Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?

shnarkle

Well-known member
kamaeq,
re: "Correct."

So what examples are you using to say that it was common 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 night time could occur?
I'm not sure, but this sounds like an example of Begging the Question. I'm probably forgetting how this thread is progressing. When a days or even years are mentioned, they can be figuratively referring to less than complete days or nights, but when nights are mentioned in addition to days, those nights are included. In other words, we're not dealing with figurative speech when nights and days are mentioned.

On the other hand, to say "three days" or "three years" doesn't necessarily mean we are figuratively speaking about less than three whole days or years. When the literal days and nights are mentioned we know that the other accounts are not figurative.
 

rstrats

Member
I'm not sure, but this sounds like an example of Begging the Question. I'm probably forgetting how this thread is progressing. When a days or even years are mentioned, they can be figuratively referring to less than complete days or nights, but when nights are mentioned in addition to days, those nights are included. In other words, we're not dealing with figurative speech when nights and days are mentioned.

On the other hand, to say "three days" or "three years" doesn't necessarily mean we are figuratively speaking about less than three whole days or years. When the literal days and nights are mentioned we know that the other accounts are not figurative.
Your comments deal with issues for a different topic. Perhaps you might start one.

BTW, you have a question directed to you in post #38.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
I have come to believe that our modern society is FAR more precise in its thinking than the first century was.

I don't think a "day" meant "12 hours" and "night" meant "12 hours".
I mean, at that time they didn't even have the technology to measure "hours" all that precisely, hence comments about "ABOUT the 9th hour..."

I don't think "A day is as a thousand years" meant EXACTLY a thousand years.

I don't think that forgiving "70 x 7 times" meant that you didn't have to forgive after precisely the 491st time.
SO three days and three nights ACTUALLY MEANS: two nights (Friday and Saturday, and one day (Saturday). I assume the same goes for Jonah.

Better in my mind to TRASH the RCC version of "Holy Week", and have Jesus Crucified on Wednesday - since Thursday was a "Sabbath" as well as Saturday.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member

shnarkle,​


Are you a 6th day of the week crucifixion advocate?
No. He was crucified on the day of preparation which always precedes the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread regardless of which day it falls on. Those who claim it was Friday are assuming it had to be the day before the weekly Sabbath. this is the fallacy of Begging the Question. The texts indicate that it was Wednesday evening when he was placed into the tomb.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
No. He was crucified on the day of preparation which always precedes the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread regardless of which day it falls on. Those who claim it was Friday are assuming it had to be the day before the weekly Sabbath. this is the fallacy of Begging the Question. The texts indicate that it was Wednesday evening when he was placed into the tomb.
Which one has it right. The ones on Friday, the ones on Saturday, the ones on Sunday, the ones on Monday? Dont they all say they have it right? LOL

Thanks be to my God He is not about Sabbaths, baptisms, eat nor drink, circumcisions, women keep silent, but is about me being like Him to walk as He walks in Hi same light, BTW which simply is Love for God is Love and I am the temple of Him.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Then that would be an issue for a different topic.

A lot of the OP's questions are based on simple demands that the Bible fit the standards of a rigid and dry science dictionary (aka "wooden literalism"). IMO it is one of the most common, if not the most common way people attack/question the Bible. You know, like they have discovered something new recently that everybody else for the last 2000 years or more have totally missed.
In this case, you're mistaken. Most people have missed out on the fact that they're just assuming "Three days and three nights" doesn't have to include three days and three nights. They're not familiar with the actual figure of speech being employed by these authors. More often than not, this is the case. There are hundreds of figures of speech used in thousands of different ways in the bible. Most people can't list more than a dozen or more figures of speech, and even then they're going to be doing a few searches on google to come up with those.
Minor joke: you know why so many academics distrust the Bible and call it in error?

Because God didn't follow their style manual and syllabus when He wrote it.
Sadly, the real joke is on those who have no clue that the biblical authors were quite proficient at using figurative speech which most readers are woefully ignorant of.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I'm not. This topic is directed to anyone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week. A belief in a 4th day of the week crucifixion is an issue for a different topic.
I was replying to kamaeq's post. Sorry for the confusion. I should have edited out your comment.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth".

2. There are some 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. And of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the moment when His spirit left His body).

4. However, 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, there may be some of those mentioned above who try to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language.

6. I'm simply curious if anyone who may fall in the above 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 or no part of a night time could have occurred.
This is the best example I have seen to explain this issue:


This explains several issues as you mentioned above and more. It's a very good dissection of the three days and three nights. I hope it helps a little. I'm not trying to convince you, just sharing an example as requested in the OP.
 

kamaeq

Member
In this case, you're mistaken. Most people have missed out on the fact that they're just assuming "Three days and three nights" doesn't have to include three days and three nights. They're not familiar with the actual figure of speech being employed by these authors. More often than not, this is the case. There are hundreds of figures of speech used in thousands of different ways in the bible. Most people can't list more than a dozen or more figures of speech, and even then they're going to be doing a few searches on google to come up with those.

Sadly, the real joke is on those who have no clue that the biblical authors were quite proficient at using figurative speech which most readers are woefully ignorant of.
How? That wooden literalism is not the preferred tactic of the anti Bible/Christian Lite crowd? That most people don't know how to read the Bible in its literary and historical contexts?
 

rstrats

Member
This is the best example I have seen to explain this issue:


I hope it helps a little. I'm not trying to convince you, just sharing an example as requested in the OP.

"

I'm afraid it doesn't. The issue of the link deals with the meaning of "heart of the earth". However, the issue of this topic has to do with the commonality of saying that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a time could occur.


re: "I'm not trying to convince you, just sharing an example as requested in the OP."

I don't see where the link shows examples, i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
"

I'm afraid it doesn't. The issue of the link deals with the meaning of "heart of the earth". However, the issue of this topic has to do with the commonality of saying that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a time could occur.


re: "I'm not trying to convince you, just sharing an example as requested in the OP."

I don't see where the link shows examples, i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.
The link clearly has charts that show the counting of days. And discusses exactly what you say it doesn't. Are you sure you scrolled through the whole thing?
 

rstrats

Member
The link clearly has charts that show the counting of days. And discusses exactly what you say it doesn't. Are you sure you scrolled through the whole thing?
I am, and only one of the "charts" shows a lack of a third night, and that one is based on the assumption that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week. But even if that assumption is correct - and I don't think that it is - that would only be one example. This topic is directed to anyone who says 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 occur.
 

kamaeq

Member
Read it. I posted facts whereas you just posted your opinions.
No, I posted a witness from my own observations over many years.

If fact, you are simply restating a portion of my point on this topic and your own opinion on "figures of speech".
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
No, I posted a witness from my own observations over many years.
And those observations are false.
If fact, you are simply restating a portion of my point on this topic and your own opinion on "figures of speech".
False. I'm drawing from not only the commonly accepted definitions of each and every figure presented, but presenting examples of those figures as they're used in the bible to PROVE my point. You haven't address much less refuted ANY of them.
 
Top