'day.'

"But the...witches, sorcerers, wizards,...shall all have a place in the lake of fire."

I don't know why people still use those terms in biblical translations. It only becomes ammo for fanatics. These three terms usually refer to people who deal drugs, make poisons, or craft 'charms,' not iconic fantasy characters who wave their hands to make lightning.

"He who adds or takes away from this work..."

Translations and musical renditions don't count. I know you're being cautious, but show a little common sense.

"All things work for good in those who love the Lord."

Yes, God turns bad things around, but that doesn't mean the bad thing was necessarily part of his grand scheme. Stop deflecting blame or claiming it wasn't really a mistake, just take comfort in the fact that God can use even your mistakes for good.

[PostmodernProphet]

all worthy candidates, Hobb....but I think April is still in first place for not only nominating a passage but giving first hand evidence of it's misuse......

[Hobbit]

all worthy candidates, Hobb....but I think April is still in first place for not only nominating a passage but giving first hand evidence of it's misuse......

Nah, April copy/pasted that and it's just a smartass critique of ancient Biblical law, taken out of context, to somehow 'prove' the invalidity of Christianity. His (her?) list would only count if a) people today actually used Leviticus as an excuse to take slaves and kill people or b) if the reasons shown for misquoting were as I stated above. All that stoning/slavery/whatever crap was overwritten and done away with in the teachings of Jesus. In fact, Christians led the charge both for abolition and for prisons as reformation rather than strictly punishment (didn't always work out, but the intent is right).

[PostmodernProphet]

April copy/pasted that and it's just a smartass critique of ancient Biblical law, taken out of context, to somehow 'prove' the invalidity of Christianity

exactly.....so how could anyone possibly score more points in a "misused scriptures" poll.......

[JohnDoe]

this comment from another thread inspired this one......

what are your nominations for most misused.....

I propose....Matthew 5, particularly selected verses which parallel this thought....

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"

These verses are often held up to Christians as standards to which they should strive.....when Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount, the purpose of these verses was to show the futility of trying to earn salvation by our own action, the very impossibility of compliance that some expect us now to reach if we are not "hypocrites"......

I agree and disagree. I do believe that it was said for the reasons mentioned above by you, but I ALSO believe that it was meant as an example of what we should strive for.... that Jesus was honest in those statements and truely believed we would be better off if we followed turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile with your adversary verses an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth type attitude.

jd

[JohnDoe]

hmmm, after rereading what you said, maybe we are on the same page with this PMP?

[PostmodernProphet]

hmmm, after rereading what you said, maybe we are on the same page with this PMP?

perhaps....I think what Christ was communicating was this..."so you think you can achieve righteousness through obedience?.....here is an example of the type of perfection required if you want to achieve righteousness.....still think you have what it takes?.....well, let's make it even harder....and harder....until you realize you can never achieve righteousness through obedience.....and then you will see how easily you can achieve righteousness through God's gift"......

the mistaken application turns this completely on it's head, with the concept that Christian's are somehow less than Christian if they have not achieved this type of obedience....the exact opposite of Jesus's lesson......

now, for the second half of your question.....should we strive for obedience to the law?....yes....it should be the foundation of our moral code, guiding our yes/no choices in life.....for a couple of years I taught ethics to young people based upon the Ten Commandments, how to make life choices based upon that foundation.....

[JohnDoe]

perhaps....I think what Christ was communicating was this..."so you think you can achieve righteousness through obedience?.....here is an example of the type of perfection required if you want to achieve righteousness.....still think you have what it takes?.....well, let's make it even harder....and harder....until you realize you can never achieve righteousness through obedience.....and then you will see how easily you can achieve righteousness through God's gift"......

the mistaken application turns this completely on it's head, with the concept that Christian's are somehow less than Christian if they have not achieved this type of obedience....the exact opposite of Jesus's lesson......

now, for the second half of your question.....should we strive for obedience to the law?....yes....it should be the foundation of our moral code, guiding our yes/no choices in life.....for a couple of years I taught ethics to young people based upon the Ten Commandments, how to make life choices based upon that foundation.....

I agree that we do not lose or gain our salvation on following what Jesus gave us as examples of perfectness, however....I do believe we should strive for such and his examples are not to be just thrown out or up in the air.

I don't think He was saying to NOT strive for them.... I don't think He was saying that they mean nothing.... I think they are insightful and they give us a better understanding of what being perfect or like Him would mean.

And if we do fail at achieving them, which is more than likely, it is not harmful to point this out as it seems you implied in your first post? But this in no way means that we are NOT Christians if we fail or fall short...as some would imply.

jd

[eighballsidepocket]

I got one that pervades a lot of Christian churches.

"By His Stripes, we are healed."
"By His scourging, we are healed."
"By His wounds, we are healed."

All three of these verses are from Isaiah 53:5, but are from three bible translations. All basically convey the same thing.

The problem is with the "we are healed" part with many Christians. Many preachers from the very zealous Pentacostal and Charismatic movements of the Christian church take this verse to mean, that if "you", Miss, Mrs, Mr, Christian just have enough faith, you can be sickness/disease-free.

Level-headed, bible theologians agree that the "healed" in the Isaiah context is in reference to "forgiven sins". It is true that some illnesses are a result of one holding in unforgiveness, or sin/s committed, and it's affects on mind, soul and body can be devastating.

Sadly, there are so many folks both Christian and non-Christian that die every day, all over the world from Cancer, and other terrible diseases/illnesses, and are basically being told that they just lack a measure of faith to overcome their condition and be healed.

It is true that Christ came and healed many during his earthly ministry, yet, His main purpose in the miracles was to solidify, and convince the Jews of His Messiahship as attested in the Old Testament. His works or miracles were the proofs of His divinity to a hardened, unbelieving people. As Isaiah said in Chapter 53, verse 5, it was by His/Jesus' suffering that we were healed, or made whole in our fallen sinful natures through faith. Never did Christ guarantee wholeness or perfection of our fleshly bodies in our lifetime on earth.

A man whom God considered righteous, Job, was afflicted a great deal in sickness and suffering, while exhibiting great faith in God. This goes contrary in the face of those Christians that expect bodily healing via increased faith in God.

There are indeed great miracles of healing, that God has allowed through medicine, and many scientific break-throughs in science.

My youngest son, who is a Medical/Research PHD Student is involved in a recent break through that can determine the percentage possiblities of a person acquiring lung cancer if they choose to smoke. He with the assistance of others has isolated certain genes, that determine whether a person, smoker or no, has a certain possiblity of getting Lung Cancer if they were too smoke. There has always been the mystery of the George Burns'es of the world that lived to 100 ripe old years, while smoking regularly, and didn't die of Cancer. Well, it's apparently to do with genes. Some folks can smoke like "choo choo" trains, and will not die from Cancer very easily, while some only have to sniff second-hand smoke and can get Cancer.

Anyway, God has blessed us humans with incredible minds to research these bains of human life, and develop cures, and preventatives. Many folks would not be alive today, if they had been born only a century ago and developed an affliction of some sort, but nowadays, medical science has found a way to cure or put into remission many maladies that were "death sentences" only short time ago.
******
Anyway, the above bible verse in my opinion, and many others has been totally taken out of context, or totally misunderstood, to the detrimental guilt and suffering of many of the Christian faith.

The Benny Hinns and Kenneth Copelands of the extemist Christian, healing movements will have much to answer for, before their Maker one day.

[avatar4321]

i thought of another misused bunch of scriptures: Anything that has to do with the Second coming.

[darin]

God's forgiveness comes through faith, not by works, and is a free gift to anyone who believes.

I believe JD would chastise you saying 'Believing is DOING something, therefore, it's wrong. We don't NEED to believe to get Forgiveness. Believing is a 'work'"

[gabosaurus]

I have learned on this board that being able to quote scripture doesn't mean you know how to interpret it, or practice it.

[Hobbit]

I have learned on this board that being able to quote scripture doesn't mean you know how to interpret it, or practice it.

You're a walking example in that, yes.

Wait, that discriminates against cripples. Oops, I mean 'the differently abled.' Well, I know you can type, so I guess that would make you a typing example of how quoting scripture doesn't mean you have any idea what it means.

[revelarts]

Did a search for another old thread and found this one...

yes
"Judge not, that ye not be judged. (Matthew 7:1 KJV)," and "First, remove the plank from your own eye..." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
"often misused to scold Christians for speaking out against sinfulness. "<quote abbby
<quote abby
That's set has got to be #1

"Wives, submit to your husbands."

"And your women shall keep silent in the churches."

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"


Are all good choices but I think I've heard "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ..." Exodus 21.24 misused more

It's often used (as various other Old Testament law is) to supposedly show that the Mosesiac law was to harsh or barbaric.
But if folks read the whole chapters or surrounding chapters they'd realize that the saying "eye for eye" is stetting forth the principal of "let the punishment fit the crime" it's NOT a RULE saying if an Eye gets gouged the victim gets to take the perpetrator's eye out.

Just before a few verses BEFORE the 1st mention of "eye for eye" in the Bible we read this:
18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed,
19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed."


That's Not exactly "eye for an eye" in the sense many seem to portray it.</quote></quote>

[KarlMarx]

I hope that I'm contributing something to this argument, i.e. which comes first repentence or forgiveness. I think it would have to be repentence first. The scripture that comes to mind is from 2 Chronicles 7:14...

"if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

Seems to me that in this passage that God requires us to repent first. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the argument, but that's my take on it.

Also. The story of the adultress who was about to be stoned. I have a theory. Yes, according to Mosaic law, an adulteress was supposed to be stoned, but on the testimony of two or more witnesses. The crowd of people did not provide the two witnesses. Second, and this is more important, during Roman times, only the Roman government had the power to kill people for breaking the law. I believe that the woman and the people who were about to stone may have been in on a trick to set up Jesus. If Jesus had consented to the stoning, then the Pharisees could make a case against Him and take him to the Romans because he advocated taking the law into your own hands. However, Jesus was too clever for them and said "let he who is without sin...". I believe that Jesus was forgiving the woman for trying to trick him rather than adultery. Again, it's just my theory.

[avatar4321]

Wow... I was reading through the thread and I actually remember posting some of this stuff despite it being four years ago.

I thought of another one:


18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19)


This is often misused to argue that God is silent, that he has no more to say, and that everything God has ever said is in the Bible. It's a very popular verse to quote. The problems with that interpretation:

1) "This book" doesn't refer to the Bible, but to the Book of Revelation. For some reason people seem to forget that the Holy Bible isn't one book but actually a collection of books and epistles. The Bible as we know it really didn't come about for hundreds of years, the current version and order coming about during the Reformation period when the Bible was first being given to the people.

2) There is reason to believe that Revelation wasn't the last book written of the New Testament. Jude, John's Epistles, and some even say the Gospel of John was written after he wrote Revelation. Revelation was put at the end of the collection for several reasons. The unique nature of the book talking about the end times. And also the passage I just quoted. Those who compiled the Bible in it's ultimate version wanted people to think that "this book" that John spoke of was the Bible. It bolstered Protestant claims that the Bible alone is the only authority from God. And while that is a common belief nowadays, it was not at the beginning of the Reformation. In fact, the claim of the Reformers that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority was quite a radical claim for the time. If we were to interpret the verses as they are frequently interpreted, we would have to conclude that John condemned himself to hell by writing his Epistles and Gospel.

3) The verses specifically apply to man adding or taking away. It says nothing about God's own right to do so. I don't know about anyone else. But I belive that God has the right to say whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants. I dont think those verses prevent Him from doing so like some do. Nor do I think that if for some reason He wanted to eliminate portions of the Bible that He would be unable to take scripture away from us. The Bible mentions many books that were inspired of God. Take the Book of Enoch. It was taken away from the knowledge of the world in general for thousands of years. And unfortunately, the copies we have found in the past 200 years are of questionable reliablity when it comes to accuracy. So we don't know if what we have found gives an accurate picture of what the Book of Enoch actually said.

Interestingly enough, more than just the Book of Enoch has been found. There are many books that claim divine inspiration that have been found. The texts found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, were lost to man for thousands of years. God has seen fit to reveal them more recently to help us have a better understanding of the context from which the Bible we do have came from. I think there may be many more that God can and will reveal to us when He is ready to reveal it or when we are ready to recieve it. As the Gospel of John says:


"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25)

I believe that's true. And I think that's one of the main reasons I can't accept the common interpretation of those verses. I sincerely hope God will never stop revealing to us more about His Son. He has done so till now, I don't see why He would suddenly change. Because I want to know as much about what my Savior has done as humanly possible. I would hope that others who follow Christ would feel the same.

Though, not on topic of misused scriptures, some may ask how we are to know what's of God if it's not found in the Bible. That is why the Lord has provided His disciples with the opportunity to recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Because the Spirit of the Lord can teach us all things that are true. He can and will help us discern between truth and fiction and between what is from Him and what is from another source. That is why I would suggest to anyone who follows Christ, if you have not recieved the Holy Ghost, seek Him out.

I didn't expect that to be so long. But when I feel like I should say things, I do. Those verses came to me. I'm sure given time Ill think of some more if I see this thread.

[eighballsidepocket]

By His stripes we were/are healed. Isaiah 53:4-5

Pentacostals, and many Charismatics take this verse to mean that you can be healed of any disease known to mankind.

His "stripes" represent the physical punishment that was ours, but He/Jesus took them in our place as the Lamb of God. We can take it even further.
The "stripes" or injury is our total punishment exacted on Him/Jesus in our stead.

So many of these false teachers like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Tilton, claim that total physical healing of a human being is availed to us
if we just had enough faith. Then they apply the old "By His Stripes we were/are healed" verse.

In actuality, the Christian faith entails much discomfort along with much satisfaction or that peace that passeth understanding. Christians die of cancer, Lupus, MS, you name.
Joni Erickson Tada, who is a well known Christian vocalist, writer, etc.. became a quadraplegic in her teen years as a Christian. She has encouraged, and built up the faith
of countless Christians through her enduring faith is God, even though she is as physically crippled now as when she first was.

Even the Apostle Paul had a "Thorn in his flesh" that he petitioned God on many occasions through prayer to remove, but God did not. Was Paul's faith weaker than Benny Hinn's, Kenneth Copeland's, or Robert Tilton's. I doubt not! .............In fact Paul actually finishes his discourse by "thanking" God for this thorn in his flesh, and claiming that when he/Paul was made weak by it, God became stronger in him/Paul.

No Christian wished to be crippled or ill with a death-dooming illness, but God in His sovereignty allows "things to happen" in our lives, for both our benefit, and His glory. The unsaved/non-Christian world cannot fathom this concept.

I do not say this lightly, as many people both on this forum and elsewhere have endured terrible loss, baffling illness, etc... Faith seems to grow as a result of "trials" in one's life. From one end of the bible to the other this seems to be the case. Job endured so much yet in the end God still guarded over him, and also restored him.

[LuvRPgrl]

Doesn't "cast the first stone" apply here?

To make a long response short:
NO.