|
Author
|
Topic: Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?
|
rstrats
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 140 Joined: 04-08-2004
|
|
Message 46 of 175 (821032)
10-01-2017 11:15 AM
|
|
|
Since it has again been awhile, someone new looking in who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, and who tries to get around Matthew 12:40 by saying that it is using common Jewish idiomatic/figure of speech/colloquial language may know of some writing as requested in the OP. Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2524 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 47 of 175 (821097)
10-02-2017 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by rstrats
11-17-2016 7:37 AM
|
|
Re: Why?
rstrats writes: Sorry, I misread you comment. When I said that I'd not seen even one example, I was referring to an example where a daytime or a night time was forecast to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.
I gave you an example in post #3 of this thread, from the OT, suggesting that "three days and three nights" was a Hebrew idiom for "three days ago". Your comment in post #4 suggests that you read my post too quickly and missed the point.
"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 45 by rstrats, posted 11-17-2016 7:37 AM | | rstrats has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2017 12:25 PM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 51 by rstrats, posted 10-02-2017 1:32 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 18125 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 6.1
|
|
|
Message 48 of 175 (821098)
10-02-2017 12:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
You claimed to have an example. Your claim was refuted.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 12:10 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2524 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 49 of 175 (821101)
10-02-2017 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
10-02-2017 12:25 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
PaulK writes:
You claimed to have an example. Your claim was refuted. My example was 1 Sam 30:11-15, which suggests that "three days and three nights" was a Hebrew idiom for "three days ago". How, when, and where was this claim "refuted"?? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : Clarification
"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 48 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2017 12:25 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 18125 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 6.1
|
|
|
Message 50 of 175 (821102)
10-02-2017 1:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 12:53 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
In this thread, of course. E.g Message 12 Where there is a sensible literal reading,there is no reason to assume that it is an idiom.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 12:53 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
rstrats
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 140 Joined: 04-08-2004
|
|
|
Message 51 of 175 (821105)
10-02-2017 1:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
kbertsche, re: "I gave you an example in post #3 of this thread, from the OT, suggesting that 'three days and three nights' was a Hebrew idiom for 'three days ago'". Please explain how that shows an example where a daytime or a night time was said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred. Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 12:10 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2524 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 52 of 175 (821106)
10-02-2017 2:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
10-02-2017 1:01 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
PaulK writes: Where there is a sensible literal reading,there is no reason to assume that it is an idiom.
I see. So if you write that "the sun rose at 7 AM this morning", I am to assume that you actually believe that the sun moves around the earth. There is no reason to assume that you are using an idiom, since there is a sensible literal reading. Sorry, but this is not how human language works. It doesn't follow such strict, simplistic rules of interpretation as you seem to think.
"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 50 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2017 1:01 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2017 2:37 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 18125 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 6.1
|
|
|
Message 53 of 175 (821108)
10-02-2017 2:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 2:22 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
quote:
I see. So if you write that "the sun rose at 7 AM this morning", I am to assume that you actually believe that the sun moves around the earth.
Not at all, since it is common knowledge that the rising of the sun is due to the rotation of the Earth you have a sensible reason for thinking that it is an idiom.
quote:
Sorry, but this is not how human language works. It doesn't follow such strict, simplistic rules of interpretation as you seem to think.
It's not a question of how language works it is a question of evidence. So, instead of sneering why don't you actually produce some evidence that the usage is idiomatic? All these silly and baseless sneers hardly make for a valid argument - but it seems to be all you have, as the history of the thread shows,
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 2:22 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 2:54 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 54 of 175 (821111)
10-02-2017 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
10-02-2017 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
Not at all, since it is common knowledge that the rising of the sun is due to the rotation of the Earth you have a sensible reason for thinking that it is an idiom. Let's take this one step further, there is plenty of evidence that folks who know the facts about the rising of the sun refer to "sunrise" and the "sun rising". However, there is not a single example other than the one in question, of people referring to a period between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning as three days and three nights. In the Bible or anywhere else. So there is neither evidence or reason to believe the idiom explanation. The facts are that the Bible does not name the day Jesus died. The point to this discussion is not to defend the Bible but to defend the traditional Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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 53 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2017 2:37 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 4:04 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2524 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 55 of 175 (821119)
10-02-2017 4:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
10-02-2017 2:54 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
NoNukes writes: However, there is not a single example other than the one in question, of people referring to a period between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning as three days and three nights. In the Bible or anywhere else. So there is neither evidence or reason to believe the idiom explanation.
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?
"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 54 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 2:54 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:38 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 56 of 175 (821125)
10-02-2017 4:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 12:53 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
My example was 1 Sam 30:11-15, which suggests that "three days and three nights" was a Hebrew idiom for "three days ago". How, when, and where was this claim "refuted"?? Three days ago from Sunday is Thursday not Friday. Good Friday is two days ago from Easter Sunday not three days ago.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 12:53 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 11:00 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2524 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Why?
NewCatsEye writes: Three days ago from Sunday is Thursday not Friday. Good Friday is two days ago from Easter Sunday not three days ago.
Easter Sunday is the third day from Good Friday (cf. Lk 13:32).
"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
|
rstrats
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 140 Joined: 04-08-2004
|
|
|
Message 58 of 175 (821147)
10-03-2017 8:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 11:00 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
kbertsche, re: "Easter Sunday is the third day from Good Friday (cf. Lk 13:32)." What would the first day from Good Friday be? BTW, you have a question directed to you in post #51.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 11:00 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 11:24 AM | | rstrats has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 59 of 175 (821152)
10-03-2017 10:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by kbertsche
10-02-2017 11:00 PM
|
|
Re: Why?
NewCatsEye writes: Three days ago from Sunday is Thursday not Friday. Good Friday is two days ago from Easter Sunday not three days ago.
Easter Sunday is the third day from Good Friday (cf. Lk 13:32). 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by kbertsche, posted 10-02-2017 11:00 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 11:28 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2524 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 60 of 175 (821160)
10-03-2017 11:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by rstrats
10-03-2017 8:49 AM
|
|
Re: Why?
rstrats writes:
kbertsche, re: "Easter Sunday is the third day from Good Friday (cf. Lk 13:32)." What would the first day from Good Friday be? BTW, you have a question directed to you in post #51.
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. I haven't been able to find a passage which exactly answers your question in post #51. But Lk 13:32 shows how the first century Hebrews counted: what we would call "two days away" they called "the third day". 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". It seems that all of these phrases were used synonymously for the same thing, which is spelled out in Lk 13:32.
"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 58 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 8:49 AM | | rstrats has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2017 11:37 AM | | kbertsche has not replied | | | Message 66 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 1:52 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2