The  Inductive reasoning issue in Bible scholarship.

   When the plain context of a chapter is obvious, seek no other
context. Seek no other verses to amplify or explain the text. Even the
most faithful of KJV dispensational Bible teachers often make this
mistake.

   This is one reason apostacy and private interpretations abound in these days.

Yes, I know you want examples you may well want to argue about J>

   One obvious example is the basic context of the book of Revelation.
In this book, God brings about a series of  judgments upon the Earth.
In His mercy, God begins with limited judgment of seals, each slightly
 worse that the previous one. Then He gives grace for a while (in one
chapter) before he brings a series of Trumpet judgments each bringing
a bit more severe judgment. Then. In His mercy He gives A brief pause
in one chapter before pouring out the ultimate dreadful vial or bowls
judgments.

   That said, however, there are teachers, including my former very
fundamental pastor, who bring in other verses to change Revelations
context.  This teaching says that the seal, trumpet, and bowl
judgments all happen at the same time! And they won’t hear any
objection. And yes, calling the chapters between these three judgments
“parenthetical chapters.”

   One other very controversial subject is in the 40/41st chapter of
Job whose context is talking about an animal everyone often saw
swimming around in their neighborhood swamp. A big lizard, dinosaur
with armored scales, a huge long tail and you should not try to eat
it. It will get mad if you do! Obvious context!

   However, most fundamental pastors drag into the chapter scenes of
the sea around God’s throne as well as descriptions of Satan, and
insist this dragon is Satan! Totally changing the chapter’s context.

   Now, it’s possible to say this dragon is a type or shadow of Satan,
maybe at some future time, but not in the prophet’s day.

A very deliberate misuse of inducting reasoning, down the slippery
slide into misleading scholarship.

Lewis