Eisogesis objection
From idontknownuthin
Reading what's not there
Eisogesis is the act of putting meaning into a text where it is not there.
The purpose of the dictionaries and indexes on this site is to show a plausible source for the second meaning that is proposed. Without a source for the double meaning, the shadows are common allegory, where the link between the text and the meaning is not defensible by formal methods.
The shadows MUST look like allegory since the second meaning is different than the literal meaning. If they said the same thing as the literal then they would not be a second meaning.
But the critical difference is that the meaning derived for the shadows comes largely from the multiple meanings of words, and often from what we have called shadows. The shadows are verified by multiple scriptures and MUST be the same everywhere they occur.
Now don't try this at home, brain cells may be injured during the attempt to reproduce this phenomenon with texts outside of the Bible.
Take the story of Paul Bunyan, and using only the double meanings or words and the consistent substitution of others words tell the story of George Washington crossing the Delaware. It cannot be done. If there were only a couple isolated stories in the Old Testament that were being converted to shadows, one could argue that it was just coincidence, or invention if the number of words was small. But the shear number of consistent shadows argues against eisogetical invention.
