Context

A Christian Apologist accuses me of quoting Scripture out of context, specifically... the "selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning."

Not for the first time, this particular Apologist reads the definition of an informal fallacy and gets it wrong. Note the key requirement here is to "distort the source's intended meaning".  But who is to say what the "intended meaning" is of a verse in the Bible (or Quran or any Scripture)?  The answer of course it that it is Christian, Jewish or Muslim Apologists who provide the so-called "intended meaning" (and often in disagreement with each other). They will never know for sure what the intended meaning was if it's different to what is written.  

Another point that the Apologist failed to grasp was that I didn't provide any meaning (intended or otherwise) - I merely quoted Bible verses as written.  I think the Bible should be able to speak for itself, otherwise it provides no kind of reference.  The apologist went on to give three puzzling examples of what he considers to be me to be quoting the Bible out of context...

Example 1
"Don't look at the wine while it is red." - Proverbs 23:31

I provided no indication of what I may have thought was the intended meaning, so it can't possibly be out of context.  As it happens, I think that's a sensible warning about the dangers of alcohol, and I'm fairly sure most Apologists would agree with me. So I provided no contradiction to the "intended meaning" and it seems all sides agree on the "intended meaning". So how is that out of context?

Example 2
"Don't say 'You fool'" - Matthew 5:22

Again, I provided no indication of what I considered the meaning to be, so it can't possibly be out of context. As it happens, I think this is sound advice. The text goes on to say that "anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell"   which I think is a bit far fetched, but that doesn't change the meaning of the words I quoted, and it still makes sense even if the hypothetical punishment is a myth. Again, as far as I can tell the Apologist agrees with me on the "intended meaning". So again, how is that out of context?

Example 3
"Don't resist an evil person" - Matthew 5:39

In this example I once again provided no suggestion of what the "intended meaning" might be. I think it's obvious.   I think this is not just a sound message but profound message, that speaks for itself. Of course it is reinforced by further verses in the Beatitudes, but they don't change its meaning. And yet again, I'm fairly sure the Apologist and I agree on the meaning of this message, so how is it out of context?

Example 4

I stated that there was interesting advice in 1 Timothy 1:4 - Ignore fables and endless genealogies.  I added that there are plenty of fables and endless genealogies in the Bible.  The Apologist thinks this is out of context quotes several additional verses which follow. But this does not change the meaning of what I said, and I'm happy to include the extra text...

"Instruct people not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith." To which I still add my opinion... Plenty of myths and endless genealogies in the Bible! I generally agree with this opinion, although studying myths can be intellectually stimulating. 

Example 5

I stated that according to 1 Timothy 1:10, homosexuals are comparable to murderers. The apologist argues this is out of context and says that "Timothy does not equate homosexuality with murder".  Ironically the Apologist has changed the meaning of what I said by substituting my word:  "equate" with his word: "comparable".  

Anyway, let's assume that was a genuine mistake and look at the whole text to test the meaning of my original statement: According to the Apologist,  Verses 2-11 say...

"...the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 

The meaning of the text I quoted remains unchanged and if anything the additional text has made it worse! We are given a list of things which are contrary to the teaching of the gospel of God. Those things include murder, homosexuality, fornication, slave trading, patricide, and more. Those things - according to the text - are all in the same category - they are all against the law and against the teaching of God. 

Example 6

I stated that according to Matthew 6:6 we should not say our prayers in public but rather go into a room, shut the door, and pray to God in secret. The Apologist states that this has been taken out of context and provides additional text...
"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

However, he cannot explain how the additional text changes the meaning. The verse clearly says that whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. It's interesting to note that your Father who sees you in secret will reward you - but that doesn't change the meaning of the instruction to go to your room. Various versions of the Bible say the same thing...

New Living Translation
But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

NET Bible
But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you

Changing the Context

Another common strategy for apologists when faced with what appears to be absurd or morally wrong statements in the Bible is to change the context. Two classic methods are:

Find another verse which contradicts the verse they can't defend, and assume the other verse is the "intended meaning". I don't think I need to explain the flaw with that method.

Use the "Bronze Age" context. Typically this requires the Apologist to argue that the verses quoted made sense 3000 years ago, but now we know better and/or our culture is different. That makes sense if we assume people wrote the text, but the Apologist also maintains that the words come from God and God's understanding was infinite 3000 years ago and is infinite today.

Sometimes the Apologist will refer to "the writers" of the Bible. My point is those instructions come from God. So the Apologist can't say God didn't know how to cook pork safely or didn't understand homosexuality or whatever.

My perspective is that it's unlikely God exists, so all of the Bible is probably man made. I judge a commandment according to humanitarian principles. But if the Apologist believes the commandments in the Bible come from God then he or she can't pick and choose the ones that suit them and ignore the rest. But of course, that's exactly what Christians do. IF the context doesn't work, they change the context.