exegesis is supposed to be the study of bible verses by bring in
verses from other places to more clearly understand what is being
said. I just sent this to "got questions" article/thing about exegesis
perhaps as a frustrated rant!  >  Lewis
Dear Professor,
   I have been studying God's Word for fifty years. I am an
independent Baptist, fundamental and dispensational, KJV only.
   I have been occasionally frustrated with college "edgeimacated"
graduates from the most respected fundamental schools, and their
bringing verses in from elsewhere to change the obvious simple context
of chapters. This is seldom "eisegesis so called," they mean well, but
so many deep rabbit holes can be fallen into by doing this!'
   Even all too many respected church pastors can be found doing this.
My much beloved former pastor so convoluted the seals, trump and vial
judgments of Revelation he had them all occurring concurrently instead
of their obvious consecutive order! He also invented "parenthetical
chapters" between each series of judgments, but still insisted they
all happened at the same time! All by exegesesING too many verses in
from elsewhere!
   Every source I can find dogmatically insists Job ch 41's huge
dragon or lizard Is Satan, rather than the chapter's obvious context
that it's still just a Dinosaur  who God says dont mess with! Yes, God
may well in some way be using that huge lizard to refer to Satan, but
good grief, it's still just a lizard!
  Or the Genesis ch 1:1 and 1:2 "gappers" wanting to say that Satan
ruled a pre-adamic creation!  Total sillyness, once again bringing
lots of verses in to change the context and confuse the issue.
   Anyway, all this to suggest that a chain of  "inductive reasoning"
usually leads into really strange biblical rabbit holes with Elmer
Fudd directing traffic >
   Maybe you could do a book on the subject!
  exit sighing,  Lewis