diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/howto/it/docbook/howto-interpretation.docbook')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/howto/it/docbook/howto-interpretation.docbook | 261 |
1 files changed, 261 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/howto/it/docbook/howto-interpretation.docbook b/docs/howto/it/docbook/howto-interpretation.docbook new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a184bbe --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/howto/it/docbook/howto-interpretation.docbook @@ -0,0 +1,261 @@ +<chapter id="h2-rules"><title>Regole per l'interpretazione della Bibbia (Ermeneutica)</title> +<para>We already learned about the "3 Cs": content, context, cross-reference. We +want to expand that now by delving briefly into biblical hermeneutics, whose +goal is to discover the meaning intended by the original author (and +Author!). While many applications of a passage are valid, only one +interpretation is valid. The scripture itself says this by saying that no +scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Pe.1:20 KJV <quote>Knowing +this first, that no prophesy of scripture is of any private +interpretation.</quote>). Certain rules are helps toward discovering the +correct meaning; by ignoring these rules people have brought much trouble on +themselves and their followers. 2 Pe.3:16 <quote>...in which are some +things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they +do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.</quote></para> + +<para>How do we go about discovering the intended meaning of a passage? Let's say +your attention has been drawn to a particular verse whose meaning is not +clear to you. How do you study it out? Keep these rules in mind:</para> + +<section id="h2-rules-exact"><title>Regola 1 - Interpreta seguendo il senso esatto delle parole.</title> +<para>The more precise we can be with the exact, original meaning of the words the +better our interpretation will be. Try to find the exact meaning of the key +words by following these steps:</para> + +<orderedlist> + <listitem> + <formalpara><title>Definition</title> + <para>Look up the definition in a Greek or Hebrew dictionary. For verbs, the verb +tense is also crucial.</para> + </formalpara> + </listitem> + + <listitem> + <formalpara><title>Referenze</title> + <para>Compare scripture with scripture. Seeing how the same Greek or Hebrew word +(not the English word) is used in scripture may clarify or throw new light +on the definition. How does the same author use this word elsewhere? Other +authors? Your reference tools may give you uses of the word in non-biblical +documents, as well. Why do we have to go to the original languages; why +isn't the English word good enough? <emphasis>Because more than one greek +word may be translated into the same english word, and the greek words may +have different shades of meaning.</emphasis></para> + </formalpara> + </listitem> +</orderedlist> + +<section id="h2-rules-exact-crossref-ex1a"><title>Esempio 1A</title> +<para>Jn.20:17 <emphasis>"Touch me not"</emphasis> (KJV) sounds harsh, doesn't it? +Sounds like Jesus doesn't want to be touched now that He is risen, that He +is too holy or something. But that doesn't seem right, so let's look it up +in Spiros Zodhiates' <emphasis>The Complete Word Study New +Testament</emphasis> (AMG Publishers, 1991).</para> + +<para>Definition: Turning to John 20:17, above the word "Touch" we see "pim680." +The letters give us a code for the part of speech, and the number refers to +Strong's dictionary reference. Let's look up the definition (p. 879). +"680. Haptomai; from hapto (681), touch. Refers to such handling of an +object as to exert a modifying influence upon it... Distinguished from +pselaphao (5584), which actually only means to touch the surface of +something. " Now look up "pim." The grammar codes in Zodhiates come right +after Revelation; on p. 849 we see that pim stands for "present imperative +active (80)". On p.857, "Present Imperative. In the active voice, it may +indicate a command to do something in the future which involves continuous +or repeated action or, when it is negated, a command to stop doing +something. " This is a negative command, so it is to stop doing something +that is already occuring. So, what have we found?</para> +<para><emphasis>Mary is already clinging to Jesus, and he is saying to stop holding him!</emphasis></para> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-exact-crossref-ex1b"><title>Example 1B</title> +<para>In James 5:14, <emphasis>Elders are told to pray and anoint someone who is +sick</emphasis>. What is this anointing?</para> +<para>Definition of aleipho (218) - "to oil" (Strong's); but we also have another +Greek word translated "anoint", chrio (5548) - "to smear or rub with oil, +i.e. to consecrate to an office or religious service" (Strong's). Since +it's a verb, consider the tense also, "apta" aorist participle active. "The +aorist participle expresses simple action, as opposed to continuous +action...When its relaitonship to the main verb is temporal, it usually +signifies action prior to that of the main verb." (Zodhiates p.851)</para> + +<itemizedlist> +<listitem><para>Cross-references for aleipho: + <orderedlist> + <listitem><para>Mt.6:17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head</para></listitem> + <listitem><para>Mk.16:1 [the women] brought spices that they might come and anoint Him.</para></listitem> + <listitem><para>Mk.6:13 And they were...anointing with oil many sick people and healing +them.</para></listitem> + <listitem><para>Lk.7:38 [...] kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume</para></listitem> + <listitem><para>Jn.12:3 Mary [...] anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped them with her hair</para></listitem> + </orderedlist></para> +</listitem> + +<listitem><para>Cross-references of chrio: + <orderedlist> + <listitem><para>Lk.4:18 <quote>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me +to preach [...]</quote></para></listitem> + <listitem><para>Acts 4:27 Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed</para></listitem> + <listitem><para>Acts 10:38 God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and power</para></listitem> + <listitem><para>2 Cor.1:21 Now He who...anointed us is God</para></listitem> + </orderedlist></para> +</listitem> +</itemizedlist> + +<para>So what's the difference between aleipho and chrio? Look back over the +cross-references and the definitions, and sum up the difference: +<emphasis>"aleipho" is a practical use of oil and +"chrio" is a spiritual</emphasis></para> + +<para>As an illustration (although the word is not used) of the practical use of +oil at that time, when the good Samaritan cared for the man beat up by +robbers he poured oil and wine in the wound. So oil had a medicinal use in +Jesus' day. +</para> +<para>Ora applichiamo ciò che abbiamo appreso dallo studio di questa parola a +Giacomo 5:14 "<emphasis>Qualcuno di voi è infermo? Chiami gli anziani, della +chiesa, ed essi preghino su di lui, ungendolo di olio nel nome del +Signore.</emphasis>" Qui "ungere" è spirituale o pratico? Pratico!</para> +<para> +And the tense in Greek, the aorist participle, would be better translated +"having anointed," so the order is the anointing first, then the prayer ("in +the name of the Lord"refers to the prayer, not the anointing). James 5 is +saying that the elders should give the sick person medicine and pray for him +in the name of the Lord. Doesn't that express a beautiful balance of +practical and spiritual in our God! +</para> +</section> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-context"> +<title>Regola 2 - Interpreta secondo il contesto biblico</title> +<para>Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture. What do the verses on +each side say? What is the theme of the chapter? the book? Does your +interpretation fit with these? If not, it is flawed. Usually, the context +supplies what we need to correctly interpret the passage. Context is key. +If confusion remains as to the meaning after we have interpreted the text +within its context, we have to look further.</para> + +<section id="h2-rules-context-ex2a"><title>Esempio 2A</title> +<para>In una lezione precedente, abbiamo parlato di Gv.3:5 "<emphasis>nato d'acqua +e di Spirito.</emphasis>" Nel contesto, qual è l'acqua si cui si discute?</para> +<para>Water baptism is not under discussion here, which would be a big switch from +the subject being discussed by Jesus and Nicodemus. Watch out for a sudden +change of topic, it may be a clue that your interpretation has been +derailed! The water is the amniotic fluid, "born of water" = natural birth.</para> +</section> +<section id="h2-rules-context-ex2b"><title>Esempio 2B</title> +<para>1 Cor.14:34 <quote>Let the women keep silent in the churches</quote> has to +be taken within the biblical context of 1 Cor.11:5 <quote>every woman [...] +while praying or prophesying [...]</quote></para> +</section> +<section id="h2-rules-context-ex2c"><title>Esempio 2C</title> +<para>Acts 2:38 <quote>And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you +be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins +[...]"</quote>. Is this teaching baptismal regeneration? If this was +the only verse of scripture we had, we would have to conclude that. But in +the light of the clear teaching elsewhere that regeneration happens by faith +in Christ, we have to interpret it otherwise. Peter is urging baptism as a +way for his hearers to respond to the gospel. If baptism were the pathway +to being born again, how could Paul write 1 Cor.1:17 <emphasis>"For Christ +did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"</emphasis>? +</para> +</section> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-hcontest"> +<title>Regola 3 - Interpreta secondo il contesto storico e culturale</title> +<para> +At first we are not asking <quote>What does it mean to me?</quote> but +<quote>What did it mean to the original readers?</quote>; later we can ask, +<quote>What does it mean to me?</quote>. We have to take into account the +historical and cultural background of the author and the recipients.</para> + +<section id="h2-rules-hcontest-ex3a"><title>Esempio 3A</title><para> <quote>3 days & 3 nights</quote> (Mt.12:40) have led some to come up +with a "Wednesday crucifixion theory," esp. the cult of Armstrongism. How +could Jesus die on Friday afternoon and rise Sunday morning yet "be raised +on the third day" (Mt.16:21)? Exact meanings of "three" or "days" won't help +explain the apparent contradiction.</para> +<para>We need an historical tidbit: Jews counted any part of a day as a full day, +as we would count buckets of water (if there were six and one-half buckets +of water, we would say there were 7 buckets of water even if one was only +partly full). So to the Jewish mind, any part of a day counted as a full +day, and days started at 6 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m. Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 +p.m. = day 1. Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. = day 2. Saturday 6 p.m. to +Sunday 5 or so a.m. = day 3. Interpreting within the cultural context keeps +us out of trouble.</para> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-hcontest-ex3b"><title>Esempio 3B</title><para>Gen.15:7-21. The historical context is that cutting animals in two and then +walking between the pieces was the normal way of entering a contract in +Abraham's day. Both parties walked between, taking the pledge that +dismemberment would happen to them if they didn't live up to their part of +the contract. But in this case only God goes thru, making it a unilateral +covenant.</para> +</section> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-normal"><title>Regola 4 - Interpreta secondo il normale uso delle prole nella lingua</title> +<para>Let literal language be literal and figurative language be figurative. And +watch out for idioms, which have special meanings.</para> + +<section id="h2-rules-normal-ex4a"><title>Esempio 4A</title> +<para><quote>evil eye</quote> in Mt.6:23.</para> +<para>Rule 1, definition of "evil" and "eye" - no help here. Rule 2, context: +seems to confuse us even more. It doesn't seem to fit with what goes before +and after! This should tip us off that we aren't understanding it rightly!!</para> +<para>What we have here is a Hebrew idiom, <quote>evil eye</quote>. Let's look up +other uses of this idiom: Mt.20:15 "<emphasis>Is it not lawful for me to do +what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [lit."evil"] because +I am generous [lit. "good"]?</emphasis>" We find that having an "evil eye" +is a Hebrew idiom for being stingy or envious. Now go back to Mt.6 and +notice how this understanding ties in so perfectly to the context.</para> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-normal-ex4b"><title>Esempio 4B</title> +<para>Is.59:1 <quote>The Lord's hand is not short;</quote></para> +<para>Deut.33:27 <quote>Underneath are the everlasting arms.</quote></para> +<para> +References to body parts of God are used by Latter-Day Saints to prove that +God was once a man just as we are. Once they convince people of that, they +go on to teach that we can become God just like He is! At a lecture he was +giving, a group of Mormon elders challenged Walter Martin (author of +<emphasis>Kingdom of the Cults</emphasis>) with an enumeration of verses +like these. Dr. Martin then asked the Mormons to read one more scripture: +Ps.91:4 <quote>He will cover you with His feathers; And under His wings +shalt thou trust</quote>. W.M. said, <quote>By the same rules of +interpretation that you just proved God to be a man, you just proved that He +is a bird</quote>. The Mormons had to laugh as they realised the +ridiculousness of their position. +</para> +</section> +</section> + +<section id="h2-rules-parables"><title>Regola 5 - Comprendi lo scopo delle parabole e la differenza tra una +parabola e un'allegoria</title> +<para>An allegory is: <emphasis>A story where each element has a +meaning.</emphasis></para> +<para>Ogni parabola è un'allegoria, giusto o sbagliato?</para> + +<para>Some parables are allegories, for instance, the parable of the sower is an +allegory: the seed is the word of God, the thorns are worries and greed, +etc. But most parables are not allegories but simply stories to illustrate +one point. It's dangerous to get our doctrine from parables; they can be +twisted to say all sorts of things. We need to get our doctrine from clear +scriptures that lay it out; then if a parable illustrates that, fine.</para> + +<section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5a"><title>Esempio 5A</title> +<para>The parable of the widow with the unrighteous judge in Lk.18:1-8. This story +illustrates one lesson: boldness in prayer. If we draw it into an allegory, +what do we have?</para> +<para>Tutti i tipi di violenza raggiungono lo scopo: Dio esita a proteggere i +diriti della vedova, la preghiera lo scoccia, ecc.</para></section> + +<section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5b"><title>Esempio 5B</title> +<para>The parable of the unrighteous steward in Lk.16:1-9. What is the point of +the parable? Is it an allegory? </para> +<para>The steward is commended for only one thing, his shrewdness in using what he +had to prepare for a time when he wouldn't have it. But he is not commended +for his unethical behavior in cheating his master. </para> +</section> + +</section> +</chapter> |