Featured Commonly misquoted bible verses

We said the same thing just differently although I like your much clearer version better.

 

Jordan, I have been thinking back over your original question, as well as some of our comments and want to share the following thoughts about quoting and misquoting scripture. There are some distinctions that need to be made to help us better understand the phenomenon.

First, we need to consider the context of the quoting – whether direct quotes of Scripture are actually intended, or whether the person is just making a reference or allusion to Scripture. If they claim to be quoting Scripture, then that settles it. However, we often refer to Scripture without intending or claiming to be directly quoting. This is acceptable, as long as we have not changed it in a way that changes the meaning. The New Testament writers often reference Old Testament Scripture without quoting it. Sometimes we make “stabs” at quoting Scripture! I most often do that when preaching and memory fails me. I usually back up and say “let’s read that so I can get it right.”

There are of course misquotes, which seem to fall into at least three categories: (1) misquotes that change the meaning of the text, (2) misquotes that retain the meaning of the text, and (3) misquotes that may either change or retain the meaning of the text based on the context in which it is quoted. The first is a quote like “Money is the root…” versus “The love of money is the root…” which mean two different things. “Pride goes before a fall” is a truncated quote of Proverbs 16:18 (“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”) but retains the basic meaning of the text while getting the wording wrong. “To live is Christ, and to die is gain” is not a universally applicable statement. To quote it as a universal truth is incorrect (it is not applicable to the lost), but when stated that way in context of truth for Christians, it doesn’t introduce an unscriptural teaching.

Chimney quotes or “Chimney Corner Scripture” are misquotes only in the sense that the person believes the statement he or she is making is found in Scripture – when in fact it isn’t Scripture at all. If you quote “God helps those that help themselves,” you may be correctly quoting Benjamin Franklin, but “misquoting” the Bible. Same goes for “Cleanliness is next to Godliness” (John Wesley), “Spare the rod and spoil the child” (Samuel Butler), and “God moves in a mysterious way” (William Cowper). Chimney quotes often may distill some biblical concepts into pithy statements. Nevertheless, the authority of Scripture should not be assigned to them.

Misdirects might be used to label verses that are quoted correctly (as far as the wording is concerned), but quoted in a context that misapplies the meaning. “Judge not, that ye be not judged” is possibly the most often correctly-quoted incorrectly-applied Scripture in existence! Saints and sinners seem to stand abreast with the “judge not” sword sheathed and set for slicing action.

All misquotations of Scripture do not fall into the same category, and can be of different kinds and degrees. Some retain the meaning and message of Scripture while not rising to the level of an accurate quote. Others misapply and misdirect Scripture and have negative results.

 

What's the difference?

 

service not salvation

 

So the part about raising people up on the last day, that's about service, too?

I can see an argument about drawing, or our proper response to drawing, but I can't see where that verse doesn't speak on salvation/eternal consequences.

 

You are correct thanks for pointing that out I should have and meant to put Romans 9:12-13. I was looking at a number of verses and was not paying attention to what I did.

 

One of the most misquoted verses is from Leviticus 19:18.

It is often quoted, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." What it really says is "Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

"R mitchell,

It is a contrast between the unsaved natural man, as opposed to the man indwelt by the Spirit.
Anyone who does not see this is walking into error, full speed ahead.

A completely false, anti biblical statement

Because that is what it is talking about.

 

InTheLight

A falsehood in contrast to what the passage teaches.. It gets offered because some would like to oppose truth at all costs.

 

And the blood sport begins

 

So these verses are NOT about the deeper things of God? These verses allude to the unsaved person not being able to understand the Gospel. Is that it?

6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature...
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

Puh-leeze.

 

For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

0 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

So are you are suggesting the unsaved have the Spirit of God?

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You and your friend have no understanding here on this passage.

 

He heard Leighton flowers say this...He cannot explain it.

 

It began when you attempted to misuse the two passages

 

I have no idea where you get that from. Anyway, it's a #4.

#5



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

InTheLight,

I know...it was from scripture

Well it might be 4-5, but you ignore scripture here....


14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
You rm and van say he can

for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


again you say the natural man can, as scripture says neither can he know them, I will go with scripture on this.

 

I meant I don't know where you get the idea that I'm suggesting the unsaved have the Holy Spirit.

That is a strawman argument, which is #4 on my list of repetitive, lame, faulty arguments that Calvinists use.

You said:

This is #5 on my list of repetitive, lame, faulty arguments that Calvinists use, namely, people are too dumb to understand the doctrines of grace.

On the contrary. Chapter 2 of 1 Corinthians is about the deeper things of God that mature Christians long to know and understand. They can only know this by the discernment of the Holy Spirit. The natural man cannot know these things of the Holy Spirit.

Strawman, #4, again.

No, I say the natural man cannot understand the deep things of God, but he can understand the Gospel. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The Gospel is not a deep thing of God that needs voluminous spiritual discernment, it can be understood.

 

Would you give a couple of examples?

 

I cor 2 speaks of all the things of God, even the deep things...
It is not divided. In Eph1 God reveals His predestined plan, in the same letter as He also speaks to children.
Also you suggest the unsaved can understand spiritual things, without the Spirit?
That is what the whole chapter is contrasting.
That is where we get the idea. You missed the passage by putting your ideas in and confusing yourself with your bogus number system.