Ok good. So in Paul’s day, there were those that held that resurrection had already happened. Within that historical context, that would be an example of someone improperly handling the word of truth. But in order for the text to be relevant and living today, it needs to be recontextualized.

Was not Paul effectively splitting the “believers” into two camps—those believing the resurrection had already happened and those who did not—and telling Timothy to take his stand in one of those camps?

Are you, Jacob, saying that there is no “proper” understanding of scripture? So if Yarnell in his paper wrote “an understanding of scripture that is not supported by extra-biblical appeals” would that be better than writing “proper understanding of scripture?”