I mean if you're asking about 'figures of speech/colloquial language' then you're asking about narrative style.
Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
I believe what the man is asking for, is any documentation, any other example that refers to nights and means days
The 7-Day cruises and 13 day vacations have followed up on this
Well examples were given post 131 above.
I'm not sure where this thread is headed?
There's plenty of evidence of figurative durations of time, three being common, forty another, and so on.
The focus of the question is modern, an emphasis which the ancients would find 'narrow-minded'!
As to evidence, I'd suggest the answer is 'no' because what's the point of forensic investigations of a colloquial expression?
That being said, one has to look at the genre of the document to decide whether the terms are figurative or whether they are meant literally.
The Christian Easter period, for example, was three days and three nights by their reckoning. The day counts from dusk to dusk, so we have:
Thursday afternoon until dusk: part day,
Thursday dusk to Friday dusk: full night, full day,
Friday dusk to Saturday dusk: full night, full day,
Saturday dusk to Sunday: full night, part day.
Thomas,
re: "Well examples were given post 131 above."
I don't see any examples in post 131 which forecast or 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 have occurred. What do you have in mind?
re: "Thursday [fifth day of the week] afternoon until dusk: part day"
This topic is really directed to those who believe in a sixth day of the week crucifixion.
re: "Well examples were given post 131 above."
I don't see any examples in post 131 which forecast or 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 have occurred. What do you have in mind?
re: "Thursday [fifth day of the week] afternoon until dusk: part day"
This topic is really directed to those who believe in a sixth day of the week crucifixion.
https://biblehub.com/john/19-31.htm
It's clear it was a special Passover Sabbath. The Passover, like Eid, can fall on any day of the week. Depending on sighting of the new moon. Thursday in this case.
It's clearly explained. The Last Supper was the special annual Passover meal, not the normal Friday evening Shabbat.
Apart from it being a figure of speech, it's hardly a strong enough inconsistency to invalidate the whole resurrection narrative?
EDIT: I mean there may be better sticks around with which to beat upon Bible literalists?
It's clear it was a special Passover Sabbath. The Passover, like Eid, can fall on any day of the week. Depending on sighting of the new moon. Thursday in this case.
It's clearly explained. The Last Supper was the special annual Passover meal, not the normal Friday evening Shabbat.
Apart from it being a figure of speech, it's hardly a strong enough inconsistency to invalidate the whole resurrection narrative?
EDIT: I mean there may be better sticks around with which to beat upon Bible literalists?
Last edited:
What I have in mind is, from the link at 131:
"The point of "three days and three nights" is ... not the day and light portions, but the continuity."
Either you're looking the wrong way, or for the wrong thing ... it rather depends on what you're looking for.
Thomas,
re: "Either you're looking the wrong way, or for the wrong thing ... it rather depends on what you're looking for."
I say 'what' in post #122. Let me repeat:
1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"
2. There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.
3. Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.
4. A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.
5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.
6. I wonder if anyone who falls in that particular group of believers might provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime and/or no part of a night time could have occurred?
7. And who thinks that a calendar day began at sunset.
re: "Either you're looking the wrong way, or for the wrong thing ... it rather depends on what you're looking for."
I say 'what' in post #122. Let me repeat:
1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"
2. There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.
3. Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.
4. A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.
5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.
6. I wonder if anyone who falls in that particular group of believers might provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime and/or no part of a night time could have occurred?
7. And who thinks that a calendar day began at sunset.
I'm starting to think if you believe you don't worry about inconsistency, well some do the apologetics.
And if you don't believe you spend forever trying to support your disbelief.
But the bible...(or Qur'an, or Gita, or whatever) it sits there. It is as it is for all
And if you don't believe you spend forever trying to support your disbelief.
But the bible...(or Qur'an, or Gita, or whatever) it sits there. It is as it is for all
OK.
OK. But then they're probably not questioning the three nights and three days thing.
Yep. Usually the grave.
Quite. Which is why the Johannine narrative is more compelling and generally accepted by scholars.
OK.
And I provided further examples above, but I'm not in that group.
It seems to me your problem is looking for analytical detail in narratives that don't follow the contemporary über-literalist reading. The ancients were a lot more broad-minded than the moderns in that respect, we're way more pedantic.
The issue is not a big deal in scholarly circles, I wonder what you're hoping to get out of this?
Thomas,
re: " I wonder what you're hoping to get out of this?"
I'm not really hoping for anything. I simply would like to see what examples are being used by someone to legitimately assert that it was common in the first century to forecast or 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 occur.
re: " I wonder what you're hoping to get out of this?"
I'm not really hoping for anything. I simply would like to see what examples are being used by someone to legitimately assert that it was common in the first century to forecast or 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 occur.
Oh, it was quite common.
Especially in Hebrew and like languages, all full of allusion. Google 'Two Jews, three opinions' ... that kind of thing.
Then you get into more complex 'chiastic' structure ... common in the ancient world, and used in the Hebrew Bible (and in parts by Matthew in the NT)
Then you get into the idea that ancient narratives were composed for oral transmission, and were composed in a way that would be easy to memorise, in the same way it's easier to remember your favourite songs, and even not so favourite, but how many paragraphs from your favourite books can you recite?
So forensic detail is not so important, it's the story that matters.
+++
In the above link there's this, from the story of the flood:
Seven days waiting to enter Ark (7:4)
Second mention of seven days waiting (7:10)
40 days (7:17)
150 days (7:24)
God remembers Noah (8:1)
150 days (8:3)
40 days (8:6)
Seven days waiting for dove (8:10)
Second seven days waiting for dove (8:12)
The last four lines mirror the first four. It was argued that the repetition was due to two narrative sources (Jahwist and Priestly). Then the complexities of the language were uncovered and it was seen the repetitions are more likely there as an aide memoire, so the text becomes 'self-correcting' as it were, whilst still possibly being drawn from one, two or more sources.
So language becomes figurative, rather than forensic.
Especially in Hebrew and like languages, all full of allusion. Google 'Two Jews, three opinions' ... that kind of thing.
Then you get into more complex 'chiastic' structure ... common in the ancient world, and used in the Hebrew Bible (and in parts by Matthew in the NT)
Then you get into the idea that ancient narratives were composed for oral transmission, and were composed in a way that would be easy to memorise, in the same way it's easier to remember your favourite songs, and even not so favourite, but how many paragraphs from your favourite books can you recite?
So forensic detail is not so important, it's the story that matters.
+++
In the above link there's this, from the story of the flood:
Seven days waiting to enter Ark (7:4)
Second mention of seven days waiting (7:10)
40 days (7:17)
150 days (7:24)
God remembers Noah (8:1)
150 days (8:3)
40 days (8:6)
Seven days waiting for dove (8:10)
Second seven days waiting for dove (8:12)
The last four lines mirror the first four. It was argued that the repetition was due to two narrative sources (Jahwist and Priestly). Then the complexities of the language were uncovered and it was seen the repetitions are more likely there as an aide memoire, so the text becomes 'self-correcting' as it were, whilst still possibly being drawn from one, two or more sources.
So language becomes figurative, rather than forensic.
Thomas,
re: "Oh, it was quite common."
So what actual examples do you have which show that it was common to forecast or say that a daytime or a night time would be or was involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could or did occur?
re: "Oh, it was quite common."
So what actual examples do you have which show that it was common to forecast or say that a daytime or a night time would be or was involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could or did occur?
Will is imagining the arguments if the Bible said it was raining cats and dogs
Don't know, but I bet at least one disciple stepped in a poodle!
The examples shown in the link in post 121.
I'm sorry if this was not the answer you wanted, but to keep asking the same question won't get you any closer ...