Matthew 12:40

Posted by: rstrats

Matthew 12:40 - 01/10/13 05:41 AM

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it didn't include at least parts of the specific number of days and at least parts of the specific number of nights?

(Lisa just repaired broken quotes)
Posted by: janimal

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/13/13 10:51 PM

hmmmm.

does it matter, since being swallowed by a whale is not going to be survivable beyond a few minutes, provided you haven't been chewed up along the way?
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/17/13 12:17 AM

janimal,

re: "hmmmm. does it matter...?"


It does to those who argue for a 6th day crucifixion and 1st day resurrection.
Posted by: janimal

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/17/13 02:07 AM

would you care to elaborate?

you seem to be alluding to a literal interpretation of bible chronology, which seems purely academic unless you are seriously going to argue in favour of young earth creationism...

beyond which this seems to be about the resurrection of the worlds favourite fictional character. for my own part the bible is so full of glaring inconsistencies and contradictions that pedantry like this seems rather pointless to me.

so - do you accept the bible is inconsistent, or are you a young earth creationist?
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/17/13 02:25 AM

janimal,

re: "would you care to elaborate?"

I think I did that in the OP.



re: "you seem to be alluding to a literal interpretation of bible chronology..."

That would be correct with regard to Matthew 12:40. However, if there is writing from the first century or before that shows otherwise, I would very much like to see it.



re: "..., which seems purely academic unless you are seriously going to argue in favour of young earth creationism..."

I don't know what that has to do with the OP, but I'm not.




re: "so - do you accept the bible is inconsistent..."

It certainly seems to be from time to time.




re: "...are you a young earth creationist?"

I have no belief - a conviction - one way or the other with regard to that.
Posted by: janimal

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/17/13 06:07 AM

yes, we'd all like to see some texts from the first century, but they are spectacularly thin on the ground. the vatican has seen to that. beyond that you would have to look for detailed explanations of chronology in those texts, which is something which by and large does not exist in 'biblical' texts.

it is relevant to the young earth view because the bible chronology is either absolute throughout the book, or a phantasm which can be disregarded at large. i do not think there is any middle ground. therefore if young earth creationism is incorrect (which to my mind is the only sane interpretation) then any argument about chronology in the bible is a mute one.

the bible is spectacularly inconsistent, which is to be expected from a book compiled on grounds of agenda and politics rather than historical chronicle. i see no reason to take it more seriously than morte d'artur or the hobbit.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 02/09/13 03:38 AM

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 05/01/13 11:23 AM

I probably should have addressed the OP to those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.
Posted by: somsuj

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 05/24/13 09:36 PM

I guess you are referring to the belief in some communities that crucifixion took place on Wednesday, burial on Thursday and resurrection on Sunday . . . as if Crucifixion took place on Friday, it is not exactly 3 nights and 3 days Jesus was in the 'belly' of earth.

I am not aware of any contemporary Jewish writing that confirms the fact that part of days were counted towards whole days.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 05/25/13 12:13 AM




somsuj,

re: "I guess you are referring to the belief in some communities that crucifixion took place on Wednesday, burial on Thursday and resurrection on Sunday..."


No, and I'm not aware of any 4th day of the week crucifixion proponents who think the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.



re: "I am not aware of any contemporary Jewish writing that confirms the fact that part of days were counted towards whole days."

That's ok beccause that is not what I'm looking for.
Posted by: somsuj

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 05/25/13 01:08 AM

Originally Posted By: rstrats
No, and I'm not aware of any 4th day of the week crucifixion proponents who think the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.


Then this might be interesting . .
............ in order to get three days and three nights and have Jesus Christ out of the grave on Sunday morning, Wednesday will have to be the day that Jesus Christ was crucified on.

http://www.thechurch-apostolicfaith.org/crucifixionofjesuschrist.htm
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 05/27/13 02:41 AM

somsuj,

re: "Then this might be interesting . . "

Your link says "He rose sometime at the ending of the Saturday day period" which is the seventh day of the week. It doesn't say He rose on the first day of the week.

BTW, ( just as an aside) the link says: "This proves that night is in front of day, not day in front of night as we say today." Actually, we do say today that night is in front of day.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/29/14 11:24 PM

Someone new looking in may know of some writing.
Posted by: Lisa Shea

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/30/14 12:25 AM

Hmmm I think I feel night comes at the end of the day. If I wake up on Wednesday in the day, I then go to sleep on Wednesday at night - and when it's dawn again it's now Thursday. I think night is after day.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 07/06/14 11:50 PM

I should also add to the OP: "...and who thinks that the 'heart of the earth' is referring to the tomb..."
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 07/06/14 11:56 PM

Lisa Shea

re: "Hmmm I think I feel night[time] comes at the end of the day[time]...I think that night[time] is after day [time]."

Indeed it is - but it is also at the begining of a calendar day, i.e. from midnight to sunrise.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 02/24/15 12:32 PM

Someone new looking in my know of some writing.
Posted by: Lisa Shea

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 03/04/15 11:11 PM

Our calendar is pretty screwy in modern times. We start the year at a random time in the middle of the winter - not even the actual middle. And we do the same thing with our calendar days.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 06/23/15 04:37 AM

Perhaps a further rewording of the OP will make it a bit more clear: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks they frequently assert that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I wonder if anyone knows of any writing that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights? If it is using common idiomatic language, there ought to be examples of that usage in order to be able to make that assertion.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 01/08/16 09:20 PM

With the new year upon us, maybe there will be someone new looking in who knows of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts. And again, remember that the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. As stated, there are other topics that do that. However, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language such as the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when He knew that it would only be for 2 nights. But in order to say that it was common, one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern had to have been used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.
Posted by: Mongrel

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 06/02/16 04:44 AM

" "He rose sometime at the ending of the Saturday day period" which is the seventh day of the week."

I have heard this argument all of my natural life.. Who says that sunday is the first or the seventh or seventh day of the week?

The General Baptists say thet is the seventh, Church of Christ says it is the first day of the week. Jews say its the seventh, Mormons say that it is the seventh.

Whos wrong whos right?
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 06/02/16 04:54 PM

Mongrel,

I'm afraid your comment is about an issue for another topic. However, perhaps someone new looking in will know of examples.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 04/26/17 11:13 AM

The Messiah said that 3 night times would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth". However, there are those who believe that the Messiah died on the 6th day of the week and who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the time between the leaving of His spirit from His body and His resurrection on the 1st day of the week. But this belief allows for only 2 night times to be involved. To reconcile this discrepancy some say that the Messiah was using common Jewish idiomatic language. I am simply asking for examples to support that assertion; i.e., instances 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.
Posted by: rstrats

Re: Matthew 12:40 - 10/09/17 02:52 PM

Perhaps someone new looking in who doesn't confine all of their postings to Facebook might know of examples.