[Archaea]

In the rhetorical give and take, when speakers discuss a particular religious topic, it seems that distortion is frequently the key precisely because we rely upon "proof texts".

The prime example of a falacious proof text is 1 John 5:7-8 and the Johannine Comma. For those who don't speak German, Johannine, simply means, of John. Trinitarians are wont to rely upon this fraudulently procured "greek byzantine or western text" as proof of the validity of a spurious doctrine.

Much of our discussion in this forum seems revolve around proof texts. BY said this and here is the key verbiage, hence I'm right and anybody who disagrees disagrees with the prophet of God and therefore disagrees with God himself.

IOW, most of argumentation revolves around proof texts, instead of the scholarly approach of consensus analysis, addressing majority and minority opinions on texts and observations. Now majority opinions can be influenced by a sufficiently powerful enough authority, such as Brigham Young regarding his policy on blacks and the priesthood. Such authority can generate a "majority" of opinions even if the majority opinion is wrong.

In higher and lower criticisms, we see that when it is believed the Byzantine texts, more prolific but newer, disagree with Alexandrian texts, frequently older and thought to be more authentic. I'd need to go back to search for a specific example.

Does anybody agree that much of our disagreement and discussion arises from a tendency to use too frequently proof texts?