Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

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.

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.

I don't see any significant evidence provided by you that "three days and three nights is an idiom that is met by three days and only two nights. In particular the references cited all argue strongly that "three days" is an idiom that might cover the period between Friday and Sunday. I don't dispute that point. However the reasoning covering "three days and three nights" is extremely poor, and in fact is not supported by any evidence. I don't see a single example given of any other use of the phrase three days and three nights that is not consistent with the interpretation I use. Yet you have attempted to argue otherwise. Those attempts don't reflect well on the strength of your evidence. No, I have not proven such. But statements that my interpretation is anachronistic are statements that require something approaching proof/strong evidence on your part.Just how strong is the Biblical evidence that Jesus is stated to have been crucified on Friday anyway?The Three Days and the Three Nights - Study Resources

quote:

---

With all of that said, it must be noted that the day of the week is not something we know from Scripture. If God wanted us to know whether it was Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, it would have been clearly stated.

---

Beyond that point, there are plenty of ways to make Friday to Sunday work. Where was Jesus when he was not in the tomb on Sunday morning?Forbidden - Stack Exchange

quote:

---

Peter indicates that Jesus too was in Hades (Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31), which is Sheol in the LXX, and Paul indicates that Jesus was "in the lower parts of the earth" (Eph 4:9). In other words, like Jonah, Jesus was in the belly of the earth (Sheol) for three days and three nights.

---

In short, IMO, much of the mental gymnastics about a short part of the morning actually meaning a day and a night are both unlikely and unnecessary. Even without getting into that, there is enough ambiguity about days and dates as to make the question fairly trivial unless there is supposed to be some numerology based reason to count three nights.Edited by NoNukes, : Add sheol discussionEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you can show this, that might help your argument. But I don't believe there is enough detail in the Bible to show even what day Jesus died let alone the proper interpretation of "three days and three nights". I went back over your posts and I don't see any such argument. Further, as I explained in another post, three days and three nights may well be consistent with a belief that Jesus was in Sheol after leaving the tomb. Under that interpretation, the correct time for considering Jesus to have left the heart of the earth in Jonah like fashion might well be early evening allowing us to count three nights rather than two. What I am saying is that I don't see any evidence that such an idiom exists. Absent a better argument for you, at best I am going to give that possibility a maybe and continue looking for an explanation. Not even consistency requires your interpretation. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's take this one step further, there is plenty of evidence that folks who know the facts about the rising of the sun refer to "sunrise" and the "sun rising". 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.The facts are that the Bible does not name the day Jesus died. The point to this discussion is not to defend the Bible but to defend the traditional Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When are you going to get around to citing some evidence? It's pretty clear that your opinion is not based on any such thing or you would have a rebuttal instead of a question.Seriously. That would at least move the ball a bit. Wanting to see some evidence was the impetus for getting this thread restarted.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've been giving this argument some thought over the last couple of days. Some text.Matthew 12:40

quote:

---

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

---

Matthew 16:21

quote:

---

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

---

17:23

quote:

---

They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life. And the disciples were filled with grief.

---

20:19

quote:

---

and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!

---

Out of all of these quotes, Matthew used three days and nights only once, and used three days elsewhere. Nobody seems to dispute that a time period like Thurs-Sunday would be reported as four days. I think that means that whatever Matthew was thinking when he said three days and three nights, he consistently does not refer to a third night in other passages.That would largely settle the issue in your favor except that Matthew might have made a mistake in speaking rather than using an idiom. For me, the distinction does not matter. You convinced me that the text supports the Friday-Sunday traditional timeline. But that might not end the dispute between you and Paul.

How can we know that this is on the fourth day? There is so little detail in the story that we don't know if Jonah was captured morning or night, or if he was puked up morning or night, or on which day either occurred.I don't believe it is possible to resolve the question this way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is nothing in the text that allows you to interpret this phrase. Was it dark when Jonah exited? Mid afternoon? There is absolutely no way to verify that the usage is inconsistent with the usage in Matthew 12. There are no facts, outside of the phrase itself, to interpret. And now you are grasping at straws. None of the story really makes sense. But what you are really hanging your interpretation on is your belief that Jonah would not start a journey at night. Okay. I think you are out on that limb by yourself.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.