Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,614 Year: 4,871/9,624 Month: 219/427 Week: 29/103 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 77 of 169 (821204)
10-03-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
10-03-2017 3:58 PM


Re: A Rabbi says it's rounding up
quote:
But it is solved: when the rabbi says that "A day and a night make a whole day" according to the idiom
You assume too much. That's not an idiom, that's just normal usage in English as well. A whole day - 24 hours - includes a day and a night.
It's just rounding up. If you're talking about whole days you round up to a whole day. If you're talking about days and nights you wouldn't - and the Rabbi doesn't say that he would either.
quote:
That is, the night is included in the day, so insisting that the nights be counted separately misses the gist of the idiom: they are part of the day and don't have to be in the picture at all since a day is a day with or without them
Three days and three nights would seem to be counting the nights separately. That IS the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 3:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 4:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 79 of 169 (821206)
10-03-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
10-03-2017 4:16 PM


Re: A Rabbi says it's rounding up
Even your commentary says that you need portions of three nights to get three days and three nights.
It is not clear or even likely that he meant that the "three days and three nights" can be reasonably read as "one whole day and small parts of two more and two nights"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 4:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 11:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 84 of 169 (821218)
10-03-2017 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
10-03-2017 11:45 PM


Re: A Rabbi says a day may or may not include night
quote:
I think it clearly refers to three "days" in which nights may or may not be a portion.
We're discussing the phrase "three days and three nights" so that is obviously not relevant.
quote:
Reading this in the light of the statement above the meaning is NOT that any portion of actual night time is necessary to counting a day as a day.
And nobody is saying otherwise.
quote:
You apparently aren't going to accept this and I don't know why but I think you are clearly wrong and there is no need for any part of night to be included in a particular "day."
I did explicitly accept it, so this is just standard "Christian" misrepresentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 10-03-2017 11:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 12:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 87 of 169 (821221)
10-04-2017 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
10-04-2017 12:12 AM


Re: A Rabbi says a day may or may not include night
I'm disagreeing with the idea that the phrase "three days and three nights" can mean a time period that only includes two nights and not even a part of a third. That should have been absolutely clear. But that is not a point you addressed at all in your previous reply to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 12:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 12:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 89 of 169 (821223)
10-04-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
10-04-2017 12:22 AM


Re: A Rabbi says a day may or may not include night
quote:
Sorry, I thought I did. As I understand Rabbi Azariah's interpretation, no portion of a night is necessary at all in the phrase "a day and a night" meaning "a whole day."
Let us note that the Rabbi does not say that you can round up to a whole day and then call the period "a day and a night" (you wouldn't in English even though everything in the quote also applies to English). And even if he did the plural usage would be "three days and nights", not "three days and three nights". And, as I have pointed out twice already, the commentary explicitly states that you would need at least portions of three nights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 12:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 12:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 91 of 169 (821225)
10-04-2017 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
10-04-2017 12:31 AM


Re: A Rabbi says a day may or may not include night
But you haven't offered any valid reason for disagreeing. You just insisted that I was disagreeing with rounding up to a whole day while not addressing my actual points.
To restate
1) The Rabbi says that you may round up any part of a "whole day" - he does not say that you may then call that "a day and a night"
2) The commentary explicitly states:
the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a full 72-hour period, but a period including at least the portions of three days and three nights
So your own source agrees with me
3) as I stated in my last post if the substitution of "a day and a night" for "a whole day" was valid - a claim which is certainly not explicit in the Rabbi's words, nor clearly implied - the plural would be "three days and nights" since "a day and a night" is the unit you would be using (and even that is ambiguous). However the phrase "three days and three nights" separates the days and nights, so it would still not be valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 12:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 95 of 169 (821234)
10-04-2017 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
10-04-2017 10:06 AM


Re: Days and nights and why Friday?
The obvious reason why it has to be Friday is that the next day is the Sabbath.
The Gospels disagree on the relation to the Passover.
On the other issue
quote:
Then the Rabbi who is quoted at the link I provided confirms the reasoning for this view.
This is clearly false, since no such reasoning is provided, and the commentary clearly disagrees with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 10:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 10:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 97 of 169 (821236)
10-04-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
10-04-2017 10:30 AM


Re: Days and nights and why Friday?
quote:
Why not Thursday or Sunday?
Because the Sabbath is Saturday, the previous day must be a Friday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 10:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 10:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 99 of 169 (821238)
10-04-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
10-04-2017 10:37 AM


Re: Days and nights and why Friday?
Because that is what the Gospels say: Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 10:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 10-04-2017 10:46 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 101 of 169 (821243)
10-04-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by kbertsche
10-03-2017 10:58 PM


Re: Why?
quote:
2) that "three days and three nights" is synonymous for "the third day" (i.e. two days from now). Matthew himself uses both phrases interchangeably without noting a contradiction (the former in Mt. 12:40; the latter in 16:21; 17:23; and 20:19.) From Mt 27:57—28:1 it seems that this refers to a period of less than 48 hours.
Let's have a look at these.
12:40 is part of a speech from Jesus and says:
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.
16:21 says:
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised
17:23 repeats the "on the third day" formula, as does 20:19
Let us note that there is a difference between having compatible meanings and identical meanings. Even assuming that there is no contradiction - which is not a safe assumption - we can only conclude that the meanings are compatible.
And they are. Remembering that - for the Jews - the night starts a 24-hour day, if Jesus was buried during the night of the first day, and rose in the daytime of the third then He would "rise on the third day" having spent at least portions of three days and three nights in the grave or tomb. That "on the third day" is also compatible with a shorter period only makes 16:21, 17:23 and 20:19 pretty much irrelevant.
Which means that your argument comes down to assuming that there is no conflict between the "Sign of Jonah" and the story of Jesus' burial and resurrection, which simply begs the question.
If there was genuinely a common idiom at the time which resolved the conflict surely there should be better evidence than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 10-03-2017 10:58 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 1:11 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 103 of 169 (821249)
10-04-2017 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by kbertsche
10-04-2017 1:11 PM


Re: Why?
quote:
It's not clear what you are suggesting here. But if you are suggesting that He was buried on Thursday after sunset and raised on Sunday after sunrise, your suggestion seems to go against the timetable that Matthew himself lays out in 27:57-28:1. This timetable seems to suggest burial late on Friday (the first day) and resurrection early on Sunday (the third day).
I am not discussing the timetable. I am simply pointing out that the phrases "three days and three nights" and "on the third day" have overlapping meanings - using the obvious interpretations. Thus there is no contradiction between them.
quote:
No, my argument comes down to the author (Matthew) writing a consistent account. He uses various phrases to refer to the same thing. By this, he implies that he sees these phrases as synonymous.
No, he does not imply that. Even if you assume a strong intent to maintain consistency (which I think is mistaken) you can't conclude that the meanings are synonymous rather than merely compatible and the only clear contradiction is between the "three days and three nights" and the account of the burial and resurrection. "On the third day" is compatible with both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 1:11 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 1:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 105 of 169 (821252)
10-04-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by kbertsche
10-04-2017 1:36 PM


Re: Why?
quote:
But the timetable IS the issue!
Establishing that your "on the third day" references don't really help your position is certainly a relevant point. Which leaves the difference between the timetable and the "three days and the three nights" your only evidence that there is a solution to that difference.
quote:
We know from Lk. 13:32 that, according to first century usage, "the third day" is what we would call "two days from now".
Actually we know by counting that if you include today the day after tomorrow will be the third day. I really can't believe I have to keep pointing this out. Maybe you think that the Jews couldn't count past two ?
quote:
According to Matthew's use of this phrase and his own timetable, this would put the crucifixion on Friday and the resurrection on Sunday.
And the problem has always been that by putting the burial late on the Friday, Jesus only stays buried for two nights, not three. THAT is what I am saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 1:36 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 4:42 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 109 of 169 (821271)
10-04-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by kbertsche
10-04-2017 4:42 PM


Re: Why?
quote:
The point here is extremely simple. The gospel writers say that Jesus was raised "on the third day". Lk 13:32 shows us that "the third day" was actually two days in the future. Very clear and simpl
Which in no way answers my point that there is an overlap in meaning between "three days and three nights" and "on the third day"
quote:
Perhaps we are in full agreement then, that for first century Jews "the third day" was about 48 hours in the future? It has seemed to me that you disagree with this, which is why I feel that I need to keep stressing the point.
In a context where "today" is included, of course it is. But that can go up to 72 hours since the precision is very coarse.
quote:
But there is no "problem" here. According to Matthew 27-28, this is exactly what happened. Jesus was buried on Good Friday and raised "on the third day", Easter Sunday. Yes, He was buried for two nights, not three.
So, you don't consider the fact that Jesus was not buried for three days and three nights a problem. But in that case, why have you been engaging in rather desperate attempts to try to explain away the problem ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 4:42 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 115 of 169 (821283)
10-05-2017 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by kbertsche
10-04-2017 5:12 PM


Re: Why?
The whole discussion has been about the phrase "three days and three nights" and the fact that it does not agree with the time Jesus was buried according to the Gospels. You did not even address that when you said that there was no problem.
You have been trying to argue that it is an idiom which fits the actual time but all your "evidence" turned out not to be evidence (and obviously so) - except for the fact that the phrase read literally does not agree with the time Jesus was buried according to the Gospels. You even tried to repeat the refuted arguments when this thread came back to life. And need we mention your resort to arrogant and insulting bluster to try cover over the fact that you had no evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 10-04-2017 5:12 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 10-05-2017 12:34 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 122 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2017 12:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 118 of 169 (821288)
10-05-2017 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
10-05-2017 12:34 AM


Re: Why?
quote:
There is nothing wrong with kbertsche's evidence, it's quite solid:
Really ? I look forward to your answers to all my refutations of his "evidence" in this thread. Yes, that is a joke, and so is your assertion.
quote:
Matthew describes the same event in both terms, "three days and three nights" AND "He rose again on the third day.
The time Matthew uses the term "three days and three nights" it is in a story about Jesus, and in the story Jesus apparently describes the time he will be buried as "three days and three nights". It is not Matthew describing the events of Jesus' burial and resurrection at all.
quote:
They refer to the same event, they are therefore synonymous,
This is an obvious falsehood. All that can be said is that their meanings should be compatible - but given the context of 12:40, even that is not necessarily the case.
But their meanings are compatible, without resorting to the claim that there is anything odd in the language.
quote:
he's made the case that "three days and three nights" is not literal as we would use it
He's not made the case that it can refer to a period of time that includes only two nights without even a portion of a third - which is the problem all along.
quote:
it fits what Rabbi Azariah describes of Jewish idiom
Aside from the objections I have already used, Rabbi Azariah does not - in the material quoted - even claim to be dealing with idiom, nor does he say anything that would clearly address the real issue. Indeed, as I keep pointing out the commentary you quote explicitly says that at least portions of three nights are needed.
so, just the usual pack of falsehoods, ignoring all the discussion that has gone on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 10-05-2017 12:34 AM Faith 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