|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,562 Year: 884/6,935 Month: 165/719 Week: 157/116 Day: 31/40 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
rstrats writes:
Matthew 12:40 quotes the Messiah saying that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights. A majority of folks believe that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week. This period of time, however, would only allow for 2 night times. To account for this discrepancy, it is frequently explained that the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language of the time.I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb) knows of any writing which shows a phrase from the first century or before which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights? And remember, the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. There are other topics that do that. However, for those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language I should think that one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern was used in order to say that it was common. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. First, here's a passage from the NT which shows that what they called "the third day" was actually two days away:
quote:So when Jesus was raised "on the third day", this was probably only two days after the crucifixion. Second, here's an OT passage which shows that "three days and three nights" was synonymous for "three days ago":
quote:This suggests that "three days and three nights" would have been a Hebrew idiom for "three days" or "the third day". There may be more biblical examples, and I suspect that there are extrabiblical examples of this as well. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
rstrats writes:
Yes, understood. As I said after presenting two biblical passages:
This topic is not about calendar days. It's about daytimes and night times and whether or not it was common to say that a daytime and/or a night time was to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.kbertsche writes:
In other words, the phrase "three days and three nights" may have been used as an idiom even when there were NOT actually three nights included in the time period. To get more verification of this, I suspect you'll have to look more closely into extrabiblical literature. This suggests that "three days and three nights" would have been a Hebrew idiom for "three days" or "the third day"."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
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.
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.
First, I probably should have quoted from YLT rather than NASB:
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: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. If he counted as we do today (and as you assume), this means that he would have become sick THREE days ago. He would have been sick for parts of four calendar days and all of three nights. So depending on how we judge that he counted, we come to two different conclusions. I believe that he would have counted the way that is shown in the NT passage. I believe that it would be anachronistic and incorrect to ignore the NT passage and impose our modern counting scheme on the OT passage. I can't prove this to a skeptic, of course, but I think it is the most likely and most reasonable way to interpret the text."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
CatSci writes:
Agreed. The claim is that the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" is a common idiom for "3 days", and that "3 days" to a Hebrew meant "some part of each of three consecutive calendar days". Hence this idiomatic phrase is not meant to be interpreted literally.
Yes, it it 3 different days, but Matt 20:14 explicitly says "3 days and 3 nights".
I realize that I have not proven this claim. Proving it would probably require some sort of trusted linguistic study of Hebrew idioms, and I don't know where to find this. In the mean time, here is a website which argues for this position: Friday crucifixion three days and three nights Nisan 14 sign of Jonah"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
CatSci writes:
Yes, this is exactly the problem that I addressed. I argued that the original audience probably would have understood the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" in 1 Sam as meaning "some part of each of three consecutive calendar days". In your case, it's looking for other instances of where the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" is a common idiom for "3 days" that the audience knows means "some part of each of three consecutive calendar days" rather than meaning in three days from now, like on the forth day if today is the first. That's the problem, if you care to participate.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
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.
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.
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."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Why must the final period be later? What about the ancient Hebrew language so restricts their use of idioms?
ApologeticsPress writes:
Yes, that's all true, as long as that final period is later (i.e. towards evening) on day three where the first day is day one.
a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring on the third day, after three days, or after three days and three nights, yet still be referring to the same exact day In saying this, you seem to be assuming that these phrases are NOT idioms, and you are applying a modern anachronistic and literalistic understanding to the words. You are begging the question of whether or not this is idiomatic language."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
The question in this thread is whether or not the phrase "three days and three nights" is an idiom. I have presented evidence for the view that it is. But I have not claimed that this is proof, nor have I declared myself right.
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. But neither you nor NoNukes have proven that this phrase is NOT an idiom. You have only begged the question by assuming that it is not."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
In saying this, you implicitly assume that the phrase is NOT an idiom, and that it must literally include parts of three nights. You beg the question of whether or not it is an idiom.
But the expression in dispute is "three days and three nights". If day three ends at dawn or even earlier, then there simply is no way to count "three nights" because there would only be two dark periods involved no matter what we count on day one. Again, the question in this thread is whether or not the phrase "three days and three nights" is an idiom. If it IS an idiom, it doesn't necessarily need to include parts of three nights.
You respond by telling me (apparently) that "three days and three nights" might be an ancient idiom that covers "three days and two nights."
Yes. According to the standard interpretation of the gospel accounts, the period was less than 48 hours long.
But you don't offer any defense for your position other than your assertion. In fact the sole basis seems to be assuming Bible inerrancy. Pretty much pee poor in my opinion.
My explanation doesn't need to assume inerrancy. It only assumes consistency between the various Gospel writers and Paul. Their use of different wording for the same event and time period shows the phrases to be synonymous."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
rstrats writes:
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. 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."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
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. Where there is a sensible literal reading,there is no reason to assume that it is an idiom. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
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? 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."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NewCatsEye writes:
Easter Sunday is the third day from Good Friday (cf. Lk 13:32). Three days ago from Sunday is Thursday not Friday. Good Friday is two days ago from Easter Sunday not three days ago.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2447 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
rstrats writes:
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.
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.
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025