Exegesis vs Eisegesis

[apothanein kerdos]

Do you have anything to contribute?

I know you're not relying on the Holy Spirit because you're discrediting the intellectual pursuits that the Holy Spirit has given to us.

Like Shiloh said, you're acting immature. If you don't have anything else, or a legitimate disagreement with the thread, stop wasting our time.

[Guest man]

Do you have anything to contribute?

I know you're not relying on the Holy Spirit because you're discrediting the intellectual pursuits that the Holy Spirit has given to us.

Like Shiloh said, you're acting immature. If you don't have anything else, or a legitimate disagreement with the thread, stop wasting our time.

If you would have simply answered my questions, that entire last page could've been avoided.

If you forgot what they were, here they are....

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16? That Christ was sick of the church?

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?

Simple enough questions.

[apothanein kerdos]

As I said, Kabowd was correct. I don't see how your question was relevant for this thread.

However, I answered it in what I believe to be the appropriate thread.

In the future, if you want your question answered you can PM me or specifically ask. You don't need to collapse to the floor and kick your hands and legs in the air until you get your way.

[ted]

(Translation: Last warning)

t.

[Guest shiloh357]

If you would have simply answered my questions, that entire last page could've been avoided.

If you forgot what they were, here they are....

Is this the only message we are to take away from Rev. 3:15-16? That Christ was sick of the church?

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?

You need to learn the difference between application and interpretation. Interpretation amounts to the original intent of the author. There is only one interpretation because the author is not trying to say 40 things; he has one central, main idea and the purpose of exegesis is to get at the original message or idea that the author is trying to convey.

In application, we can apply principles gleaned from the text in other contexts. We take the underlying principles of a given text and use those principles in other contexts and spheres of our lives. For example: There is nothing in the Bible that says it is wrong for me to pour gasoline over myself and light myself on fire. However, I don't think it would be too hard to determine from the principles laid out in Scripture that it is wrong to do such a thing.

There can only be one interpetation for any given passage and that is based upon the object the author has in view. However, any text can have multiple applications.

Part of the problem in all of this is often applications are treated as interpretations and that can cause alot of confusion.

[OopsMartin]

You need to learn the difference between application and interpretation. Interpretation amounts to the original intent of the author. There is only one interpretation because the author is not trying to say 40 things; he has one central, main idea and the purpose of exegesis is to get at the original message or idea that the author is trying to convey.

In application, we can apply principles gleaned from the text in other contexts. We take the underlying principles of a given text and use those principles in other contexts and spheres of our lives. For example: There is nothing in the Bible that says it is wrong for me to pour gasoline over myself and light myself on fire. However, I don't think it would be too hard to determine from the principles laid out in Scripture that it is wrong to do such a thing.

There can only be one interpetation for any given passage and that is based upon the object the author has in view. However, any text can have multiple applications.

Part of the problem in all of this is often applications are treated as interpretations and that can cause alot of confusion.

Well said, especially highlited sentence.

[kenod]

Could an unbeliever, trained in "exegesis", understand the Bible better than an ignorant believing fisherman?

Acts 4:13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,

and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,

they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them,

that they had been with Jesus.

Why did the religious leaders not recogize Jesus ... poor exegesis?

[Guest man]

Could an unbeliever, trained in "exegesis", understand the Bible better than an ignorant believing fisherman?

Acts 4:13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,

and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,

they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them,

that they had been with Jesus.

Why did the religious leaders not recogize Jesus ... poor exegesis?

[apothanein kerdos]

Could an unbeliever, trained in "exegesis", understand the Bible better than an ignorant believing fisherman?

Acts 4:13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,

and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,

they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them,

that they had been with Jesus.

Why did the religious leaders not recogize Jesus ... poor exegesis?

Yes, an unbeliever that is trained in exegesis could, conceivably, put out a better interpretation of scripture than a Christian. Though a believer that puts exegetical effort into his interpretation should be able to outdo the unbeliever (due to the significant difference in having the Holy Spirit), if he simply approaches scripture with a preconceived idea that actually contradicts scripture, an unbeliever could show him how he is wrong.

That speaks to the perceptions of the Sadducees, not to the truth of the matter. When we look to both of their writings, we see a massive appeal to the Old Testament, as well as a logical presentation of their point.

Furthermore, the reason the Sadducees thought these men were unlearned is because they [Peter and John] were not formally trained as Rabbis. However, they were trained under Jesus who was trained as a Rabbi. Their education would have been the same (or at least similar) to that of the Sadducees, only not formal. Thus, this passage speaks to the bias of the Sadducees, not to the truth of the situation.

As for your second question, yes, that's exactly why they didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Under the Pharisees, there were different types of interpretive styles, all of which are inadequate by themselves. For instance, if you look at the Midrashim it is somewhat comparable to a modern commentary except it breaks each verse (or the equivalent of the verse, a sentence) down individually (most of the time), which leaves for an isolation of interpretation. It misses the bigger picture and does not allow the Rabbi to compare one passage to another. Secondly, they placed a high importance on the rabbinic interpretive traditions without questioning how the rabbi came to that conclusion. Third, they would often look at scripture with peshat (plain sense) and interpret it literally, even if the literal interpretation missed the entire point of the passage.

With all of this combined, they often missed the entire point of passages, which caused them to develop the idea of a Messiah that simply was not true, or at least was incomplete. In other words, yes, poor exegesis caused the Pharisees to completely miss the point.

[Guest shiloh357]

Could an unbeliever, trained in "exegesis", understand the Bible better than an ignorant believing fisherman?

Acts 4:13

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,

and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,

they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them,

that they had been with Jesus.

Why did the religious leaders not recogize Jesus ... poor exegesis?

Who says that they were ignorant fisherman? That is not what the Bible says. We have this image (thanks to movies and oil paintings) that they were dumb illiterate men, but that is not what the Bible says. The enemies of Jesus claimed that he was uneducated, but yet Jesus was a trained Rabbi and Torah teacher even allowed to teach in the Temple.

Let me ask you this... Why did Jesus upbraid Nicodemus for not understanding the concept of being born again? If as an unbeliever, Nicodemus was unable to "exegete" that concept from the OT, would Jesus have been fair in criticizing Nicodemus for not being able to understand something that was impossible for him to know in the first place??? The fact that Nicodemus was upbraided by Christ means that it was knowable even by him, as an unbeliever. He was without excuse.

Why do people place such a high premium on ignorance when it comes to the Bible??

Kenod, tell you what... The next time you or someone in your family member needs medical care like surgery or some kind of serious treatment, I challenge you NOT to find the best trained physician or specialist in that field of care. Don't look for the doctor who has multiple degrees was the head of his class and hadyears of experience treating your illness. Don't look for the doctor who goes by the book and has a high degree of success. I challenge you to put your life in the hands of a medical school flunkie who knows just enough about the human body to be dangerous. I challenge you to be just as reckless about your health as you are about the Bible.

Better yet, find someone who isn't even a doctor, but claims to be able to perform surgery "by the spirit."

I say all of that just to demonstrate how absurd some of these positions sound when applied to other contexts. We would never place such a high premium on ignorance with respect to things like health care, building a house, choosing a broker, etc. Yet we just choose to chuck intellect and knowledge to the wind when it comes to the Bible.