Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 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 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 3 of 169 (775152)
12-29-2015 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rstrats
12-28-2015 8:09 PM


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:
And He said to them, Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’ (Lk 13:32 NASB)
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:
11Now they found an Egyptian in the field and brought him to David, and gave him bread and he ate, and they provided him water to drink. 12They gave him a piece of fig cake and two clusters of raisins, and he ate; then his spirit revived. For he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights. 13David said to him, To whom do you belong? And where are you from? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, a servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind when I fell sick three days ago. 14We made a raid on the Negev of the Cherethites, and on that which belongs to Judah, and on the Negev of Caleb, and we burned Ziklag with fire. 15Then David said to him, Will you bring me down to this band? And he said, Swear to me by God that you will not kill me or deliver me into the hands of my master, and I will bring you down to this band. (1 Sam 30:11-15 NASB)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rstrats, posted 12-28-2015 8:09 PM rstrats has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by rstrats, posted 12-29-2015 10:03 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 6 of 169 (775171)
12-29-2015 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by rstrats
12-29-2015 10:03 AM


rstrats writes:
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.
Yes, understood. As I said after presenting two biblical passages:
kbertsche writes:
This suggests that "three days and three nights" would have been a Hebrew idiom for "three days" or "the third day".
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.

"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 4 by rstrats, posted 12-29-2015 10:03 AM rstrats has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-29-2015 11:19 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 9 by rstrats, posted 12-29-2015 1:58 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 11 of 169 (775189)
12-29-2015 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
12-29-2015 11:19 AM


PaulK writes:
The OT quote is the only really relevant one.
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 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.
First, I probably should have quoted from YLT rather than NASB:
quote:
1Sam. 30:12 and give to him a piece of a bunch of dried figs, and two bunches of raisins, and he eateth, and his spirit returneth unto him, for he hath not eaten bread nor drunk water three days and three nights.
1Sam. 30:13 And David saith to him, ‘Whose [art] thou? and whence [art] thou?’ And he saith, ‘An Egyptian youth I [am], servant to a man, an Amalekite, and my lord forsaketh me, for I have been sick three days,
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-29-2015 11:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 12-29-2015 5:09 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2015 5:13 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 18 by rstrats, posted 12-30-2015 6:05 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 14 of 169 (775192)
12-29-2015 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2015 5:13 PM


CatSci writes:
Yes, it it 3 different days, but Matt 20:14 explicitly says "3 days and 3 nights".
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.
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

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2015 7:44 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 16 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 21 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 24 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 29 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 31 of 169 (775351)
12-31-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
12-31-2015 10:20 AM


NoNukes writes:
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.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2015 10:20 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2016 11:01 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 47 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 49 of 169 (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

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2017 1:01 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2017 4:30 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 52 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 55 of 169 (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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 57 of 169 (821136)
10-02-2017 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2017 4:30 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).

"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 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2017 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by rstrats, posted 10-03-2017 8:49 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2017 10:24 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 60 of 169 (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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024