Exegesis vs Eisegesis

[ted]

AK, I didn't realize that you were smart as well as cute...

I must say that was one of your better pieces to date. Great job!

We all realize that not everyone will turn out to be Biblical scholars in their lives, but we have to have some kind of sense about us when we approach the Bible. Trying to exclude our own preconceived notions may be one of the hardest things to do when studying the Bible, but it's absolutely essential if we are to touch on what it's trying to relate to us.

This presentation of yours will hopefully help many in their walk.

t.

[Guest man]

One of *the* best essays I've EVER read!

How does exegesis work with hermeneutics?

Thus, Christ is saying the church in Laodicea makes Him sick.

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16?

15. I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.

16. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

There's no other message there other then the church makes Him sick?

We should just ignore this passage and move on to the next?

Is there nothing that can be learned from these 2 verses?

Man, did you read the essay in it's entirety? This topic is not about Laodicea. Not only that, even if it were, you are approaching the text with presumptions and strawmen (i.e. "there's no other...?" , "we should just ignore...?"....these statements have all twisted what AK actually said).

People who actually have a desire to learn and grow will make the effort to approach scripture with proper exegesis. But it seems that people who are lazy, or who just like to argue will take the other approach. I'm beginning to think that large numbers of people have issues with reading comprehension, too. And I'm not saying that as a joke. I'm really starting to wonder...

You know what? So am I....

My question was directed to AK but you answer instead. Whats that all about?

He used Rev. 3:15-16 as an example. If he doesn't have an swer for me, thats fine, but at least let him answer for himself.

[apothanein kerdos]

One of *the* best essays I've EVER read!

How does exegesis work with hermeneutics?

Thus, Christ is saying the church in Laodicea makes Him sick.

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16?

15. I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.

16. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

There's no other message there other then the church makes Him sick?

We should just ignore this passage and move on to the next?

Is there nothing that can be learned from these 2 verses?

Man, did you read the essay in it's entirety? This topic is not about Laodicea. Not only that, even if it were, you are approaching the text with presumptions and strawmen (i.e. "there's no other...?" , "we should just ignore...?"....these statements have all twisted what AK actually said).

People who actually have a desire to learn and grow will make the effort to approach scripture with proper exegesis. But it seems that people who are lazy, or who just like to argue will take the other approach. I'm beginning to think that large numbers of people have issues with reading comprehension, too. And I'm not saying that as a joke. I'm really starting to wonder...

You know what? So am I....

My question was directed to AK but you answer instead. Whats that all about?

He used Rev. 3:15-16 as an example. If he doesn't have an swer for me, thats fine, but at least let him answer for himself.

Her reply summed up exactly what I was thinking.

[Guest man]

One of *the* best essays I've EVER read!

How does exegesis work with hermeneutics?

Thus, Christ is saying the church in Laodicea makes Him sick.

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16?

15. I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.

16. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

There's no other message there other then the church makes Him sick?

We should just ignore this passage and move on to the next?

Is there nothing that can be learned from these 2 verses?

Man, did you read the essay in it's entirety? This topic is not about Laodicea. Not only that, even if it were, you are approaching the text with presumptions and strawmen (i.e. "there's no other...?" , "we should just ignore...?"....these statements have all twisted what AK actually said).

People who actually have a desire to learn and grow will make the effort to approach scripture with proper exegesis. But it seems that people who are lazy, or who just like to argue will take the other approach. I'm beginning to think that large numbers of people have issues with reading comprehension, too. And I'm not saying that as a joke. I'm really starting to wonder...

You know what? So am I....

My question was directed to AK but you answer instead. Whats that all about?

He used Rev. 3:15-16 as an example. If he doesn't have an swer for me, thats fine, but at least let him answer for himself.

Her reply summed up exactly what I was thinking.

Of course it did.

You're quite the teacher. A question comes your way and you get offended and let others speak for you.

You can keep your way of thinking.

Your way puts a limit on the power of God. You assume that someone as stupid as myself cannot truly understand what I'm reading because I'm not as smart as you.

You need to get a clue.

If booksmarts were required, He would have told us so. Loving the Lord with our mind doesn't mean we have to fill it full of worldly knowledge.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but this false doctrine that you're trying push is going to come back and bite you on the backside.

Now you have a nice day.

[apothanein kerdos]

Your way puts a limit on the power of God.

How?

You assume that someone as stupid as myself cannot truly understand what I'm reading because I'm not as smart as you.

Where did I say that?

Loving the Lord with our mind doesn't mean we have to fill it full of worldly knowledge.

How is what I said worldly?

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but this false doctrine that you're trying push is going to come back and bite you on the backside.

How?

If you're going to throw another temper tantrum instead of actually engage in a discussion, then please, just avoid posting.

[Guest shiloh357]

One of *the* best essays I've EVER read!

How does exegesis work with hermeneutics?

Thus, Christ is saying the church in Laodicea makes Him sick.

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16?

15. I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.

16. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

There's no other message there other then the church makes Him sick?

We should just ignore this passage and move on to the next?

Is there nothing that can be learned from these 2 verses?

Man, did you read the essay in it's entirety? This topic is not about Laodicea. Not only that, even if it were, you are approaching the text with presumptions and strawmen (i.e. "there's no other...?" , "we should just ignore...?"....these statements have all twisted what AK actually said).

People who actually have a desire to learn and grow will make the effort to approach scripture with proper exegesis. But it seems that people who are lazy, or who just like to argue will take the other approach. I'm beginning to think that large numbers of people have issues with reading comprehension, too. And I'm not saying that as a joke. I'm really starting to wonder...

You know what? So am I....

My question was directed to AK but you answer instead. Whats that all about?

He used Rev. 3:15-16 as an example. If he doesn't have an swer for me, thats fine, but at least let him answer for himself.

Her reply summed up exactly what I was thinking.

Of course it did.

You're quite the teacher. A question comes your way and you get offended and let others speak for you.

You can keep your way of thinking.

Your way puts a limit on the power of God. You assume that someone as stupid as myself cannot truly understand what I'm reading because I'm not as smart as you.

You need to get a clue.

If booksmarts were required, He would have told us so. Loving the Lord with our mind doesn't mean we have to fill it full of worldly knowledge.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but this false doctrine that you're trying push is going to come back and bite you on the backside.

Now you have a nice day.

Could you be a little more immature? Exegesis is not a doctrine, nor does it limit the power of God. It simply limits the way people can blame their sloppy, wacky ideas about the Bible on the Holy Spirit. If anything your response reflects more worldilness than anything AK said. It is always amazing that when it comes to the Bible, people prefer to check their intellect at the door.

[apothanein kerdos]

One of *the* best essays I've EVER read!

How does exegesis work with hermeneutics?

Thus, Christ is saying the church in Laodicea makes Him sick.

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16?

15. I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.

16. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

There's no other message there other then the church makes Him sick?

We should just ignore this passage and move on to the next?

Is there nothing that can be learned from these 2 verses?

Man, did you read the essay in it's entirety? This topic is not about Laodicea. Not only that, even if it were, you are approaching the text with presumptions and strawmen (i.e. "there's no other...?" , "we should just ignore...?"....these statements have all twisted what AK actually said).

People who actually have a desire to learn and grow will make the effort to approach scripture with proper exegesis. But it seems that people who are lazy, or who just like to argue will take the other approach. I'm beginning to think that large numbers of people have issues with reading comprehension, too. And I'm not saying that as a joke. I'm really starting to wonder...

You know what? So am I....

My question was directed to AK but you answer instead. Whats that all about?

He used Rev. 3:15-16 as an example. If he doesn't have an swer for me, thats fine, but at least let him answer for himself.

Her reply summed up exactly what I was thinking.

Of course it did.

You're quite the teacher. A question comes your way and you get offended and let others speak for you.

You can keep your way of thinking.

Your way puts a limit on the power of God. You assume that someone as stupid as myself cannot truly understand what I'm reading because I'm not as smart as you.

You need to get a clue.

If booksmarts were required, He would have told us so. Loving the Lord with our mind doesn't mean we have to fill it full of worldly knowledge.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but this false doctrine that you're trying push is going to come back and bite you on the backside.

Now you have a nice day.

Could you be a little more immature? Exegesis is not a doctrine, nor does it limit the power of God. It simply limits the way people can blame their sloppy, wacky ideas about the Bible on the Holy Spirit. If anything your response reflects more worldilness than anything AK said. It is always amazing that when it comes to the Bible, people prefer to check their intellect at the door.

[Guest man]

Your way puts a limit on the power of God.

How? You believe that unless someone knows the historical background and the culture of the times, one cannot truly understand what is being said. You say unless we know this, this, and this, we can't possibly understand that. You put limits on the power of God by stating such.

You assume that someone as stupid as myself cannot truly understand what I'm reading because I'm not as smart as you.

Where did I say that? You didn't use those exact words but to do what you do I would have to study up and actually go out and get an education in order to understand what God is trying to say to me. I trust the Spirit to guide me and give me understanding. But you claim that unless one knows all the historical facts, one can never come to a true understanding of the scriptures.

Loving the Lord with our mind doesn't mean we have to fill it full of worldly knowledge.

How is what I said worldly? If you need to go to outside sources in order to interpret scripture, instead of relying on the Holy Spirit, your knowledge is worldly.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but this false doctrine that you're trying push is going to come back and bite you on the backside.

How? You are telling people that in order to truly understand scripture they need to learn about the times and places that are mentioned in the bible. This is not true. Salvation has nothing to do with ones level of education. Telling people they need to know the history of something before they can understand it is a false doctrine. Say what you will but thats a fact.

If you're going to throw another temper tantrum instead of actually engage in a discussion, then please, just avoid posting.

I asked you a simple enough question pertaining to Rev. 3:15-16. Instead of standing up for yourself and illustrating the point you were trying to get across, you let someone else speak for you. And she wasn't even nice about it.

[apothanein kerdos]

You believe that unless someone knows the historical background and the culture of the times, one cannot truly understand what is being said. You say unless we know this, this, and this, we can't possibly understand that. You put limits on the power of God by stating such.

So you can carry on an intelligent conversation with a person, discussing deep things, without knowing any background on that person?

You didn't use those exact words but to do what you do I would have to study up and actually go out and get an education in order to understand what God is trying to say to me.

Oh I know...God forbid you should have to actually work at reading the Bible.

Regardless, you do not need to go get a master's in order to do what I listed. The only disadvantage a person would hold in exegesis without an education is a background in the languages and an exposure to different ideas. This does not, however, negate someone without a college degree from engaging in what I described. What it requires is patience, hard work, and the ability to read.

I trust the Spirit to guide me and give me understanding. But you claim that unless one knows all the historical facts, one can never come to a true understanding of the scriptures.

Trust in your intuition all you want (you're not relying on the Holy Spirit)...you're just going to end up with an incorrect translation.

If you need to go to outside sources in order to interpret scripture, instead of relying on the Holy Spirit, your knowledge is worldly.

Where does it say that in the Bible? You are an outside source - so anytime you tell someone what a piece of scripture says, you're violating your own terms.

You are telling people that in order to truly understand scripture they need to learn about the times and places that are mentioned in the bible. This is not true. Salvation has nothing to do with ones level of education. Telling people they need to know the history of something before they can understand it is a false doctrine. Say what you will but thats a fact.

Where in the Bible does it say this is a false doctrine?

[Guest man]

Trust in your intuition all you want (you're not relying on the Holy Spirit)...you're just going to end up with an incorrect translation.

And you know this because....