In my own personal experience, the only occasions in which I've ever witnessed such (nonsensical) arguments being brought forth is in Jewish critiques of the New Testament.
The relevant passage reads as follows:
Isaiah 42:2-3 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
Now, if someone, for some reason, feels genuinely compelled to interpret the above as implying that Jesus only ever spoke in whispers, and never walked around swamps, so as to ensure the safety of aquatic plants, I can't exactly stop them; but, as far as I can tell, the text simply seems to say that the Messiah will not be the type of person that makes recourse to verbal or physical violence to impose one's will, which sums up Christ's overall attitude and behavior rather nicely.
Indeed, he will not resort to haranguing the crowds nor garnering political support in the city gates. Crying out and lifting up his voice in the streets pictures doing so before men and for the benefit of self. In contrast to that, he shall selfishly harm neither the bruised nor the smoldering.
Another variation on the same theme is coupling Isaiah 53:7 with various Gospel passages detailing Jesus' trial, wherein Christ answers His accusers. (To be quite honest, I still have no idea whether those invoking this type of “arguments” actually believe their own logic, or are simply jesting).