"after three nights and three days I will rise again"
OK, but why do we have the death on 'good friday' and then the resurection on Sunday, only two nights and two days if you count Friday as one day???????????
Who or what group set these dates into play since it dows NOT follow the Bible!!!!! And why hasn't it been changed to follow the biblical scripture writtings??
Please clearify...............
Comments
-
In Jewish reckoning, it was considered to be "three days" from Friday to Sunday because they counted the partial day at the beginning of a group of days as well as the partial day at the end.
If you search in Logos for "three days" NEAR Jewish you should find some explanations of this Jewish calendrical idiom.
UPDATE: See, for example, the note in The Apologetics Study Bible on Matthew 12:38–40. This resources comes with all base packages besides Original Languages, so you probably have it.
0 -
OK, what about "three nights"??????
0 -
Dr. John MacArthur explains in his excellent MacArthur Study Bible commentary (available from Logos) that such expressions like this "were common in Semitic usage, and seldom were employed in a literal sense to specify precise intervals of time." See, for example, other expressions such as "forty days and forty nights" (an expression associated in the Bible identically with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah), and which in some cases refers to a period of time longer than one month. With that in mind, the statement "three days and three nights" is an emphatic way of saying "three days", which, "by Jewish reckoning this would be an apt way of expressing a period of time that includes parts of 3 days," writes Dr. MacArthur. Thus we do not need to take an extreme literal meaning of these words as long as we see it from the Hebrew context.
0 -
See if this illustration helps you understand it http://www.morethancake.org/2007/10/christology-who-is-christ.htmlwag9570 said:Please clearify..............
0 -
I don't know whose advocate I am being when I ask this, but.... Isn't the phrase "extreme literal" redundant in the same way as is "very unique"? Either something is unique or it's not. Either we take the literal meaning of words, or we don't?
So MacArthur's claim is that "three days and three nights" doesn't really mean "three days and three nights." That's means he chooses not to read those words literally. Fine with me; I carry no flame for the issue. But used in language interpretation/reception, "literal" has a meaning by which we should abide.
Blessings (please take them literally),
Bill Coley
0 -
Bill Coley said:
Either we take the literal meaning of words, or we don't?
Not when a figure of speech is being used. MacArthur seems to be claiming that three days and three nights is a figure of speech common in Jesus' day. I don't know so can't argue that point. But when a figure of speech is used we understand that the literal word-for-word meaning is not intended. Therefore is this phrase is a figure of speech it can mean something other than three actual days and three actual nights.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Mark, you seem to make my point (which for me is as much a leisurely volley as anything!). Edited to its core assertion, your last sentence contends that a given set of words (a phrase) may not mean what that set of words seems to (literally) mean. You say that's because the phrase is a figure of speech. With all respect, that's a non sequitur. Why words are not to be taken literally is irrelevant to the issue of *whether* they are to be literally.
If I cry out, "I have a million things to do today!" You probably will conclude that I don't really have a million things to do. You probably also infer that I have used a common figure of speech. But you probably also will know my cry is not literally true. All three of those statements can be true; none is mutually exclusive -- neither is the "why" and the "whether" of a phrase.
Blessings,
Bill
0 -
"on the third day" is a common figure of speech used in Jesus' Day.
Day one is today, not tomorrow. The figure of speech in English would be "the day after tomorrow".
0 -
Another tack on the issue is to explore the idea that in the Passion week there may have been two Sabbaths. The normal Saturday Sabbath (that begins on Friday night) and a special Sabbath associated with one of the feasts related to Passover week that might have been on Friday (starting Thursday night). John 19:31 specifies the coming Sabbath with "this Sabbath was a great day" (ESV reads "high day" and NIV reads "special Sabbath"), which at least presents the possibility that he is distinguishing that Sabbath from a more common seventh-day Sabbath: a detail the Church might have missed when establishing its calendar traditions.
So perhaps the solution is that we should be celebrating Good Thursday. Maybe.
Lightfoot's Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica has some extended discussion on the chronology of the Passion week. I haven't quite sorted through his view on it yet myself.
0 -
Answers to Tough Questions : http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/answertq
Q: How could Jesus have remained in the tomb three days and three nights if He was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday?
0 -
Looks like an Aramaic/Greek/English idiom translation issue: What language was it spoken in ? What was the first language of the one who wrote it in Greek ? Did they use LXX as their translation dictionary for this idiom when putting it into Greek ?
NICNT http://www.logos.com/products/details/5184 on Matthew 12:40 suggests:
The different phrasing of the three-day period compared with the "third day" of Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64 and the "after three days" of Matt 27:63 is due to the LXX wording, but in Semitic inclusive time-reckoning these do not denote different periods as a pedantic Western reading would suggest.The same phrase, "three days and three nights" occurs in 1 Sam 30:12 to denote a period which began (literally) "today three days," the day before yesterday (v. 13). Similarly in Esther a period described as "for three days, night and day" (4:16) is concluded "on the third day" (5:1). It is worth noting that the partially Pharisaic delegation which requests the guard at the tomb, and which may reasonably be assumed to be recalling this, the only public pronouncement by Jesus about his resurrection, nevertheless uses the terms μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας and ἡ τρίτη ἡμέρα to specify the period Jesus had spoken of (27:63–64). Underlying this flexible usage is the Jewish tendency to speak of a period of 24 hours as a day and a night, so that Jesus’ time in the tomb can be said to embrace (parts of) three "day-nights."
0 -
OH, That this were the largest issue i had, in understanding Scripture.[:)]
0 -
I was going to chip in to this conversation but it's raining cats and dogs here so I have a busy schedule today!
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
I was going to chip in to this conversation but it's raining cats and dogs here so I have a busy schedule today!
BUSY?....You think you are busy?...I have a camel stuck in the eye of a needle.[*-)]
0 -
Abi--Gail aka Bubba Nunya . . . you are a funny one . . . [;)]
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
wag9570 said:
OK, but why do we have the death on 'good friday' and then the resurection on Sunday, only two nights and two days if you count Friday as one day???????????
Who or what group set these dates into play since it dows NOT follow the Bible!!!!! And why hasn't it been changed to follow the biblical scripture writtings??
Please clearify...............
Here is another Logos resource which sheds light on the problem. libronixdls:jump|pos=LLS-AOL:0<V5R280>.2800.0|res=LLS:900.3.1902
Here is the link to the web for the resource: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3441 I dare you. [:D]
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
As a self-professed literalist, I am with Bill and Mark on this. For me everything starts out literal until some evidence proves it otherwise. Even if we had a perfect original text we would still have to understand the local application of the phrase to glean the full "local" meaning. My favorite figure requiring such thought is "face to face". My favorite LOGOS reference for figures of speech was written long ago and is "FIgures of Speech Used in the Bible" by Bulinger. The summary on this from that reference is that this idiom covers any part of three days and three nights.
0 -
Joe,
That article from Bullinger is a great pointer complete with scriptural cross references to explain and demonstrate. libronixdls:jump|pos=LLS-AOL:0<IDIOMA.I.VIII.12>.0.0|res=LLS:46.50.9
Indeed for those not in possession of the resource:
12. “Three days and three nights”
Jonah 1:17 (2:1), quoted in Matt. 12:40.
The expression, “three days and three nights,” is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.
In 1 Sam. 30:11 (12), it is said that a certain Egyptian had not eaten bread and drunk water for “three days and three nights,” and yet it was only three days since he fell sick (ver. 13), not four days.
In Est. 4:16, Esther says she and her maidens will fast “three days and three nights,” and yet it was on “the third day” that Esther went in to the king; not the fourth day, which it must have been if the expression were literally understood.
It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.
Now the New Testament is for the most part Hebrew in idiom, but Greek in language. This is the simple explanation of the difference between it and classical Greek. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the First Gospel, as we have it, is a translation from a Hebrew Original. This is one of the idioms. It is used in Jonah 1:17 (2:1), and by our Lord in Matt. 12:40. And yet many Scriptures say that He should rise, and did actually rise on “the third day.” This could not have been if the expression were used in its literal sense. It must have been the fourth day and not the “third.”
The fact is that the idiom covers any part of “three days and three nights.” This method of Hebrew reckoning is as distinct from Gentile reckoning, as their commencing the day at sunset and our commencing it at midnight. All these different modes of reckoning are peculiar to the respective peoples and languages and must be duly taken into account.
The Lord’s words in Matt. 12:40 do not disagree with the Scripture assertion that He should rise on “the third day.”
We have the expression “after three days” once (Matt. 27:63), and “in three days” once (John 2:19). But the common expression is “on the third day,” and it occurs ten times. But if the expression be literal and not an idiom, all these passages should say the fourth day! Paul preached the resurrection on “the third day” according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:4), and this is the great Scriptural fact which we cannot get away from.
Neither can we alter the fact that He rose on “the first day of the week.”
Neither can we alter the history which records His death and burial as taking place the day before the Sabbath. “The sabbath drew on” (Luke 23:54. Matt. 27:62); “the day before the sabbath” (Mark 15:42); and yet the two disciples going to Emmaus on the first day of the week say, “This is the third day (not the fourth) since these things were done” (Luke 24:21).
From all this it is perfectly clear that nothing is to be gained by forcing the one passage (Matt. 12:40) to have a literal meaning, in the face of all these other passages which distinctly state that the Lord died and was buried the day before the Sabbath and rose the day after it, viz., on the first day of the week. These many statements are literal and are history: but the one passage is an idiom which means any part of “three days and three nights.” The one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.
It may be added that we have a similar usage in English. When a person is sentenced to “three days’ imprisonment,” it may be late in the evening of the first day when he arrives at the prison, but when the doors open on the morning of the third day (not the fourth) he walks out a free man. In other words, if a person is commited to prison for three days—and he reaches it on Monday night—he leaves it the first thing on Wednesday morning.
See The Coming Prince, by Dr. Robert Anderson, C.B.Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 845–847.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
"after three nights and three days I will rise again"
When I first saw this, I was thinking that someone was indexing on a netbook...[:D]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Paul Golder said:
"after three nights and three days I will rise again"
When I first saw this, I was thinking that someone was indexing on a netbook...
Actually, it was the Mac Alpha.
0 -
Vincent Setterholm said:
Another tack on the issue is to explore the idea that in the Passion week there may have been two Sabbaths. The normal Saturday Sabbath (that begins on Friday night) and a special Sabbath associated with one of the feasts related to Passover week that might have been on Friday (starting Thursday night). John 19:31 specifies the coming Sabbath with "this Sabbath was a great day" (ESV reads "high day" and NIV reads "special Sabbath"), which at least presents the possibility that he is distinguishing that Sabbath from a more common seventh-day Sabbath: a detail the Church might have missed when establishing its calendar traditions.
So perhaps the solution is that we should be celebrating Good Thursday. Maybe.
Lightfoot's Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica has some extended discussion on the chronology of the Passion week. I haven't quite sorted through his view on it yet myself.
[Y]
“... every day in which I do not
penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of God’s Word in Holy Scripture
is a lost day for me. I can only move forward with certainty upon the
firm ground of the Word of God.”0 -
Paul Golder said:
When I first saw this, I was thinking that someone was indexing on a netbook...
Now that is FUNNY!
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Jesus was in the grave three days and three nights as he was crucified on Thursday the 14th of Nisan with the Passover lambs. The Sabbath that was approaching was the First day of Unleavened bread on the 15th of Nisan. You can see this charted out on signofjonah.info
0 -
Paul Golder said:
"after three nights and three days I will rise again"
When I first saw this, I was thinking that someone was indexing on a netbook...
After three nights and three days of indexing you'd probably rising [8o|] or at least [+o(] and definitely in need of [C]
Thank Paul, for the Saturday afternoon smile.
0 -
Vincent Setterholm said:
Lightfoot's Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica has some extended discussion on the chronology of the Passion week. I haven't quite sorted through his view on it yet myself.
There is a Church Father, Aphrahat (ca. 345 AD), who has an extended discussion trying to explain how the three days of Jesus' statement worked. Aphrahat was either a convert from Judaism or was very familiar with the Judaism that existed in his area. He also lived/wrote in a region (modern day Iraq/Iran) where the Semitic roots of Christianity were still very visible and where Greek philosophy had not yet intruded.
The presentation of his argument is sometimes a bit rambling, but to summarize his argument, Apharahat resolves the text through portraying the death of Christ as
not on the Cross, but symbolically (unusual for him) when
he provided the eucharist as a "type" or representation of his death.
Since night had already begun we have Thursday Night, Friday mid-day
(the three hours of darkness), and Friday night are the three nights.
Friday morning, Friday afternoon (after the three hours of darkness),
and Saturday during the day are the three complete days. This causes a small problem for Aphrahat, what about Saturday night/Sunday morning. But Scripture, which is central to Aphrahat, says
that the seal for the tomb was rolled away and the angel appeared AS the new
day was dawning, Scripture does not say that Jesus rose at this time and Aphrahat presumes that He rose at least
a moment or two before the rock was rolled away or before dawn. Therefore, Saturday night
does not count as a new or complete night for Aphrahat.Now to put this thread back to being on topic for the forums... If we could get his writings (23 demonstrations or essays) in Logos it would be wonderful. They are available on the CAL site and Logos already has some kind of an arrangement with CAL. So maybe we can get them in a Logos format?
PLEASE!!!! PRETTY PLEASE!!!! WITH SUGAR ON TOP!!!!
Then we could also get some of the other important Syriac writers in Logos that CAL has available. Such as Ephrem, Ishodad of Merv, Philoxenus, Joshua the Stylite, etc. [:)]
0 -
I enjoyed this post, James.
[Y] I'd love to see these made available.James W Bennett said:Then we could also get some of the other important Syriac writers in Logos that CAL has available. Such as Ephrem, Ishodad of Merv, Philoxenus, Joshua the Stylite, etc.
I have a general question (honest question, not rhetorical):
If Jesus was crucified on Wednesday (like my NT professor said) or Thursday (like many others say), would not the women have gone to the tomb for final preparation of the body earlier than Sunday? After all, they apparently did not expect to find Jesus alive. And they would have had a window of opportunity if he had been placed in the tomb earlier. Remember the burial of Lazarus? "Master, after 4 days, he stinketh!" The women would have every motivation to take the earliest opportunity afforded by Jewish law to finish the burial routine.
I don't know. It is just a thought. I have my leanings but I've been wrong many times before.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Either the Bible is to be taken literally or it isn't. I think the original poster asked a good question, and it has been interesting to see how and with what convolutions the seeming contradiction is being explained away... [:)] [;)]
Fred
0 -
Fred said:
Either the Bible is to be taken literally or it isn't. I think the original poster asked a good question, and it has been interesting to see how and with what convolutions the seeming contradiction is being explained away...
Oh, I take the Bible literally. Probably more than most. But sometimes a reader thinks he is reading what it says when he is really missing the true meaning.
i.e. Genesis 2:17 I believe God told the truth and Adam and Eve did die that very day. But by limited human understanding it appears the serpent told the truth because Adam walked the earth for 900+ years.
I don't believe a closer examination of scripture is a bad thing. God's word can stand up to the scrutiny and many times our faith is strengthened by the experience. Every "seeming contradiction" should be checked out. That's why the Apostle Paul praised the Bereans.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I believe God told the truth and Adam and Eve did die that very day.
I agree, Matthew. Pastor Adrian Rogers explained Gen. 2:17 this way: Adam died immediately in his spirit, progressively in his soul, and ultimately in his body. In other words, the moment Adam ate the fruit, the Spirit left his heart. So from God's point of view, Adam did die on that day: God cannot live in a dirty heart.
To me this verse is a fine example of using scripture to explain scripture, and avoid saying something like "Well, God lied to Adam, cause Adam lived 900 years."
0 -
David P. Moore said:
I agree, Matthew. Pastor Adrian Rogers explained Gen. 2:17 this way: Adam died immediately in his spirit, progressively in his soul, and ultimately in his body. In other words, the moment Adam ate the fruit, the Spirit left his heart. So from God's point of view, Adam did die on that day: God cannot live in a dirty heart.
I do not do original languages, except with the assistance of reference tools, so I may be way off with this, but from what I can tell, the word translated "die" in Gen 2.17 almost exclusively refers to the cessation of physical life - death, killing, slaying, etc. Are there other uses of that Hebrew word in the OT where the meaning is spiritual abandonment rather than physical death?
And what do you make of Eve's observation about Cain's birth in Gen 4.1, that he is born to her and Adam with God's help? Was she wrong, or did God act, not to bless the dead/abandoned couple, but only to preserve the species (of the dead/abandoned couple)?
Bill Coley
0 -
James W Bennett said:
Now to put this thread back to being on topic for the forums... If we could get his writings (23 demonstrations or essays) in Logos it would be wonderful. They are available on the CAL site and Logos already has some kind of an arrangement with CAL. So maybe we can get them in a Logos format?
PLEASE!!!! PRETTY PLEASE!!!! WITH SUGAR ON TOP!!!!
Then we could also get some of the other important Syriac writers in Logos that CAL has available. Such as Ephrem, Ishodad of Merv, Philoxenus, Joshua the Stylite, etc.
Yes, yes, yes ... so glad to see more of us on the forum who want Eastern resources.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Yes, yes, yes ... so glad to see more of us on the forum who want Eastern resources.
I think I give a [Y] every time you mention early and Eastern texts M.J. [:)] But, now that we are on the topic of Eastern resources (and getting back to what Logos forums are for) and since M.J. mentions him in her sig... Is there a possibility of getting Christ the Conquerer of Hell: the Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective, by Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev as a Logos resource? I bought it for my thesis work and it is a mine of information extracted from patristic and liturgical texts.
0 -
This is not aimed at any poster in particular. but this thread is drifting rapidly into theological discussions which are outside the forum guidelines.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
This is not aimed at any poster in particular. but this thread is drifting rapidly into theological discussions which are outside the forum guidelines.
After composing a post with literal thoughts, checked for more thread responses before posting - share forum guideline theological concern. Saved my literal thoughts, then tried searching Logos 4 to see if my library had resource(s) with same conclusion.
Searching for thursday NEAR resurrection found an interesting tidbit in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
For searching Logos 4, learned logical terms are case sensitive: "28 AD or AD 28" returns 0 results while "28 AD" OR "AD 28" returns 42 results. Better understand Wiki page => http://wiki.logos.com/Search_HELP
Also found issue to research => expanding search result causes scroll bar to reset to top in Logos 4 Mac Beta 6 (need to scroll down to see result).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
This is not aimed at any poster in particular. but this thread is drifting rapidly into theological discussions which are outside the forum guidelines.
You are correct Jack, though I have found it a good discussion, and so far I think well conducted. Its these sort of discussions I often find valuable. They are liking a talking commentary, and extension of Logos Bible Software itself..... but being fallen creatures they can easily descend into the depths we shouldn't go as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
I'll sum up a few thoughts on things I have found beneficial or thought provoking and leave it at that.
Matthew C Jones said:Oh, I take the Bible literally. Probably more than most. But sometimes a reader thinks he is reading what it says when he is really missing the true meaning.
i.e. Genesis 2:17 I believe God told the truth and Adam and Eve did die that very day. But by limited human understanding it appears the serpent told the truth because Adam walked the earth for 900+ years.
I don't believe a closer examination of scripture is a bad thing. God's word can stand up to the scrutiny and many times our faith is strengthened by the experience. Every "seeming contradiction" should be checked out. That's why the Apostle Paul praised the Bereans.
I confess I hadn't thought about this scripture in this way before Matthew. Thanks for bring it up, its a great illustration, and food for thought.
Joe Miller said:
See if this illustration helps you understand it http://www.morethancake.org/2007/10/christology-who-is-christ.htmlwag9570 said:Please clearify..............
Hey Joe, thanks for sharing your work on this, Illustration was most helpful in thinking through this issue.
Bill Coley said:I don't know whose advocate I am being when I ask this, but.... Isn't the phrase "extreme literal" redundant in the same way as is "very unique"? Either something is unique or it's not. Either we take the literal meaning of words, or we don't?
Bill I agree it seems a bit redundant but at the same time it reminds me of Steve Runge's work on getting us to look at literary devices that the writer might user to introduce or emphasize and important point they want to get across. The phrase extreme literal could be used in that sense, to make the point : God said it, I believe it, that's good enough for me. Such devices though should be used carefully.
Vincent Setterholm said:Another tack on the issue is to explore the idea that in the Passion week there may have been two Sabbaths. The normal Saturday Sabbath (that begins on Friday night) and a special Sabbath associated with one of the feasts related to Passover week that might have been on Friday (starting Thursday night). John 19:31 specifies the coming Sabbath with "this Sabbath was a great day" (ESV reads "high day" and NIV reads "special Sabbath"), which at least presents the possibility that he is distinguishing that Sabbath from a more common seventh-day Sabbath: a detail the Church might have missed when establishing its calendar traditions.
So perhaps the solution is that we should be celebrating Good Thursday. Maybe.
Lightfoot's Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica has some extended discussion on the chronology of the Passion week. I haven't quite sorted through his view on it yet myself.
We are all hanging out to access this resource! As always you bring some interesting thoughts and insights Vincent.
Lynden Williams said:Here is another Logos resource which sheds light on the problem. libronixdls:jump|pos=LLS-AOL:0<V5R280>.2800.0|res=LLS:900.3.1902
Here is the link to the web for the resource: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3441 I dare you.
I dared Lynden... and wouldn't mind having this just to gain a perspective on that line of thinking.
Thomas Black said:That article from Bullinger is a great pointer complete with scriptural cross references to explain and demonstrate. libronixdls:jump|pos=LLS-AOL:0<IDIOMA.I.VIII.12>.0.0|res=LLS:46.50.9
Thomas can we rely on Bullinger, isn't he's scholarship dated ? Okay just playing [6]'s advocate this has already been discussed in another thread. I appreciate having access to Bullinger's thoughts on these sort of issues.
Steve Howard said:Jesus was in the grave three days and three nights as he was crucified on Thursday the 14th of Nisan with the Passover lambs. The Sabbath that was approaching was the First day of Unleavened bread on the 15th of Nisan. You can see this charted out on signofjonah.info
Thanks for sharing this explanation Steve. I havent come acros it before.
James W Bennett said:Vincent Setterholm said:Lightfoot's Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica has some extended discussion on the chronology of the Passion week. I haven't quite sorted through his view on it yet myself.
There is a Church Father, Aphrahat (ca. 345 AD), ...............Now to put this thread back to being on topic for the forums... If we could get his writings (23 demonstrations or essays) in Logos it would be wonderful. They are available on the CAL site and Logos already has some kind of an arrangement with CAL. So maybe we can get them in a Logos format?
PLEASE!!!! PRETTY PLEASE!!!! WITH SUGAR ON TOP!!!!
Then we could also get some of the other important Syriac writers in Logos that CAL has available. Such as Ephrem, Ishodad of Merv, Philoxenus, Joshua the Stylite, etc.
Yes I agree it would be great to have this works available. That's one of the great things of Logos Bible Software.... having different perspectives at your fingertips.
Abi Gail said:OH, That this were the largest issue i had, in understanding Scripture.
I agree, though there are those who challenge the validity of scriptures of issues like this....and probably no amount of argument with them will change their mind because they simply don't want to hear the truth, they'd rather exchange the truth for a lie, but still its good once in a while to think over and discuss such issues.
Thank you all for you sharing your thoughts. I respect and understand Logos wishes on keeping the theolgocial discussion out of the forums but at the same time love hearing all of your insights... now if we could get everyone to move such discussions over to Truth is Still Truth forum we'd be doing the right thing by Logos but at the same time not missing out on the that extension to Logos 4 of having a 'live talking commentary' on some of these issues.
0 -
James W Bennett said:MJ. Smith said:
Yes, yes, yes ... so glad to see more of us on the forum who want Eastern resources.
I think I give a
every time you mention early and Eastern texts M.J. True. But everything we can do to make it look like there are more of us ... [:D] And I'm delighted that someone noticed my tag line AND knew who knew of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev. Definitely worth a toast.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
For searching Logos 4, learned logical terms are case sensitive: "28 AD or AD 28" returns 0 results while "28 AD" OR "AD 28" returns 42 results.
Well, it seems to me as if your two tests (at least as you provided them to us) did not distinguish case as much as whether "or" (or "OR") was included inside the parentheses.
For "28 AD or AD 28", you were searching for that ~exact~ string, ~including~ the "or" in the middle of the string.
For "28 AD" OR "AD 28", you were searching for ~either~ the string "28 AD" ~OR~ the string "AD 28".
Fred
0 -
Andrew McKenzie said:
Thank you all for you sharing your thoughts
Thanks for a good summary. I enjoyed everybody's posts on this one. It is good for study and meditation.
Also, this took my mind off the extreme heat wave we are enduring in the South-Central United States. It's 105.8 ° Fahrenheit in OKC. How cool is it in New Zealand or Australia right now? What about Scotland, Alan?
THINK COOL !Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Fred said:
For searching Logos 4, learned logical terms are case sensitive: "28 AD or AD 28" returns 0 results while "28 AD" OR "AD 28" returns 42 results.
Well, it seems to me as if your two tests (at least as you provided them to us) did not distinguish case as much as whether "or" (or "OR") was included inside the parentheses.
For "28 AD or AD 28", you were searching for that ~exact~ string, ~including~ the "or" in the middle of the string.
For "28 AD" OR "AD 28", you were searching for ~either~ the string "28 AD" ~OR~ the string "AD 28".
Noticed pair of quotes disappeared - screen shot illustrates lower case or, effectively searched for "28 AD" AND "or" AND "AD 28":
Changing or to OR (or comma) returns more results:
Reading several results provided more to ponder - living and learning is good [8-|]
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Andrew McKenzie said:
I respect and understand Logos wishes on keeping the theolgocial discussion out of the forums but at the same time love hearing all of your insights...
I also love theological discussions and was close to posting more than once. Perhaps, my reminder of forum guidelines was more for me than anyone else.
Thanks for the good summary, Andrew.
0 -
Tim Lord said:
Dr. John MacArthur explains in his excellent MacArthur Study Bible commentary (available from Logos) that such expressions like this "were common in Semitic usage, and seldom were employed in a literal sense to specify precise intervals of time." See, for example, other expressions such as "forty days and forty nights" (an expression associated in the Bible identically with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah), and which in some cases refers to a period of time longer than one month. With that in mind, the statement "three days and three nights" is an emphatic way of saying "three days", which, "by Jewish reckoning this would be an apt way of expressing a period of time that includes parts of 3 days," writes Dr. MacArthur. Thus we do not need to take an extreme literal meaning of these words as long as we see it from the Hebrew context.
Interesting ... why, I could think about that for a thousand years.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
For me in Brisbane, QLD, Australia its about 25 °C , that's about 72-3 ° F i think, on a Sunday afternoon, which is a bit warmer than it has been lately. In some Western parts of Queensland (Brisbane is on the east coast) they've been down to below 0 ° C some nights, but we don't quite get down that low in Brisbane, for us below 10 ° C on a chilly winter's night is a possibility though. In August it's windy season so it keeps things cooler, till Spring kicks in next month.
0 -
There are many times in human communication that things are not intended to be taken literally. Common sense has to be used. For example, poetic expressions such as "mountains bursting into song" or "trees clapping their hands."
Expressions like "all the people of Jerusalem" went out to hear John the Baptist do not mean every single person in Jerusalem went to hear him.
Figures of speech like "three days and three nights" have to be understood in the Jewish context.
The failure to use common sense and cultural context of expressions is how cults get started.
One can be conservative - even believe scripture is inerrant - and still use some common sense to understand its inerrant message.
After all, what is the point? If you convince someone that Jesus was curcified on Thursday rather than Friday, have you done anything to save their soul or help them grow spiritually? Personally, I think the time would be better spent trying to understand 2 Timothy 2:23.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Michael Childs said:
One can be conservative - even believe scripture is inerrant - and still use some common sense to understand its inerrant message.
You pegged me on this one Michael.
I believe in the inerrant scriptures. God inspired even the figures of speech he included. [;)]
Parabolic, analogical , allegorical, idiomatic. figurative and literal; It is all good to me.
Praise God I have a Bible.to read.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Vern Poythress wrote a very interesting article entitled, What is Literal Interpretation?, in which he attempts to show that the term itself is confusing because it has different meanings for different people. He also has an excellent illustration showing how words/phrases/sentences can change meaning depending on context and warns against what he terms "first-thought" and "flat" interpretation.
In essence, he argues that the term "literal" (or "plain") is ambiguous when used for anything except indivdual words and should be dropped for the more descriptive term, "Grammatical-Historical Interpretation."
For those that are interested here is a link to a copy of that article ...
http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ver_poythress/ver_poythress.Literal.Interpretation.pdf
It's a five minute, thought provoking read ... and well worth it., imho.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:Michael Childs said:
One can be conservative - even believe scripture is inerrant - and still use some common sense to understand its inerrant message.
You pegged me on this one Michael.
I believe in the inerrant scriptures. God inspired even the figures of speech he included.
Parabolic, analogical , allegorical, idiomatic. figurative and literal; It is all good to me.
Praise God I have a Bible.to read.
You said it very well Matthew, and you needed just a few words to do that. Thanks. [Y]
Bohuslav
0 -
JRS said:
For those that are interested here is a link to a copy of that article ...
http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ver_poythress/ver_poythress.Literal.Interpretation.pdf
It's a five minute, thought provoking read ... and well worth it., imho.
Thanks for great article. It takes the subject really well. Very helpful. [Y]
Bohuslav
0 -
Thank you so very much! An excellent read, indeed! *smile* Peace to you .. and Joy in the Lord!JRS said:Vern Poythress wrote a very interesting article entitled, What is Literal Interpretation?, in which he attempts to show that the term itself is confusing because it has different meanings for different people ..........
http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ver_poythress/ver_poythress.Literal.Interpretation.pdf
It's a five minute, thought provoking read ... and well worth it., imho.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
This is not aimed at any poster in particular. but this thread is drifting rapidly into theological discussions which are outside the forum guidelines.
Oy!, think I am puking up western greek mindset here! Seriously this is lame..Get enough stars (sheriffs?) involved and its ok to talk "theological discussions". I have been spanked before, think its time for a flogging! [:#]
0 -
Nathan Barnes said:
Get enough stars (sheriffs?) involved and its ok to talk "theological discussions".
My casual statistical analysis of this thread does not support your star hypothesis. It appears to me that most posts - with or without stars - either offer resources or are off-topic (something you see lots of stars on). [:S] But you are correct in calling the thread as one which at times crossed the line. And as a forum member you are invited to help with the self-policing as you did.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
said:
