Why is eisegesis generally frowned upon and when might it be an . . . Eisegesis means we input and plant the seeds of what we want it to say, gleaning just weeds later on, when with good exegesis, we harvest the good crops of what God is plainly saying " Source The Problem of Eisegesis here 2 Cor 4:2,
What is Narcigesis? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange From: eisegesis; 1890–95; < Greek eisḗgesis, equivalent to eis- into + ( h ) çge- (stem of hçgeîsthai to lead) + -sis -sis {C19: from Greek eisinto, in + -egesis, as in exegesis} What is Narcigesis as it applies to interpreting or explaining Scripture? An example or two would be helpful
hermeneutical approaches - Did Jesus practice eisegesis? - Biblical . . . Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis Exegesis is drawing out text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective The plural of eisegesis is eisegeses
hermeneutical approaches - Can the term eisegesis apply to the . . . The term eisegesis has a negative and pejorative connotation The matter of NT usage of applying OT passages is matter of haggadah or exposition; comprising hermaneutics approaches In short if you disagree with my interpretation you might call it eisegesis; I might call yours as eisegesis or biased and forced interpretation
What is epexegesis? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange Someone else commented as an example of eisegesis, Luther’s translation of Romans 5:1-2 having the word ‘alone’ added, when it just is not in the Greek text The text states, “Having been justified therefore by faith…” and the word ‘alone’ is not next to it, or anywhere in the passage
What is the difference between exegesis and hermeneutics? Hermeneutics also studies the role of eisegesis in interpretation, which is by definition not part of exegesis Hermeneutics considers the role of church doctrine and theology in interpretation -- both of which are (often) irrelevant to exegesis (Ray explained the challenges with seeing exegesis as "applied hermeneutics" in this meta post )
Did Jesus practice eisegesis in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 Eisegesis is biased interpretation that change or violate the original plain sense of a text Ex Exod23:2 say, “Follow the majority,” whereas the verse mean, “Don’t follow the majority” in The classic Talmudic discussion is found in Bava Mesia’ 59b; cf also Targ
1 corinthians - Can 1 Cor 13:8-10 be used as to prove that radical . . . @NigelJ I modified the question so that it explicitly asks for exegesis, which they then can use to show either a "yes" "no" answer on a specific doctrinal position that is narrower than before (i e radical Continuationism, as defined in wikipedia: "arguing that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are meant to be experienced by all Christians in every age ")
How to separate exegesis from eisegesis in this example? Student 3: What student 3 did, or did not do, must be inferred, read into the text by the reader, ("we" engage in Eisegesis), and therefore no analysis can be done They could have just wandered around the room to explore the context of the text, and happened upon the door, or just copied from another
hermeneutical approaches - How can we ensure a given chiasm was . . . In answer to your first question: Eisegesis, as you point out, can be problematic, though biblical scholars in general and Hebrew- and Greek scholars in particular-- despite their fallibility--can often provide useful guidance and correction, since both they and us (in their absence) can be guided by the Holy Spirit R W Emerson said,