Even that is whatever some given person claims it to be, no more and no less.
Is it “good exegesis” to say that to be gay is fine and dandy? People who thusly exegete certainly think so, and would say that to condemn gay people as terrible sinners is “bad exegesis”. And vice-versa.
The conceit of every Christian sect is that it, strangely enough, has the “good exegesis”.
To “exegete” at all, one needs a “hermeneutic”, or interpretive system.
There are MANY such systems, and always have been. Even the NT admits to various early church controversies (whether or not Christians had to follow Jewish law, for instance – reference the arguments between Peter and Paul).
The simple fact is that any holy book – and the Bible is no exception – is a vague template that can be manipulated according to the needs of any moment in history, or indeed the needs of any particular pastor’s flock. That is why they are referred to as “timeless”. Not because they are immutable black and white rulebooks, but because they are chock-a-block full of ill-defined terms and concepts that mutate in common usage over time, but slowly enough that only a very old person paying lots of attention would even notice.
There was a time when Catholic priests weren’t celibate for instance. And I doubt any modern Christian would truly recognize the goings-on at a “house church” of the first century AD. Especially if they stumbled into one that wasn’t proto-orthodox.