Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

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".

Cat Sci,
re: "Yes, it it 3 different days, but Matt 20:14 explicitly says '3 days and 3 nights'".Well, you got the individual numbers correct. Now you just need to arrange them in the correct order.

kbertsche,
re: "First, I probably should have quoted from YLT rather than NASB:"Why do you suppose that virtually all versions/translations, including the English-Greek/Hebrew Interlinear, include the word "ago" while Young doesn't?But even if "ago" doesn't belong, I don't see how the Samuel account shows an example where at least a part of each daytime and/or at least a part of each night time couldn't have been involved. Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your message #3.If the slave was abandoned three days ago, then isn't today the fourth day?On Easter Sunday, isn't Good Friday two days ago?

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.

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. 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.

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.

Right, but it does not say, "I have been sick for three days and three nights and therefore it may not be a great example to extend to the instant case.If Jesus actually died Friday afternoon, then arose Sunday night, then maybe "three days and three nights would cover things based on the traditional belief.The real problem is that Jesus is described to have arisen early on that third day -- still during the second dark period and well before any third night.Here is an explanation from apologetics press that makes the same erroneous argument. Did Jesus Rise On or After the Third Day? - Apologetics Press

quote:

---

American living in the 21st century, 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

---

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. I note that the argument includes the straw man of ridiculing people who insist that three days means exactly 72 hours. Nobody is making that argument.

quote:

---

For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8 innings a 9-inning game. And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings

---

And of course, this argument is just ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why must the final period be later? What about the ancient Hebrew language so restricts their use of idioms?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.

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.

PaulK,
re: "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."Nor has he shown any examples where a daytime and/or a night time was forecast to be involived with an event when no part of the daytime and/or no part of the night time could have occurred.

I explained that. I understand how "three days" might work by counting day one. 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. So at least that part of your explanation does not work. You actually explain coherently why three days might encompass the period from Friday to Sunday, and I agree. But your explanation does not tell us how Friday afternoon to Sunday morning might mean three days and three nights. You just assert that.I also pointed out that the explanation given at the reference simply ignores that point. In that explanation it is claimed that the idiom is understandable in modern terms. Clearly not.You respond by telling me (apparently) that "three days and three nights" might be an ancient idiom that covers "three days and two nights." 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.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

deletedEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.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.

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.