A lesson that must be repeated so often that it has become a cliché is that you must read the Bible (and indeed any written work) in context. Context is a very important thing to consider. You can make the Bible sing any song you want if you read it out of context, but there is only one correct meaning. When you present it without that meaning, you're doing something wrong.
The real struggle with this is that if you learn a new verse during the course of apologetics, whether you have heard it used to oppose your view, or have been told it supports it, it becomes very difficult to understand that verse in context. There are so many verses in the Bible that apologists, both good and bad, take out of context, that if you were to remove those verses from the Bible, you would not be able to fill 50 chapters. These verses are usually so far removed that an "unbiased" reader (for lack of better term) who read these verses would never draw this conclusion if they came across the verse while reading the passage in private study instead of in the context of apologetics.
Now of course, to be truly unbiased is completely impossible. Regardless of exactly what your background is, the fact is you have that background. Even the people who taught you how to read will inevitably affect how you see the world, and as a result, how you read the Bible. They may even affect which translation you prefer, which in turn may affect your ability to recall certain verses. You see, then, how a total lack of bias is, unfortunately, impossible.
However, it is possible to approach with a relative lack of bias. If you have not heard of a religion, or have done minimal study on it before you study the Bible, you will be naturally more resistant to their so-called "proof texts". A proof text is a verse that is used in support of a particular doctrine or view. A good example I could give is Exodus 20:11. Exodus 20:11 is a proof text because, for those who believe the Lord created everything in 6 days, it explicitly says the Lord created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them in 6 days. Thus, it proves the traditional Creationist position.
This "proof text", however, avoids the problem we are discussing today simply because it is the natural interpretation of this verse. On its own, it is sufficient to establish the relevant point, and indeed, the view being discussed is actually the foundation for a greater doctrine: The Sabbath. God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th, therefore the Jews were to work for 6 days and rest on the 7th. In the broader context, the rest of the Bible likewise testifies to the historical nature of Genesis, with Genesis itself naturally leading to the Creationist viewpoint. Old Earth Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, and their allies, all admit that this is what the Bible literally says. By contrast, no one has ever read the Bible and naturally come to the conclusion that the days are allegorical, and there was actually some big explosion about 20 billion years ago that created the heavens and the earth, on which life then spontaneously arose and evolved for 4 billion years until humans appeared. It's just not a natural interpretation; it is motivated by bias towards pseudoscientific origins stories which saturate our culture. Put simply, the interpretation precedes its alternatives.
But then you compare that to Ezekiel 37:16-19. Let's just read it briefly, and I'm going to hope at least some members of my audience are unaware of what I will say next: "As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: ‘For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.’ Then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.’ Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand. “And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?’— say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.”"
Now, I copied that from the NKJV, but if you have a preferred Bible translation (bonus points if it's not English), read it in that version too. Consider the meaning. When you have done that, come back to this article. I will even place a divider below this paragraph so you can return to it later if need be.
The reason I cited the passage above is because it is a "proof text" for Mormonism. Mormons claim to believe the Bible, but on top of this, they have three other books they call scripture: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Mormonism traces its origins back to a single alleged prophet, Joseph Smith, who is claimed to have prayed to find out which Christian denomination is true, leading to a visit from God and Jesus themselves, who informed him that all Christianity is corrupt. There was a Great Apostasy at the end of the Apostolic age, and Joseph Smith was the man chosen to restore the Gospel. He was shown by the Angel, Moroni, where to find an ancient book that had been engraved on golden plates and buried. Smith was allegedly given the ability to translate this book, which remains to this day the cornerstone of the Mormon religion. It is, according to Smith himself, the most correct book on earth, and man can get closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.
You see, then, the importance of the Book of Mormon in the Mormon religion. If they can establish its legitimacy, Mormonism is true, and we should all become Mormons. If, by contrast, the Book of Mormon is just the writings of a 19th century heretic, Mormons need to immediately repent, lest they themselves join him in the lake of fire.
A favorite proof text for Mormons is Ezekiel 37:16-19. Is this a good proof text? You tell me. You just read it! Those unfamiliar with Mormonism, did you start wondering if perhaps there is a book to be revealed alongside the Bible? Those of you who were familiar with Mormonism, but not this particular argument, did you think I was going to bring up Mormonism before I mentioned it? For those of you who were familiar with the argument, has there ever been a point when you thought it was decent? Unless I have a Mormon reader, I'm going to assume no one said yes.
But on the off chance that there's an ex-Mormon reading this, what did you think when you were first presented this verse? So effective is this proof text that LDS.org, the official website of the LDS Church, says of it "A prophetic reference to the Book of Mormon as a record of one portion of the tribe of Ephraim that was led from Jerusalem to America about 600 B.C. When joined with the stick of Judah (the Bible), the two records form a unified, complementary testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, His resurrection from the grave, and His divine work among these two segments of the house of Israel. See JST Gen. 50:24–26, 31 (Appendix); Ezek. 37:15–19; 2 Ne. 3; 29; D&C 27:5." (And for those of you wondering, yes, Doctrines and Covenants 27:5 genuinely does claim that the Stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon, meaning this argument has existed since 1835, and is canonical Mormon doctrine). This prevents Mormons from seeing it any other way, along with any lesser discerning people who hear the non-contextual reading before the contextual reading.
Mormonism is not the only religion that does this. Neither is it the most problematic. It is my opinion that the Catholic Church, which has been historically quite adept at twisting Scripture, is due that title without contest. Whereas Mormons tend to have relatively weak proof texts that don't really have an effect on the discerning mind, Catholicism is more than capable of selecting verses which are already quite hard to understand, but then making them nigh impossible. As I have already named them (and indeed, there is a much lower chance of reaching audience members who aren't at least somewhat familiar with them), I cannot do what I just did with the Mormons in the same way, but needless to say, the Catholic Church is notorious for, shall we say, "reading between the lines".
An excellent example is John 16:12. Just as you did before, I want you to pick up your Bible and read that verse, but this time, I want you to do something different. I want you to apply what is called the 20/20 rule: Read 20 verses before (John 15:20, or if you'd like, go back to verse 18 where the heading is generally placed) and 20 verses after (John 16:32, though in this case you might as well go to 33 where the chapter ends). Do not think in regards to Catholicism yet. Just try to understand what the passage is saying. When you come to verse 12, don't even consider it significant, just read it as you would if you'd randomly decided "I think I'll read John's Gospel today". Ignore Catholicism, ignore Mormonism, forget about Bible Brain, just read the passage. Once again, I will add a divider below this paragraph so you can easily come back to it.
Now that you've done that, you probably understand the context of the verse in question. In fact, I have little doubt that every single Christian will be fully equipped at this particular moment to refute the argument I am about to tell you about. But, I am not going to tell you what it is just yet. If you have never heard a Catholic apologist mention John 16:12, I want you to try to guess what it is Catholics might say about this verse that supports their position. If you're familiar with the Catholic argument, sorry for wasting your time with this paragraph.
The argument Catholics make regarding John 16:12 is that Jesus Himself allegedly says the Bible is not enough. The sufficiency of Scripture (a.k.a. Sola Scriptura), of course, is a doctrine vehemently denied by the Catholic Church, and for good reason. If the Bible contains all things regarding faith and the manner of life, then all the crazy stuff the Catholic Church has added over the centuries (the Papacy, Purgatory, veneration of the saints etc.) is invalid, and by extension, the Catholic Church is false. But if the Bible isn't enough, there's a gap in the spiritual market the Catholic Church is all too eager to fill. Therefore, any verse that allows the Catholic Church to say the Bible isn't enough is one worth highlighting.
However, what I'm sure most of you noticed just one verse later is that Jesus identifies the solution to what the Disciples could not yet bear: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."
What Catholic apologists won't tell you is that at this point, Jesus hadn't even been crucified, or even betrayed by Judas yet. One of Jesus' teachings they could not yet bear was the resurrection itself! He had told some of them at the Transfiguration that they should tell no one about what they saw until He rose from the dead, and they started discussing what He meant when He said that (Mark 9:9-10). It wasn't until He rose from the dead that they finally realised He meant He was going to rise from the dead (and in fact, if I wanted to extend this article, I could go off on a tangent about how even the disciples' bias prevented them from understanding Jesus' clearest teachings).
So, clearly, Jesus wasn't saying it takes more than the Bible (which had not even been finished yet) for the man of God to be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. Rather, He was saying that the disciples (who are long dead by this point) were not yet ready to bear the fullness of His teachings, and so what inevitably needed to happen is, first, Jesus would finish His mission on the Earth, then after He had ascended, the Holy Spirit needed to come and teach the disciples what they needed to teach the Church. Needless to say, that actually included the inspiration of the Scriptures. But in Jude 1:3, Jude tells us under inspiration of the same Holy Spirit that the faith "was once for all delivered to the saints." In other words, the things Jesus had not taught the disciples because they could not yet bear it in John 16:12, the Holy Spirit had taught them, as it was promised He would do, and they themselves had proclaimed it openly to the Church. The only question that remains is where are those teachings, and the answer, of course, is in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Ordinarily, I would give a trio of examples to establish my point, but as this has been a particularly "interactive" article, and both examples involve a significantly lengthy refutation, I will instead settle on two and return to my main point. You see how not only do most proof texts go beyond the natural interpretation, but also serve to cloud it. Once you have been presented with an out of context reading, that then becomes your natural bias. The exceptions are if the out of context reading is particularly obvious, or if the hearer is particularly gifted with discernment. I myself have noticed that my prior experience with a verse affects how I interpret it (and this is an important lesson for all God's people). The good thing, however, is that we are talking about stumbling blocks here, not mountains.
See, there is a difference between reading and studying. Reading the Bible is easy. Studying it, however, involves faithfully seeking the correct understanding. A key question to ask yourself is "if I did not have this bias, would I read this verse this way?" If I wasn't previously exposed to Evolution, would I think 2 Peter 3:8 proves the days in Genesis are figurative and represent long eras? No, 2 Peter 3 as a whole addresses how God is patient with unbelievers, hence why He's taking so long to come back. If I wasn't in such a Liberal society, would I take Matthew 7:1 to mean it's immoral to call sin sin? No, it's speaking against hypocritical judgement before telling us the correct process to judge each other with a sober mind. If I wasn't a Muslim, would I take John 14:28 to mean Jesus is not God? No, it's talking about how Jesus would soon be returning to His prior glory, putting an end to the 30 year stretch He served here on Earth for the sake of His people.
We all have biases we need to overcome, and if our study habits are sloppy, overcoming them will be harder and harder. The solution is a proper work ethic. This is why the Bible tells us "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). That word there is spoudazo (σπουδάζω), and it carries with it connotations of great effort. The KJV renders it as "study".
When you enter any class, you will likely have preconceptions. As a law student, I remember specifically being surprised at just how little I understood the law. Assault, for example, is commonly understood to mean a physical attack, like a punch or a kick. In reality, at least in British law, assault simply means to put one's victim "in fear of immediate violence". An assault does not require physical contact. You can assault someone by raising your fist as if you were going to strike them. When physical contact is made, the crime becomes assault and battery.
Now, the temptation is to maintain one's biases. As the saying goes, "a man convinced against his will is of his old opinion still". We can actually couple this with the saying "old habits (or in this case, beliefs) die hard". Even if you are willing to be convinced, the corpse of your original opinion may continue to fester and rot in the back of your mind for as long as you live. To this day, my prior misconception on the concept of assault feels strange to teach. As I write this article, I feel as if an invisible audience is giving me funny looks. Not that I mind, as I am funny looking, but the point is, the feeling is there. Yet, just because my previous beliefs refuse to die does not mean I have to give them the time of day. The same is true with the Bible. Previous misconceptions can be overcome with study, and while you may still retain fragments of your old religion (or, if you're a Christian, just fragments of your previous beliefs), you can set them aside in favor of what you know. Indeed, you must.
There are two main messages I want you to take away from this article. The first is that nobody, not even you, are free from bias. It is entirely possible that even right now, you are reading a verse in a way you have been lead to, not in the way the Lord intends. Therefore, the first takeaway is to study. If you are an unbeliever/heretic, don't allow your bias to separate you from God. He has chosen to communicate His will to us through a book, and when faithfully studied with the help of the Holy Spirit, it tells us how to be saved. If you are saved, do not allow your bias to hinder your walk with God.
The second takeaway is that if these biases have already hit you, and you have overcome them, pay no mind to them. The devil may occasionally use them as flower pots in which to grow his seeds of doubt, but the Lord has given us some very wonderful gifts, including the intellect. If your heart lies, your head can tell you the truth, and the Holy Spirit is more than pleased to help you choose which to listen to.