What is the English word which means using Biblical quotations to prove an argument?

The term is "proof-texting" or "proof texting."  Below are several
examples -- written by people from a wide variety of theological
perspectives -- of where the term is used.  "Proof-texting" is usually
used as a derogatory term, but as you can see, there are some people
who defend it.

A Look at Proof-Texting
"What is 'proof-texting?' It is the way by which one states an
argument or point from the scriptures, then uses the text to back up
his position. If the position is sound, it will be clearly and
satisfactorily proven. If not, then there will be no (or insufficient)
proof! 'Proof-texting,' like anything, can be abused! But, if used
correctly, it is a valuable and essential tool for understanding the
Bible and discovering truth!
http://www.eastcorinth.org/stop198.htm

Ten Propositions Concerning War
"There is much more than we have time to explore, but I do offer
these, not as proof texts but as examples to show that the Bible does
say what I'm seeking to set forth to you. I deplore the practice of
proof-texting. It is very easy to fall into a setting forth of a
statement or belief and then quoting a few verses to leave the
impression that this is what the whole Bible teaches. It may be that
the Bible does say what is claimed, but it may not be all the Bible
says about the subject."
http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/misc/war.html

Anti-Gay Reading of the Bible Is Flawed
"But, the Bible isn't clear on the subject, unless one uses a
method of interpretation rejected by most students of the Bible. 
This method is called proof-texting.
"Proof-texting uses a passage to make a point without regard to its
context within the passage, the circumstances at the time of the
writing, or the author's main point.  This method runs the grave
danager of missing or warping the larger point of the passage and of
the Bible."
http://www.bibble.org/gay/religious/bible_talk.html

On Sacramental Guidelines
"Proof-texting is a term most commonly used to explain what
non-Catholics do when quoting Scripture in order to prove their
argument against the Catholic Faith. Scriptural passages are used out
of context and given the wrong interpretation (an opinion) in order to
strengthen the proof-texter's personal convictions against the true
Faith. Catholics who know this about this Scriptural proof- texting
method realize that proof-texters are basing their beliefs on their
opinions of what Scripture means, not what God intends them to mean."
http://members.tripod.com/~catholic_homeschool/guides.html

Proof-Texting ... and the Creation of "Fulfilled Messianic Prophecy"
"Because of this discovery it is important that we as followers of
Jesus and Christians understand how 'roof-texting' was used by the
writers of the New Testament  to create 'fulfilled prophecy' about
Jesus when it reality it was never 'fulfilled anything in the first
place and had nothing to do with him."
http://www.geocities.com/bennoah1messiah/proof_texting_creation_mess_prophecy_jesus_messiah.htm

Proof Texting
"This story paints the picture of how Christianity basically
approached the Jewish bible.
"The belief that Jesus was the Messiah is their starting point! Then,
they must prove this belief by going back in the Jewish bible and find
proof for their belief. Thus working backwards, if you will!"
http://messiahpage.com/htmldocs/proof.html

Get That Camel's Nose out of the Tent!
"I was at a pastoral conference not long ago where I heard one of our
theologians disparage the use of proof-texts and the practice of
harmonizing apparent discrepancies in the Bible. (Using proof-texts
means to prove the scripturalness of a doctrine on the basis of
specific biblical texts, and to harmonize means to approach apparently
discrepant passages in a way that does not violate the unity of
Scripture.) Now one expects liberals and moderates to knock these
things. Their theology is un-biblical and therefore cannot be
supported by clear Bible texts. Their doctrinal perspective is best
served by the assertion of disharmony in Scripture. However, when one
hears this attitude coming from the mouth of conservative,
confessional scholars, it is a cause of grave concern. We are playing
into the hands of liberals, and flirting, perhaps ignorantly, with
ideas that will ultimately mean our undoing."
http://www.ourredeemerlcms.org/prooftex.htm

Best wishes,

mvguy




Search strategy:  I already knew the word, so searching using the term
on Google provided a wealth of examples
://www.google.com/search?num=25&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22proof+texting%22

I didn't know about "proof texting", so it's interesting to learn
about.  There's also this type of logical fallacy to consider, which
isn't a word, per se, but still bears on your question.  It's taken
from a worthwhile site that collects all sorts of fallacies
(http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm):

"These fallacies have in common a general failure to prove that the
conclusion is true.

Begging the Question ( petitio principii)

Definition: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

Examples:  We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)"