Here's two simple definitions: exegesis: objectivism. To explain what the Scripture says. Greek, ‘to guide out of." "ex" means "from" or "out of" eisogesis: subjectivism. Reading into text something that isn’t there at all. Greek. Same root as exegesis with different prefix. "eis" means "into." My query here is as to how far anyone may reach into scripture and still remain confident of exegesis, rather than eisogesis? In other words, taking the words at face value, is it possible to ever have a truly objective view of what a particular scripture reference says and means? I'm specifically thinking on those instances where matters of doctrine may arise - especially as interpretation can be very much an issue of denominational bias. However, an understanding of cultural context can also come into it - in my reading I repeatedly note specific instances of information which can immediately be referred to scripture to give it clearer meaning. For example, the famous "eye of the needle" reference apparently is a direct allusion to a gate in the temple itself, which was allegedly known as "the needle" and was for the entrance of mules - an entrance much too small for a camel - especially a fully laden one. So...if we consider the dual matters of denominational bias and the potential lack of understanding of cultural references - then to what degree can scholars be certain of actual exegetical certainly in their enterprise?