Apparantly so, they can't both be right.

Yes, it is. The problem comes when someone wants to make a point across like "God teaches to kill our kids." And they take a verse out of the Bible about how someone stoned a kid. But they don't give the reason of why that happened. But some other things don't even have a context because they are just statements of what to do and what not to do. But also understand that there might always be someone that will still tell you that you took it out of context. Everything comes down to who can support their answer with the Bible and not with interpretations like "This is what it actually meant etc..." A lot of people like to change the Bible for their own convenience.

It is very difficult to interpret the bible in the same way early Christians and non-Christians would have, considering the fact that it has been translated and mistranslated many times, and the Old and New Testament cultures were very different from our own. I think the best way to look at the Bible in a clear a context as possible is to look at it through the eyes of someone who lived during that time.

In a disagreement about what the bible says about any one subject, I don't think it's so much "taken out of context" (because this assumes that someone has the absolute knowledge of what was actually meant by the ambiguous wording of the bible in the first place), as it is, a differing interpretation. Very little in that book is cut and dried. At least that is the conclusion I have drawn from the constant fussing over who thinks they understand god's intentions best. Unless and until we can speak to the original author we have to assume that any conclusion that a person makes is their interpretation of the words within or the interpretation of the religious/spiritual leader they choose to follow.

As with any piece of fiction, everyone is entitled to their own interpretations. Ultimately one cannot take out of context, nor prove what is not defined or proven by the context without confirmation by it's creator(s). So there will always be debate on many levels because nothing in the bible has been confirmed by it's author(s).

Clearly both of them are familiar with the Bible. Generally when something is taken out of context the meaning is changed because what comes before and after will clarify/expand upon what has been said. That's why people "cherry pick" their words...purposely and purposefully slanting/skewing the meaning. :)

1) It could sometimes be difficult to clear whether one of the two debating parties is quoting out of context or whether they have just differing interpretations of the text. Normally, the context is made clearer if you quote a few more of the preceding and following verses. 2) "The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position." "Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

the bible is always open to inerpretation...one verse can mean something one day and rub you totally different the next week...that is the beauty and complexity of its teachings

The entire Bible is taken out of context if you believe in a supreme being. It is based on the movement of the earth with relation to the sun and stars. Ever notice the cirle with a cross in it behind Jesus' head in the old paintings of him? That cross through the circle is short hand for the signs of the zodiac. Human beings back when the Bible was written were just as fallible and gullible as they are today, perhaps even more so. So what evidence is there that the events in the Bible took place? None. Therefore the stories are left to the person doing the interpreting. The Bible would be much more correct and much more effective in society today if there was just one sentence on the first and only page: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

From what I've found anytime someone uses scripture to back up an argument it's usually because they have a very weak argument. Scripture is open to interpretation and they hope that by using a vague passage they can mold it to make the other person believe what they want it to mean. It sort of reminds me of that episode of Married With Children where Al Bundy is trying to make the shoe fit the fat woman's foot. Rather than look for a shoe that actually fits she wants him to stretch and squeeze it until it finally goes on.

Matthew Chapter 4 shows this distinction : Satan tempts Jesus, supporting his arguments with verses from the Bible. Then Jesus responds with verses from the Bible to refute Satan. As Jesus is perfect - in this case He did not need to even put the verses into context. He just took the verses : It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God' It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test' Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only' So what might this mean? That there may be times when no context is required : the verses stand on their own. It is also not possible to take it out of context if the context is explained, and shown it can be similar to the argument being made. However certain difficult matters, such as abortion, homosexual activity, women priests, transubstantiation, the role of the Pope, the Virgin Mary, etc etc have clearly been areas where within and between denominations there is still disagreement. Paul warned us of this, through his letters to the Corinthians : 1 Cor v 10 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." And so we always need to seek to be united.

Which bible though? Not every bible out there is as complete as others would have you believe. I would say, that the Entire bible is out of context. Considering how many Christian sects there are. Which one is right?

This was written in Hebrew over 3000 years ago with out chapters verses or punctuation. The translation to english is a hinderance. Now as to context. The greatest mistake ever made was to break the bible down into chapters and verses. I found a bible that is formatted with the chapter and verse numbers located in the margins printed in much smaller fonts so that they don't interfere with the context. "The New English Bible" It was a whole new bible reading experience. Generally speaking I found that the context of one verse depends on what occurs in the chapter before the verse and the chapter after it. An example is the eye for an eye thing. I had never noticed that the eye for eye business comes at quite a consequence to the person who decides to take advantage of it but more than that the whole eye for eye, tooth for tooth is an analogy.

Sometimes I wonder if the chapter and verse numbers were designed to allow it to be better taken out of context.