Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?

​
rstrats said:
RJM Corbet,
re: "Apologies to both of you for the confusion."

I'm afraid I don't see to what confusion you are referring with regard to any delays. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Well the post by @Miken you referred to, was actually written a week ago, although it only just came through onto your thread today. So ...
Best wishes
 
RJM Corbet,
re: "Well the post by @Miken you referred to, was actually written a week ago, although it only just came through onto your thread today."

I'm sorry, but I still don't see what confusion you think that may have caused.
 
Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.
 
Nothing new from me. Glad you're still around though :)
 
With the dawning of a new year, perhaps someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.
 
rstrats said:
With the dawning of a new year, perhaps someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.
Click to expand...
I don't know of any examples offhand, BUT, there is at least one bible scholar on YouTube that at least sometimes responds to questions from viewers. His name is Dan McClellan. Dan McClellan

The reason I think he may be a possible resource is he knows ancient documents extremely well and he does respond to questions from viewers at times. He also responds to videos from viewers, esp if he sees they have something inaccurate.

Another scholar on YouTube is A.B. Higashi, whose channel used to go by the name "Bible of Color"
He responds to videos and replies to comments on his videos at times.
www.youtube.com

A.B. Higashi

Daily videos on how to read the Bible better from diverse perspectives. Academic biblical scholarship in the palm of your hand.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
rstrats said:
@TheLightWithin,
re: "I don't know of any examples offhand..."

Are you a 6th day of the week crucifixion advocate?
Click to expand...
???
I'm not quite sure what you mean, even having perused the thread
I don't advocate for any crucifixion, but I'm pretty sure (i think?) that's not what you mean.
I think, I THINK, what you mean is whether I am part of promoting a minority view regarding the timetable of the crucifixion.
But it would never occur to me to do that.
In all these years I don't remember whether I've ever heard of that view (or maybe I'd run across it?) but I don't have any strong feelings about it.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean, even having perused the thread
I don't advocate for any crucifixion...
Click to expand...
Perhaps a better word would be "believe" - Do you 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?
TheLightWithin said:
In all these years I don't remember whether I've ever heard of that view (or maybe I'd run across it?) but I don't have any strong feelings about it.
Click to expand...

That seems odd since that time frame seems to be the most common.
 
I think the problem here is exacerbated by the fact that Hebrew had, by the time in question, become something of a 'spiritual language', whilst the common tongue was regional?

Perhaps @RabbiO could correct me on that one?

So it's not so much a case of finding examples of idiomatic usage, as finding extant examples in relevant literature?
 
The old Friday-Sun is not three days and three nights is no longer a standing argument.
 
TheLightWithin said:
That is precisely why I suggested someone who might.
Click to expand...
Do you know that they say that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could be?
 
rstrats said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because it's been shown that the Crucifixion actually took place earlier in the week, but the later exegetes, unfamiliar with the Hebrew calendar, assumed the sabbath being spoken of was the weekly sabbath, and not a High Day in the calendar.

Because no-one can evidence an extra-Biblical idiomatic usage of three days/three nights, that does not in itself constitute a proof that it was not used idiomatically, and especially when Hebrew and the languages of antiquity were clearly idiomatic.

The argument put forward, on that basis, is that the phrase does not absolutely and definitively mean a 72-hour period.

That Tradition continues its observance of the Easter Triduum is because it's observed in spirit.

if we re-organised the calendar to cover the probably more accurate dating that puts the crucifixion on a Wednesday, then the three day prophecy is covered absolutely, but the spirit if the occasion would not be changed.

The Easter-observant Christians – Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox, etc., would say, "OK, so what? The point is He was crucified for us, and was raised from the dead – that's all that matters."

+++

I've answered your three day problem:
1) He was crucified most probably on a Wednesday, possibly a Thursday.
2) Hebrew is an idiomatic language so we need not necessarily read 'three days three nights' as absolutely 72 hours. The number three, among others, has special significance. They were not bound to literalism quite as we can be.
3) Tradition continues many beliefs and practices we know to be not-quite what is assumed – we ascribe the Gospels to four named persons, but we accept the authorship is anonymous.

In the larger scheme of things ...

+++

This three-day thing seems a much bigger deal for you, than for anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top