Exegesis or eisegesis?

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study.

Exegesis is the exposition based on objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to their conclusions by following what is written contextually.

Eisegesis is interpretation of a text based on a subjective, non-analytical reading lending the text meaning based on personal bias and preconceived beliefs. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter projects their own dogmas into the text.

@divegeester said
Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study.

Exegesis is the exposition based on objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to their conclusions by following what is written contextually.

Eisegesis is interpretation of a text based on a subjective, non-analyt ...[text shortened]... literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter projects their own dogmas into the text.

Go on, drop the other shoe.

@suzianne said
Go on, drop the other shoe.

Do you have something to add to the OP Suzianne?

@divegeester said
Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study.

Exegesis is the exposition based on objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to their conclusions by following what is written contextually.

Eisegesis is interpretation of a text based on a subjective, non-analyt ...[text shortened]... literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter projects their own dogmas into the text.

So which one do you believe is the correct method for Bible study?

And why?

@josephw said
So which one do you believe is the correct method for Bible study?

And why?

Isn’t that obvious?

@divegeester said
Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study.

Exegesis is the exposition based on objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to their conclusions by following what is written contextually.

Eisegesis is interpretation of a text based on a subjective, non-analyt ...[text shortened]... literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter projects their own dogmas into the text.

Religion requires belief, belief is subjective, therefore religion is subjective. There's no such animal as objective religion.

@josephw said
So which one do you believe is the correct method for Bible study?

And why?

His answer is, "What I say, not what they say."

I just wish he'd come out with it and stop beating around the bush. One who has the courage of his own convictions shouldn't be afraid of expounding them both generally and specifically.

@indonesia-phil said
Religion requires belief, belief is subjective, therefore religion is subjective. There's no such animal as objective religion.

None of the miracles in the Bible were subjective. They were all "on the ground" and "in your face". When Moses spoke to the burning bush and received the tablets from God, there wasn't much room for him to say, "No, that didn't happen just now."

@suzianne said
None of the miracles in the Bible were subjective. They were all "on the ground" and "in your face". When Moses spoke to the burning bush and received the tablets from God, there wasn't much room for him to say, "No, that didn't happen just now."

How do you know any of the miracles happened? You don't, of course, you may believe that they happened, but belief is subjective.

@suzianne said
None of the miracles in the Bible were subjective. They were all "on the ground" and "in your face". When Moses spoke to the burning bush and received the tablets from God, there wasn't much room for him to say, "No, that didn't happen just now."

Your belief that these events actually happened - as written down by Hebrews decades, centuries and even millenia after they supposedly took place - is entirely within the realm of your personal subjectivity.

@suzianne said
I just wish he'd come out with it and stop beating around the bush. One who has the courage of his own convictions shouldn't be afraid of expounding them both generally and specifically.

divegeester has been demonstrating the "courage of his own convictions" and "expounding them both generally and specifically" for over a decade. Have you not been reading his posts?

@suzianne said
None of the miracles in the Bible were subjective. They were all "on the ground" and "in your face".

Do you think this assertion also applies, objectively, to all miracles as recorded by all religions throughout all human history?

@suzianne said
His answer is, "What I say, not what they say."

I just wish he'd come out with it and stop beating around the bush. One who has the courage of his own convictions shouldn't be afraid of expounding them both generally and specifically.

You seem to lack the ability to address the content of my OP.

Perhaps this inability to process ambiguity is an element of what’s wrong with your mindset and why you only ever behave and respond through the focus of a deeply partisan perspective.