Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

But isn't it the case that you only have two evenings ?

The OT quote is the only really relevant one.The man fell ill three days ago, and was left behind. So he would have been alone for a full three nights, two full days and parts of two more days.Therefore, to get your parallel you need three days and three nights to start only two days ago. So, no, it is not adequate to support your point.

quote:

---

The NT quote is relevant too. It shows how the Hebrews counted days. Today counts as day 1, not day 0. Tomorrow (or yesterday) is day 2, not day 1.

---

No. Since the quotes are entirely compatible with English usage (and are in English) they can't show that the Hebrews did anything different.

quote:

---

This is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew, which says "I have been sick three days".
Second, what does the phrase "I have been sick three days" actually mean? How did he count these days?

​

If he counted like the NT passage, with today as day 1, this means that he would have become sick TWO days ago, not three. He would have been sick for parts of three calendar days and all of two nights.

---

A literal translation is not necessarily more accurate. Indeed, the less literal translation may account better for use of idiom, since that is one of the reasons for not translating literally.Even then, rather than inventing a strange counting system whereby two nights becomes three, it is surely possible that he became sick in the evening or night. Since the Hebrew day starts at evening he would have therefore been sick for two whole nights and at least part of a third.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

So, your argument assumes that the literal translation is the most correct rendition into English - which is probably false.Then you have to assume that the period involved didn't include at least a part of three nights for the reasons I have already explained in Message 12. Which pretty much amounts to begging the question.That's not much of a case.

quote:

---

The Hebrew says "I have been sick three days". It's only three words, and is pretty straightforward to translate. You are welcome to present grammatical and linguistic support for your claim that the literal translation is not accurate

---

Hebrew grammar is sufficiently different that I doubt that translation is exact. And we know that other translations - including the one you first quoted - render it differently. Adding these up it seems more likely that the literal translation is misleading through being over-literal.

quote:

---

I'm sure you want to see it this way. I believe your reading is begging the question by forcing an anachronistic, modern perspective on the text.

---

I note that you do not identify any anachronisms in my argument - which you have yet to address. Nor is there any begging the question in taking the text at face value, we know that it can be sensibly read in that way (and was likely the original meaning even if you are correct). It is your claim of a different idiomatic reading that requires support. And if your only support requires assuming that it is the intended reading - when it need not be - you are begging the question.

It would be one thing to accuse NoNukes of anachronism if you had proved your point. But so far you only have an opinion based on rather flimsy evidence.You cannot settle a disagreement by just declaring yourself right. You do not get to dictate the idioms used by people living thousands of years ago. You do not even have any special expertise to add weight to your opinions.

quote:

---

But I have not claimed that this is proof, nor have I declared myself right.

---

I see no other basis for accusing NoNukes of "anachronistic" thought other than the presumption that your poorly supported opinion.Again, the sole basis for your unlikely claim is a question-begging assumption based on a single translation - contradicted by a good number of other translations including the one that you first quoted. And all your rhetorical attacks cannot change that fact.The straightforward literal reading is naturally to be preferred in the absence of adequate evidence to the contrary, and clearly evidence so weak as you have offered is not adequate.

You claimed to have an example. Your claim was refuted.

In this thread, of course.E.g Message 12Where there is a sensible literal reading,there is no reason to assume that it is an idiom.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ?