Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 7:06 AM
347 online now:
granpa, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,788 Year: 25,394/21,208 Month: 1,021/2,338 Week: 142/450 Day: 14/52 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 61 of 129 (821161)
10-03-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2017 10:24 AM


Re: Why?
NewCatsEye writes:


So then, Saturday is the second day from Good Friday and Good Friday is the first day from Good Friday?

Friday is the first day from Friday? No, that don't make sense.


Read Lk 13:32 to see how they counted. Idioms don't always make sense to us, especially when they are from a distant culture and time.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2017 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2017 2:56 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13227
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 62 of 129 (821162)
10-03-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Why?
quote:

If you read Lk 13:32, you should be able to figure out for yourself what the "first day" would have been according to first century Hebrew idiom.

You have a habit of assuming things. There's no special idiom there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 11:24 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9992
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 129 (821176)
10-03-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 4:04 PM


Re: Why?
How can you be so positive that not a single example exists in the Bible or anywhere else? Where is your evidence for this claim? Have you read all of the extant Greco-Roman and Semitic literature?

When are you going to get around to citing some evidence? It's pretty clear that your opinion is not based on any such thing or you would have a rebuttal instead of a question.

Seriously. That would at least move the ball a bit. Wanting to see some evidence was the impetus for getting this thread restarted.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 4:04 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 12:50 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:04 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13227
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 64 of 129 (821177)
10-03-2017 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 12:38 PM


Re: Why?
If he had anything he wouldn't be trying to browbeat and bluster us into accepting assertions that have already been refuted.

There's nothing in Luke 13:32 that implies any special counting method or idiom.

There's nothing in 1 Samuel 30 that tells us that only two nights had passed.

All he has is the assumption that they us some special idiom, but not a shred of evidence for that claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:38 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:16 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 129 (821182)
10-03-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by rstrats
12-28-2015 8:09 PM


A Rabbi says it's an idiom
This is one of the commentaries on Matthew 12:40 at Blue Letter Bible, the commentary by David Guzik. Go to the verse and then to the commentary under "Tools" to find it. He refers to a Rabbi who is quoted in a Commentary by Clarke:

i. Because Jesus here refers to three days and three nights, some think that Jesus had to spend at least 72 hours in the grave. This upsets most chronologies of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and is unnecessary – because it doesn’t take into account the use of ancient figures of speech. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (around the year ad 100; cited in Clarke and other sources) explained this way of speaking when he wrote: “A day and a night make a whole day, and a portion of a whole day is reckoned as a whole day.” This demonstrates how in Jesus’ day, the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a full 72-hour period, but a period including at least the portions of three days and three nights. There may be other good reasons for challenging the traditional chronology of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but it is not necessary in order to fulfill the words of Jesus here.

This is clearly the framework for Jesus' rising "on the third day," Good Friday being the first day, the day He died, though late in the day since Jewish days begin at sunset of what to us is the previous day; then Saturday the second day, which was the Passover; then Sunday the third day on which He rose early in the morning, certainly not a full three days and nights but Sunday is nevertheless the "third day" counting from His crucifixion on Friday. His rising "on the third day" is repeated many times in the New Testament, just Search on the phrase at the Blue Letter Bible site.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rstrats, posted 12-28-2015 8:09 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:24 PM Faith has responded
 Message 81 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 6:00 PM Faith has responded

  
rstrats
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 66 of 129 (821183)
10-03-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Why?
kbertsche,
re: "If you read Lk 13:32, you should be able to figure out for yourself what the 'first day' would have been according to first century Hebrew idiom."

The Messiah did not say that any day was "from" a particular day as you did. It's a totally different construct with a totally different meaning.

re: "I haven't been able to find a passage which exactly answers your question in post #51

You said that you gave an example in post #3. That is the specific example that I would like for you to address because I see nothing in the example which precludes at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times. Please explain how you think that it does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 11:24 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:11 PM rstrats has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 67 of 129 (821184)
10-03-2017 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 12:38 PM


Re: Why?
NoNukes writes:


When are you going to get around to citing some evidence? It's pretty clear that your opinion is not based on any such thing or you would have a rebuttal instead of a question.

Seriously. That would at least move the ball a bit. Wanting to see some evidence was the impetus for getting this thread restarted.


I HAVE cited evidence: when are you going get around to addressing it?

For example, from my post #60:

Point 1: Lk 13:32 shows how the first century Hebrews counted: what we would call "two days away" they called "the third day".

Point 2: The New Testament alternately says that Jesus was raised "on the third day" or was in the tomb "three days" or (in one passage) "three days and three nights".

Conclusion: It seems that all of these phrases were used synonymously for the same thing, which is spelled out in Lk 13:32.

Note that I have presented two points of evidence above, with a conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, please address the evidence.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:38 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:15 PM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 68 of 129 (821185)
10-03-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by rstrats
10-03-2017 1:52 PM


Re: Why?
rstrats writes:


You said that you gave an example in post #3. That is the specific example that I would like for you to address because I see nothing in the example which precludes at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times. Please explain how you think that it does.


Please go back and re-read my post #3. As I said there, the evidence SUGGESTS that this is an idiom. It does not PROVE that this is an idiom; proofs are rare if ever possible in linguistics.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 1:52 PM rstrats has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 5:50 PM kbertsche has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13227
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 69 of 129 (821187)
10-03-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 2:04 PM


Re: Why?
quote:

I HAVE cited evidence: when are you going get around to addressing it?

Your evidence has been refuted.

quote:

Point 1: Lk 13:32 shows how the first century Hebrews counted: what we would call "two days away" they called "the third day".

An obvious falsehood. Today is a day, tomorrow is a another day and the day after tomorrow is a third day. There is no need to presume that there is anything more there. Well, unless you find counting to three too difficult.

quote:

Point 2: The New Testament alternately says that Jesus was raised "on the third day" or was in the tomb "three days" or (in one passage) "three days and three nights".

And your evidence that this is idiom rather than disagreement on a point that we could reasonably expect to be uncertain is ? This is the whole question of the OP, so just to assume it based on the very text under examination is begging the question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:04 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:29 PM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 70 of 129 (821188)
10-03-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
10-03-2017 12:50 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:

All he has is the assumption that they us some special idiom, but not a shred of evidence for that claim.


Faith has just given you some good extra-biblical evidence (a quote from a first century rabbi). Why don't you address this evidence?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 12:50 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 10-03-2017 2:50 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13227
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 71 of 129 (821189)
10-03-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
10-03-2017 1:52 PM


Re: A Rabbi says it's rounding up
We all accept that it needn't be a full 72 hours, however the big problem is that there are only two nights and not even a portion of a third. The fact that you only have a small portion of two of the days is also questionable.

Now, as your quote says


...the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a full 72-hour period, but a period including at least the portions of three days and three nights.

Since we do not have even a portion of a third night the main problem is unsolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 1:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 3:58 PM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 72 of 129 (821191)
10-03-2017 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
10-03-2017 2:15 PM


Re: Why?
PaulK writes:


KBertsche writes:


Point 1: Lk 13:32 shows how the first century Hebrews counted: what we would call "two days away" they called "the third day".


An obvious falsehood. Today is a day, tomorrow is a another day and the day after tomorrow is a third day. There is no need to presume that there is anything more there. Well, unless you find counting to three too difficult.

Why do you deny the obvious?

1) The text of Lk 13:32 refers to "THE third day", not "A third day". The definite article is present.

2) This phrase is grammatically identical to the references to Jesus' resurrection on "the third day".

3) now look at Lk 13:32. When is "the third day"? It is two days hence.

4) conclusion: Jesus' resurrection on the third day (Easter Sunday) was two days after His crucifixion on Good Friday.

Please address the points above and explain exactly which one(s) you disagree with, and why.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 2:43 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13227
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 73 of 129 (821194)
10-03-2017 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 2:29 PM


Re: Why?
quote:

Why do you deny the obvious?

That question is better directed at you.

quote:

1) The text of Lk 13:32 refers to "THE third day", not "A third day". The definite article is present

And as I have already explained that is because it is in a list of days including the present day. Context matters.

quote:

2) This phrase is grammatically identical to the references to Jesus' resurrection on "the third day".

As you ought to have noticed by now that phrase isn't even being questioned.

quote:

Please address the points above and explain exactly which one(s) you disagree with, and why.

The only one I disagree with is the idea that this is any different from ordinary English usage. It may be a bit cheesy to round up the small portion of the Friday, but that's the only objection to the "three days" and you don't even touch on that.

Now, instead of boasting about victory over a point that nobody is arguing and claiming a special idiom when the usage fits perfectly with ordinary English perhaps you would like to get on to the actual topic ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:29 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9888
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 74 of 129 (821195)
10-03-2017 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 2:16 PM


Re: Why?
Faith has just given you some good extra-biblical evidence (a quote from a first century rabbi). Why don't you address this evidence?
Reality suggests that evidence can be assembled either pro or con for virtually any real life situation.

After reading the recent posts at this topic, I went to google and quickly found an apologist who argued the "heart of the earth" vs empty tomb argument. In reality, though...Jesus only lives in the heart and mind of the people. It is what we do rather than whether or not He is alive. Scary to think that I am finally agreeing with jar about something!


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 2:16 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 75 of 129 (821197)
10-03-2017 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Why?
Read Lk 13:32 to see how they counted. Idioms don't always make sense to us, especially when they are from a distant culture and time.

Luke 13:32 doesn't actually contain an idiom. Also, the phrasing in Luke doesn't have much to do with the phrase in Matthew.

Here's Luke 13:32:

quote:
He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’

So we have:
Today : Tomorrow : 3rd Day
Day 1 : Day 2 : Day 3
Friday : Saturday : Sunday

That all adds up.

Now, here's Matthew 12:40:

quote:
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus did not spend 3 days and also 3 nights in the tomb. But, I can accept that it's an idiom that can fit the timeframe.

However, your argument about Friday being three days ago from Sunday is not sound.

Friday being one day ago from Friday does not fit and is not supported by "3 days and 3 nights" being an idiom for about 3 days.

You have:

Today : 1 day ago : 2 days ago : 3 days ago
Sunday : Sunday : Saturday : Friday

Or:

Today : 1 day from now : 2 days from now : 3 days from now
Friday : Friday : Saturday : Sunday

But it should be:

Today : 1 day ago : 2 days ago : 3 days ago
Sunday : Saturday : Friday : Thursday

Or:

Today : 1 day from now : 2 days from now : 3 days from now
Friday : Saturday : Sunday : Monday

Either way, your "days from now" and "# days ago" arguments are wrong. They do not support that the idiom "3 days and 3 nights" means just Friday to Sunday.

I don't doubt that the idiom can mean that, but your arguments are not supporting it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 11:28 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017