Spirituality
05 Mar 23
05 Mar 23
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 saidGo on, drop the other shoe.
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.
16 Mar 23
@divegeester saidSo which one do you believe is the correct method for Bible study?
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.
And why?
17 Mar 23
@divegeester saidReligion requires belief, belief is subjective, therefore religion is subjective. There's no such animal as objective religion.
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.
17 Mar 23
@josephw saidHis answer is, "What I say, not what they say."
So which one do you believe is the correct method for Bible study?
And why?
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.
17 Mar 23
@indonesia-phil saidNone 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."
Religion requires belief, belief is subjective, therefore religion is subjective. There's no such animal as objective religion.
17 Mar 23
@suzianne saidHow do you know any of the miracles happened? You don't, of course, you may believe that they happened, but belief is subjective.
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."
17 Mar 23
@suzianne saidYour 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.
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 saiddivegeester 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?
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.
18 Mar 23
@suzianne saidYou seem to lack the ability to address the content of my OP.
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.
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.