Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,373 Year: 4,630/9,624 Month: 405/1,096 Week: 0/110 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 16 of 168 (775205)
12-29-2015 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2015 7:44 PM


CatSci writes:
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.
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".

"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 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2015 7:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2015 9:26 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2015 10:48 AM kbertsche has replied

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 138
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 17 of 168 (775211)
12-30-2015 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2015 5:13 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2015 5:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 138
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 18 of 168 (775213)
12-30-2015 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by kbertsche
12-29-2015 4:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kbertsche, posted 12-29-2015 4:41 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 168 (775220)
12-30-2015 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kbertsche
12-29-2015 11:15 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kbertsche, posted 12-29-2015 11:15 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 20 of 168 (775222)
12-30-2015 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kbertsche
12-29-2015 11:15 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kbertsche, posted 12-29-2015 11:15 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 21 of 168 (775230)
12-30-2015 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
12-30-2015 10:48 AM


PaulK writes:
So, your argument assumes that the literal translation is the most correct rendition into English - which is probably false.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2015 10:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2015 12:04 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 12-30-2015 7:40 PM kbertsche has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 22 of 168 (775232)
12-30-2015 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by kbertsche
12-30-2015 11:41 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:41 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 168 (775284)
12-30-2015 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by kbertsche
12-30-2015 11:41 AM


The Hebrew says "I have been sick three days". It's only three words,
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:41 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:57 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 24 of 168 (775297)
12-30-2015 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
12-30-2015 7:40 PM


NoNukes writes:
ApologeticsPress writes:
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.
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.

"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 23 by NoNukes, posted 12-30-2015 7:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2015 4:17 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2015 10:20 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2015 10:35 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 25 of 168 (775324)
12-31-2015 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by kbertsche
12-30-2015 11:57 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:57 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by rstrats, posted 12-31-2015 6:02 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 12-31-2015 2:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 138
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 26 of 168 (775325)
12-31-2015 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
12-31-2015 4:17 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2015 4:17 AM PaulK has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 168 (775332)
12-31-2015 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by kbertsche
12-30-2015 11:57 PM


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

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:57 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 12-31-2015 2:36 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 168 (775333)
12-31-2015 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by kbertsche
12-30-2015 11:57 PM


deleted
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
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)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 12-30-2015 11:57 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 29 of 168 (775349)
12-31-2015 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
12-31-2015 4:17 AM


PaulK writes:
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.
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.

"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 25 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2015 4:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2015 2:35 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2015 2:46 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 33 by rstrats, posted 12-31-2015 2:53 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 30 of 168 (775350)
12-31-2015 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
12-31-2015 2:23 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 12-31-2015 2:23 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024