Eisegesis vs Exegesis - worth noting...

[Red Sky at Morning]

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

 

[llleopard]

the trick is in recognising when you're doing it!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

the trick is in recognising when you're doing it!

Absolutely - I certainly have before and try to guard against it now. The other related trick is recognising when other people are doing it (and having the patience and humility to point it out without being rude!).

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

 

[TokiEl]

So when will you actually begin to interpret the prophecies ?

You know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis and so you are perhaps equipped and ready to start unravelling all the juicy prophecies in God's book ? Say Yes !

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

So when will you actually begin to interpret the prophecies ?

You know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis and so you are perhaps equipped and ready to start unravelling all the juicy prophecies in God's book ? Say Yes !

One thing I have come to learn over the years @TokiEl is how many times I have applied Eisegesis rather than Exegesis, reading my own interpretations into the Bible rather than reading what is there, in context. Additionally, there are a number of ideas I hold in a “maybe” zone till I become more convinced of how solid my interpretation may be. That’s not to say I am without opinions (as you may have noticed ;-)

 

[Todd]

Trinity doctrine is great example of eisegesis. No way you come up with the three headed God of the trinity using exegesis.

 

[Damien50]

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

So the distinction is between what we think we believe based on the text and what the text is actually saying.

So thou shall not murder vs thou shall not kill. Where in the first one it is clear but without dissecting the text one could believe all death is strong. By examining the Hebrew of the former and even the Greek one could conclude that murder rather than capital punishment or manslaughter is the meaning.

 

[Damien50]

Trinity doctrine is great example of eisegesis. No way you come up with the three headed God of the trinity using exegesis.

You weren't supposed to say that. I was thinking Calvinism, baptism, salvation, alcohol consumption, homosexuality.

 

[TokiEl]

One thing I have come to learn over the years @TokiEl is how many times I have applied Eisegesis rather than Exegesis, reading my own interpretations into the Bible rather than reading what is there, in context. Additionally, there are a number of ideas I hold in a “maybe” zone till I become more convinced of how solid my interpretation may be. That’s not to say I am without opinions (as you may have noticed ;-)

I have noticed and you contribute a lot of good stuff... but when will we unravel revelation and squeeze the juice out of every mystery and riddle that the good God has bothered to put down in writing ?

When will we kill it ?

 

[TokiEl]

Trinity doctrine is great example of eisegesis. No way you come up with the three headed God of the trinity using exegesis.

It's like a crystal clear mountain stream that the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy spirit is God.

Call that what you want or better yet say nothing...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

So the distinction is between what we think we believe based on the text and what the text is actually saying.

So thou shall not murder vs thou shall not kill. Where in the first one it is clear but without dissecting the text one could believe all death is strong. By examining the Hebrew of the former and even the Greek one could conclude that murder rather than capital punishment or manslaughter is the meaning.

Exactly - good example too!

 

[Todd]

Just leaving this here....
https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/do-you-have-to-believe-in-the-trinity-to-be-saved-2

 

[Allegra]

If we accept modernist way of reading scripture the bottom is gonna fall out and there is no telling what we justify.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

If we accept modernist way of reading scripture the bottom is gonna fall out and there is no telling what we justify.

Maybe a good example is the study of Shakespeare? I did for a bit, and I quickly became aware of many “modern” readings of his work (e.g. “Femenist-Marxist” etc) that had not even been considered in Elizabethan England! A clearer understanding of the Bible is rooted in the language and culture of its time of writing and when we dismiss these, we often miss its hidden gems.