Added initial Trinity version of BibleTime

git-svn-id: svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/branches/trinity/applications/bibletime@1173688 283d02a7-25f6-0310-bc7c-ecb5cbfe19da

1 files changed, 212 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook b/docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..aadc189
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+<chapter id="h2-rules"><title>Rules of Bible Interpretation (Hermeneutics)</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>Rule 1 - Interpret according to the exact meaning of the words.</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>Cross-reference</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>Example 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>&quot;aleipho&quot; is a practical use of oil and &quot;chrio&quot; 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>Now let's apply what we just learned by this word study to James 5:14  <emphasis>"Is any among you sick?  Let
+him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
+Lord."</emphasis>  Is "anointing" spiritual or practical?   Practical!</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>Rule 2 - Interpret within the biblical
+context</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>Example 2A</title>
+<para>In a previous lesson we considered Jn.3:5 <emphasis>"born of water and the Spirit."</emphasis>  In context, what is
+the water under discussion here?</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>Example 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>Example 2C</title>
+<para>Acts 2:38 <quote>And Peter said to them, &quot;Repent,
+and let each of you be baptized in the name of
+Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins [...]&quot;</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>Rule 3 - Interpret within the historical and cultural context</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>Example 3A</title><para>  <quote>3 days &amp; 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>Example 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>Rule 4 - Interpret according to the normal usage of words in language</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>Example 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>Example 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>Rule 5 - Understand the purpose of parables and the difference between a parable and an allegory</title>
+<para>An allegory is: <emphasis>A story where each element has a meaning.</emphasis></para>
+<para>Every parable is an allegory, true or false?</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>Example 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>All sorts of violence happens to the meanings: God is reluctant to protect the rights of widows, prayer
+"bothers" Him, etc.</para></section>
+
+<section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5b"><title>Example 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>