Christians... riddle me this!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Hey, here is a great article by Jack Kelley talking about sound Biblical hermeneutics.

Jack Kelley.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

exegesis [ ek-si-jee-sis ]
1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

I am the one interpreting the bible, you are the one critically explaining the bible. Notice the 'or' between the two, that means they are both allowed, which means I am allowed to call myself an exegesist.

Eisegesis is best described as "reading from the text what you want to read from the text" and is usually exemplified by people who "cherry pick" passages, take them out of context and using very loose interpretations to claim that the text says something that it doesn't.

The classic example would be people who claim that the Bible supports reincarnation. They'll trot out a handful of verses that aren't about reincarnation, when put into context, but which can be twisted to seem to maybe imply that reincarnation might be possible. And then they'll ignore every other verse in the Bible, particularly those that absolutely say that reincarnation is not a Jewish or Christian belief.

Exegesis means reading the text for what it is, in the context that it is written, and reading the Bible holistically, selectively.

reply to post by adjensen


exegesis [ ek-si-jee-sis ]

1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

That is the universally accepted definition of exegesis, and is the only available definition. Your 'definition' of exegesis is a made up one, what you want it to mean. Read the definition, I am an exegesist just like you.

The creators of the bible are the ones who used eisegesis to convolute the true context. They took real world events and then metaphorized them, or eisegesised them.

So in other words, what I am doing is taking one verse at a time (one portion) and applying the same logic to the real world.

reply to post by adjensen


What I am doing is uneisegesising the bible, which means I am exesegisising the true the true context.

I know that might be a little hard to follow, but it does make sense, you just have to try to understand instead of just dismissing it off the bat.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You're twisting both terms.

Exegesis vs Eisegesis.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Everyone knows Christ isn't His surname! "Christos" is simply the Greek term for the Hebrew "Moshiyach" (Messiah). It means "anointed".

It actually is not so "simple" as you try to make it out as. The translator's note in NetBible for Matthew 1:16 explains this

tn Or “Messiah”; both “Christ” (Greek) and “Messiah” (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean “one who has been anointed.”
sn The term χριστός (cristos) was originally an adjective (“anointed”), developing in LXX into a substantive (“an anointed one”), then developing still further into a technical generic term (“the anointed one”). In the intertestamental period it developed further into a technical term referring to the hoped-for anointed one, that is, a specific individual. In the NT the development starts there (technical-specific), is so used in the gospels, and then develops in Paul to mean virtually Jesus’ last name.

So "Christ" is virtually Jesus' name through usage, which defines words.

When Peter said "you are THE Christ, THE Son of the Living God" he used two definite articles. The use of the definite article "the" (hu in Greek) signifies a special unique one different from any other. "Hu Christos" means "the (one and only) Christ."

The definite article is here used because it is already understood that there is only one "Christ" (according to how that word was understood in its usage).
The article is frequently used with Christ when it stands alone without modifying nouns like Lord and/or Jesus. It is usually not translated, except for in cases like the verse you quoted where it makes sense in English.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Have you heard the term "Expositional Constancy" before?

No, actually, so it makes me think it is not mainstream. Also, coming from you, it makes me think it must be one of your cult heresies.
Doing a quick look at the hits from doing a Google search confirms it is one of those hermeneutical fallacies necessary to support all those cultish interpretations.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

exegesis [ ek-si-jee-sis ]

1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

A statement as bland as that could be applied to eisigesis, as well. Read NOTurTypical's linked article, it explains the differences quite well.

At any rate, regardless of what label you wish to apply to the selective interpretation of text, which is what you seem to be doing, it is an invalid method of reading.

reply to post by adjensen


What?! That is the definition that you find on almost every site! Are you serious right now? That is not bland, that is the GIVEN DEFINITION of the word. How can you just dismiss it?

First you don't know that radiation is heat and now you're trying to tell me that the universal definition of the word is wrong? How ignorant can you possibly be?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No, you are the one twisting the meanings, not me.

From your article:

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful,objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

I am being lead to my conclusion by following the text, it says nowhere that you have to read it literally, NOWHERE. I am following the theme of the bible to the tee, no deviation whatsoever. The theme of my conclusion is the same as the bibles. My explanation is leading out of the text.

I am using exegesis right now, stop being so thick-headed. The writers of the bible applied eisegesis to corrupt the context, putting their own ideas on top of natural events.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

From your article:

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful,objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

I am being lead to my conclusion by following the text, it says nowhere that you have to read it literally, NOWHERE. I am following the theme of the bible to the tee, no deviation whatsoever. The theme of my conclusion is the same as the bibles. My explanation is leading out of the text.

I am using exegesis right now, stop being so thick-headed. The writers of the bible applied eisegesis to corrupt the context, putting their own ideas on top of natural events.

Exegesis is based on 'objective' analysis. Let's see what the definition of objective is.

ob·jec·tive ( b-j k t v) adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair 1 . b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. 4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected. 5. Grammar a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case. n. 1. Something that actually exists. 2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention. 3. Grammar a. The objective case. b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case. 4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

Sounds pretty similar to the analysis I am putting into the bible doesn't it?

I thought the part about receiving light applied to me, because I am an objective thinker and because I am I have received enlightenment.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . Eisegesis has nothing to do with trying to find the hidden meaning of the text . . .

Sure it is since it is ignoring the context

While exegesis attempts to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists – the so-called "Sitz im Leben" or life setting – eisegetes often neglect this aspect of Biblical study.wiki

in order to pull out from the text a meaning other than what was intended by the author, a technique consistently employed by your own cult, to take the "literal" meaning of a few words removed from a text and isolated and given an understanding one could come to given a different context, such as what happens in the example you gave earlier of "Expositional Constancy".

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


That is the trouble with most Christians and Judaics. They allow their subconcious desire for security and comfort in life to influence their search in spirituality. It makes it easier for them to settle for the cheap answer, the easy road.

Spirituality was never so easy, and they don't seem to grasp that. Spirituality can't be found in a book, it's personal to all of us, and it will be different for each of us. You have to look in the world, in the cosmos, and within yourself. No written language will suffice when it comes to spirituality.

The Bible is not a spiritual ticket. It's a vacation pamphlet for the price of one soul. You sell your soul for peace of mind. Of course, that's not always the case, but that's the impression I get a lot of the time, talking to such people.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Bible is the best and most respected.

By Reformists in the Nineteenth Century you mean . . right?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Well put, although I would have to replace 'religion' with 'bible' when talking about the spiritual ticket and pamphlet thing.

Star for you.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . Anytime I find the exegesis of the text doesn't align with my ideas and presuppositions I always consider my presuppositions and former interpretation wrong. Ive have to alter quite a few doctrines over the years and even left my mother and sister's church over a few doctrines.

You mean . . . then, that was the mental process you went through at some time in the past, to renounce your "ordinary" beliefs in favor of new "exciting" beliefs that you found in the cult, . . right?

reply to post by jmdewey60


I think this is funny because his headline reads 'JESUS FREAK CULT'. So true.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

What?! That is the definition that you find on almost every site! Are you serious right now? That is not bland, that is the GIVEN DEFINITION of the word. How can you just dismiss it?

Because you're ignoring the word "critical" and just saying that if you read and interpret something, that is exegesis, which isn't true. And being "critical" isn't just you thinking about it and how to apply it to what you want it to say, it means what I told you, what NOTurTypical told you, what JMDewey told you, and as you are either too stubborn or too dimwitted to grasp such a simple concept, I'm done telling you. The others can continue to bash their heads against your wall of ignorance if they like.

Originally posted by Akragon
For years i've been hearing christians say "we go to heaven to be with Jesus"... That is the untimate goal...To be with him for eternity. Now im not making fun here... I seriously want to know what you think...

Stars for all serious replies... no trolls...

What i want to know is... what next? Do we just sit around smiling...."yay we made it!"

Once you're with Jesus, what will you do together?

What is there to do in heaven with Jesus once you get there?

Is it like a huge meditation session?

More praying?

Golf?

Beers?

What do you think?

edit on 25-7-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

I think people are going to be constantly singing of God's glory... Why?

I think after the flesh vessel dies, people get to see all moments in their lives on earth and how it affected others and self... And how God had a huge hand in all facets of your life behind the curtains. I think when that happens, people will finally understand the depth of the love of Father and how great He is.

But I also do think Heaven would be like earth, but without grief and pain, like a mellow, holy utopia.