It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are taking one verse using the word "way" (John 14:6) where Jesus is talking about himself, and because you take the word "way" as being synonymous with "path", you (incorrectly) assume that the "path" saying (Matthew 7:14) is talking about Jesus being the path.
A path is a way. Oftentimes you see the two words joined together as in "pathway". They are synonyms.
There are some places in the New Testament talking about a Way (or, path, both being possible translations of the Greek word, hodos).
And it is all about Jesus, He is the Way/path/gate to the Father. Absolutely nothing else.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
This will be my last reply to you if you really are done with me, but it seems to me that maybe I started making a little too much sense so in order to combat that youstarted to ignore me, because you can't think of anything to say to counter me.
Just saying. Good luck to you.edit on 29-7-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Ego? I'm just trying to clarify why you decided to start ignoring me, I was enjoying the debate.
How is learning something new arrogant?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
There have been terrorist attacks and shootings in the name of atheism. Let's not forget about that.edit on 29-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
I would contend that there has never been a single killing in the name of atheism in the literal meaning of the word (a- without, theism belief in god) because you cannot have no motivation for killing (I.e. without belief IN something) and any killings by those actively AGAINST religion would fall under ANTI-theism (anti- against, theism belief in god).
Eisegesis (from Greek ε ς "into" and ending from exegesis from ξηγε σθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. 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 draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able 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.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Eisegesis (from Greek ε ς "into" and ending from exegesis from ξηγε σθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. 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 draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able 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.
reply to post by AfterInfinity
TextAlso, it sounds like a load of nonsense you tell children to make them behave. Oh, wait... But in all seriousness, I will accept that the explanation you have given is just a long list of metaphors that have yet to be decrypted; but if you mean for us to take all of that literally, then good luck.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Nope, when a person interprets a text in accordance with their beliefs/presuppositions that Eisegesis. If you want to or don't understand any text there are an abundance of exegetical commentaries available. Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Bible is the best and most respected.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Nope, when a person interprets a text in accordance with their beliefs/presuppositions that Eisegesis. If you want to or don't understand any text there are an abundance of exegetical commentaries available. Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Bible is the best and most respected.
By your own definition you are an eisegenesist. You base your interpretation on your beliefs and presupposition.
Where have you found any hidden meaning with the way you interpret the bible? Taking the bible literally, word for word, is not interpreting it or drawing out any hidden meaning, that is repeating it. If you are not interpreting it that means yourself are not using hermeneutics.
… 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.