David Mooney

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Mooney
The majority of Christian scholars believe Jesus was crucified on a Friday while a growing minority believe in a Wednesday crucifixion and a even smaller minority believe in a Thursday crucifixion.

DAVID
Hi Amaleq. I can only tell you what I have heard and read throughout my journies on the Usenet and discussions in chat rooms. Here goes:

Before the four gospels were collated in the middle of the second century A.D. as a unit, they were scattered around the Roman Empire. In what was then called Lesser Asia (today Asia Minor) there were Christians who believed in the literal three days and three nights and placed the death of Jesus on Wednesday. It is believed this group relied heavily on Matthew's gospel, the only gospel to claim "three days and three nights" and the only gospel to not directly claim the crucifxion was a day before the sabbath. Many of these christians were fine writers and were among the early "fathers" of the church. They wrote that Jesus was betrayed on Tuesday night and crucified the next day on Wednesday and rose from the dead at Saturday at sunset.

It is interesting that in Matthew 28:1 it says "in the end of the sabbath" as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week....". Matthew was written by a Jew and Jews' days began and ended at sunset. So the "end of the sabbath" would be late Saturday as the sun was setting. Moreover, the greek word for "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" comes from a greek expression that literally meant the dawning of a new day (as in daybreak) but could also be used in reference to the beginning of a new Jewish day, even if that day began at sunset (it is so used in Luke 23:54). We in America use the word "dawn" in an idiomatic sense in "as it began to dawn into a new age...". The greek word for dawn could mean the literal dawn of daybreak or the dawning of a new day, even if that day began at sunset (as in Luke 23:54).

Scholars disagree whether Matthew meant "after" the sabbath or "in the end of the sabbath". Thayer's Greek Lexicon argues that it means "in the end of the sabbath" and that efforts to make it mean "after the sabbath" are incorrect. Some Greek word studies admit the word literally meant "late in" but was used incorrectly by Matthew to mean "after". I cannot remember the lexicon that said this, but in its introduction to this passage, it says Matthew used an "improper preposition" for this verse and he really meant "after". Can you imagine a lexicon accusing Matthew of using an "improper" preoposition. I cannot remember where this is found but if you go to Google Search Engine and type in the following words (without the quotation marks) "errantyears.com" "improperly" "preposition"
"Matthew" "28:1") you will find some posters to an errancy group that give quotes from greek lexcions and greek word studies. Moreover, you can go to Google Groups, type in alt.bible.errancy in the search window and when the group appears, click on "search in alt.bible.errancy only" then type in "improperly" "preposition" "Matthew" and "28:1" and you will find even more posts that give page and title for discussion of this usage.

Why is this important? Because the early Christians that relied on Matthew only had a book that claimed Jesus would be "three days and three nights" in the earth, and this same book places the women's visit to the tomb late on Saturday afternoon and not Sunday morning as the other three gospels indicate. Moreover, Matthew didn't claim Jesus died on the day before the sabbath (he did, however, refer to it as the day of preparation, which could be either Friday or the day Jews cleaned their homes of leaven).

In the rest of the Empire were the other three gospels were scattered there were clear references that Jesus was crucified the day before the sabbath and rose from the dead on the third day. These books inspired traditions that placed the crucifixion on Friday (the day before the sabbath) and the resurrection Sunday morning (the third day). None of the other three gospels mention the "three days and three nights", and they place the crucifixion on the day before the sabbath and the resurrection on the day AFTER the sabbath. That would be the "third day" in Jewish usage. The other three gospels placed the visit of the women on Sunday morning.

Now when the four gospels began to be collated around the empire the differences between the three on one hand and the book of Matthew on the other were appreciable enough to cause some to redefine Sabbath and cause others to redefine a day and a night. Those who held to their Wednesday tradition had to explain why the other three gospels placed the crucifixion on the day before the sabbath while Matthew made no mention of a sabbath following the crucifixion but had the women go to the tomb late on Saturday afternoon to see that Jesus had risen indeed. This would place the crucifixion three days and three nights before on Wednesday at sunset. What to do?

In the middle of the second century A.D. there emerged a spurious gospel of Peter which places an "extra sabbath" between the crucifixion and the resurrection. This gospel claims Jesus died just before the sabbath but after he was dead and buried, his disciples fasted, even through another sabbath, before Jesus arose. This "extra sabbath" idea caught on and has been a popular proof text for the Wednesay theorists every since. Every since then, Nisan 15 was called a "great sabbath" by the adherents of the Wednesday crucifixion. They tie this in with John 19:31 where in the KJV the sabbath is called a "high day". With this extra sabbath they were able to reconcile Matthew with the other three gospels.

Now those who held to the Friday tradition (and there were more of them probably due to the fact you had three gospels floating around that placed the death of Jesus on the day before the sabbath) had to reconcile their Friday view the "three days and three nights". There have been different "harmonizations" but the most common eventually became a partial day was counted as a whole day and so parts of three days and three nights would be as though the whole three days and three nights passed.

The early fathers who held to the Wednesday view were mainly from Asia Minor and as I said that may have been due to the influence of Matthew without the other three gospels that said that Jesus died on the day before the sabbath.

This is not a scholarly thing I have given you, it is a compilation of differnent things I have seen hashed out on newsgroups over the years that can be researched on the Google Groups search engine. For example, type in "Lesser Asia" and "Wednesday" and "Crucifixion" in the search window and see what you come up with. You might add "three nights" if the other words fail to turn up a satisfactory post.

I hope this helps.

David Mooney

Here is a close examination of the Wednesday crucifixion theory that I have posted on the Usenet before under the name David Lee (my middle name). I have taken the liberty to edit some of my comments that wouldn't belong in this forum.

From: David Lee (david_lee376@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus crucified on a Friday?
View: Complete Thread (8 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.presbyterian
Date: 2004-07-06 09:09:17 PST

Allan Svensson wrote:

Was Jesus crucified on a Friday?
Some Pharisees and teachers of the law said to Jesus, "Teacher, we
want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and
adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be
given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three
days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man
will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth ..."
Matt. 12:39.

If Jesus was laid in the grave at the sunset on the Friday and him
risen at the sunrise on the Sunday, it is only one day and two nights,
or 36 hours. But Jesus said three days and three nights, it is 72
hours. If we count 72 hours back from the sunrise on the Sunday, then
we come to the sunrise on the Thursday. This is neither right, for in
Matt. 27:57-60 and in Mark. 15:42 we see that the body of Jesus was
laid in the grave at the sunset.

DAVID 1
Well, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole why
don't you just admit the prophecy failed and Jesus is a false prophet?
By your own admission it doesn't "fit" so why not just accept it
instead of coming up with the explanation that follows? The fact is
the gospels plainly teach a Friday crucifixion. However, just
because that creates a problem with Matthew 12:39,40 doesn't make
the Wednesday crucifixion valid.

Allan:
We must still count 12 hours back, and we come to Wednesday sunset.
Could it have possibly been on a Wednesday, just before sunset that
Jesus was crucified? Yet, according to Mark. 15:42, it was the day
before the Sabbath. Could the Thursday have been a Sabbath? Yes,
Thursday was a Sabbath!

DAVID 2
No, Thursday was not the Sabbath in Mark 15:42. Try again!

Allan:
This is the very fact that has confused people. A fact that has
completely been overlooked because Christians have lost sight of the
meaning of the sacred feast days and what they really typified. This
Sabbath holds the key to the whole mystery!

DAVID 3
This so-called "mid-week Sabbath" is an invention of those who want to
escape the implications of a failed prpohecy by Jesus. There never was
a mid-week Sabbath in the Spring of the Jewish Calendar until long
after the Diaspora. The Christians first brought up the idea of the
mid-week Sabbath early in the second century A.D. with the Gospel
of Peter, an apocryphal writing that was based largely on Matthew's
gospel and attempted to reconcile Matthew 12:40 with the other
accounts of Jesus' death found in the other gospels. The eastern
churches celebrated the death of Jesus on Wednesday and the western
churches on a Friday. The eastern churches relied heavily on Matthew's
gospel and the western churches on the other three gospels. Only when
the four gospels were collated in the early second century were the
discrepant accounts of three of the gospels with Matthew's version
noticed enough to cause some strife in the church. It was during this
time the apocryphal gospel of Peter appeared and in this gospel the
writer mentions another sabbath between the death of Jesus and the
weekly sabbath.

In the third century, while the Jews were compiling the Talmud did
they begin to call Abib 15 a sabbath. In their effort to have a fixed
date for the wave-sheaf offering (Abib 16) did they proclaim Abib 15 a
sabbath. The first wave-sheaf offering in Jewish history occurred on
the 16th of Abib. This is found in Joshua when the children of Israel
crossed the Jordan and entered the Promised Land. So, to make Abib 16
the annual day of the celebration of the wave-sheaf did they first
have to call Abib 15 a sabbath. In this manner, Abib 16 would follow
the first "sabbath" after the Passover Seder.

Allan:
We can read in John 19:31 that the Sabbath was a High day.

DAVID 4
There was no "HIGH DAY". That is simply an english expression. In
Jesus day there was no such thing as the english language. The book of
John was written in Greek and the expression found in John 19:31 was
"that Sabbath was "megales" ." The Greek word "megales" is where we
get our word english word "mega" from. It simply meant "big"
or "great" or "significant". It was not referring to a Sabbath
different from the weekly Sabbath but was noting that the weekly
Sabbath which followed the day of Crucifixion was a "big" or
"significant" Sabbath. Since the weekly Sabbath would also be falling
on Abib 15 that would indeed make it a "mega" Sabbath. However, it
wasn't because Abib 15 was a sabbath that this day was considered
"mega" but the fact the weekly Sabbath AND Abib 15 coincided that made
it so special. Notice, it wasn't the holy convocation that was called
"big" but the sabbath was. John emphasized the sabbath when he could
have just as easily claimed "that holy convocation was a "megales"
day.

Allan
This, the annual Sabbath, they always celebrated on the 15th day of
the Jewish month of Abib (Nisan), irrespective of which day of the
week this occurred.

DAVID 5
This "Abib 15 Sabbath" is an invention. It did not exist in Jesus'
day. The writer of the Gospel of Peter introduced the idea of an
extra sabbath the week Jesus died because early Christians were at
odds about reconciling Matthew 12:40 with the other gospel accounts.
This was early in the second century.

The Jews in the Diaspora, mainly the Pharisees, later called Abib 15
a sabbath so they could observe the wave-sheaf offering every year
on Abib 16. In Joshua, the children of Israel entered the Promised
Land and first celebrated the wave-sheaf on Abib 16. Since the first
wave-sheaf offering ever celebrated by the children of Israel was on
Abib 16, the Pharisees decided to name Abib 15 a sabbath so they
could always celebrate the wave-sheaf on the same day of each year.
The Pharisees then counted seven weekly sabbath days and one day from
Abib 16 to arrive at Sivan 6, the third Jewish month. On this day they
celebrated the Feast of Firstfruits (Pentecost).

Allan
It had nothing to do with the creation Sabbath which is a weekly
Sabbath. It could be two Sabbath days on the same week.

DAVID 6
In Jesus' day, the only time two Sabbaths could fall in a week (a
seven day period) was the late summer. There were no mid-week Sabbaths
in the Spring, not until long after the Diaspora when the Pharisees
compiled the writings of the Talmud.

Allan
The Passover day they celebrated the 14th Abib, and next day was a
Sabbath. You can read this in Exodus 12:1-14. Leviticus 23:5. Numbers
9:1-5, 28:16-18. Deuteronomy 16:1.

DAVID 7
These spring festivals (also called holy convocations) were never
called Sabbaths in what we call "bible days".That came later. There
were seven annual holy convocations, two in the early spring, one in
late spring, and four in the late summer. Only the day of Atonement,
"Yom Kippur", was ever called a Sabbath during the so-called "Bible
Days" (Lev 23:26-32).

In the King James Version, there are three other festival days called
"Sabbaths" that fell in the seventh month of the Hebrew Calendar.
These days were not called by the usual Hebrew word for Sabbath, but a
similar word "Sabbathon" or "sabbatism." On these days only servile
work was forbidden (Lev 23:24,25; 23:33-39). Only on the day of
Atonement, the Sabbath, all work strictly forbidden (Lev 23:28 and
elsewhere), just like the weekly sabbath (Ex 20:10). All six of the
holy convocations other than the Day of Atonement forbade only servile
work while the Day of Atonement forbade ALL work. And the Day of
Atonement was the only holy convocation of the seven to be directly
called a Sabbath. This "Sabbathon" although nearly spelled the same
as the weekly sabbath, did not carry the same exact meaning of the
weekly sabbath. It was simply a "rest" and is so translated elsewhere
in the KJV when used in conjunction with the weekly sabbath as in
"a sabbath of REST." If the two words were identical it would have
been redundant to call it "a sabbath of sabbath."

The Jews had a teaching that in the Torah, the laws that gave
exceptions to work over-ruled the ones that said no work was to be
done. Thus, cooking was allowed on Abib 15. Also, only servile work
was forbidden on Abib 15, and the work-prohibitions were not so strong
as for the Day of Atonement or the weekly Sabbath. After all, Abib 15
was the day the nation of Israel left Egypt, and that certainly wasn't
a day totally devoid of labor. Furthermore, burying and embalming body
was not considered "servile work" .It would have been permitted if the
weekly Sabbath had not been involved. Only the Day of Atonement and
the weekly Sabbath forbade ALL work and the big rush to bury the body
of Jesus could have been only the result of the weekly Sabbath, since
that was the day that forbade ALL work whereas Abib 15, standing alone
and apart from the weekly Sabbath, would have forbidden only servile
work. There could have been other reasons for rushing the burial
(such as the desire to go home or the desire to bury the body of a
criminal according to the rules set down in Deuteronomy) but the
reasons the Bible offers for the rush was this: the tomb was nearby
and the sabbath was coming on. Had this merely been the holy
convocation without the sabbath day the burial would not had to have
been rushed since placing a body in a tomb would not have constituted
"servile work".

Allan
This Sabbath was instituted at the first Passover in Egypt. It was
seven Sabbaths that they celebrated once in the year (Leviticus 23:15,
24, 27, 34 and 39), which could occur on any day of the week.

DAVID 8
The Spring Holy Convocations were NOT sabbaths. Think for a moment. If
Abib 15 were a Sabbath (Lev 23:6,7) then so would Abib 21 (Lev 23:8).
Now when the wave-sheaf was offered on the morning after the first
sabbath following the Passover celebration, there were to be seven
"Sabbaths" counted toward the Feast of Pentecost (Lev 23:15,16).
However, if Abib 21 was a Sabbath, it would have to be counted as a
Sabbath too. That means there would be several years where the seven
Sabbath count would leave something less than 50 days, sometimes as
few as 43 days. Since that was never the case, we know the Jews did
not consider Abib 21 a Sabbath. And if Abib 21 was never considered a
Sabbath, then why Abib 15, a day that cooking was allowed, and only
servile work was forbidden? Furthermore, Deuteronomy 16:8,9 supports
the claim that the seven sabbath count noted in Levitcus 23:15,16
equals seven weeks. Obviously then, Abib 21 was not a Sabbath. And
if that holy convocation wasn't, then certainly neither was Abib 15.

It is important to note when the Pharisees arbitrarily called Abib 15
a sabbath so they could offer the wave sheaf every Abib 16, they
conveniently refused to count Abib 21 as one of the sabbaths in the
seven sabbath count. This was due to their desire to celebrate the
Feast of Firstfruits on the same day of the third month every year.
But it also showed that Abib 21, a holy convocation, was not
considered a Sabbath by the Pharisees. They chose Abib 15 as a sabbath
for their own reasons but scripturally it was never a sabbath in the
Hebrew Bible or in first century Israel.

The holy convocations that were called "Shabbathown" in the Hebrew
Bible were called "Anapausis" in the first century greek. They were
not called "sabbaths".

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/03_023.htm

The above link will give you the greek text for Leviticus 23. If you
know your greek alphabet, you will be easily able to find the greek
equivalent for the Hebrew "shabbathown". The above link is the LXX or
Septuagint which was used widely by the Jews in the first century A.D.
One will discover the holy convocations that were called "Shabbathown"
in the Hebrew Bible were not considered "sabbaths" in the greek. They
were called "Anapausis" instead, quite a difference from what some
would have you to believe.

Allan
The Passover lamb would be slaughtered on the 14th day, at the
sunset of the Passover day. "And ye shall keep it up until the
fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the
congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." "And thus shall
ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your
staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's
passover." Exodus 12:6, 11.

When God was so strictly that the Passover lamb was slaughtered at
the certain time, then he ought to be still more strictly that the
real Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ, was sacrificed at the exact time.

DAVID 9
What you overlook is this" Although Exodus allowed some latitude in
the time of the killing of the Passover lamb, Deuteronmomy, which was
written later, was more precise, and said the killing of the lamb was
to take place at sunset (Deuteronomy 16:6). Some translations try to
cover this by writing "at the going down of the sun" but the Hebrew
text reads "at sunset."

It is true that due to the sheer numbers of Passover Lambs that had
to be killed on the afternoon of Abib 14 that the Jews started killing
them in the early afternoon to meet the demand. But God would not
have been pressed for time and if he was a stickler for details,
he would have had his Passover Lamb die at the right time: sunset.

If Jesus died at three hours before sunset, he was killed at the
wrong time. And if God was such a stickler for details about the time
of Jesus' death, why not the rest of the laws pertaining to the
sacrifical lamb? For example "And thous shalt roast and eat it (the
lamb) in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt
turn in on the morning, and go into thy tents" (Deuteronomy 16:7), as
well as "...neither shall any thing of the flesh, which thou
sacrificedest the frist day at even, remain all night until the
morning" (Deuteronomy 16:4), "...And ye shall let nothing of it remain
until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye
shall burn with fire" (Exodus 12:10), "...neither shall the sacrifice
of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning" (Exodus 34:25).

Moreover, the sacrifical lamb was to be a YEARLING (Exodus 12:5),
which meant it had not reached full maturity and it was to be without
blemish (Exodus 12:5). Obviously, this is not referring to moral
blemishes, but physical imperfections in the sacrifice to be. Yet we
know Jesus was supposedly beaten to a pulp and when he was offered up
to be sacrificed to the Jewish people, he definitely had blemishes.
Moreover, no one took his blood and struck it on the two side posts
and on the upper door posts of the houses in which he (the lamb) was
eaten.

Then, since God is such a stickler for details, "..and they
shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened
bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it" (Exodus 12:8). When
did this happen if God is such a stickler for details? Oh, I get it,
Christians have the liberty to choose the details they want and forget
the rest. They will seize on the part about no bones being broken, for
example (John 19:36, Psalms 34:20, Numbers 9:12), but forget some of
the details above. Closing this part, "...Eat not it raw, nor sodden
at all with water, but roast with fire, his head with his legs, and
with the purtenance thereof" (Exodus 12:9).

Granted, the atonement
would have been silly if the Jews would have been required to eat the
passover lamb (Jesus) but since the whole idea is silly to begin with,
why not? And why do Christians exercise eclectic details on which to
claim Christ fulfilled OT prophecies?

Allan
Jesus was crucified at the exact time of the year and that is why He
IS our Passover Lamb! If Jesus had been crucified on the Friday, then
he had come two days too later with his sacrifice.

DAVID 10
Not if Friday had been Abib 14.

Allan
Consider please, the tremendous importance of this SIGN OF JONAH.
Jesus proved that he is the true Messiah through fulfilling the sign
of Jonah. His body was in the grave THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. If we
count from the sunset on the Wednesday and 72 hours ahead, then we
come to the sunset of Saturday. Then Jesus had fulfilled the sign of
Jonah, and proved that he is the true Messiah.

DAVID 11
Since there is not a single eye-witness to the Saturday sunset
resurrection, we don't know if Jesus fulfilled the sign or not, now do
we? Remember, it wasn't the resurrection itself that mattered. In
fact, "many" people arose from the dead the sam weekend that Jesus
did. His resurrection Easter weekend proves nothing in and of itself
since he was just one of "many" who rose from the dead that weekend.

So his resurrection proves nothing. Now what we need is an eyewitness
to the Saturday sunset resurrection. We don't have one. What was Jesus
doing all that time between his supposed Saturday sunset resurrection
and appearing to his disciples late Sunday afternoon? Twiddling his
thumbs? He gave this great big sign yet he refused to reveal himself
to any of his disciples until late Sunday, when he would have been
too late. Why?

Allan
Accordingly, Jesus could have resurrected already in the Saturday
evening.

DAVID 12
Could have, might have, should have, the possibilities are endless.
While it is true that the Greek text in Matthew 28:1 could read that
Jesus rose late on the sabbath as the first day of the week was
dawning, this conflicts with the other three gospels that clearly show
the women went to the tomb on the morning of the first day of the week
and not on Sabbath evening as Matthew claims. The greek word for
"late" on the sabbath has been twisted to mean "after" by some
grammarians although the more honest ones admit it means "late"
and has caused some to claim that there were two different ways to
reckon the beginning and the ending of the sabbath.

The grammarians
who admit the greek word "late" means exactly that say that Matthew
must have meant the sabbath was ending at sunrise. That would square
it with the other three gospel accounts. They point out, correctly,
that the greek word for "dawn" in Matthew 28:1 was usually used for
the literal dawn of a new day (i.e. at sunrise); but these same
grammarians admit that it could be used to refer to the figurative
dawning of a new Jewish day (i.e. at sunset). It is so used in Luke
23:54 where it says the "sabbath was drawing on."

Literally, it says "as the sabbath was
dawning." So a good argument can be made that Matthew 28:1 places
the visit to the tomb and the resurrection on Sabbath evening. But
that still conflicts with the other three gospels that place the
visit to the tomb on Sunday morning.

Allan
The Bible does not say what time Jesus resurrected, but early at the
sunrise when the women came to the grave he was risen. Mark. 16:2,
Luke 24:1.

DAVID 13
Which makes you wonder...what did Jesus do all that time? Make
meaningless the only sign he supposedly gave?

Allan
Jonah was a "type" of the Saviour to come. After 3 days and 3 nights
in the belly of the fish, he became the 'saviour' of the gentile city,
Nineveh.

DAVID 14
Jonah was no savior, just a messenger. Jehovah is the only savior
(Isaiah 43:11).

Allan
By referring to Jonah as a sign, Jesus was pointing out to us that
Jonah was a "type" of the Saviour who would come for the whole world.

DAVID 15
Since Jonah was no savior, but a disgruntled messsenger boy, that was
hardly a good example to use. Jonah was a messenger; he saved no one.
In fact, he became angry when God did NOT destroy Ninevah.

Allan
If the Jews took the trouble to look up the scriptural reference,
then they would have believed Jesus to be the Saviour, the promised
Messiah. If you study the Bible careful, you cannot deny that Jesus
was in the grave all the 72 hours he had foretold.

DAVID 16
Sure you can. We know he was buried on a Friday afternoon. If you want
to quibble about what day was a Sabbath, fine, he was still buried as
the sun was setting. But problem is, Jesus appeared to no person until
daytime Sunday. And since he was merely one of many who rose
mysteriously from the dead that weekend, his resurrection proves
nothing. We don't have the necessary eye-witnesses to record that he
rose from the dead Saturday sunset. Without eye-witnesses, you can
believe what you want, but don't expect to impress thinking people.

Allan
Learned theologians and church leaders do not study the Bible. They
do not know what the Bible teaches, for they do not read it, but
follow doctrines and traditions of man.

DAVID 17
Well, it appears you don't study the Bible either. It appears you
are following an erroneous tradition of the Pharisees by believing
Abib 15 was a sabbath.

Allan
They believe that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and Good Friday
has been celebrated. Satan exploits this ignorance, and the
celebrating of Good Friday as a memory of the crucifixion. He uses it
as "a proof" that Jesus did not fulfil the sign of Jonah. "He was in
the grave only the half time."

DAVID 18
Well, you cannot make a case for a Wednesday crucifixion, and are
without the eye-witness reports necessary to establish a Saturday
sunset resurrection. Your case is extremely weak. You recognize that
the Friday view has its'weaknesses but fail to see the glaring
weaknesses in the Wednesday view.

Allan
Nowhere in the Bible can we read that Jesus was crucified on a
Friday.

DAVID 19
Nowhere in the Bible can we read that Jesus was crucified on a
Wednesday.

Allan
Jesus warns against "making the Word of God of none effect through
your tradition" (Mark 7:13). We shall be guided by the Bible, not by
tradition.

DAVID 20
Well, we'll see.
-------------------------------
PART TWO

PASTOR DAVE WROTE:
If I present one other day that is a Sabbath, that
isn't the seventh day Sabbath, then I have demonstrated
your belief that the seventh day was the only Sabbath,
to be wrong and that is exactly what I did, plus some.

DAVID LEE 21
Pastor Dave, do you even read what Heather and I jave been writing?
Several times already we have made it abubdantly clear that there were
other Sabbaths other than the weekly Sabbath. The Day of Atonement for
one. Why do you refuse to accept that and instead, like a typical
dishonest christian, act as if we have never addressed this issue.

PASTOR DAVE:
Here are a some examples again...

DAVID LEE 22
This has been dealt with ad nauseam. But we'll try again.

PASTOR DAVE:
Leviticus 16:29-31
29) And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that
in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye
shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all,
whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger
that sojourneth among you:
30) For on that day shall the priest make an atonement
for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all
your sins before the LORD.
31) It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye
shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

DAVID LEE 23
Please go read my post that I wrote yesterday on this topic. It was
posted to alt.bible and alt.atheism and was timelined at 2003-08-08
08:33:58 PST according to Google. You could not have missed it. Please
read it Pastor Dave.

PASTOR DAVE
Now, unless you want to claim that the 10th day of the
7th month falls on the seventh day of the week, every
year, then you had better admit that neither you, nor
he, had any understanding on the subject of Sabbath
days.

DAVID LEE 24
Go back to yesterday's post. I get sick and tired of people who
totally ignore your replies and then come back the next
day as if nothing has been written to respond to them. These type of
people apparently don't really give a hoot about the truth. All
they want to do is cut and paste the same old tired worn-out arguments
and give an appearance to lurkers that they have answered the
arguments posed by critics of the bible. So Pastor Dave, please
go to Google, or search your alt.bible and alt.atheism subscription,
find my reply, and begin a rebuttal to that.

PASTOR DAVE
Here's another one...
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the
seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye
have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an
holy convocation." - Leviticus 23:24

Here's two more, just days apart...
"Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when
ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall
keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day
shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a
sabbath." - Leviticus 23:39

DAVID LEE 25
Same old arguments. Been there, refuted them. Now its your turn to
rebut my refutations. Stop being avoiding the issue Dave. I'm sorry
Pastor Dave, but that is how it looks. It appears you are deliberately
avoiding the issue.

PASTOR DAVE
You claimed that no "high day" was a Sabbath, because
the only Sabbath was the seventh day Sabbath. I proved
you to be in error and instead of just admitting that,
you insist on arguing the point further, now trying to
make claims about Abib 15 (which is the fifteenth day
of the first month) and was the Passover, stating that
it was not a Sabbath, which means, rest. A rest
period. Now, since you insist on wanting to be made a
fool of, I will oblige you.

DAVID LEE 26
The only one looking like a fool is you. First, there is no "high
day". That is a translation of "the Sabbath was big" in the Greek.
Second, you are a less than ingenuous for insinuating that I claimed
that none of the seven annual holy days were called Sabbaths. I have
made it abundantly clear that the Day of Atonement was a Sabbath.
Many times, but you cannot seem to comprehend that.

Further, Heather and I have repeatedly stated that holy convocations
falling in the SEVENTH MONTH were called Sabbaths in the KJV, although
in the Hebrew text, only the Day of Atonement was called a Sabbath.
The other three holy convocations that fell in the seventh month were
called "Shabbathown" or, "rests" or "sabbitisms" with a different
connotation from "Sabbath." In the first century A.D. these
"shabbatons" were called "Anapausis" and the weekly sabbath was
called "sabbath". So it is the weekly sabbath that is being referred
to in the gospels, not the "Anapauis" or shabbathown of the Hebrew
Bible.

On a Sabbath, ALL work was forbidden (the Day of Atonement) and on a
Shabbathown, only SERVILE WORK was forbidden. Further, only the Holy
Days that fell in the SEVENTH MONTH were called "Sabbath" or
"Sabbitism". Your claim that rest alone made a day a Sabbath is
patently false. A Sabbath was a day in which ALL WORK was forbidden.

The Sabbitisms were days that only SERVILE WORK was forbiden. And only
if they fell in the SEVENTH MONTH were they called Shabbathown. I have
said this before and I will say it again, I don't give a care what man
calls a Sabbath. I want you to show me where the SCRIPTURES call Abib
15 a Sabbath. NOT where Pastor Dave goes to the seventh month and
finds a holy convocation called a "Sabbitism" then claims (without
proof) that Abib 15 was a Sabbath. You look like you haven't studied the issue very well when you do this. Look at this following example:

1. Memorial Day is a National Holiday
2. July 4th is a National Holiday
3. Martin Luther King Day is a National Holiday
4. Labor Day is a National Holiday
5. Veterans Day is a National Holiday
6. Thanksgiving Day is a National Holiday
7. Christmas Day is a National Holiday.

Additional Premise: Thanksgiving and Christmas were established as
religious Holidays.

Therefore, (according to Pastor Dave's logic) all National Holidays
were established as religious Holidays.

According to Pastor Dave, since Holidays six and seven were
established as religious Holidays then it must mean that all seven
Holidays were established as religious Holidays.
After all, he argues that if a Holiday that fell in the seventh month
of the Jewish calendar was called a Sabbath then all seven Holidays in
the Jewish Calendar must have been reckoned as a Sabbath. He also
argues that a since the Sabbath was a "rest" then all "rests" were
Sabbaths. Logical fallacies abound here.

The fallacies that are so rich in Pastor Daves eisegesis will be
recognized by most on this newsgroup as a "the fallacy of hasty
generalization." Hasty generalization occurs when V, W, X, Y, and Z
share A in common and Z is found to possess property M. The fallacy
occurs when the asserter claims that since Z possesses property M then
V, W, X, and Y must also possess that property since they all have A
in common. Let's look at some more examples:

1. Dogs give live birth
2. Cats give live birth
3. Humans give live birth
4. Humans are bipedal
5. Therefore, cats and dogs are bipedal.

Here, we can see at once the fallacy because it is so glaring. Here
is another, less glaring, example.

1. All Christians believe in God.
2. Christians A, B, and C speak in tongues.
3. Therefore, all Christians speak in tongues.

And more to the point,

1. A Sabbath is a rest.
2. A nap is a rest.
3. A good night's sleep is a rest.
4. Therefore, a nap is a Sabbath.

This is the kind of logical fallacy that Pastor Dave commits when he
argues that since a Holy Day in the Seventh Month was called a
Sabbath, then all seven Holy Days were called Sabbaths. He also argues
that since all Sabbaths are rest days, then all rest days are
Sabbaths. This is like me arguing that since all National Holidays are
days off work (if you work for the feds) then all days off work are
National Holidays.

In any case, a Sabbath was NOT just a day of rest. It was a day that
forbad 1) ALL work 2) ANY work and allowed 3) NO work at all, 4) NO
manner of work and 5) ANY work(see Leviticus 16:29, 23:28,30, 31;
Numbers 29:7 and Exodus 20:10, 31:14, 15; Lev 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:14;
Jer 17:22). Thus, a Sabbath was a day that allowed absolutely no work,
according to the Tanach. The other holy days, including Abib 15 and
21 disallowed SERVILE work only. Therefore, they were NOT Sabbaths,
Pastor Dave's useless protestations to the contrary.

Moreover, new moons were work free days and they were not Sabbaths
either (Amos 8:5, II Kings 4:23, Ezekiel 46:1,3; Psalms 81:3; I
Chronicles 23:31; II Chronicles 2:4; II Chronicles 31:3, and Ezekiel
45:17.

Not only that, but the Jews clearly understood the holy days were
separate from the Sabbaths. See Levitcus 23:4 and 37,38 to set the
stage then read the following passages coming from a variety of Jewish
books over several centuries: 1) I Chronicles 23:31; 2) II Chronicles
8:13; 3) II Chronicles 31:3; 4) Nehemiah 10:33; 5) Hoseah 2:11; 6)
Lamentations 2:6; 7) Ezekiel 45:17; 8) Ezekiel 44:24; 9) II Chronicles
2:4; 10) Nehemiah 10:31. In the KJV the feastdays above are translated
a variety of ways, such as "set feasts", "solemn feasts",
"solemnities", and "assemblies". This clearly demonstrates that in the
Jewish mind, at least, the feast days were considered separate from
the Sabbaths.

And read Levitcus 23:38 and you will see Jehovah clearly designated a
difference between the Sabbath Days and the feast days. They were not
the same, even according to Jehovah. But do you think that will deter
Pastor Dave? Not in the least.

Also, since Abib 15 only prohibited regular work and not all work,
there would have been no need to rush the burial of Jesus as Abib 15
did not forbid ALL work like the weekly Sabbath. Abib 15 in fact was a
commemoration of the departure from Egypt, a day in which there was
certainly physical work.

And, if Abib 15 (the first day of the feast of unleavened bread) was a
Sabbath then so would be Abib 21 (the last day of the feast of
unleavened bread). Please refer to Leviticus 23: 4-8. Yet we know that
when the wave sheaf offering was waved on the day following the first
Sabbath after Passover lamb was slain (Leviticus 23:9-16), the Jews
were to count seven Sabbaths after which (a Sunday) they were to
celebrate the Feat of Firstfruits (or Pentecost). If Abib 21 was a
Sabbath then it would have to be numbered as well and there would be a
different number of days between the wave sheaf and the Feast of
Firstfruits nearly every year. However, Deuteronomy 16:8, 9 show us
clearly the Jews did not consider Abib 21 a Sabbath and that seven
Sabbaths from the wave sheaf offering was equivalent to seven weeks.
Hence, we know Abib 21 was NOT a Sabbath.


PASTOR DAVE
Jesus was not crucified on a Friday. Let's take a look
at some Scriptures and note the facts. It is also
important to note, that the Jewish day began at evening
(what we would call 6 PM), not in the morning, nor at
midnight.

DAVID LEE 27
Already knew that. But continue...

PASTOR DAVE
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,
that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the
sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,)
besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and
that they might be taken away." - John 19:31

Note that it doesn't just say, "the Sabbath". It says
that this Sabbath was "an high day". The "high day",
is your clue that it wasn't the seventh day Sabbath
under discussion here.

DAVID LEE 28
You misread the clue. Notice it calls it "THE" Sabbath.
Now what day was routinely called "the" Sabbath by the Jews? The day
of Atonement was called "a" Sabbath but only one day was called "the"
Sabbath by the Jews and that was the weekly Sabbath. Prove me wrong.

It doesn't say "For that Holy Day was a big day" (or "high day") but
~the Sabbath~ was a big day. Hence, John was stressing the weekly
Sabbath and not the holy day.

Furthermore:
1.Why did John call the passover the passover in John 12:1? Why didn't
he call it the sabbath?
2. Why did John call the passover the passover in John 13:1? Why
didn't he call it the sabbath?
3. Why did John call the passover in 18:39? Why didn't he call it the
sabbath?
4. Why did John call the passover the passover in 19:1? Why didn't he
call it the sabbath?

Why was John referring to the passover as the passover in all these
cases yet never called it the sabbath until suddenly (according to
you), out of the blue, he referred to it as the sabbath in 19:31?

What sounds most likely? That John referred to the first day of
unleavened bread as the passover and the weekly sabbath as the sabbath
or, he referred to a so-called midweek festival day by the name
"passover" four times then suddenly switched to "the sabbath" without
so much as clarifying for his readers this was not to be confused with
the weekly Sabbath? What sounds most likely?

But that's not all. If Tuesday coincided with an earth-shattering
event (the bombing of the twin towers) and a pundit referred to that
Tuesday as a "big" day would his use of the term "big" in reference to
Tuesday mean it wasn't really Tuesday he was referring to but some
other day? What if a historian referred to the Sunday that Japan
bombed Pearl Harbor like this, "Now that Sunday was a very big day..."
would that mean it was no longer a Sunday but some other day simply
because he used the word "big"?

But that is exactly what you expect us to believe in regards to the
Sabbath. Simply because a writer referred to the Sabbath as a "big"
one you take it as it wasn't the Sabbath after all. Anyone who
understands Jewish culture (which you don't) would know that combining
the weekly Sabbath Day with Abib 15 (a holy day) would make that
Sabbath a big one. The weekly Sabbath was big because it was joined
with Abib 15, not that Abib 15 was falling on some other day of the
week.

PASTOR DAVE
Since when is the weekly
seventh day Sabbath called, "an high day"? It wasn't.

DAVID LEE 29
Since when is Abib 15 called a "high day"? Since John 19:31 is the
verse in dispute, we cannot use that as an example. That would be
begging the question. So tell me, since when is Abib 15 called a "high
day"?

You will never be able to find any support for Abib 15 being called a
"high day" because there aren't any examples. This phrase is found
only once in the entire Bible and it is a translation of the greek
phrase "that sabbath was a big day". That supports my theory, not
yours. Any Sabbath that coincided with a Jewish festival day would
indeed be "big".

PASTOR DAVE
They made note of it in that way, because it wasn't the
normal seventh day Sabbath that was approaching. It is
very important to understand, that the seventh day was
not the only day called a "Sabbath", nor did a
"Sabbath" have to fall on the seventh day of the week.

DAVID LEE 30
If they had wanted people to understand that the day that followed the
crucifixion was not the weekly sabbath they would have said "This was
not the weekly Sabbath" or "this was a high day" and omit any
confusing referecnces to the Sabbath, or even called it "one of the
annual Sabbaths". Instead, the gospel writers referred to it as "the"
Sabbath, and only one day in the Bible fits that category. The weekly
Sabbath.

PASTOR DAVE
The seventh day Sabbath did, of course, but as I said,
it was not the only Sabbath. And note it says, "the
preparation". Preparation for what?


DAVID LEE 31
Preparation for two things: 1) the weekly Sabbath, and 2) the days of
Unleavened Bread.
In regards to 1) above, see Martydom of Polycarp 7:1 where
"Preparation" in the Greek is translated "Friday" by Lightfoot, and
Josephus Antiquities xvi. 6. 2. 163 where he makes reference to the
Preparation of the Sabbath. The Martydom of Polycarp can be accessed
at
<http://wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nicene/polycarp/pol/mart/htm>

By the way, The Martydom of Polycarp takes place in February and the
day Polycarp was murdered was called a "high day" twice (8:1 and 21:1)
and the greek word there is "big". Now it certainly wasn't referring
to a Jewish festival, but the fact that something "big" was happening
that day. The death of a great and respected leader of the early
Church was taking place so it was deemed "mega" or significant. It had
nothing to do with holy days.

PASTOR DAVE
The fact is, that in that week, there were three
Sabbath Days in a row. Read the related passages.
Leviticus 23:2-7
2) Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto
them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall
proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my
feasts.
3) Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is
the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do
no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all
your dwellings.
4) These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy
convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
5) In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is
the LORD's passover.
6) And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the
feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye
must eat unleavened bread.
7) In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation:
ye shall do no servile work therein.

Three Sabbaths are mentioned here and for all three, it
says that they "shall do no servile work therein".
1) The Seventh Day Sabbath
2) The Passover Sabbath
3) The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread
Sabbath.

DAVID LEE 32
The only Sabbath you got right was the weekly
Sabbath. Notice that although the Sabbath can be classified as a holy
convocation not all holy convocations can be called a Sabbath. Read
Levitcus 23:38 again, and notice the separation in Leviticus 23: 3,4.
Just like all New Yorkers are Americans, but not all Americans are New
Yorkers, all Sabbaths were holy convocations but not all holy
convocations were Sabbaths. Again, you are commiting the logical
fallacy of hasty generalization. Look it up in a logic book. A good
logic book will explain better than I can why hasty generalization is
not a good, or valuable argument.

PASTOR DAVE
They were all Sabbaths and Jesus was in the grave for
three Sabbath Days in a row. Those who claim He was
crucified on Friday, are assuming only one Sabbath (the
seventh day Sabbath).

DAVID LEE 33
No, they are not assuming anything. They have the evidence on their
side. You have none.

PASTOR DAVE
How do we know the three Sabbaths apply? Look at what
is written in the Gospel of John.
"Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went
not into the judgment hall, lest they should be
defiled; but that they might eat the passover."
- John 18:28

DAVID LEE 34
Which, if Jesus died on the evening of Abib 14, then Abib 15 was
called the Passover by John., but not the Sabbath. Now, since John
considered the next day the first day of unleavened bread, and since
he and the other gospel writers Jesus died the day before the weekly
Sabbath, it becomes clear as a bell that that Sabbath would be "big".
Q.E.D.

PASTOR DAVE
It does not say "the Seventh Day Sabbath", nor does it
just say, "the Sabbath", but rather, it says, "the
Passover".

DAVID LEE 35
It doesn't say "the high day Sabbath" or "the first of the annual
Sabbaths" but the passover. Neither did he say it was "the passover,
considered by the Jews to be a Sabbath Day." No, John clearly did not
reckon the passover as an equivalent to the Sabbath Day. It was only
because the passover was falling on the same day as the weekly Sabbath
that he mentioned the haste to bury Jesus. Had it been merely the
passover and not the weekly Sabbath, there would have been no need to
rush to bury Jesus as Abib 15 forbad only servile work and burials
were permitted.

PASTOR DAVE
Jesus would be dead and in the tomb, before
the FIRST Sabbath, which was the Passover Sabbath.
Are we to forget that He was the "Passover Lamb" and
that the very first Passover Lamb was a symbol of the
coming crucified Christ? Does the tradition of
churches wanting Him on the cross on a Friday, replace
the truth? How can we forget such an important fact as
this? Look at John 19:31.

DAVID LEE 36
I covered this in excruciating detail in an earlier post I made two or
three days ago. Please go back and reread it. If you cannot find it on
your server, then go to Google Groups, type my email address in the
box provided and you will find it.

PASTOR DAVE
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,
that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the
sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,).."
- John 19:31

There is your "great day". The Sabbath that they had
to get Him buried before, was not the Seventh Day
Sabbath, but the Passover Sabbath, which is why it was
called "an high day".

DAVID LEE 37
Notice, again, it was "the" Sabbath that was a great day. John was
stressing the Sabbath, not the first day of unleavened bread. Why?
Because if it had been just the first day of unleavened bread at stake
here, there would have been no rush to bury Jesus. But the Jews knew
it was the Sabbath drawing on and it was a very big Sabbath at that.
Joseph buried him nearby because it was the preparation day and the
tomb was availible. And we know from Luke 23 the sabbath was drawing
on quickly. If it had been merely the first day of unleavened bread
(without the weekly sabbath) there would have been no need to rush
getting him off the cross either.

PASTOR DAVE
Now, could the Passover that year have occurred on a
Saturday? Absolutely not. Why? Simple. The day
after Passover would have been the first day of the
Feast of Unleavened Bread and would have also been a
Sabbath, in which they were not allowed to do, "any
servile work therein". Therefore, they would not have
been able to come to the tomb on that day carrying
spices. Note Luke 24:1.

DAVID LEE 38
Since the first day of unleavened bread was not a sabbath, it is
irrelevant. And since it forbad only servile work, it wouldn't matter
anyway.

PASTOR DAVE
"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the
spices which they had prepared, and certain others with
them. " - Luke 24:1
Therefore, the Passover could NOT have fallen on a
Saturday, since the first day of the week would have to
be a day in which they could do work, since carrying
the spices would have been considered work to them

DAVID LEE 39
Even if it were a Sabbath, it forbade only servile work, thus your
point is irrelevant. Some of the women had already witnessed the body
greased with one hundred pounds of spices on Friday night so it is
doubtful they had to exert themselves very much. It was only servile
work that was forbidden anyway.

PASTOR DAVE
(note John 5:10) and the day after Passover would have
been, as I said, the first day of the Feast of
Unleavened Bread and they would not have been able to
do work on that day (Leviticus 23:7) and it would also
have been a "Sabbath".
Take a closer look at the passages mentioned earlier
and let's focus on two of them.
Leviticus 23:5-6
5) In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is
the LORD's passover.

DAVID LEE 40
Not a Sabbath.

PASTOR DAVE
6) And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the
feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye
must eat unleavened bread.

DAVID LEE 41
Not a Sabbath.

PASTOR DAVE
1) The Passover Sabbath began at evening on the 14th
day of the first month.

DAVID LEE 42
Only if there was a weekly Sabbath with which it could coincide.

PASTOR DAVE
2) The Feast of Unleavened Bread Sabbath was the next
day, on the 15th day of the first month.
3) The weekly Seventh Day Sabbath was the next day.
There you have it, three Sabbath Days in a row. Jesus
was not crucified on a Friday, nor does the Bible say,
nor indicate in any manner that He was.

DAVID LEE 43
The Bible does not say, nor indicate in any manner, he was crucified
on a Wednesday.

PASTOR DAVE
Jesus did not say that He would be in the grave for
pieces and parts of three days. He said, "three days
AND three nights, period.

DAVID LEE 44
Exactly. So why don't you do your duty (Deuteronomy 18:18-22)

PASTOR DAVE
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the
whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth."
- Matthew 12:40

Now, you either believe what He said, or you state that
He didn't know what He was talking about, in which
case, you have no cause to read the Bible, nor to claim
to be a believer, since you would be stating that you
believe a liar,

DAVID LEE 45
well, duh, if he were a false prophet, what business do YOU have to
tell anyone what to do. It is YOU that needs to straighten up your
act. Suppose a Muslim tried the same logic with you, telling you if you
believed Mohammed did not speak the truth, you had no reason to even
read the Koran or to teach other Muslims they were in error.
Since you would be claiming that Mohammed was a liar, or he didn't
know what he was talking about, just be quiet and say nothing.

PASTOR DAVE
or at the very least, someone who
didn't know what he was talking about and therefore,
your faith is in vain. Your choice. But the facts
show that He DID know what He was talking about and
that you're simply holding some church's doctrine over
the truth of God.

DAVID LEE 46
It has been shown that YOU are the one who cannot hold to scriptural
truth and instead you follow a tradition of the Pharisees and reject
the Bible's own teaching to avoid what you perceive an embarrassing
situtation.

PASTOR DAVE
No offense, as I'm sure it was done
in ignorance. I'm just being direct. If you choose to
continue on proclaiming that He was crucified on a
Friday, thereby saying that He was wrong, then your sin
be upon you.

DAVID LEE 47
Are you saying that you are NOT saved by grace? Does a christian who
accepts Jesus goes to hell because he holds to the Friday crucifixion?
Are you saved by works? What exactly do you believe?

PASTOR DAVE
At the very least, this should prompt you
to investigate. Remember, what we have been taught
isn't relevant. What a church says isn't relevant.
What God says is. And He gave us His Holy written word
and it covers this issue quite well. Let us correct
ourselves and not try to correct God.

DAVID LEE 48
Then start correcting yourself. Jettison the idea about a Wednesday
crucifixion. Then I'll start believing more of what you say.

John Powell

POWELL:
I snipped a lot, David. If there's something I skipped especially important to you then let me know.

POWELL:
In the hypothetical, it does mean a "day". So, given that it DOES mean a "day" in the hypothetical then isn't my initial claim correct?

POWELL:
Where does Genesis 1 clearly indicate that a "day" is a 24-hour time period rather than merely counting the daylight periods ignoring the nights?

POWELL:
I'm in pretty good agreement with this.

POWELL:
That's even better than what I said.

POWELL:
Yes, and I agree with most of what you said. By "freethinker" I mean that I am not obligated to believe anything for which there isn't sufficient evidence regardless whether the source is a scientist or a theologian. When I was a believer I felt like I was obligated to believe what my religious leaders taught me and what my science teachers taught me.

POWELL:
Right. They would likely believe an onah was also used to mean a weekday if their rabbi told them so or if the Talmud suggested as much.

POWELL:
Well, it's weak evidence, but the fact that some rabbis implied in their arguments that the 3 days waiting period under debate must include more than 48 hours implies that they MAY have considered the onah of importance in the issue to be what we would call 24 hours of continuous time. Remember that "onah" just means "time period."

However, I think it's more likely that they were treating the "onah" as a convenient term other than a weekday or a 24 hour time period meaning only either a daytime period (or part) or a night (or part) as an aid to clarify what "3 days" means. They didn't want to confuse weekdays or 24-hour time periods with half-days so they called half-days "onahs."

POWELL:
They don't show that's how it was used. That's contrary to your position. A weekday / civil day is a 24 - hour time period that for our purposes here begins at sunset and ends at sunset. It includes a night and then a daytime period.

POWELL:
I don't have any textual evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised if some ancient Rabbis called a week an onah.

POWELL:
Oops, I missed the "continuous" part of your statement. I thought you were merely referring to weekdays. Well, I answered what you actually said earlier on.

POWELL:
The 5th onah would not end at midnight, but it would be complete on Wednesday morning at sunrise.

I wish you would use the Jewish convention rather than the Roman one in this discussion. From here on I will try to preface Jewish days with J and Roman days with R when it matters.

POWELL:
That would be 4 onahs, but it's not the minimum elapsed time it could be. What you have would be more than 36 hours. The minimum for 4 onahs is 24 hours and a little bit. An example would be from just before sunset on J Monday afternoon to just after sunset on J Wednesday night (before J Wednesday day). You would have a sliver of J Monday (onah 1), all of J Tuesday (onahs 2 and 3), and a sliver of J Wednesday night (onah 4).

POWELL:
They needed it in order to feel like they were properly obeying the letter of the law.

POWELL:
The problem, I think, is that if you allow for the "3 days" to mean weekdays then a Jewish couple could get away with delaying only 24 hours and a little bit before she would be clean if they timed sex to occur just before sunset. The rabbis felt like that was cheating. How can a day of continuous time count as 3 days to God? Can't be. It needs to be more time than that. They used the half-day onahs to help explain how long one needed to wait. Some thought you needed to wait at least 48 hours and a little bit. At least that would be 2 full days of continuous time and part of a third.

POWELL:
David, where did Jesus ever use the term "onah"?

POWELL:
Right. This onah issue won't change that.

POWELL:
Yes, I do, but you've fallen for the same logical problem you did when rejecting my hypothetical of an onah = 1 month or the other hypothetical that an onah = 1 weekday. You're hypothetically allowing that an onah = something other than half-days and then continuing to assume that onahs are half-days. If Jesus meant for an onah = the equivalent continuous time period of 3 days and 3 nights and if a part of an onah counts as a whole, then Jesus could have resurrected anytime during that 72-hour time period including minutes after being buried.

POWELL:
Not so, David. If an onah is a 24-hour continuous time period then Friday afternoon to Saturday afternoon would be onah 1, Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon would be onah 2. Jesus would have only been in the tomb for parts of two 24-hour onahs if He resurrected Sunday morning.

POWELL:
Exactly. It's the lack of the third night that is the problem, not how long an onah is.

POWELL:
This is still wrong. You would not be into the third 24-hour onah until after Sunday afternoon at the same time as he was buried.

POWELL:
Right.

POWELL:
From Friday afternoon to Sunday morning after sunrise would be parts of 5 half-day onahs. From sunset following Friday afternoon to sunset following Monday afternoon would be 6 complete half-day onahs.

POWELL:
Perhaps Mark didn't even know the term "onah."

POWELL:
I see. They didn't think a second or a minute was enough to count as part of an onah. You had to have something like half an hour. That's reasonable.

POWELL:
The problem, David, is that the reason the rabbis claimed that from early on might be largely because of their efforts to discredit Christianity.

POWELL:
Try again, David. A part of a day counts as the whole day. A whole day is 24-hours long and includes a daytime period and a night. Thus a part of a day counts as the equivalent time as a complete daytime period + a complete night. HOWEVER, this does not mean that if someone says that they did something "for a day and a night" then if they only did it during the afternoon then their claim is correct. The purpose of saying "a day and a night" is to EMPHASIZE that it included parts of both. To say "a day" is unclear about that. Maybe it included some of the night. Maybe no.

POWELL:
Good. It's important that apologists don't get away with insinuating that Jesus was using some kind of idiom that we don't use or that the Rabbis had some esoteric understanding of days and nights that we don't. We do things reasonably similar.

POWELL:
These are good examples, David, but you don't need the "onah" part.

POWELL:
What you said was fine. You didn't travel an ENTIRE day and an ENTIRE night, but you did travel a day and a night (meaning at least significant parts of both.)

POWELL:
I suppose. The night following Thur day would be J Fri night (night onah 1), then there'd be J Fri day (day onah 1), J Sat night (night onah 2), J Sat day (day onah 2), J Sun night (night onah 3), and J Sun day (day onah 3).

POWELL:
Whoa. The term "night" in the Bible does NOT mean just the 6 hours between sunset and midnight as it sometimes means to us, but it means the entire period of darkness between about sunset and sunrise. Please stop with the midnight beginning of weekdays if you're going to discuss the Biblical counting of days.

POWELL:
David, we need to use Biblical counting methods, rather than Roman ones on this issue. The weekday / civil day begins at about sunset, not at midnight, in the Bible.

POWELL:
The first weekday is Sunday. The seventh weekday is Saturday. They are 24-hours long and begin at sunset in the present discussion.

POWELL:
Well, the Elvis fans aren't exactly scholarly. Given the scarcity of Jews that support Christianity, to have even a small minority who support the opposing view on this onah question is significant.

POWELL:
I don't think you know what I mean by a weekday. It's the day of the week with the caveat that it begins at sunset rather than midnight in the present discussion.

POWELL:
I see.

POWELL:
No, the Jews began their civil / weekday at sunSET.

POWELL:
Apparently, they were trying to translate things into the terminology of their readers. It was easier for me to look at things from the Jewish point of view. I also think it makes it a lot easier to discuss. For example, you don't have to speak of two different days when talking about a complete night from 6 p.m. to the following 6 a.m.

POWELL:
So, although an onah is not EXACTLY the same as a calendar day, it's pretty close, huh?

POWELL:
Did it to Jesus?

POWELL:
What about R Saturday darkness between midnight and sunrise, is that another night onah or is it part of the R Friday night onah?

POWELL:
David, sunset isn't part of any Jewish calendar day. It's the point when one day becomes the next.

Is the precise moment of midnight following R Friday day part of R Friday or part of R Saturday?

POWELL:
Good. Let's stick with that and dispense with the modern convention.

POWELL:
If you think it's ok to count part of a daylight period as an entire weekday then why don't you think it's ok to count part of a night as an entire weekday?

POWELL:
Good example showing that we count such things similar to how the Jews did.

POWELL:
Would Jesus understand it that way?

POWELL:
That's probably because Mark screwed up and Matthew tried to fix it. The term "after 3 days" probably meant "on the 4th day or shortly thereafter." Isn't that how we would use the term? Do you see any evidence that Jews counted days a lot differently than we do?

POWELL:
I don't see that at all.

POWELL:
Let's suppose that Jesus spoke to the Samaritans on Monday morning. He then stays with them two days teaching them, namely the rest of Monday day and then also Tuesday day. On Wednesday day he departs for Galilee. He would have been with them for two daylight periods and departed from them after two daylight periods, on the third daylight period.

POWELL:
First of all, it's a FALSE witness that's claiming what Jesus said. This seems to be part of Matthew's way to correct Mark. It's not that Jesus said that He would rise AFTER 3 days, but some false witnesses mistakenly THOUGHT that's what Jesus said.

Secondly, this discussion occurs the day after the crucifixion so the need for the guard would only be until the third day from that moment rather than from the moment of the crucifixion which occurred the previous day.

Assuming Jesus had said AFTER three days and was crucified Friday afternoon, that would mean that He would resurrect sometime on Monday day if he meant daylight periods, or it could be as early as the previous J Monday night if Jesus meant weekdays. Consequently, a guard would need to be placed until late Monday afternoon which would be the third day for those discussing this on Saturday.

POWELL:
I think he probably meant that a day and a night each made an onah, but that's the controversy. Maybe he didn't mean that.

POWELL:
Oh. That sure wasn't clear to me.

POWELL:
Not if "part of an onah counts as the whole."

POWELL:
Ok.

POWELL:
You're right. That's not the strawman. That's what they might argue and it might be justified by what Eleazar said. However, what you're saying here is not what you implied they were arguing above. You were implying above that they think that an onah requires both a night and a daylight period to count as an onah similar to how one needs both the meat and the bread to make a sandwich. That's what JEWS are arguing the Christians SHOULD mean, but I don't think it's what the Christians are actually arguing. That's the strawman.

POWELL:
Thanks for those references.

Glenn Miller at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q3rdday.html argues that, based on Eleazar's words about the onah being a day and a night, and other things that there is sufficient width of meaning in the Jewish idiom "For 3 days and 3 nights" that it could mean the same thing as "on the third day." No where does Miller imply that he thinks that to count as a full onah one needs both part of a day and part of night.

Eric Lyons at http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr49.html argues that, based on Eleazar's words about an onah being a 24 hour time period and a part being as the whole and "the liberal methods ancients used when reckoning time," Jesus was right to say He would be in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights even though it wasn't three complete 24-hour days. No where does Lyons imply that he thinks that to count as a full onah one needs both part of a day and part of a night.

Lyons is mistaken about the "liberal time reckoning" claim. The Rabbis were arguing about how many half-days count as three days. That's not "liberal" in the way he means. They were often anal retentive about obeying the letter of the law.

Samuele Bacchiocchi at http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/boo...ifixion/1.html
argues that based on what Eleazar said and for other reasons, that "in Biblical times the expression 'a day and a night' simply meant a day, whether complete or incomplete." No where does Bacchiocchi imply that he thinks that to count as a full onah one needs both part of a day and part of a night.

POWELL:
Yes, but also because an "onah" just means "time period" so I see no reason why someone else might not use it to represent a month or a week or a weekday.

POWELL:
Another good example.

My point is that *IF* an onah is assumed to equal a weekday (despite what is actually the Jewish practice) and *IF* part of an onah counts as the whole *THEN* part of a daylight period would count as a weekday onah or part of a night would count as a weekday onah.

POWELL:
In my hypothetical the onah is the "month" and part of a month counts as the whole. So why wouldn't merely a day count as an onah under that assumption?

If the day onah were the daylight period of 12 hours, would one hour suffice? To be consistent, why don't you say "No. You have to have parts of two hours and a whole 10 hours to count as a daylight onah. The Rabbis weren't that naive."

POWELL:
Another good example.

POWELL:
I meant that Allah would demonstrate that He was the real McCoy. Maybe you wouldn't convert because Allah would send you to Muslim hell.

The point is that if I suggest a hypothetical that contradicts how the Rabbis actually do things then it's not right for you to deny the conclusions based on assumptions that are contrary to the hypothetical.

Bill: "If it's raining then the roads are wet."

Jack: "You're wrong, Bill. I can see that the roads aren't wet. Nor is it raining."

POWELL:
There were several hypotheticals. The most important one is that the onah might have meant a weekday or a 24-hour time period. It's calculated by adding a night and a daylight period. However, since part of an onah counts as the whole, merely part of a weekday counts as the whole weekday. The Allah issue had to do with your reluctance to deal properly with hypotheticals.

POWELL:
Right. The difference is that if we only had half an hour of one day or night, we might neglect to count it whereas the Jews would still count it.

POWELL:
I think Hisda counted the onah differently than others did. I think your reluctance to allow for other time periods for the onah than just half days or 30 days is not justified. I think the harmonization is that they both meant for a 30-day waiting period, not that they counted the onah to be the same length of time.

POWELL:
No, you're wrong, but in a subtle way. A weekday is a day + a night. Part of a weekday can count as a whole weekday or a whole day + night. So a few minutes of, say, night could count as a whole weekday. HOWEVER, if someone claims that they did something for "a day and a night" then doing it for only part of the day or only part of the night would not suffice. They would need to include part of the day AND part of the night.

POWELL:
I live in Utah. Your usage matches mine.

POWELL:
Nope.

Let's suppose that when Bill said "My dog is king" what Bill ACTUALLY meant was that the name of his dog was "king" because he makes king-sized doo doos. However, you and I are having a discussion and I suggest we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bill meant that his dog was a king of dogs, a really awesome example of the breed. I argue that *IF* that were the case then Bill probably thought very highly of his dog. Then you say, "But my friend knows that Bill meant that his dog's name is king for the size of his crap, so your conclusion does not follow from your premise."

Do you see the error of that kind of reasoning?

POWELL:
Well, go back to my half-night example. If a night onah is the darkness from sunset to midnight AND the darkness from midnight to sunrise, then would a night onah have to include BOTH part of the pre midnight darkness AND part of the post midnight darkness?

POWELL:
You're correct that it would be WRONG to say that your trip took "a day and a night." I suspect people in Australia call such things about the same as we do here in America.

POWELL:
But David, I'm defining the night onah as "sunset to midnight AND midnight to sunrise." So, wouldn't that require that I have BOTH part of the pre-midnight darkness AND part of the post midnight darkness to count as a night onah?

POWELL:
I see the same problem here as with the night example. Since I'm defining the daylight onah as "sunrise to noon AND noon to sunset" then wouldn't I need part of the morning daylight period AND part of the afternoon to count as an onah?

POWELL:
That's what logic is about, David: hypothetically if p were true then q would be true.

POWELL:
I basically agree with you here.

I dealt with the strawman issue earlier on.

POWELL:
I understand your usage, David. What you seem to have troubles with is placing yourself in a hypothetical world in which what Eleazar meant is what Christians claim he meant and then considering the logical implications.

POWELL:
I used the man-woman example because you were using it as a counter-example.

But, David, if a night onah is "the dark evening AND the dark morning" then why don't you need BOTH part of the dark evening AND part of the dark morning to count as a whole onah?

POWELL:
And part of a night can count as a whole 24-hour weekday for some computational purposes.

POWELL:
My point is that there are more onahs than just half-days and 30 days. There are also 20-day onahs. Maybe more.

POWELL:
Notice that I didn't claim it *IS* what Eleazar meant, but he *MAY* have meant. Actually, I need it to be more than merely logically possible since that's too liberal. I need it to be reasonably possible. I think it is. I believe Eleazar PROBABLY meant it in the same way the later Rabbis used it, as half-days, but there's a significant possibility that he meant it in another way.

POWELL:
I also agree with some things written in the Bible. What I disagreed with is your position of support for the geneology of Zadok. It includes persons that historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists doubt ever existed such as Levi, Abraham, Noah, and Adam. By "freethinking" I don't mean to question everything, and I don't, but to not be required to accept anything that has insufficient evidence.

POWELL:
That's for you to decide.

POWELL:
Mostly from my own experiences and my thinking about those experiences. By thinking and reading mostly. Yes to a great extent. Part of the evidence is what logic directs. Logic is involved with hypotheticals.

POWELL:
You felt justified in affirming that the onah doesn't mean anything other than a half-day, a 30 day period, or that Biblical thing. With a quick google search I proved that wrong. It also can mean 20 days in some cases to some Rabbi.

I accept a lot of things on people's mere say-so too WHEN IT FITS WHAT I ALREADY BELIEVE. When what they say contradicts my intuition, as this onah claim did, then I'm more skeptical.

POWELL:
Perhaps.

POWELL:
A deductive argument that is valid or an inductive argument that is strong.

POWELL:
Not if it's a deductive argument. That would be fallacious.

POWELL:
I am aware when they're bad. Are appeals to authority sometimes good in deductive arguments, David, or always bad?

POWELL:
Authorities don't always share their arguments. Sometimes they just give their opinions. If the issue is important, controversial, and understandable then I need more than their mere voiced opinion. I need to scrutinize their reasons for believing.

POWELL:
If it's a sound deductive argument then you shouldn't need to consult any authorities whether the conclusion is true.

POWELL:
I argued that the onah reasonably could have meant more than just what you said. You rejected that argument. I had to use an appeal to authority, a Talmud reference, and give you an actual case where it meant something else to persuade you.

Let's see if I can persuade you about the "ham sandwich" analogy without making an appeal to authority.

POWELL:
Some, if they were inductive arguments rather than deductive. If they were deductive arguments then your background should be irrelevant.

POWELL:
Because they're strong inductive arguments.

POWELL:
Don't give up yet. I think I might yet persuade you to see the flaws in the "ham sandwich" analogy the Jews have given you.

POWELL:
How did you eliminate all doubt so easily? Haven't you tried to figure out why some Rabbis thought 4 onahs were enough while others thought 5 onahs were required? Perhaps someone TOLD you that's what the Rabbis meant and you believed them.

The fact that some Rabbis thought 4 onahs were enough while others required 5 onahs implies that those who thought 4 onahs were enough thought that the "3 days" in this case meant "three weekdays" while those who thought 5 onahs were required thought "3 days" meant "three 24-hour periods."

I guess I shouldn't do your thinking for you, so why don't you go through the analysis yourself? There's probably no authority you can check on this one except your own ability to reason and me.

POWELL:
Right.

POWELL:
Yes, but that says nothing about onahs.

POWELL:
Oops. I thought you were an atheist.

Are you an atheist, David?

POWELL:
The majority of scientists / scholars doubt that Adam was an actual person. Adam is part of Zadok's geneology.

POWELL:
Nope.

POWELL:
Well, I would think that the scientific evidence for man existing far beyond 6000 years ago would suffice for someone like you.

POWELL:
I rarely ask for proof, David, so I'm confident that you're mischaracterizing what I said.

POWELL:
Yes. As I recall, you were encouraging people to deny having an opinion on matters about which they did have an opposing opinion in order to reduce their burden. If they had no opinion, see, they didn't have to support it. However, if they admitted that they had an opposing opinion then they would need to support it. You were encouraging deception.

John Powell

Amaleq13

As convoluted as it might be, let's try to stick the argument relevant to the thread and avoid dragging in old arguments from other boards, OK?

John Powell

POWELL:
Ok.

John Powell

quartodeciman

This discussion makes me mindful of (1) the peace of God and (2) the mercy of God:

(1) it passes all understanding

(2) it endures forever

.

John Powell

POWELL:
Then how do you explain Jesus implying that He'll be in the tomb for parts of 3 days and 3 nights, when it was only parts of 2 nights for a Friday afternoon burial and a Sunday resurrection?

John Powell

David Mooney

DAVID 1
That is fine with me as the post was growing rather lengthy. You may just "win" this discussion John through attrition. I am a very slow typist. My previous post took ten hours to type and this one took about 12 (spread out over Monday and Tuesday). I just don't have the stamina to keep it up, but I will hold out for as long as I can. It's a good thing you snipped a lot but unfortunately not enough. I wish we could keep it about three standard sized sheets of paper a post. But I think it is too late for that.

Quote:
POWELL:
If an onah could be a "day" then that could mean the 12-hour daylight period, the 24-hour weekday, or any continuous 24-hour time period.

DAVID: 2
Not according to Jewish dictionaries, commentators, and Jews I have chatted with on the Usenet. . .

DAVID: 3
. . . And yes, a "day" in english can mean any on of those three things you mentioned. But could it in the Hebrew? And did it at the time the Tanach and the Talmuds were written?

DAVID 4
You need no hypotheticals since an Onah is already considered as a day, among other things as well.

A day in english however can mean any one of the three things you mentioned in your hypothetical, namely: 1) a 12-hour period of daylight, 2) a 24-hour period from midnight to midnight, and 3) a continuous span of 24-hours. You don't need any hypotheticals as it is undisputed that in english our days can mean any of the three above as well as 4) a part of a daytime and even part of a nighttime. I wrote in my last reply (see DAVID 3 above) that I agreed with you. What I disputed was whether or not in HEBREW a day could mean all three of the things you hypothesized about in your hypothetical. I refer specifically to the time periods when the Talmuds and the Tanach were written.

I believe three of the four meanings of "day" above are without question used in the Tanach and the Talmuds so there is no dispute with you on this issue. Hypotheticals are unnecessary in this case. However, since a hypothetical is supposed but is not necessarily true (Oxford, 2001) I don't know whether your third hypothetical is correct or not since a hypothetical does not establish truth. Could it be what you claim? Maybe. Is there any evidence for it in the Tanach or the Talmuds? No.

More important, I have never found evidence outside the Tanach and Talmuds to support your third hypothetical (i.e. any continuous 24-hour period). So, since "hypothetically" an Onah ~might~ consist of a 24-hour continuous period doesn't make your third claim correct. That would be similar to me claiming that 1) it is hypothetically possible I am a woman posing as a man. Then 2) my claim that I could be a woman is correct. It MIGHT be correct John but I can assure you I am not a woman posing as a man. Likewise, I have so far found no evidence for the 24-hour continuous usage. So your third hypothetical: "~if~ an onah could be a "day" then that ~could~ mean...any 24-hour continuous time period" has no evidence to support it in the Tanach or the Talmuds.

Remember I don't dispute Onah could be a "day", but based on all the available evidence so far I find no support for your third hypothetical that it could be any continuous 24-hour period. Therefore I cannot assert that your third hypothetical is correct.

Quote:
DAVID: 5
The writings (Tanach and Talmuds) themselves show evidence that a part of a day could be reckoned as a day in civil use and a part of an Onah could be reckoned as an Onah in rabbinical use. The evidence indicates that an Onah was either a night or a day with a couple other usages, whereas the common use of "day" in the Tanach shows a dual usage, as found in Genesis 1, where a day could be the portion of time between sunrise and sunset and also the civil 24-hour day.

DAVID 6
In Genesis 1:5 God calls the light day and the darkness night. In the same verse it is written, "and the evening and the morning were the first day." In Genesis 1:8 it is written, "and the evening and the morning were the second day." This usage is repeated four more times in Genesis 1. From this, we see the light compared with the darkness is called day (as in daytime) and after each creative day(time) there was an evening and a morning which completed the "first day", "second day", "third day", etc.

Quote:
DAVID: 7
I agree also that just because one is a Jew does not automatically make him right in his view of how words were used in the Tanach. . .

In Christianity there are many scholars that spend their entire adult lives studying the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The fact that they are not always right is evident in how they often disagree with one another. . .

So I do believe that being a Jewish rabbi does not automatically make one's beliefs correct. What I look for when evaluating the commentary is evidence. If a rabbi claims the Tanach teaches X, I will look to see if this is indeed the case. . .

The evidence in the Talmuds and modern day commentaries make it clear Onah in its most common use is either a day or a night and a portion of a Onah is reckoned as a whole. I believe this means that if three hours of an daytime Onah precedes a nighttime Onah, then the first Onah is reckoned as a whole. A portion of the nighttime Onah would be reckoned as a whole. However, a sunrise to sunrise reckoning would include two complete Onah's and a sunset to sunset reckoning would include two complete Onahs.

Quote:
DAVID: (earlier) 8
Furthermore, a 24-hour period (say 3pm Wednesday to 3pm Thursday) would be, according to the Jews themselves three Onahs or part of three Onahs with one whole Onah inbetween.

DAVID: 9
Actually, I made an error in the statement above. I should have written the following:

Furthermore, a 24-hour period (say 3pm Wednesday to 3pm Thursday) would be, according to the Jews themselves three Onahs or part of ~two~ Onahs with one whole Onah in between. Between sunset to sunset would be two Onahs and between sunrise to sunrise would be two Onahs.

Quote:
DAVID: 10
You need to study Jewish terminology . . .

DAVID: 11
You can be a freethinker and still accept much of what ancient Jewish authors believed. You can even be a freethinker and believe much of what Christian authors claim. Freethinkers do not, as a rule, reject everything that Christians or Jews claim, just because they are wrong about some things. Sometimes the freethinker will find points of agreement and when he does it doesn't make them less a freethinker. . .

Quote:
DAVID: 12
Most of the Jews I have chatted with on Yahoo are unfamiliar with the concept of Onah. When they get back to me they only repeat what a rabbi has told them or what I have already known by reading on the Usenet - in other words, they rely on the same information that I have access to - the Talmuds and the modern commentaries on the Talmuds.

DAVID 13
Yes, they probably would. By the way, while I am thinking of it, I need to point out that in my previous posts I sometimes used "weekday" inn two different senses and that could lead to confusion. The two senses I was using it as was 1) the daylight period of a weekday and 2) the entire 24-hour period as a weekday. To avoid confusion in the future I will refer to them as weekday (daytime) and weekday (24-hours). I will aslo refer to weekend days as weekdays for the purpose of this discussion. I have no difficulty with an Onah being a weekday (daytime) but I still have difficulty with an Onah being a weekday (24-hours).

Quote:
DAVID: 14
{edited} An informed Jew . . .(snipped part..."...would know that an Onah was NOT a 24-hour day or a 24-hour continuous period" (end snipped part-DM)

DAVID 15
Do I detect a bit of sarcasm here? If so, why do you object to the part you snipped above?

DAVID: 16
. . . So, if you wanted to refute the common Jewish understanding of Onah you would refute it by evidence - find contrary evidence within the Talmuds and present it to the Jew to see if he has a rational defense. . . . I have found nothing that supports the idea that an Onah could be a 24-hour continuous period spanning two calendar days. . .

DAVID 17
Yes, a time period that is designated a either a night or a day, and in the cases of the menses, a 30 day period. The rabbis wrote the meaning of the Onah in the Talmuds and claimed an Onah was either a day or a night or a part of them. If a part of a day (Wednesday 3 pm to sunset) was regarded as one Onah and the whole night was one Onah then the following day (sunrise to Thursday 3 pm) would be an Onah. That is three Onahs. I still haven't found evidence that from Wednesday 3 pm to Thursday 3 pm could be reckoned as a single Onah. I see two partial daytime Onahs and one full nighttime Onah. However, I am still hoping for some evidence.

DAVID 18
I don't know why they even bothered with Onah in the first place. They already had a word for "day" and a part of a day could be reckoned a day. Why not just use days? Perhaps, it was used so a night could also be designated by the same name, even if there were no daytime present. But that would seem to cause confusion. I can only go with the evidence, I cannot read their minds. Three days and three nights would be six Onahs so I will venture a guess (gag) and say perhaps by diving a day into two Onahs (time periods) they would be able to narrow three full days down to one full day and parts of two others. But that sounds weak as the Hebrew word day and night could have been used just as well in place of an Onah. Why not just say "three days can be three daytimes and three nighttimes or three nighttimes and two daytimes or two daytimes and two nightimes." Wouldn't that work just as well? I don't know.

Quote:
DAVID: 19
{edited} An Onah is either a daytime period or a nighttime period and can be as long as 30 days in special circumstances.

DAVID: 20
A weekday could (and is) counted as an Onah by Jewish scholars, as the links I provided show. (Earlier in this post I mentioned the confusion I may have caused by not differentiating a daytime weekday from a 24-hour weekday so I will clarify here I mean a daytime weekday when I wrote that a daytime weekday was counted as an Onah by the Jewish scholars).

DAVID 21
You are right, of course. I bungled by not making a difference between the two usages. Even though a weekend daytime is different from a weekday daytime in the sense we use the terms in America I will simply stick to using the terms weekday daytime as well as weekday 24-hour period to avoid this confusion in this and later posts.

Quote:
DAVID: 22
There is no evidence, at least that I have discovered so far, that a week could be counted as an Onah. It could be; . . . If you can find some evidence that supports the 7-day Onah, I would be grateful.

DAVID 23
Who knows what will happen in our lifetimes? Someone may yet uncover an ancient document that shows just that. But until they do, I am stuck with the definitions we do have.

Quote:
DAVID: 24
But the Jews do not reckon a 24-hourt [sic] period as an Onah (if they do, just show me where the do) or a 24-hour continuous period as an Onah (if they do show me where they do).

DAVID 25
I don't know the exact verb that Eleazar used (some commentators say "make" and others say "are" but the scholars I have read state that he meant a daytime and a nighttime each are an Onah. I was referring to weekdays but I meant the daytime portion of the weekday was an Onah, not the whole 24-hour period.

Quote:
DAVID: 26
In the immediate context Eleazar claims a "day and a night" make an Onah (some translations say "are" instead of "make") and you are right, it is vague. Other rabbis discussing the topic divide the three days into four, five, and six Onahs. I can see why they can do this if they are referring to three calendar days. Three calendar days at the most would be six Onahs (if each Onah was a day or a night) as in sunset our Sunday to the end of our Wednesday at sunset. Five Onahs would span three Jewish "days" if it began at sunset our Sunday and carried over to and ended our Tuesday night.

DAVID 27
Exactly. Any portion of Tuesday night to Wednesday morning at sunrise would be the fifth Onah.

DAVID 28
I have used the Roman useage for so many years now even when referring to Jewish days and have always placed Friday afternoon before Friday night. That was the way I learned it when I was a novice at this and this has been the way I have seen it done every since. I am sure you have seen it at Theology Web (I have a printout of one of your debates at Theology Web where J. P. Holding participated). I am also sure you have seen the Roman useage of days in other debates on this topic. I am thrown off by your useage and have to turn the days back around in my mind to know what you mean. You go with what makes you most comfortable then and I will try to understand the usage.

Quote:
DAVID: 29
The fewest amount of Onahs one could squeeze out of three days is four Onahs (if each Onah was a day or a night) as in sunrise Monday to sometime between Tuesday sunset and Wednesday morning. Since Jews reckoned their calendar days from sunset to sunset our Monday morning to our Tuesday night would span three calendar days and yet have only four Onahs.

DAVID 30
Yes, four Onahs could be two whole Onahs (24 hours) and parts of two others (which could mean minutes of each in some cases). At the most four Onahs would be 48 hours but it could be 24 hours plus a few minutes of each of the other two. This goes hand in glove with what you have written below.

DAVID 31
Yes, I had to "translate" what you wrote by using a diagram and I agree with this.

Quote:
DAVID: 32
I find this whole "Onah" mess a headache and one wonders why the Jews even bothered with it.

DAVID 33
Well good for them. I just wish they had used the common vernacular of "day" and "night". Both of us, I think, could express the same ideas with the words "day" and "night" don't you think?

Quote:
DAVID: 34
The Jews already reckoned part of a daytime as a whole when computing time periods but I think the "Onah's" cloud the issue more than it helps, especially when there were such things as a 30-day Onah and a 20-day Onah.

DAVID 35
That makes sense. But I could still write, "abstain for at least two full days and two full nights" and hopefully convey the law in a way that at least 48 hours would be accomplished. A Jewish couple may have to wait until a partial day ends before they begin their full two nighs and two days and in this manner fulfill at least 48 hours.

Quote:
POWELL:
Now, the commentators to this issue and to Eleazar's words clearly imply that an onah CAN mean a 12-hour time period, either daylight or night, and that's how everyone else seems to be using the term after Eleazar. However, they don't clearly imply that a 24-hour day CANNOT be an onah. That apparently comes up in the debate between Jews and Christians.

DAVID: 36
This is primarily a Christian-Jewish "thing". The Jews maintain that an Onah is either a day or a night or a much longer period of 30 or 20 days. Really, since Jesus said "three days and three nights" it seems clear to me he was using the common vernacular of his times. He wasn't using vague rabbinical terminology and the "Onah" belongs more to a rabbinical debate than it does to the common man.

DAVID 37
He never did that I know of. The Onah was a rabbinical term and it was not part of the common vernacular. Even some Jews today do not know what an Onah is until they are asked about it and do some reading. But they know what a "day" and a "night" is.

Quote:
DAVID: 38
In the entire Tanach, the Apocrypha, and Josephus, Philo, and other writers the word "Onah" appears only once, and that is in Exodus 21:10 . . . It seems unlikely to me that "three days and three nights" can mean anything different than "three days and three nights" even if you allow a portion of a day to count as a whole day.

DAVID: 39
I thought so for years but if you are going to debate this with a true believer in Jesus, be prepared to see this defense used when the subject of the duration of Jesus' time in the tomb arises. It doesn't matter because Jesus defined his "Onah" (time period) as "three days and three nights". So it doesn't matter if an Onah was a daytime or nighttime period or a 24-hour period, Jesus still said "three days and three nights" so even if Onah was applicable the parameters of how long the "Onah" was to be is defined in Matthew 12:40. So even if a part of a whole 24-hour Onah could be counted as a whole, while you would have your three Onahs from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning you would not have your three days and three nights. Do you follow this?

DAVID 40
Yes, if Jesus knew about Onahs and knew that an Onah was either a day or a night he could have said "six Onahs" if he wanted to express 3 days and 3 nights. But Jesus apparently never used the word Onah. If he did it isn't recorded. Rather, he used the term "three days and three nights". So the issue of Onah wasn't even addressed by Jesus. If Jesus had thought an Onah was three days and three nights I believe he would still have to repose a portion of three days and a portion of three nights in the heart of the earth.

DAVID: 41
Take an Onah as a 24-hour period for a moment. Under rabbinical usage, Jesus spent his three Onahs in the tomb Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

DAVID 42
Yes, so John. A portion of Nisan 14 (Friday afternoon) would be Onah 1. Jesus was in the heart of the earth all day Nisan 15 (Saturday) which would be Onah 2. Then, in the wee hours of Nisan 16, the third day since the crucifixion, Jesus "rose" from the dead. This would be the portion of the third Onah. Remember, if an Onah was a 24-hour period and trust me, Nisan 14 was a 24-hour period, then a portion of that day (late Friday afternoon) would be reckoned as a complete Onah. Sunset began a whole new day. If an Onah was a 24-hour period, then this second Onah would contain the entire 24-hours. The begining of Nisan 16 at sunset Saturday would begin the third Onah and Jesus spent a portion of the third Onah "in the heart of the earth" and "rose" from the dead sometime during the nighttime portion of the third Onah. Just because Friday afternoon occurred on the tail end of the first 24-hour time period doesn't mean it isn't counted. A portion of the first 24-hour Onah was used by Friday afternoon. The portion of the third Onah was the night that preceded Sunday morning. Remember that Friday afternoon would be a portion of the 24-hour day Nisan 14. Sunday morning would be a portion of the 24-hour day Nisan 16. There are three days and three Onahs. But this isn't real anyway; it is an hypothetical.

DAVID: 43
But no matter how you spin it, he did not spend his three days and three nights. . .

DAVID 44
In every language there are specialized languages, unique to certain fields and endeavors. Confusing rabbinical terminology and the common vernacular is what causes so much confusion. Yes, for a rabbi, if 1) an Onah was a 24-hour period. and if 2) a part was reckoned as a whole, then it would be proper for a rabbi to call Friday sunset to Sunday morning three Onahs.

DAVID 45
Not necessarily. If my Onah's were reckoned as follows: The first Onah would be a partial Onah (Nisan 14, the last part of Friday afternoon); the second would be a full Onah (Nisan 15, nighttime and daytime) and the third Onah would be a partial Onah (the time Jesus "rose" from the dead in the morning hours on Sunday, Nisan 16.

However, I think I see what you are saying. You are taking the last part of Nisan 14 (Friday afternoon) and combining it with the first part of Nisan 15 (nighttime) and making that Onah 1. Then, you take the second half of Saturday, Nisan 15 (daytime) and combining it with the first half of Nisan 16 (nighttime) for Onah 2. Then, you take the daytime portion of Sunday, Nisan 16 and combining it with the nighttime portion of Nisan 17 for your three full Onahs. That would seem to be a plausible and alternative explanation if an Onah were a 24-hour period. If this is the way a 24-hour Onah would be reckoned then you are right. However, does the partial day of Friday Nisan 14 count as a whole Onah, including the night before it? This is something worth looking into. If the hypothetical first 24-hour Onah began at Friday afternoon and went into Nisan 15's nighttime, then you would have a powerful rebuttal to the Christian claims about Onah.

DAVID 46
Yes, if you are right about the hypothetical 24-hour Onah beginning with Friday afternoon Nisan 14 and extending into nighfall Nisan 15 then you have exploded the Christian rebuttal. I have been told they do overlap days I just haven't found that in the Talmuds.

DAVID: 47
The fact that Jesus clearly defined his terms shows me at least that he wasn't using rabbinical terminology. Had he used rabbinical terminology we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Three Onahs in the heart of the earth" would have been broad enough to be as little as Friday afternoon to Sunday morning or as much as Friday sunset (beginning the new Jewish day) to Monday sunset (ending the third day).

DAVID 48
Yes, that is correct. I was using a 24-hour Onah in #47 above. Not that I believe it exists but the fact is there are Christians who claim it so. However, if your argument you used following my #45 above is correct you have destroyed the Christian rebuttal. Find that evidence of a 24-hour Onah overlapping calendar days and you will have my thanks and admiration.

DAVID 49
But he DIDN'T use Onahs, he used three days and three nights, so however long his "3 Onahs" were to be is spelled out in Matthew 12:40.[/quote]

DAVID 50
He may not have known it.

DAVID: 51
I have shown . . .(snipped part: ...the definitions and they all agree that an Onah is at least a 12-hour period of daytime and a 12-hour period of nighttime).

DAVID 52
You're right.. I supplied the references and links that you could have looked up yourself. However, you're right. I should have said that a common Onah is at MOST 12 hours. According to the rabbis, 1/64 of a day could count as an Onah, since that was a portion of one. Why 1/64 I don't know. That is 22.5 minutes and I have no idea how they computed time that accurately in the second century to the fifth century when the Talmuds were completed.

DAVID 53
I agree, but how did they reckon time that accurately?

DAVID: 54
I have found no evidence for an Onah that could be a 24-hour period. Some claim that Eleazar's qoute supports that but I do not see that as evidence that an Onah could be a 24-hour period. I see it as Eleazar claiming that a day and a night are each an Onah. This can be disputed, but since all the other references that can be found in the Talmuds and modern Jewish dictionaries refer to a common Onah as being either a daytime or a nighttime I find that claim weak.

DAVID 55
Might be. Could be. I don't know. I think it is more likely that the reason they said an Onah was a day or a night because they believed that to be the case, not that they had Christianity on the mind. It would be interesting to have a time-machine and go back in time and find out why they called an Onah either a day or a night but I doubt they had nefarious motives to use that terminology.

DAVID 56
That is what Christians who believe in the Friday crucifixion claim. If the Onah was a 24-hour period that had to have at the minimum both a day and a night or a portion of the two to be called an Onah, then part of a day only would not count as an Onah. But it would be counted as a calendar day (as in Nisan 14). The same definition applies to day. Part of a Jewish day was reckoned a full day for counting purposes. But it was not called a day AND a night unless it contained a night.

That is the nature of idiomatic expressions. Even though a calendar day contained a night and a day, and part of a day was idomatically reckoned as a "day" it was not reckoned as a day and a night unless part of the night was reckoned with it. So the answer is No. Even if an Onah contained a day and a night (and there is no evidence of such an Onah) a part of an Onah would have to have at least portions of a day and a night. A portion of a day is not an Onah under this definition because it wouldn't have a night to go with it. Once the sun set and you were in the nighttime portion then you would have a day and a night.

The time period of BOTH a day AND a night means a day AND a night. Anything lacking a night would not be an Onah under this definition. BOTH means both. And if it were only one, then you would not have BOTH. What does BOTH mean to you?

This is all irrelevant anyway as I have provided links that show that Jews reckon an Onah as either a day or a night. John, you need more than just speculation to demonstrate that an Onah was a day AND night by defintition but somehow only a part of a day fulfilled both. It was a part of a day AND a night that would be reckoned as a full day and night. Under your obsessive defintion, a part of a day would not be an Onah because the Onah needed both a day AND a night to be called an Onah.

If someone told you in order to enter a select group you needed BOTH an American citizenship and a degree in physics. With these two items, you could be a member of the "Physics Elite" Club. What if you only partially met the requirements? Suppose you had the degree in Physics but not the American citizenship? You would not qualify. A "Physics Elitist" Member would be known to possess an American citizenship and a degree in physics.

Suppose further to join a world healthcare organization you were required to work one spring and one summer in India. This time period was referred to long time members as "the trial by fire". "The Trial by Fire" was by definition a spring AND a summer. You needed at least a portion of BOTH sessions to win your "Trial by Fire" Medal. The spring session was referred to as "The Awakening" and the summer session was referred to as "The Rebirth". Let's even imagine you could win the medal if you attended a portion of BOTH sessions (six weeks of each). If you attended only part of the spring and none of the summer you would not NOT have attended BOTH sessions and would not have qualified for the medal.

If you were a German-American and there was a club in Wisconsin that allowed your entry if you as little as a eighth german and an American or an eighth American and German and you tried to join the German-American club but had zero German blood and they would not let you in you would probably argue that since your American part is part of a German- American then you should be allowed in, whether you have any German or not. You might argue, "well, an american is part of the german-american club, yes? " and "I am an American, yes?" then you could continue, "Since part of an American is one part of the German-American Club I qualify as a member of this club."Not without the german part you don't.

Same with Onah. If an Onah ~is~ BOTH a day AND a night according to you, then how in the world can any part of a daytime portion in any sense be an Onah? You need BOTH to qualify, but you haven't even proved your assertion that an Onah ~is~ BOTH a day AND a night in the first place. So until you do, you will just be preaching to the choir. I have provided links that show an Onah was either a day or a night; what links can you provide that shows an onah is BOTH a day AND a night?

Incidentally, If you know anything about grammar, you would know that there is a difference between "a day and a night ARE an Onah" and "a day and a night IS an Onah." Look at Levitcus 11:13 for a moment and read ,"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they ARE an abomination..."; Proverbs 17:15, "He that justifies the wicked and he that condemns the just, even they both ARE abomination to the LORD."

Further, read Proverbs 20:23 , "unequal weights ARE an abomination to the LORD" and compare that with "incense IS an abomination unto me" and "every shepherd IS an abomination unto the Egyptians." Read also Exodus 9:27 "And Pharaoh sent...and said...I and my people ARE wicked" and Proverbs 14:32 "The wicked IS driven away in HIS wickedness..." and see if you can pick up any clues in the way Jews wrote that may shed some light on why "a day AND a night ARE an Onah" and "a day AND a night IS an Onah" have different shades of meaning.

I'll see if you can figure out why this is significant. Remember the two translations in the Talmud are "a day and a night make an Onah" and "a day and a night ARE an Onah." One of those two translations are more correct than the other I suppose. But see if you can figure out the difference in the useage in the paragraphs immediately above this one.

For something that you cannot even provide so much as a link to, you really make a big deal out of this. I have provided numerous links and will provide even more. You have suspicions that maybe the Jews worded Onah the way they did because of the dispute they had with Christians. Speculation. Where is the evidence? And it is so clear that under the defintition you are pushing that an Onah was BOTH a day AND a night and yet you cannot see that a part of a daytime alone would not make an Onah. I think you see more than you are letting on though. A part of an onah...what is an onah? BOTH a day AND a night....therefore, part of BOTH a day AND a night would have part of a day and...well, part of a night. However, I don't buy this definition in the first place, I am just trying to be nice.

SOME MORE LINKS TO MEANING AND USE OF ONAH

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_4.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_65.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_63.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_9.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_64.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_86.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_75.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakama/babakama_82.html


1. Go to Avodah Zara 75 (use Google) and the second and third pages discuss the length of the Onah. Use key search words as Avodah Zara 75, Drying Vessels, and Nochrim.
2. Go to Shabbos 86 (use Google) and key search words such as Shabbos 86 and Rabbi Eliezar Chrysler.

DAVID 57
I know part of a day counts as a whole day, even in our culture. And if I traveled from Monday night at 9 pm on July 25 to Wednesday at 5 pm on July 27I can say I traveled three days (they would be counted as whole days) but I cannot say I traveled three days and three nights. Since Jews begin their days at sunset, a Jew traveling with me could say he traveled two days and in his case he traveled two nights and two days.

Quote:
DAVID: 58
The rabbinical term "Onah" simply meant time period. It was used commonly for a daytime or a nightime period. It was similar to the common vernacular "day" in the sense that any portion of a day can be reckoned as a whole day when computing days. We do the same in our culture, where a portion of a day is sometimes reckoned as a whole day when counting days. But even when we count a portion of a day we do NOT call it 12 hours or 24 hours if it consisted of only 30 minutes. . .

Quote:
DAVID: 59
. . . Let's take an Onah to mean a 24-hour civil day. That would include a full day and a full night. Let's say that a portion of a day can be reckoned as a day. Let's say I arrived in Los Angeles on Sunday just after sunset (April 6) and I left Los Angeles on Saturday morning (April 12). . .

If I departed Atlanta on Monday morning by car and arrived in San Diego late Wednesday afternoon I could claim I traveled three days even though I actually traveled one full day and parts of two others. . .

DAVID: 60
. . . I remember traveling once from about 11 am one morning and arrived at about 4 am the next day. I told my friends I had traveled a day and a night although if you wanted to hold me to a literal usage rather than a idiomatic usage, I couldn't say that.

DAVID: 61
[and] if the three day period period to be counted began just after sunset on Thursday, then Thursday night would be nighttime Onah 1 and calendar day 1 and Saturday night would be nighttime Onah 3 and calendar day 3 and Sunday daytime would be daytime Onah 3 as well as the calendar day 3. In this case, we have six Onahs.

DAVID 62
In America, Thursday night comes before Friday day. So Thursday night would be night, onah 1. Friday would be day onah 1. Friday night would be night, onah 2. Saturday would be day, onah 2. Saturday night would be night, onah 3 and Sunday day would be day, onah 3.

DAVID 63
Did I say it did? I know the Jews reckoned their days from sunset to sunset. In 62 above, that is an accurate assessment of the way Jews reckoned days.

DAVID 64
Where did I use the midnight beginning of weekdays when referring to Bible days? The only time I refer to midnight counting of days is when I refer to my culture, not theirs. Is it some kind of heinous crime I have committed by using my own cultural experience of idioms? I will use Jewish reckoning when discussing the Bible days but I will use my countries way of reckoning when I am referring to my own personal experiences in my country and with its idioms. Don't even go there John. I most certainly WILL use my country's way of reckoning when discussing its own idioms. What is such a terrible sin or awful deed that I have committed that has you so upset about using an example from my own country?

DAVID 65
Your days are mixed up. Friday afternoon comes before Friday night . . .

DAVID 66
The problem with that John is that is not the way it is done here. You claim to be from Utah but in discussing the three days and three nights issue scholars in this country continue to use the Roman names for the days of the week. It is YOU that needs to change. You need to use Roman names for the days of the week the way we usually use them becuase that is the way it is done. For someone to burst upon the scene and tell everyone that have been wrong all along in their usage of Roman names for days of the week is presumptuous. You need to change. I still use Roman names (as in Monday night, July 26 after sunset this month). But I will throw in my occasional reminder that the Jews reckoned their days from sunset to sunset and say Nisan 14 went from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset as needed. But it is you that needs to do a change.

Jesus was crucified on a Friday afternoon and was buried just before FRIDAY NIGHT, not saturday night. You are muddling the issue with such tactics as this. I know you're somewhat unsophisticated in these type discussions, but you need to stop marching out of beat and thinking everyone else are the ones marching out of beat. I am telling you this so you can avoid future embarrassment because some people will ridicule you for such demands and usages.

DAVID: 67
The Jews did NOT use Onah for a day AND a night. The only Jews that claim this are apostate Jews who embrace Christianity and hold to a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday morning resurrection.

DAVID: 68
Not really. There is no controversy that ancient rabbinical Jews used Onah for a weekday. What do you consider a weekday?

DAVID 69
Okay, you use weekday in the 24-hour sense. I use it that way sometimes and on occasion, when an event happens during a daytime, I will use it in the daylight sense. So I will have to clarify what I mean.

DAVID: 70
The few Jews today that try to turn Eleazar's argument into a day and a night are so few that they are hard to find. There is only one Messianic Jewish website that I know of that claims that Eleazar meant for an Onah to be a day and a night. Calling THIS a controversy is overreaching a little. It is like calling whether Elvis is alive or not a controversy in America. Despite the claims of people that Elvis still lives, there is no controversy. WEBSTER'S defines controversy as "an often public dispute marked by the expression of opposing views."

DAVID 71
But it is NOT a controversy. The Jews who know better don't even bother with debating the Messianic Jews on this issue because no amount of evidence will sway them from that position. The Messianic Jews have made up their minds that Jesus is the Messiah and since they believe he was crucified on a Friday afternoon and rose from the dead on Sunday morning they have adopted this usage.

DAVID: 72
Yes, weekdays were called Onahs by rabbinical Jews. I never said otherwise, did I?

DAVID 73
I know by now what you mean by weekday. I didn't at first, but now I do.

DAVID 74
I don't know, but I have done extensive researching. All I can say is this: I have NEVER found a non-christian Jewish source that claims any part of an Onah is both a day AND a night. None. What conclusion you arrive based on that is up to you. There are some born-again Christian Wednesday crucifixion believers who have argued persuasively that an Onah is either a day or a night but not a day AND a night.

DAVID: 75
The first Onah on Friday afternoon would be reckoned back only to sunrise and NOT sunset of the previous night. The fourth Onah during Saturday night would only be reckoned to Sunday morning. It would not be reckoned until Sunday at sunset. If it were, that would be five Onah's, not four.

DAVID: 76
The night that followed Saturday day is Saturday night. I think you we are missing something here. You realize that Jews began their days at sunrise so you are calling the night that follows Saturday day Sunday night.

DAVID 77
Mistake on my part. I know Jews begin their days at sunset (I have mentioned that before so if you had been alert to what I have written so far you would know this was not done out of ignorance but thinking to far ahead of myself or some other cause).

DAVID: 78
That is not the way we do things in America. Even Jewish and Christian scholars and all the scholars I have ever known, when referring to Jewish days in discussions such as this, use the Roman terminology for days and nights. Friday day comes before Friday night, Saturday comes before Saturday night, and Sunday day comes before Sunday night. You are the first one that I have seen use this method.

DAVID 79
You have to turn things around in your mind to get it right. When I read that Sunday night followed Satuday day it was confusing. It is the common practice to use the standard Roman names for days of the week and once you have done it enough it presents no problems. When I think of Wednesday night I automatically know it is a brand new Jewish day that followed Tuesday afternoon. It comes quite naturally.

DAVID: 80
Onah's were rabbinical terms and were not exactly the same as calendar days; they could overlap calendar days.

DAVID 81
You may be right, but I hope you are wrong because the argument you made back between my 45th and 46th responses devastates the Christian spin on Onah. I thought you did a fine job back there. If your argument back there is correct, then Onahs could overlap calendar days (as in Friday afternoon Nisan 14 and Friday night beginning Nisan 15 being the first Onah). I have been hoping you could provide some compelling evidence that this was the case. If you could do that, I would certainly use it, but I cannot use it at this present time because I haven't seen enough evidence to tip the scales that hold the definitions and meanings found in numerous Jewish dictionaries and websites. You said earlier we should stick to Jewish reckoning even when I was referring to our own culture but you don't want to stick to Jewish reckoning when it comes to their definitions of Onah. If only what you are saying about the overlap could be shown to be weightier evidence than the evidence I have accumulated.

DAVID 82
I think the way I was using calendar days as the numerical order and daytime portions is where I confused you. I can see how this can happen. Just keep in mind a calendar day is like July 26 or November 11 or September 11. But I will clarify whether I am referring to the daytime or nighttime in future posts.

DAVID: 83
Saturday night comes after Satuday day. Always.

DAVID 84
Two thousand years ago? I don't know. But what we call Saturday night did come after Saturday day then. Of that there is no dispute. The Julian Calendar existed at that time and I am sure Jesus must have been aware of it although he made no mention of it. The Gregorian calendar did not change the order of days, just the dates. So the order of the days of the week have remained a constant since Julius Ceasar.

DAVID: 85
Even in discussions like this. A calendar day had two Onahs under its most common meaning.

Fri. Day Fri. Night Sat. Day Sat. Night Sun. Day Sun. night
Onah 1 Onah 2 Onah 3 Onah 4 Onah 5 Onah 6
day 1 night 1 day 2 night 2 day 3 night 3

DAVID 86
According to disputants in the three days and three nights debates the names of the days follow our Roman usage and the timing of days and nights follow the Jewish usage. Once you get used to it, it is no problem. Trust me.

DAVID: 87
A part of a calendar day could be reckoned as a whole day and a part of a calendar night could be reckoned as a whole night. A calendar day and night could be reckoned as a whole calendar day and night if at least a portion of each was included.


DAVID: 88
I am using a calendar night to refer to a specific night of the month (such as the 23rd). A calendar day refers to the sunset to sunset reckoning used by Jews, a day on the calendar, such as Friday, the 23rd which would go from Friday sunset the 23rd to Saturday sunset the 24th.

DAVID 89
Well, sunset is a part of a new Jewish day. Nisan 14 on Friday day changes to Nisan 15 at sunset Friday. You're just not familiar with Jewish usage is all. When I was in the Worldwide Church of God from 1974 to 1984 we used both calendars and I became quite proficient at using them. Now I cannot even name all the Jewish months as I used to. Our family had a Jewish calendar and a Roman calendar and our sabbath began at sunset and the calendar day on the Jewish calendar changed at sunset.

DAVID: 90
A calendar day would follow the calendar night in Jewish usage. The two together make a 24-hour calendar Jewish "day" like Nisan 23 or Tishri 16, etc.

DAVID 91
Awhile back you were arguing we should use YOUR method of naming days and not the modern convention of naming days and nights by their Roman names, even when discussing Jewish days. You also chided me for using the American convention when I was using American idioms. Just who is guilty here?

DAVID: 92
No, that would be incorrect. I would never say that. Some people might, but I wouldn't. However, in a string of days, I would because our language allows for that.

[qoute=POWELL]
If you think it's ok to count part of a daylight period as an entire weekday then why don't you think it's ok to count part of a night as an entire weekday?[/quote]

DAVID:93
I do. If it is in a string of days. For example, it I spent seven nights and six days in LA, Sunday night July 25 to Saturday July 31at 4 am, I could say I spent seven "days" in LA because our American idiom allows such usage even though only five actual daytimes were spent in LA (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday). But since American custom allows us to use calendar days as counting days, even when a portion of them is used, we would have seven days from July 25 to July 31although they are calendar dates. That is an acceptable idiom in our country and I will use it when discussing OUR conventions and usages.

Quote:
POWELL:
I concede that the promise to resurrect "on the third day" would not be in error if Jesus died on Friday afternoon and resurrected ANYTIME on Sunday including Sunday night (the night before Sunday day). However, the promises to resurrect "AFTER three days" and to be in the earth "for 3 days and 3 nights" are not satisfied by such a scenario.

DAVID: 94
Remember that Sunday night follows Sunday day, even when discussing the three days and three nights. . .

DAVID: 95
As I said earlier, I don't know, but since the Julian calendar was used then and the Romans occupied Palestine I would be terribly surprised if he wasn't aware of it. Again, as I said earlier, the names of the days of the week are the same now as they were then. So when Jesus was hanging on the cross the day before the Jewish sabbath I am almost sure he was aware it was a Friday. But I cannot be dogmatic about it.

The term "after three days" is probably idiomatic and probably meant the same as "on the third day." Mark uses "after 3 days" and Matthew and Luke change it to "the third day".

DAVID 96
I agree that the most common meaning of "after 3 days" is the fourth day. But I have caught myself using the idiomatic expression before. I was once three days in Colton, California and I wrote a friend that "after three days in Colton, I was ready to leave" yet I left late on the third day. I also told a friend once that "after one day in Council Bluffs, Iowa, I departed by train to Iowa City, Iowa." I spent only one day there and left the same day, only late in the day. So I am uncertain if this was an idiom or not. You can if you wish or refuse to is you wish, it doesn't matter.

DAVID: 97
In John 4:40 and John 4:43 and Matthew 27:63,64 seem to indicate an idiomatic, interchangeable usage but I am not sure about this.

DAVID 98
That's fine with me.


DAVID 99
Seems okay to me.

DAVID 100
Would Mark be that false witness? He used the phrase "after 3 days" two or three times in his gospel. Matthew and Luke changed it to "the third day". But what gets me is Mark had Jesus crucified on the day before the sabbath and rising from the dead on the morning after the sabbath. That was a glaring error he made, wasn't it?

DAVID 101
That sounds good to me.

DAVID 102
I can live with that.

DAVID: 103
Yes, something like that. But did he mean a day and a night each made an Onah or a day and a night together made an Onah?

DAVID: 104
Based on all the numerous references I have seen on the meaning of the Onah I have concluded he meant a day and a night each were an Onah.

. . . The two were separate references and time tables.

DAVID: 105
. . . Let's say Onah is a day AND a night. However, if it lacks one of these elements, it ceases being an Onah. . . let's . . . claim that a day AND a night are an Onah, just like the Christians claim. If a day AND a night are an Onah then a day alone is not an Onah. Neither is a night alone an Onah. An Onah must contain both to be an Onah.

DAVID 106
How could it be a part of an Onah unless it contained the two parts that defined Onah? If a day and a night was an Onah, then a portion of daylight was NOT a part of an Onah because an Onah needed both a day and a night to be an Onah (under this definition that is used by inerrantists). If it was only part of the day it wasn't yet an Onah, not until night fell. Then, you would have an Onah.

DAVID: 107
They explained it to me like this. A piece of ham and two slices of bread make a ham sandwich. . .

DAVID 108
Christian apologist? No way. A Christian apologist would likely never use such an argument because it would hurt his claim that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday. He would want, at all costs, to retain the standard inerrantist meaning of an Onah. The synopsis on 107 above was provided me by a Jew on a Jewish Chatroom at Yahoo. It made a lot of sense to me. A few others chimed in and said if the definition requires X to have both to be X, then X cannot be X until it has both elements in the pod. If it needs Y and Z to be X then a portion of only Y would not be an X and neither would a portion of only Z. Only when the time of day was reached when it contained both elements would it be called an X. There is a difference between "a day and a night are an Onah" and a "day and night is an Onah." If the latter, then the day and night is a unit, a complete unit that makes an Onah. If the former, then a day and a night each comprise an Onah. It was explained to me that way. It makes sense, based on all the NUMEROUS references that I have posted on the way Onah was used.

DAVID: 109
The Christans spin Eleazar's statement to mean that a day and a night together make an Onah. They ignore all the rabbis that state a day or a night equal an Onah.

DAVID: 110
I forgot to add on 109 above that all the rabbis state a day and a night each equal an Onah. But continue...
Then, to make matters worse, they spin it to mean that even a morning period, which had no night in it, would be called an Onah. This isn't true, however. And it is no strawman.

DAVID: 111
No, the Jewish defenders of the proper use of Onah use analogies like the ham and the bread. The Christian defenders, especially those who believe Jesus died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, wouldn't be caught dead using such an argument as that. To see Eleazar's argument spun to mean a day and a night together were an Onah visit the . . .

http://www/. Christian.Thinktank.com
http://www.apologeticspress.com/
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/bo...cifixion/1.html

and read Josh McDowell's "The Resurrection Factor", Norman Geisler's "When Critic's Ask" and John Haley's "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible".

DAVID 112
No, he wouldn't would he? He is arguing the opposite: That any part of an Onah could be counted as a day AND a night, even if it is only a daytime portion (Friday afternoon) and only a nightime portion (Saturday night before sunrise on Sunday).

DAVID 113
No, he wouldn't would he? He needs Jesus in the tomb Friday afternoon and out Sunday morning. So he, like his compatriot Glenn Miller claim that any part of an Onah counted as a day AND a night. For Lyons, Friday afternoon was Onah 1 (a part of the time going back to Thursday at sunset), while Sunday before sunrise was Onah 3 (a part of the time moving forward toward Sunday sunset). This would be, according to Lyons, three Onahs and solves his "problem".

DAVID 114
Yes, they argued excessively over minute details. If you read any of the new links I have provided, feel free to roam around and see just how nit-pickety they can get over stercus tauri.

DAVID 115
No, he wouldn't would he? He is arguing for a Friday crucifion and a Sunday resurrection. Of course he would argue the opposite. He would argue an Onah could be something as small as a few minutes, or something to that effect.

DAVID: 116
. . . Your reason for claiming that a day and a night TOGETHER made an Onah is based on Eleazar's statement, am I right? If not, what is your reason (or evidence) that a day and a night TOGETHER made an Onah?

DAVID 117
Well, according to that, there are many Onahs that one could conjure up. The NFL season could become an American Onah, a period of 17 weeks for the regular season, and five weeks for the playoffs (including the off-week between the League Championships and the Super Bowl). A three-game series in Baseball could become an Onah or the World Series for that matter. The summer would be an Onah, the seven days of Unleavened Bread could be called an Onah (which isn't a bad idea).

DAVID: 118
. . .
If I left Atlanta on Monday morning at 11 am and arrived in Los Angeles Wednesday at 5 pm, I can say I traveled three weekdays, even though we both know I did not literally travel three 24-hour days. That is an acceptable, idiomatic usage. However, it would still be wrong to say I traveled three days and three nights even if three weekdays contained three days and three nights. . .

DAVID: 119
. . . The 30-day Onah had to have at least portions of two days and a whole 28 days. The Rabbis weren't that naive.

DAVID 120
One of the links I gave discussed this 30 day cycle and how it would be reckoned from the 17th of the month to the 17th of the following month and what to do if the cycle came earlier than expected or later than expected. They tried to figure these things down to the point of persnickety, like the 1/64 of a day could be considered an Onah I mentioned.

DAVID 121
One of the links I gave explained how to compute the 30-day cycle. It DID span one month to the next. I may have even included two links on this subject. The Jews did not accept a day as part of the month so we can just skip the rest argument. They explained how it would work from the 17th to the 17th, and if the menses came earlier than expected or later than expected what to do. As for a portion of the day, one link claimed it had to be at least 1/64 of a day. How they arrived at that number is beyond me.

If someone told you they would house-sit . . .

DAVID: 122
Not under rabbinical reckoning.

DAVID 123
No, I would probably utter a phrase that cannot be printed here then try to figure out what to do to avoid being killed by this nomadic God. When your life is on the line you don't bother with trifles. However, if I had some time to examine his highness I would research what Muslim scholars reckoned.

If Jehovah showed up it would probably create a similar reaction. My tail would be on fire for sure. But if I had time, then for HIM I would discuss rabbinical reckonig because that is RELEVANT. Rabbinical reckoning isn't relevant for Allah or Jesus. If Jesus and the Holy Ghost showed up, I would be in the frying pan for sure, but I would then consult Christian reckoning. It all depends on which religion you are examining.

DAVID 124
No, I would think your hypothetical had an incorrect conclusion. . .

DAVID 125
Why not? If you could provide enough evidence to overide all the definitions and quotes that I linked to in this discussion, then I would be compelled to reconsider. Until then, I am not.

DAVID: 126
I failed to see what relevance your hypothetical had to do with the Onah issue. Could you clarify for me what your hypothetical has to do with the Onah issue and the way it was computed? What does Allah and his supposed appearance have to do with whether the rabbis were correct or not in their method of computing days?

DAVID: 127
No, it isn't that different at all. Again, my trip to LA lasted three days. That is not literally true, as it was a full day and parts of two others but for counting purposes, we count a partial day as a whole day. But we do not say "three days and three nights" unless it contained three nights.

DAVID 128
I consider that a very real possibility. In a case like that some people would round off 3 days and 1 hour to 3 days.

DAVID: 129
According to the writer, there is no contradiciton. He gives his reasons why. Based on what appears to be a reasonable reason I would say no. What do you think? Is Resh Lakish wrong in his reason at harmonization?

DAVID: 130
Again John, a part of a day counts a whole, even in our culture, yet a part of a day does NOT count as a day and a night unless it contains a night, am I correct?

DAVID: 131
I disagree. If I took three days and two nights to get to Los Angeles, it would be proper to call it a three day trip, even if the trip lasted a little more than 50 hours. We round the days off to whole days but we do not call it three days and three nights even though a weekday consists of a day and a night. That is the nature of idomatic expressions. Idioms are not literal. The meaninng of idiom is: a phrase established by usage whose meaning is not deductable from the individual words. In America we usually consider parts of 3 days as whole days without any reference to nights. My three day trip is "three days" but I could not call it "three days and three nights" unless it contained three nights. I know of no one that does call it as such, unless it is you. You would be the first.

DAVID: 132
So if I actually meant I traveled three days from Atlanta to Los Angeles it is irrelevant when you consider a hypothetical of what I MIGHT have meant? How does that work John? Doesn't my actual meaning have relevance no matter what hypothetical you might conjure up?

DAVID 133
I fail to see how this analogy fits. I am writing about methods of reckoning time and you are discussing how a dog craps. There is no connection that I can see. If my trip to LA lasted three days (let's say July 24-26) and I knew it lasted three days and no more and no less, how does my statement become irrelevant becuase you have a hypothetical of what I might have meant? I am the one who knows whether the trip lasted three days and I know how many hours it took. My statement has greater relevance than your hypothetical because a hypothetical is simply supposed but not necessarily real or true (Oxford 2001) while my statement is real and true. I was there, you weren't. I witnessed and participated in the event, you didn't. My statement carries greater weight than any hypothesis you may conjure up. You are free to disagree of course but I am the only one of the two who actually was there and experienced the event. I know whereof I speak whereas you make supposed but not necessarily true or real statments (Oxford 2001).

DAVID: 134
I see the error in your reasoning. If you think your hypothetical makes my statement irrelevant than I don't know what else I can say. You obviously think very highly of yourself and feel your opinion on what I might have meant means more than what I said I meant.

DAVID 135
But, even if the grammar necessitated that a day and a night combined made an Onah, then the Onah would have to have at least a portion of both elements to be considered an Onah.

DAVID 136
Regarding the 24-hour Onah (for which there is no evidence): If a day AND a night made an Onah, then a part of the whole (day AND a night) would be a part of a day and a night. Because without the night you don't have thw Onah you are seeking. You have a day, but not the 24-hour Onah you are seeking. Once the sun sets and night sets in, then you have a day AND a night And then you can start talking about portions of the whole (day AND night). It's like the ham sandwich. A slice of ham and two slices of bread is a ham sandwich. But even if it was considered a full serving if someone cut it in half, you would still need parts of both for it to remain a ham sandwich. Remove the ham, all you have is two slices of bread. Remove the night, all you have is a day.

Under the 24-hour Onah rule you wouldn't even have a portion of an Onah at least until night sets in. Once the night sets in, then it becomes an Onah. And any portion of an Onah (a period containing a day and a night) would be counted as a full (day AND night Onah) because it would contain elements of both day or night. But this is going nowhere. Until you show me your evidence that a Onah is a day and a night combined, you may as well speak to the hand because I have been kind enough to discuss it with you graciously and you refuse to give in, although I am the one who has the support of the authorities on the subject. I have provided many links to support my information.You don't even have that.

DAVID 137
Why doesn't it follow? If I told you that a slice of ham and two slices of bread made a ham sandwich wouldn't that at least follow that the sandwich contained at least a slice of ham and bread? And if Jews tell me that grammaticaly the Onah would at least have to contain a part of both elements, wouldn't that be good evidence that it does? At least until I find contrary evidence? You may as well say that if a slice of ham and slices of bread counts as a ham sandwich then you don't need either the ham or the bread for it to count as a ham sandwich. Whose word should I take on this issue? I am open to contrary evidence, but I haven't seen you present any yet. You speculate, but I need more than that John. I need something to contradict what the Jews have told me in the last few years.

DAVID: 138
First of all, there is no such two Onah night in the Talmuds. There is only a one night Onah, which is from sunset to sunrise in Jewish reckoning. There are no quotes from the Jewish dictionaries, websites, and commentaries that even mention an Onah that goes from sunset to midnight and an Onah that goes from midnight to sunrise. Again, your hypothetical is just that, a statement supposed but not necessarily real or true (Oxford 2001). Second of all, we were discussing how a day and a night fit into an Onah, not how many Onahs fit into a day or a night. There is no such thing as a two Onah night or a two Onah day in the writings of the Jews. All your hypotheticals have nothing to back them up. A hypothetical does not refute anything. It just means "IF this were the case, then..." and in every hypothetical you use we have found no evidence to support them. "IF" can be a very big word.

However, if there was such a thing as a two Onah night, (which would be like a four-Onah 24-hour day) and if a portion of one nighttime Onah was as the whole, then you could have a night with two full Onahs. However, the night itself would count as a single night with two Onahs (just like a 24-hour Jewish day contains a daytime Onah and a nighttime Onah), which is like American nights contain portions of two calendar days (July 25-26) and yet are considered as a single night. Americans don't use Onahs however. We are satisfied to use days and nights in our vernacular.

In any case, the definition that is disputed is whether a the Eleazar Onah contained BOTH a day AND a night. I don't think it does. I believe his Onah is either a day or a night. He claimed a "day and a night ARE an Onah" which strongly suggests he was agreeing with his compatriots that a day and a night EACH are an Onah. Also the point in dispute is whether a single Onah contains a day AND a night whereas in your hypothetical you used you had a single night that had two Onahs.

Hypothetically, if the Jewish law stated that a night had to have both the pre-midnight Onah and the pre-dawn Onah or a portion of the two to be counted as a night, then you would still need both for it to count as a night under Jewish law. In other words, if, under the hypothetical law above, if a woman became unclean during the pre-dawn (second) nighttime Onah and she had not been unclean during the pre-midnight (first) nighttime Onah, then according to Jewish law, she would or could not count her first unclean period legally as a night because the law made it clear she had to have been unclean for both nighttime Onahs to be counted as a night. If the Jewish law made no such stipulation, that would be another matter.

Of course, such a law would sound silly to us Westerners and it would probably sound silly to the Jews as well (which would explain why they never had such a law in the first place). But if she could not count her first period of uncleanliness as a night, she would begin counting her first period of uncleanliness at sunrise and over the next three days (Monday sunrise to Wednesday sunset (Jewish days, where Monday day is part of the first day, Monday sunset to Tuesday sunset is the second Jewish day and Tuesday sunset to Wednesday sunset is the third Jewish day. Under your hypothetical, a part of only the second nighttime Onah would not be counted as a night (if indeed the Jews had such a law, which they don't).

Let's look at some of our other usages in America. If a weekday is a day and a night, and I traveled three hours of day from Atlanta to Birmingham (a city in Alabama) that would be a day of travel. I would say, "My trip to Birmingham lasted only a day" yet in reality it lasted three hours. Part of the whole counts as the whole, right? But by no manipulation of our language would it be proper to say "My trip to Birmingham lasted a day and a night."

DAVID: 139
Not if the law stipulated you needed both you couldn't. If the law stated you could only reckon a night as a night IF it contained BOTH the pre-midnight darkness and the pre-dawn darkness, then the answer is obviously no, you could not reckon any portion of the night as a night. If the law was more lenient, however, and stipulated that any portion of the two nighttime periods could count as the whole, then that would be a different story. Likewise with Eleazar's Onah. If the law stipulated that a day AND a night IS an Onah and any portion of the day OR night could be counted as the whole, then so be it. But Eleazar's definition says "a day and a night ARE an Onah". Aside from the grammar, let's make that "A day AND a night IS an Onah" and then knowing that by definition a day AND a night is an Onah and anything less than a day AND a night isn't an Onah, then we know that any portion of an Onah had to have at least a part of a day and part of a night to be counted as such. Any part of the morning is not an Onah under the above definition becuase it doesn't have a night with it so it couldn't be an Onah.

Just because definition A+B contains A doesn't mean that definition A = A+B. That is a logically fallacy.
Furthermore, if part of a day AND a night could be just part of any daylight or nighttime portion, then a part of 3 nights and 3 days could be any part of a daylight or nighttime portion of one or two of the three 24-hour days involved. A sliver of Friday (one day) counts as a day and night, all day Saturday (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) counts as a day and a night and a sliver of Saturday night (Saturday night) counts as a day and a night. In effect, 3 days and 3 nights would be nothing more than one full 24-hour day and slivers of two others. Now if we were discussing 2 days and 2 nights and a sliver of a day in one and a sliver of a night in the other would make 2 days and 2 nights really be Friday afternoon (sliver of day one, reckoned as a day and a night) and a sliver of Saturday night, day two, would be reckoned as a day and a night and 2 days and 2 nights becomes...presto! Two hours! One hour of Friday ending the first day and one hour of Saturday beginning day 2.

Let's suppose even further that the 3 days and 3 nights began in the nighttime. A sliver of nighttime in 24-hour day 1 and all day in 24-hour Eleazar day 1 makes one day and one night. All of nighttime and all of daytime in day two makes a full day and a full night. But an hour into the third night the period ends and the 3 days and 3 nights end up being 2 days and 3 nights. But in reality, it gets worse. What you really have, using this reckoning, is two full days and one full night and a sliver of two nights that bookend the three days and three nights. That is a span of only 38 hours for the 3 days and 3 nights.

That is the kind of foolishness caused by interpreting a part of a day AND a night to be just any portion, night or day. The alternative offered by the rabbis is more reasonable, although not perfect. By interpreting a part of a 24-hour day (a putative Eleazar Onah) to mean at least a part of a day AND a night, the 3 days and 3 nights would end up with at least a portion of all 3 days and all 3 nights.

DAVID 140
No, not if you are correctly doing it as you are here. A part of a night Onah is as a full night Onah, just as a night in America is counted as a whole night for computational purposes.

DAVID 141
Yes, YOU are defining the night as holding two Onahs. That is quite a big step from the way it was reckoned by the Jews in the Talmus. Two Onahs made a day in the Talmuds, but you are arguing that two Onahs make a night. Okay, IF that was so, and the law said that a night had to have both a pre-midnight period of darkness and a pre-dawn period of darkness (or a portion of the two) to be reckoned as a full night, then how could you reckon a portion of just the seond night Onah (the pre-dawn one) as a full night if the law said otherwise? If you were a devout follower of such a religion and the law said the night needed both of the Onahs or a portion of the two to be counted as night, would you disregard what the law said on the matter and count as a full night even though you knew you had become unlean late in the second nighttime Onah? But fortunately for us all, your hypothetical doesn't exist and there are good reasons for that: it doesn't make sense. That is why there is no law dividing a night into two separate portions in Jewish law. Now for keeping time, the night was divided into four watches, but thes watch divisions had no impact on the legal definition of night. Although divided into four watches, it was still one night, just like our night is split right down the middle by calendar days but it still counted as a full night.

But keep in mind that in Jewish law if a night was defined as containing one pre-midnight Onah AND a second, pre-dawn Onah, then it would be N= M+D. And if that is the case, then M=N is false, unless, of course D is zero, which it isn't in this case.

All this writing over a hypothetical that you cannot even show evidence it existed. I have provided so many links that show otherwise and you still want to argue about somethimg that may not even be true or real. What drives you? What is it that gives you meaning in life? Why is this hypothetical that may or may not exist (there is no evidence for it) such a driving force in your life? I am tired of discussing this nonsnese. Yet you seem driven, compelled from some source to keep arguing about a HYPOTHETICAL while ignoring all the evidence I have presented that shows the opposite of what your hypothetical states.

There are appeals to authority and there are appeals to authority. Not all appeals to authority are necessarily bad or logical fallacies. The autorities have their arguments and evidence and if I have evaluated that evidence than I am compelled to accept the side with the best evidence. You, John, have given me none. Just question, question, hypothetical, question, hypothetical, hypothetical, hypothetical, ad nauseum. This is not a logical approach to deabte. Give me evidence. I have heard enough hypotheticals to last me the rest of the year. Give me some evidence form your favorite authorties John. Don't claim you are the authority and you don't need any authority to tell you what to believe. I don't let any authority tell me what to believe but I do read their evidence, evaluate it against counter-evidence and make up my mind on what I feel is the best evidence. Since you have an aversion to authorities that means you have set yourself up as your own authority without even weighing the evidence that both sides have to offer. Give me some evidence John, not endless, redundant hypotheticals and questions.

DAVID: 142
More hypotheticals? Again, a part of a daytime Onah is as a full Onah just as a part of a day in America is counted as a whole for computational purposes. But...a 24-hour weekday (day and night) in America can be counted as a "day", even if a small portion of it was actually involved. But...it would be improper to call it a day and a night unless the night was involved. IF the Jewish law said you needed at least a part of both Onahs to be reckoned as a day then yes, I would require that you have both Onahs in the count. But continue...

DAVID: 143
Yes, if that was what the law and the definitions stated. Such a law would insure you had at the minimum a half day and a few minutes to be counted as a whole day, and not just a few minutes to be counted as a whole day. I would like a law like that. That would at least insure that when someone said "three days he meant more than just one full day and two slivers. At least one full day and two halves and a couple of minutes would be, in my opinion, more meaningful. But alas, it is only a hypothetical that we are discussing and as such is not necessarily real or true.

YOU are discussing a hypothetical. I have dealt with this already. I am discussing reality, not a hypothetical. I tire of so many hypotheticals.

DAVID: 144
A sliver of a day can count as a whole day for counting purposes. But you cannot have a day and a night, .

DAVID: 145
No, and it is obvious you cannot see that the usage I am using is common, . . .O= D+N...how does D=O? or N=O if O=D+N? Let's try this... 3 O's = 3D's+ 3N's. if your "any part" of a day and a night were true, then 3 O's would not equal 3 D's and 3 N's. It could equal as little as 38 hours in some cases. Understand this John...when you are dealing with idioms, then even if a portion (8 hours) of a 24-hour day is called a "day" it is NOT called a day and a night, even though a 24-hour day has a night with it. It is idiomatically counted as a whole day but the idiom does not include nights despite the fact that every 24-hour day has a night in it.

The event would have to have at least a night in the count before you could claim "a day and a night". That is due to the idiomatic usage of the word "day" in both Hebrew and English. If you travled 8 hours on Monday day and all Monday night and four hours on Tuesday you can say you traveled two days because each day was computed as a whole day for counting purposes. But even though you traveled two days you could not claim you traveled "two days and two nights" either in English or Hebrew, even though a portion of each day you traveled contains a night. You wouldn't count the night unless you had traveled part of that night. It is two days even though only portions of each 24-hour day were accomplished. But again, even idiomatically we do not count nights when computing days as whole days unless we traveled X nights.

DAVID: 146
No, I get tired of nothing but hypotheticals when you have no evidence that it might even be the case, when all the evidence we do have argues against it, and when it can be shown logically the mess you would have in counting 5 days and 5 nights if you counted any portion of a 24-hour day as a day and a night. In the 5 days and 5 nights example if any part of a 24-hour day could be counted as both a day and a night you would have a sliver of Monday afternoon July 26 count as a day and a night and all day and night Tuesday through Thurday would add three full days and Friday morning July 30 would be counted as a day and a night simply because we refer to it as a "day" and you would end up with three full days and slivers of two others. You would have five days (two of which were slivers) and four nights. This is the kind of mess you get in when you don't properly consider part of BOTH a day AND a night as at least a portion containing a part of a day AND night. I hope this helps you understand. I am trying to be helpful but I do not understand 1) your obsession with these hypotheticals, 2) why is it so important to you that you pursue this subject in such detail when it is only a small part of the overall scheme of things regarding the Bible discussions.

David (earlier) 147
How can a man be a dark evening? Your hypothetical is not coherent. How can a man be the dark evening and the woman be the dark morning? I think a better way to put this is: there are dark evenings and there are dark mornings. Do you need part of dark evening AND part of dark evening to count as a night onah? Or, do you need only part of the dark evening or part of the dark morning to suffice? That, I think, is more coherent. Any part of a night would count as a whole night. Simply asked, simply answered.

DAVID 148
Hep me to understand this. I used "a man and a woman make a couple" as an example. This kind of example occurs in real life every day. People know what a "couple" means. People know when one of the two breaks off they are no longer a "couple". This applies to the day-night Onah. If the day-night Onah were true you still would need both for it to be considered an Onah. If one element was missing, it would not be a onah.

Consider man (M) and woman (W) makes a couple (C)

C = M+W
M-W= M
C does not equal M or W.

Consider the "Eleazar Onah" promulgated by John Powell. Onah (O) and Day (D) and Night (N)

O = D+N
D-N = D
O does not equal either D or N and D does not equal O.

[quote=POWELL]
But, David, if a night onah is "the dark evening AND the dark morning" then why don't you need BOTH part of the dark evening AND part of the dark morning to count as a whole onah? [/quote}

DAVID: 149
Becuause Jewish law says you don't. Jews don't divide their nights into two Onahs. Jews have a nighttime Onah and it is one, not two. So that should answer the question. But IF the law stated there were two nightime Onahs and you needed BOTH to constitute a night, then you would not have a night with one, at least as far as the law was concerned. You might count it as a night for your own satisfaction, but it would not legally be interpreted that way. If your religion taught that you needed both parts to be counted as a night and you were a devoted follower of your religion, then I have no doubt you would follow your religion and not count only one of the two nighttime Onahs as a night.

. . . Look at it this way. A part of an American day is counted as a whole day for computational purposes and part of a night is counted as a whole night for computational purposes.

DAVID: 150
Yes, part of a night can be counted as a day for computational purposes because that is an accepted idiom in our culture, the german culture, and the jewish culture. If I visited my brother from Friday night July 23 to Monday morning around 9 am on July 26, then I would have spent four days with him. This idiom is accepted in our and many other cultures. Sure, it wasn't literally four day but it was counted as four days and not two full days and parts of two others. And yet, the idiom doesn't allow for "four days and four nights" unless I spent at least parts of four nights with my brother. Once you add nights it ceases to be an idom and a literal usage is demanded because once a night is entered the "day" ceases being a 24-hour day and becomes a "daytime" day because it is used with "night". This is the way it is used here in America and Jewish life.

Let's look at the 24-hour day. A part of the day is reckoned as a whole and if I worked 8 hours I can say I worked a "day" but that would not mean I worked 24 hours, even though a day is 24 hours and a part of the whole is counted as the whole. The part that is counted as the whole is the word "day". If I worked from 9 pm to 5 pm I can say I worked a day but could not say I worked a "day and a night" even though I am using a part as the whole. Once you add "nights" it ceases being an idiom and a more literal usage is demanded.

Everywhere else in the Talmud and even modern day writings, the Onah refers to an 12-hour interval or the 30 day onath benoit. {edited}

DAVID: 151
That was good. The reason gave for his 20-day Onah was acceptable. . .

DAVID: 152
Not likely based on all the other references to Onah. He MIGHT have done this, he COULD have done this, heck, he SHOULD have done this. Where is your evidence that Eliezar MAY have meant this?

DAVID 153
Logically Possible? No. It is logically possible that I am a woman pretending to be a man. It is logically possible that there you are a woman as well. It is logically possible that you never went to college. It is logically possible for someone to hit 80 homers in a season. There are things that are logically possible that have never happened and things logically possible that are false. I would not build a case on such a shaky foundation. I would demand evidence, not just that it may be a logical possibility. That is what inerrantists do so well, they deal with logical postulations that are unlikely events and many hypotheticals.

DAVID: 154
Based on the evidence of what the other rabbis termed an Onah and based on the way Hebrews wrote, (discussed in the latter part of #56 above) and based on lack of evidence that Eleazar meant a 24-hour day I would have to opt for the day and night were each an Onah.

. . . When one feels he must constantly question, question, question, and feels anyone who agrees with the Bible on certain points (as I have done) is not thinking freely is actually enslaved by his own notion of freethinking. I agree with the Bible on some issues and I remember you didn't like that.

DAVID: 155
. . . And as for accepting evidence from sources like Jewish dictionaries and Jewish scholars, isn't that better than the evidence you provided for your position in this discussion?

DAVID: 156
I have seen no evidence for your position so I must reject it until I get some evidence. As for appeals to authority, where do you get your information? How do you receive information? Is it not on what others have told you, either in person or in print? Don't you go where the evidence leads and not on what it MIGHT be or what it COULD be?

DAVID 157
Two...what is your evidence I accept what the Jews have told me on their mere say-so?

DAVID 158
You "proved" that wrong? The 20-day quote has not disproven my position on Onah at all. Where exactly did I write that Onah was confined only to Exodus, a half-day, and a 30-day period? Please find that quote for me. I would like to see that.

DAVID: 159
Why does it contradict your intuition when your intuition has no evidence and all the evidence on day Onahs clearly show that either a day or a night were an Onah? How does your intuition make you believe all the Jews are wrong but you are right? Their is abundant evidence from Jewish Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, Websites, Chatrooms, and letters from JewsforJudaism.org that show an Onah was either a day or a night? How much evidence do you have to justufy your "imtuition". I believe the Mormon Vhurch must have indoctrinated you to believe that an Onah was a full 24-hour day so they could claim Jesus fulfilled the Onah by his portions of three days in the tomb. People aren't just born with "intuitions". Intuitions just don't pop up in oyur head from nowhere. Intuitions are usually built on experience and logic. What was your experience and logic that led you to believe that Eleazar's Onah was a full 24-hour day before you encountered this "Onah" claim? Is your experience on this rooted on the Mormon Church or is it the debate you had on the Theology Web Site (which I have a print-out of)?

One day you will be where I am at John. You will learn, and you will grow, and you will one day blosssom. Most freethinkers go through stages in their lives, I see you going through yours.

DAVID: 160
Now I am not claiming the mere fact they are Jews automatically makes them correct on all things Jewish but {edited} I will take the Jewish side until shown I am wrong.

DAVID: 161
That is why I said I would take the Jewish side until I am shown wrong. They have the most persuasive arguments on this topic. What is a good argument?

DAVID: 162
Does it not involve authority of some kind?

DAVID: 163
If you want to discuss the meaning of a german word would you not appeal to a german authority? Not all appeals to authority is bad. Some are. When you are able to tell the difference, you will be happier.

DAVID: 164
Yes, they are sometimes good. For example, 1) all the men defending the Alamo were killed in the battle; 2) Jim Bowie was a man defending the Alamo; 3) Therefore, Jim Bowie was killed in the battle. Now although this argument may be valid, it may not be correct. Perhaps not all the men were killed in the battle or perhaps Jim Bowie survived the battle, in which case this valid argument would be erroneous. This is where appeals to authority helps one decide. If one studies the battle of the Alamo extensively and reads every account of it he could get his hands on, he will find that they all agree the defenders were all killed, although not all believe they were all killed during the battle. They all agree Jim Bowie was killed during the battle. The Mexicans knew who Jim Bowie was and Col. Dickenson's wife knew who Jim Bowie was and she and the Mexicans both agreed Jim Bowie was killed during the battle. The premise that is disputed by some historians is premise number one. Some claim Davy Crockett and five others surrendered and were subsequently executed. They base their information on a letter allegedly written by a Mexican officer at the battle site, written to his wife, that was supposedly found sometime after the battle and ended up in the hands of some Americans. Most of the scholars feel this letter was a fraud to upset the applecart that all the men in the Alamo fought heroically to the death, especially Dave Crockett, who was like a folk hero in the United States. I think appeals to authorities can help one decide which premises he should accept. Consider this one:

1. Every man in Custer's regiment was killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn
2. Colonel Benteen was in Custer's regiment.
3. Therefore, Benteen was killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Now if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. However, premise one if false, and the conclusion is false. This is where studying the different authorities on the subject helps one with deductive arguments.

Whenever one needs to know about a certain subject, he consults the "authorities" on that subject. He takes the evidence they offer, tries the opposing view for counter-evidence, then makes a decision based on what he feels has the best evidence. Authorities all have arguments.

DAVID: 165
It is a neat trick if you can be persuaded by arguments without consulting the authorities.

DAVID: 166
And how do you know the premises are true in cases where you need authorities?

1. Over 1600 people died on the Titanic the night she sank.
2. Rebecca Clemmons was one of the 1600.
3. Therefore, Rebecca Clemmons died the night the Titanic sank.

Now tell me how you know this valid argument is true without having some knowledge of the event? And from whence comes that knowledge? From people off the streets? Movies? Or recognized authorities? Or what? Actually, although the premises and conclusion are valid, premises one and two are false and the conclusion is false as well, a matter that could have been decided by consulting the authorities and the passenger lists they provide. You provided no argument worth considering.

DAVID: 167
. . . Hypothetically, if I were Jewish and had been trained in the Tanach and the Talmuds my entire life, would you lend any weight to my arguments?

DAVID: 168
1. All Jewish scholars are well trained in Jewish terminology.
2. David Lee is a Jewish scholar
3. Therefore, David Lee is well trained in Jewish terminology.

In this valid argument, would my background be irrelevant?

[quote=POWELL]:
Because they're strong inductive arguments.

DAVID: 169
. . . But this discussion hasn't shed any new light on the issue at all. And that is sad.

DAVID: 170
We'll see. Can you provide the evidence that the rabbis later than Eliezar "implied" they understood the "day" of the third day to mean a 24-hour period? I have no doubt that in the computation of counting days they understood it to mean the weekday sense, but as I have said, even when you count a day as a whole day you do not consider it a day and a night unless a night was involved, and that was with the understanding the 24-hour day had a night.

DAVID 171
Alrady dealt with this. You must have overlooked it. It isn't difficult at all. But I will not repeat myself. I'll let you look it up.

DAVID 172
Those who said the "three day period required four Onah's" were referring to the fact that since each jewish day had two onahs the least ammount of Onah's required for a three day period was four Onahs, one Onah for day 1, 2 Onahs for day 2, and another Onah for day 3. Then, there were the three day periods that contained five Onah's. Two Onahs for day 1, two Onahs for day 2, and one Onah for day 3.
There was also one onah for day one, two onahs for day 2, and two onah's for day 3. Then, in the case of three days, the maximum amount of Onahs was six, two for each of the three. The rabbis were dealing with three days and showing how these three days could be reckoned by four, five, or six Onahs.

DAVID: 173
If I traveled to LA in 3 days (but not 3 full days) it would be improper to say three days and three nights unless three nights were included.

DAVID: 174
The New Testament reveals that parts of a day was sometimes counted as a day. For example, Jesus was crucified on a Friday according to Mark, Luke, and John. He "rose" from the dead on Sunday, the "third day" even though the first day and the third day were partial days.

[quote=POWELL]
Yes, but that says nothing about onahs.

DAVID 175
Exactly.

Quote:
POWELL:
So, David, are you the atheist who, in a discussion with me at Farrell's forum, supported the view that Biblical skeptics should trust the Biblical geneology of Zadok as being correct? If you don't want to discuss these things with me, that's of course your right. Just don't reply and I'll take it to mean you don't want to discuss it with me.

DAVID: 176
Who said I was an atheist? Do you assume that if anyone is a freethinker and doesn't believe in the Chrisitan or Jewish God he automatically is an atheist? Where have I said I was an atheist?

DAVID 177
Yes. You win by default. Some advice: Don't assume just because someone is arguing against the Christian or Jewish God, or the Bible, or religion in general that makes him automatically an atheist. There are a lot of people that do that who are deists. From 1990-1993 I was a deist. I argued against Christianity but I believed in God. You are a novice at this, but you'll get it.

DAVID: 178
Tell me John, what evidence did you offer that the genealogy of Zadok was fabricated?

DAVID 179
Where is Adam mentioned in any of Zadok's genealogies? His genealogy is traced only as far back as Aaron. Zadok's genealogy is never traced back before Aaron, who was Moses' brother. What about King Jeconiah, which was an actual person? His genealogy, though traced back to Adam, was surely partly true and the rest fabricated. I feel Jesus' genealogy is largely fabricated but parts of it is true because some of the kings listed in it are found in the records of the Babylonians and the Assyrians as well as the Jewish historical records. But Zadok's genealogy only goes back to Aaron (I Chron 6:3-14). So, where is your evidence it was fabrcated? And at what point was it fabricated? And how do you know this?

DAVID: 180
Do you disbelieve everything in the Bible just for the sake of argument?

DAVID: 181
In lack of evidence that the genealogy was fabricated what choice did I have?

DAVID: 182
And what does the existence of a mythical person have to do with Zadok's genealogy? His genealogy goes only back to Aaron. And even if part of a genealogy was fabricated, obviously not all would be because many of the kings of Israel and Judah that are mentioned in the writings of Babylonian and Assyrian histories are clearly real people with real genealogies yet theirs do go all the way back to Adam. So in their case, not all the links are false. But with Zadok, it only goes back to Aaron. I thought that someone with your brilliance would have known this.

To accuse someone of fabricating the genealogy requires some evidence. You never provided any, even when I asked. You simply said I had no proof it was genuine. Say what? You accuse someone of fabricating a genealogy then tell me it is up to me to prove it was genuine?

DAVID: 183
John, are you the same person who, in a internet discussion with me at Farrell's forum accused me of dishonsty for clarifying the rules of debate to a fellow freethinker? I remember giving some sage advice to another freethinker on how debates have rules (as outlined in debate classses 101 in colleges in the United States and from logic books) and you came on and accused me of dishonesty simply for clarifying the burden of proof in a debate situation..

DAVID 184
You recall wrongly. I told people that Drick was asserting the Holy Spirt existed, the onus of proof was on him. This is well known in debates; the side that asserts something to be the case has the burden of proof in forensic enconters such as at iierrancy. The side that disagrees does not have to share the burden of proof unless they want to. All they have to do is to provide reasons why the affirmative's position is invalid. This is standard debate 101 stuff. You can learn this on any debate team in a high school or college. The defense does not have to prove the opposite of what the Affirmative team is declaring. All they need to do is show that the reasons offered by the Affirmative are faulty or fallacious and they "win" the debate. I did mention that if they have evidence against the affirmative then they can, if they wish, enter that into evidence and then they will share a burden of the proof. Most of the time that is the way it works. But what I said was right on and not encouraging deception in any way. That having been said, let's drop any references to another group from now on, okay?

John Powell

POWELL:
Ok David, I'll try to restart this discussion so it's not so long as per your wish. I'll skip some of the tangents here. Maybe we can bring up some of them later. Let me recap. Correct me where I'm mistaken.

Recap

We agree that "for 3 days and 3 nights" likely meant to ancient Jews at least parts of 3 daylight periods and parts 3 nights.

We agree that for a Friday afternoon burial and Sunday morning resurrection, it would be missing the third night.

We agree that the Rabbis used the term "onah" to refer to half-day time periods, such as the 12-hour daylight period or the 12-hour night.

We agree that the Rabbis used the term "onah" for other time periods than just half-day periods.

We do not agree whether it's reasonably possible that any Rabbis used the onah to refer to either a civil day or a continuous 24-hour time period. You think not reasonably possible. I think probably not, but reasonably possible, yes.

What was a "day" to the ancient Jews?

We agree that the "day" to the ancient Jews could mean the daylight period as distinct from the night and it could mean the civil day. We disagree abut whether it sometimes likely meant any 24-hour continuous time period and whether it could mean the daylight period IGNORING the nights.

Powell's argument in favor of the "day" meaning "24-hour continuous time period" to some ancient Jews.

Think again about the dispute on how many onahs are required to make "3 days." Those suggesting that 4 onahs are enough seem to think that the "day" in "3 days" means the civil day so you could begin just at the end of one civil day (onah 1), go through a complete civil day (onahs 2 and 3), and end just after the beginning of the third civil day (onah 4). However, those who demand 5 onahs including part of a 6th if the first onah isn't complete seem to think that the "day" in "3 days" is any continuous 24 hour time period since their calculation results in 48 hours and then some which would be two complete 24-hour days plus some in the third 24-hour day.

Now, what IF an onah were a civil day? Then the Friday afternoon burial to Sunday resurrection would be 3 onahs. Friday afternoon (onah 1), Saturday (onah 2), Sunday (onah 3).

Now, what IF an onah were any continuous 24-hour time period? Then the Friday afternoon burial to Sunday resurrection would only be 2 onahs. Friday afternoon to Saturday afternoon (onah 1), Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon (onah 2).

Now, what IF an onah were any continuous 72-hour time period (the equivalent of 3 complete days and 3 complete nights)? Then the Friday afternoon burial to Sunday resurrection would be only 1 onah. Friday afternoon to Monday afternoon (onah 1).


POWELL:
So, you think God worked during the day then there was an evening and then there was a morning and that totalled a 24-hour day? That day would not start as the Jews started the day nor as we start the day, but it would apparently begin at noon or possibly sunrise. Perhaps you think God started the day at about noon, worked until about sunset, then there was an "evening" from 6 p.m. to midnight and then a "morning" from midnight to noon and that made a complete civil day. Is that your view?

You seem to be using the modern meanings of "morning" and "evening" rather than the ancient Jewish meanings.

Powell's argument in favor of the "day" meaning "the daylight period ignoring the nights" to some ancient Jews.

In Genesis 1 it speaks of "the evening and the morning--the first day" and so on. The evening + the morning do not make a civil day because it ignores the middle of the day and the night. They don't even make a full 12-hour daylight period since it ignores the middle of the day. The daylight period is morning daylight + middle of the day + "evening" of the day, what we call "late afternoon" (not counting any of the darkness). The dark time is called "night." The dark time was not called "evening." We do that now.

Genesis 1 seems to be describing the work that God does during the daylight time. If you take the morning before God starts working + the evening light after God quits for the day and add that to the time God worked then you have a full daylight period. Apparently, the nights are ignored. That's when people sleep. One weakness in this argument is there is no morning light on that first day. Perhaps, for consistency, the narrator added that time even though there wasn't any light until God spoke the magic words.


POWELL:
I was being sarcastic. I snipped to shorten.


POWELL:
That should be "each IS".

David's grammar argument.

Since Eleazar said "a day and a night ARE/MAKE an onah" David thinks that more likely means that "a day and a night EACH is/makes an onah" than that it means that "a day and a night COMBINED are/make one onah."

Powell's rebuttal to David's grammar argument.

I think your argument should conclude the opposite of what you suggest based on what happens if you put "each" vs. "combined" in there.

On the other hand, I think Eleazar more likely meant what you think based on how the other Rabbis used the term "onah," rather than due to your grammar argument.


POWELL:
Yes. Eleazar should have said "a day is an onah and a night is an onah" if that's what he meant.


POWELL:
If you count onahs as 24-hour continuous time periods then you don't go "back" to any moment before then. You start right at time T_0 and then count 24 hours forward. It would be like saying "24 hours from now."


POWELL:
Maybe that's not what you're doing.

If you were to say something like "Friday daylight then Friday night then Saturday daylight" then what about Saturday morning darkness? Is that part of Friday night or part of Saturday daylight?

Perhaps you're not using either the Jewish convention nor the Roman convention, but one in which the civil day begins at sunrise.


POWELL:
Technically, sunset would not be part of either day, but would be the moment that separates them just like midnight is not part of any of our civil days. If we say midnight ON Friday what is usually meant is the midnight following Friday evening even though the time referred to might include part of Saturday morning. Those words would not mean that 12:01 a.m. following Friday evening is part of Friday.

Actually, the new civil day for the Jews began at ABOUT sunset perhaps later as darkness approached. I think they had someone on a temple tower blow a horn to signal the "official" beginnings and endings of the Sabbath for those near Jerusalem.


POWELL:
Well, as I indicated, by "Sunday" I mean "the first Jewish civil day of the week" and by "Saturday" I mean "the seventh Jewish civil day of the week." If you prefer that I use that less familiar terminology instead of the English names we give to the days of the week then let me know. What we call the days doesn't matter, David, the problem is how we associate the nights. R Saturn's day is the same as J Sabbath day, but R Saturn's night is not the same as J Sabbath night.


POWELL:
Your usage seems ok.

When we say "After only being an hour here, I'm ready to leave," then we could mean that we've been there for anywhere from about 45 minutes to maybe an hour and a half. If it was less than 45 minutes then it becomes more likely we should say "after only being here half an hour. . . " and if it were more than 1.5 hours then it becomes more likely we should say "after only being here 2 hours . . ."

If we say "After spending a day here, I'm ready to leave" then we could mean we've been there anywhere from about 3/4 of the DAYLIGHT period to maybe a day and 1/2. "After living here for a year, I'm ready to move on" could mean I've lived there for about 9 months or up to about a year and a half.

In ancient times, however, not much was officially done at night, so "after 3 days" likely meant on the fourth daylight period.

Nevertheless, if we assume that my ranges are appropriate to how the Jews also used the term, from 3/4 of T to 1.5 T then that would imply Jesus should not have resurrected earlier than about 3/4 of 3 full days or any earlier than about 54 hours after dying. Apparently, He resurrected about 36 some odd hours later.


POWELL:
Sort of, but more specifically it was those who requested the guards. I think Matthew wanted his readers to take Mark's words (if they were ever to read them) to mean that Mark got the story a little bit wrong. It wasn't that Jesus said "after 3 days," but that some people mistakenly thought so.


POWELL:
Maybe Mark didn't care so much since his story was fictional. There was "spiritual" truth there.

David's ham sandwich argument.

David thinks that if Christians were right that Eleazar meant that a day + a night combined make an onah then one would need both part of a day and part of a night to count as an onah. I guess David thinks that is because, by Eleazar saying that a day and a night combined make an onah, he's implying that the law REQUIRES that one have at least part of the day and part of the night to make an onah.

Powell's rebuttal to David's ham sandwich argument.

To say "a day and night combined make a civil day onah" is not equivalent to saying "to have a civil day onah REQUIRES that one have a day and a night." All it's saying is that a full civil day onah consists of a day + a night. Furthermore, it's not saying that a civil day is 2 civil day onahs.

A night onah does not consist of only, say R Friday night, but also R Saturday morning darkness. However, that does not imply that one is REQUIRED to have both part of R Friday night and part of R Saturday morning to count as a night onah. Part of either would suffice. Furthermore, those words do not imply that there are two night onahs in a 12 hour night.

Likewise, a daytime onah does not consist only of the morning daylight, but also the afternoon. However, that does not imply that one is REQUIRED to have both part of the morning daylight and part of the afternoon to count as a daylight onah. Part of either would suffice. Furthermore, those words do not imply that there are two day onahs in a 12 hour daylight period.

Furthermore, a daytime onah does not consist of only 1 hour of daylight, but 12 hours of daylight. However, that does not imply that one is REQUIRED to have at least 10 complete hours and parts of two other hours to make a daylight onah. Part of even one hour would suffice.

Notice that in my definitions of the civil day onah, the night onah, and the daylight onah, I'm not saying that the law REQUIRES that one have BOTH parts or all 12 parts to count as an onah, but merely that's what the full onah would consist of.


POWELL:
Sure. Replace "onah" with "time period" and see how it all works just fine.


POWELL:
Fine, then consider another example. Let's say that Jack claims that he took a "3 day road trip" and I say "Let's assume Jack only took a 2 day road trip then that would mean Jack only spent two days on the road." and you reply "No it wouldn't mean that. Jack spent 3 days on the road. He said so himself."

Does the fact that Jack actually took a 3 day road trip have any bearing on what would logically result if Jack had instead taken a 2 day road trip? No. That's my point. The fact that the onah means half-days has no bearing on what would logically result if an onah, instead, meant a civil day.


POWELL:
Because you were not satisfied with merely arguing that the onah means half-days, but you WENT ON to argue that even if, hypothetically for the sake of argument, it did mean what some Christians claim, a civil day, then they would STILL be wrong because they would still need part of a day and part of a night. It was your reasoning about your hypothetical that I have disputed.

By us skeptics arguing poorly we give Christian readers greater reason to distrust our other arguments.

About Appeals to Authority.


POWELL:
That's not an appeal to authority IN a deductive argument. Nor are your others. That's a valid deductive argument that requires appeals to authority to be IN one or more INDUCTIVE arguments concluding that premises 1 and 2 are true to justify concluding that Jim Bowie was actually killed in the battle.

Let me give you an example. It's considered to be fallacious because it's not expected that premise 1 is true for any particular human EA so the argument is not expected to ever be sound.

1. Whatever expert authority EA claims is true.
2. EA claims X.
Therefore certainly
3. X.


POWELL:
You wouldn't under your stipulation. If you must have the authorities to know then you can't know without them. However, if you don't need the authorities to know then you wouldn't need the authorities to know. See how the logic works?


POWELL:
It's a true argument, alright. Do you mean how could I know whether the conclusion is true? Perhaps I couldn't, but I could know that the conclusion would be true, could not be false, if the premises were true. My knowledge that the conclusion is true would be based on an INDUCTIVE appeal to authority.

Arguments are not "true" or "false" but they are "valid" or "invalid" if deductive and "strong" or "weak" if inductive. Propositions (premises and conclusions) are either "true" or "false."

Could it reasonably be a sound deductive argument to conclude that because experts CLAIM that premise 1 and 2 above are true, therefore they are true? Nope. Why not? Because appeals to authority are fallacious when in deductive arguments.


POWELL:
Reading a little bit about what people have said about deductive and inductive arguments and thinking and arguing about it a whole lot.


POWELL:
The background of the person proposing that argument has no relevance to the validity of the argument. The argument is equally valid regardless whether or not you are a Jewish scholar. The argument merely claims that IF premise 1 and 2 happened to be true (regardless whether they actually are true) THEN the conclusion would be true, could not be false.


POWELL:
Yes, David, but why did some Rabbis require a MINIMUM of 5 onahs and part of a 6th if the 1st onah was not complete when 4 onahs is the minimum for 3 civil days? It's likely because they thought the "day" in "3 days" meant a 24-hour continuous time period.

I have omitted the "Zadok" and "Burden of Proof" issues.

If I missed something really important to you, David, then you'll have to repost it.

John Powell

David Mooney

DAVID
Mercy! Mercy! I am still overwhelmed by the size of the post. I took 6 more hours replying to it today. Besides the sore eyes and the crink in the neck I have been unable to pursue other delights that I usually do. I am really a terrible typist John, trust me. And now, not only to I have to contend with my shabby typing, I have to put up with a home computet that refused to format my post corrrectly. The computer I post on is not the same one I write my posts on. After I pasted my post on the window I see it is in shambles. I hope you can make sense of the formatting because it looks messy to me. I hope it "falls into place" once I click the send button as the FORUM engine may format it for me. I hope so.

DAVID 1
Yes, it looks as if we disagree on this. This is one of those points
where we will just have to disagree on. I do not see things the way
you do on this topic and probably never will.

DAVID 2
I do agree that a day in Hebrew need not have a nighttime in order
for it to be called a day, and I believe a night and a day could be
reckoned as a day. I believe that a decent portion of a 24-hour
calendar day can be reckoned as a day. I say "decent portion" to avoid
partial days that were composed of one or two minutes, even though one
of the rabbis claimed 1/24 of a hour could be reckoned as a whole
Onah. I know that in an earlier post I claimed that this rabbi had
written 1/64 of a day was counted as a full Onah but I misqoted him.
I will provide some further links on this topic shortly one of which
will have a quote from the rabbi that said 1/24 of an a hour could be
reckoned as a Onah.

In fact, here they are now...

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i48.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v6/mj_v6i39.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i59.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v16/mj_v16i87.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i45.html
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v43/mj_v43i45.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i78.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v6/mj_v6i28.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i80.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i77.html
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v17/mj_v17i06.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v6/mj_v6i14.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v6/mj_v6i40.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v29/mj_v29i52.html
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v6/mj_v6i11.html
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v32/mj_v32i65.html


DAVID 3
I have no problem with this. Friday afternoon would be onah 1 and
Friday sunset to Saturday sunset would be onahs 2 and 3 while
Saturday night after sunset would be the beginning of the third day and
the fourth Onah. Some Jewish rabbis seemed more concerned that the time
period they were talking about covered at least three civil days, even if it
meant a portion of the bookend days. However, three civil days could be
more than four Onahs.

DAVID 3
I agree with this usage.

DAVID 4
I am not sure I follow you here. Let's see how three Jewish days and five Onah's
could fit with one another.

Civil Day 1........Civil Day 2....................................Civil Day 3................................
A. DAYTIME 1.....NIGHTTIME 1...DAYTIME 2....NIGHTTIME 2...DAYTIME 3
Onah 1 Onah 2 Onah 3 Onah 4 Onah 5

Civil Day 1....................................Civil Day 2....................................Civil Day 3
B. NIGHTTIME 1...DAYTIME 1....NIGHTTIME 2....DAYTIME 2...NIGHTIME 3
Onah 1 Onah 2 Onah 3 Onah 4 Onah 5

Here we see that the five Onah period demanded at least two days and two nights and a
part or a whole Onah. Depeding on which part of the first civil day the countdown
began would depend on when the fifth Onah began and ended.

DAVID 5
So far I am with you.

Civil Day 1........Civil Day 2....................................Civil Day 3.............................
A. DAYTIME 1....NIGHTTIME 1....DAYTIME 2...NIGHTIME 2...DAYTIME 3
Friday Friday night Saturday Saturday night Sunday
ONAH 1 ONAH 2 ONAH 3 ONAH 4 ONAH 5

B. Civil Day 1.....................................Civil Day 2....................................Civil Day 3
NIGHTTIME 1.....DAYTIME 1...NIGHTTIME 2....DAYTIME 2...NIGHTTIME 3
ONAH 1 ONAH 2 ONAH 3 ONAH 4 ONAH 5


DAVID 6
Yes, if the Onah were a continuous 24-hour period, then this would be the case.
Problem is this...is an Onah a 24-hour continuous period?

DAVID 7
IF an Onah was any continuous 72-hour period, then the death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus would have occurred only within one Onah.

DAVID 8:
In Genesis 1:5 God calls the light day and the darkness
night. In the same verse it is written, "and the evening
and the morning were the first day." In Genesis 1:8 it
is written, "and the evening and the morning were the
second day." This usage is repeated four more times in
Genesis 1. From this, we see the light compared with the
darkness is called day (as in daytime) and after each
creative day(time) there was an evening and a morning
which completed the "first day", "second day", "third
day", etc.

DAVID 9
The Genesis 1 account was probably borrowed from the Gilgamesh Epic and
as such counted days Babylonian style, morning to morning. That is why Elohim
worked during the daytime, then came the evening (sunset) and the morning
(sunrise) which was: FIRST DAY. In fact, that is how the Hebrew states it. After
each evening and morning are two simple words: FIRST DAY, SECOND DAY, and
so on. The days in Genesis began and ended at sunrise, and the account is
probably borrowed from Babylonian mythology so I was probably wrong to use
an example from Genesis 1. What the Genesis 1 account shows is that the entire
24-hour period from sunrise to sunrise is a day as well as the daytime portion.

However, there is no evidence that a day, either in Hebrew or in Babylon, that a day
could span from Wednesday noon to Thursday noon as it can be done in America.

DAVID 10
First, I believe the Genesis 1 account is mythology so I wouldn't believe that God
did anything of the sort. What Genesis 1 does show is that the first thing God
created the light and he called the light day. Then came the evening, and the
morning, FIRST DAY.

Next, following the end of the first day, God is said to create the firmament
(the sky that looked to the ancients as a solid dome shaped bowl that was
overturned over the surface of the known earth). Then came the evening, and
the morning, SECOND DAY.

So the Genesis account supports a sunrise to sunrise reckoning but we know
that at the time of the alleged Exodus the reckoning was from sunset to sunset.

DAVID 11
Actually, Genesis 1 is likely derived from Babylonian mythology and uses a
different reckoning than that the Jews have used for over 2,000 years. Every
creative day in Genesis 1 was followed by an evening (sunset) and morning
(sunrise) and was then called: FIRST DAY, SECOND DAY, THIRD DAY, etc.

DAVID 12
We do the same thing sometimes in America. Someone may spend three nights and
three days in the hospital and tell his friend: "I spent three days in the hospital" without
mentioning any nights.


DAVID 13
The daytime portion in Genesis 1 is the time of God's creative acts, followed
by an evening (sunset) and morning (sunrise): SECOND DAY. Just because
the writer doesn't mention the nighttime between the evening (sunset) and
morning (sunrise) doesn't mean the night didn't exist. If I spent three days in
the hospital does my failure to mention nights mean there were no nights?

The daytime is the period that "God" did his creative works, each day he created
something different then came the evening (which means the evening followed the
creative act) then came the morning (sunrise) which means the morning followed
the evening. And presto! SECOND DAY! (or THIRD DAY, FOURTH DAY, etc.)

In the "Bible Days" evening could be either late afternoon or sunset. In Leviticus 23:32
there is a reference to the sabbath being observed from "evening to evening". The Jews
have reconized this to be from sunset to sunset.

DAVID 14
This was a mythological telling of the creation of the world. According to mythology, God
doesn't sleep. There was simply a daylight period in which God is said to have created
something significant then came the evening and the morning: FIRST DAY. You seem
to feel that the writer had to specifically mention the word "Night" for the night to be
there. How many nights were there from the first day to the sixth day? According to you,
there were zero nights because the word night was not even used as following each creative
day. Instead, the writer chose to use the words "evening and morning". If I slept from evening
to morning then it would be understood there was a night whether I used the word night or
not.

DAVID 15
Since I believe this story to be a part of the Babylonian mythology it isn't surprising there
might be logical flaws in it.

DAVID 16:
I don't know the exact verb that Eleazar used (some
commentators say "make" and others say "are" but the
scholars I have read state that he meant a daytime and a
nighttime each are [sic] an Onah. I was referring to
weekdays but I meant the daytime portion of the weekday
was an Onah, not the whole 24-hour period.

DAVID 17
1. A compound subject is made up of two or more words, phrases, or clauses joined by "and"
and a couple of others such as "or" or "nor". The number of the verb depends on which
conjunction is used and on the meaning of the subject.

2. Take the conjunction AND. It is used to join coordinate items, to add them together. Because
of this, the subjects joined by AND ~usually~ take a plural verb.

Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones, and Rafael Furcal are members of the Atlanta Braves.

The first game, a 7-4 loss AND the second game, a 2-1 win, WERE as different as a hot humid
day and a cool spring afternoon.

3. However, when the words of a compound subject refer to the same person or are considered
together as a UNIT, the verb is usually singular. Or, to put it another way, if the words joined
by "and" refer to a single thing the subject is also singular and requires a singular verb.

Gin and tonic IS his favorite drink.

Law and order MEANS different things to different people.

My best friend and my worst critic IS my girlfriend.

Coffee and cream IS is a welcome beverage on a cold morning.

My name and e-mail address IS on the post.

My friend and traveling companion SMOKED his courage.

Ham and eggs IS one of my favorite meals.

The Braves team HAS made a decision to release Greg Maddux.

Twenty dollars IS too much to pay for a movie.

Butter and Toast is a nice snack in the morning.

DAVID 18
The grammar lesson above was given to me in 1998 by a Jew on the Usenet, desribing Jewish
grammar. I have just altered the names of the players, the team, the score results, the sport in
portion 2 above. The verb remained the same. I think that since compound words that are
` considered as a unit usually take a singular verb then it is more probable that day and night
in Aleazar's defintion of Onah are not thought as a unit but separate terms.

DAVID 19:
Well good for them. I just wish they had used the common
vernacular of "day" and "night". Both of us, I think,
could express the same ideas with the words "day" and
"night" don't you think?

DAVID 20
Or, he coud have used the compound sentence structure as outlined in Jewish grammar
in 17 above, couldn't he? I could say, "my best friend is my girlfriend and my worst critic is
my girlfriend" or I could use a compound stucture and legitimately say, "My best friend and
worst critic is my girlfriend." Since grammar allows for that usage, why couldn't have Eleazar
have used a sentence with a compound subject?

DAVID 21:
. . However, does the partial day of Friday Nisan 14 count as a whole Onah, including
the night before it? .

DAVID 22
Yes, I understand that, if indeed they were 24-hours of continuous time.

DAVID 23:
Where did I use the midnight beginning of weekdays when
referring to Bible days? . . . What is such a terrible
sin or awful deed that I have committed that has you so
upset about using an example from my own country?

DAVID 24
Depends on whether I was employing Jewish usage or American usage. Under Jewish
usage the Saturday morning predawn hours would belong to the Friday night and be
part of the whole Jewish night.By extension, it could belong to Saturday daytime as the
rest of the Jewish civil day. Under American usage, the predawn Saturday hours would
belong with Saturday daytime and up to Saturday night at midnight. Under American
usage the Friday daylight and Friday night until midnight would belong to another
calendar or civil day. Is that what you were referring to?

DAVID 25
I think you are referring to the Genesis 1 account? If so, that is likely a sunrise to sunrise
reckoning.

[quote=POWELL 25]
David, sunset isn't part of any Jewish calendar day. It's the point when one day becomes the
next.

DAVID 26
Well, when I was in the Worldwide Church of God from 1974-1984, we used both the
Roman Calendar and the Jewish Calendar. The Jewish calendar ended and began a new
day at sunset every day. Perhaps if you went over to alt.religion.w-w-church-god and asked
someone how you could get a copy of the Jewish calendar perhaps one could tell you
where to find a copy of one. The wcg no longer observes the sabbath day or keeps the
Jewish calendar but there are splinter groups of the WCG who do keep both the sabbath
and the Jewish calendar and do post at alt.religion.w-w-church-god who would be happy
to direct you how to get one. We ended and began our Jewish days at sunset but when
dealing with the "world" we would use the Roman days and dates to avoid confusion.

DAVID 27
The Roman day changes at midnight. Friday night becomes Saturday morning at 12 am.

DAVID 28:
Well, sunset is a part of a new Jewish day. Nisan 14 on Friday day changes to
Nisan 15 at sunset Friday. You're just not familiar with Jewish usage is all.

DAVID 29
At 11:59:59 pm you are still in Friday night, Roman time. The moment it rolls over to
12:00:00 you are in Saturday morning Roman time. Figuring the sunset in Israel was
probably not as easy. In the Jerusalem area there are many hills and mountain tops
and unless you lived in the plains along the Mediterranean coast you probably
wouldn't be able to see the exact moment the sun dipped below the horizon.Our
church told us not to be persnickety about the actual time of the sabbath ending
and that it was better to err on the side of the sabbath than on the side of the first
day of the week. This topic came up because some members would literally wait and
watch until the exact moment the sun dipped below the surface or wait until the
exact time of sunset given in the newspaper so they could begin to turn on
the TV or go out and eat or begin to do housework. The church said this was wrong
and it was better to wait a few minutes past the sun set or the time given in the
newspaper before you began to do whatever it was that you felt was so dang
important that you had to watch the sun setting.

DAVID 30
There was doubtlessly difficulty in determing the exact moment of sunset in those
days, especially in the Jerusalem area. I have never been to Jerusalem but I have seen
relief maps of Israel and see that Jerusalem is definitely in a mountainous area. Jerusalem
is about 18 miles west of the Dead Sea, which is 1,300 feet below sea level. Ancient Jericho
was in this region and with a massive mountainous region to their immediate west, they
would surely have some difficulty in determing when the sun set. Perhpas they considered
it a sun set when the sun dipped below the tops of the mountain peaks to the west. I don't
know though. It would appear those who lived on the Mediterranean Coastline who had
the best view of when the sun set.

DAVID 31:
Awhile back you were arguing we should use YOUR method
of naming days and not the modern convention of naming
days and nights by their Roman names, even when
discussing Jewish days. You also chided me for using the
American convention when I was using American idioms.
Just who is guilty here?

DAVID 32
I can agree that defining our terms correctly is crucial to a discussion like this.

DAVID 33
I agree that the most common meaning of "after 3 days" is the fourth day. But
I have caught myself using the idiomatic expression before. I was once three
days in Colton, California and I wrote a friend that "after three days in Colton,
I was ready to leave" yet I left late on the third day. I also told a friend once that
"after one day in Council Bluffs, Iowa, I departed by train to Iowa City, Iowa."
I spent only one day there and left the same day, only late in the day. So I am
uncertain if this was an idiom or not. You can if you wish or refuse to is you wish,
it doesn't matter.

DAVID 35
Yes, it most likely did mean on the fourth day.

DAVID 36
Yes, according to the accounts, Jesus was crucified on the day before the
sabbath and was already risen from the dead on the morning after the sabbath.

DAVID 37:
Would Mark be that false witness?

DAVID 38
Okay. I can deal with that.

DAVID 39:
But what gets me is Mark had Jesus crucified on the day
before the sabbath and rising from the dead on the
morning after the sabbath. That was a glaring error he
made, wasn't it?

DAVID 40
Grammatically, if a day and a night were a unit, or thought as one, a singular
verb would be used. The fact that a plural verb was used makes one highly suspect
that the day and the night in Eleazar's Onah were a combined unit. I
don't even believe that they are meant to be a 24-hour period, but rather two
12-hour periods, one of nighttime and one of daytime.

DAVID 41
I believe that if D+N = O then conversely O = D + N. So even though I feel grammar
itself lends strong evidence to the two Onah theory, I feel that the further weight of
the definitions that define Onahs as daytime or nighttime periods of 12-hour periods
(at a maximum) further makes the Eleazar Onah as a 24-hour period very very unlikely.

But since it is positied by the inerrantists that Eleazar thought a day and a night BOTH
were an Onah yet any portion even the day part could be counted as both a day and a
night it is necessary to formulate arguments against it. Remember an O=D+N and D+N=O
so it seems their claim is highly unlikely. If two things were required to define an object,
then it seems logical to believe that you would need at least a part of those two definitions
to retain the definition.

DAVID 42
There is no rabbinical law that says "the first two watches and the last two watches
of the night is an Onah". If there were, then you would need the first two watches and
the last two watches or a portion of the two to count it as a nighgttime Onah. However,
since there is no such law, the analogy fails. We do have a rabbi claiming "a day AND a
night ARE an Onah" but we don't have one claiming "the first two watches of the night
and the last two watches of the night make a nighttime Onah". In fact, we do have rabbis
claim that any portion of the night count as a full night. The night is not divided into two
distinct portions. That is the important part to remember if you wish to parody the ham-
sandwich argument. The ham-sandwich argument has, as its base, two distinct items that
apart form each other, would make the ham-sandwich cease being a ham-sandwich.

Likewise, the Eleazar Onah argument, has, as its base, two distinct items that apart from
each other would make it cease being an Onah. There are, however, in Jewish law, NO such
support for the two distinct nighttime items that John mentions. If the Jewish law required
both in order for the Onah to be called a nighttime Onah, then yes, then we would have
cause to argue that both were needed to make it a nighttime Onah. However, the Jews never
saw a need to split a nighttime Onah into two distinct parts. The laws that do exist state that
only a part of the whole was needed and since the whole was just one 12-hour period and
not a six-hour period, we can only hypothesize about two distinct nighttime portions that
would make a whole nighttime Onah and its subsequent definitions. By the way, the Jews
divided the night into four watches, as evenly timed as possible in those days. There were
clocks, but they weren't as accurate as our watches today. A lot of them used sand or
water to mark time while daytime watches used sticks mounted permamently in the ground
and sun-dials. Inside homes the sand or water watches were used. As far as I remember,
only the richest people in the empire owned these idoor clocks. They were designed to
be changed about three or four times a night to keep the water or sand flowing if memory
serves me correctly. That is probably another reason that only the richest people could
afford them. The richest people generally owned slaves and a slave could be appointed
to turn the clock as it were. Don't quote me on this as I am relying only on my fallible
memory. The government could afford these clocks and have someone turn them at the
right time to keep their four watches as equal as possible.

If John's hypothetical was a reality and there was a law that said "the first two watches and
the last two watches (IS) a nighttime Onah" we would have cause to argue that a nighttime
Onah had to have at a minimum a portion of the first two watches and a portion of the
final two watches.

DAVID 43
Since a daytime Onah does NOT consist of a separate morning 6-hour
period and a afternoon 6-hour period then the analogy doesn't apply. IF
there was a law that said the first 6-hour period and the final 6-hour
period (IS) an Onah, then one could argue that one would need at least
a portion of both to be the ONAH. Instead, the law counts the whole
12-hour day as an Onah, and a part of that would count as a whole.

DAVID 44
That is true. A day did contain 12 hours and a night would contain 12 hours. But
there was no law that stated an Onah had to be 12 hours to be counted as an Onah.
In fact, the law states in the case of a day that any portion could be counted as a whole.
There was no law that stated that there has to be 12-hours in a nighttime Onah. If there
were such a law, then we would need parts of at least 12 hours, ten full ones and parts
of two others. But in the case of a daytime Onah and a nighttime Onah we needed only
a portion of either one. In the case of the 30 day Onah however there were more stringent
rules and you did need at least a portion of the 30, as in 28 days and parts of two others.
One day of the 30 would not cut it.

In the hypothetical Eleazar Onah a day AND a night (IS) an Onah (the plural would
not apply unless the day and night were separate from one another and not intended
to count as one unit). Since an O = D+N and D+N = O (the verb "is" would be the equal
sign). Since a day AND a night IS an Onah then any portion of the daytime is not a portion
of the day and the night. This is one of those things we will be arguing until doomsday.
You will NOT see this, ever. And I probably will never see your point of view at all, so
this is rather a moot point, don't you think, especially since this use of Onah is false in
the first place? I believe, based on grammar and other comments that Eleazar
meant a day and an onah EACH were an Onah. I tire of arguing a point I don't even
think it is important and applicable. The better part of wisdom dictates it is best to
move on to more relevant issues then an Onah that never existed in the first place.

DAVID 46:
Well, according to that, there are many Onahs that one
could conjure up. The NFL season could become an
American Onah, a period of 17 weeks for the regular
season, and five weeks for the playoffs (including the
off-week between the League Championships and the Super
Bowl). A three-game series in Baseball could become an
Onah or the World Series for that matter. The summer
would be an Onah, the seven days of Unleavened Bread
could be called an Onah (which isn't a bad idea).

DAVID 47:
I fail to see how this analogy fits. I am writing about
methods of reckoning time and you are discussing how a
dog craps.

DAVID 47
I agree that the hypotehtical is false so it wouldn't change the actual 3 day trip
into a 2-day trip. I would rather opt for the reality and not the hypothetical.
Now if Jack was a compulsive liar I would probably accept your hypothetical.

DAVID 48
Statement One: Fact: Onah means half days according to John
Statement Two: Logically, Onah means a civil day instead according to John

I don't get this one. Sorry.

DAVID 49:
. . . All this writing over a hypothetical that you
cannot even show evidence it existed. I have provided so
many links that show otherwise and you still want to
argue about somethimg that may not even be true or real.
What drives you? What is it that gives you meaning in
life? Why is this hypothetical that may or may not exist
(there is no evidence for it) such a driving force in
your life? I am tired of discussing this nonsnese. Yet
you seem driven, compelled from some source to keep
arguing about a HYPOTHETICAL while ignoring all the
evidence I have presented that shows the opposite of
what your hypothetical states.

quote=POWELL 51]
I am aware when they're bad. Are appeals to
authority sometimes good in deductive arguments,
David, or always bad?

DAVID 51
Yes, they are sometimes good. For example, 1) all the
men defending the Alamo were killed in the battle; 2)
Jim Bowie was a man defending the Alamo; 3) Therefore,
Jim Bowie was killed in the battle.

DAVID 52
Is 51 above a deductive or inductive argument? If deductive, then how would
I know that all the men in the Alamo were killed in the battle? How would I know
that Jim Bowie was a man defending the Alamo? Why do you think that 51
above is not a deductive argument? If it is, why do you not think that the
premises are not taken from authoritative writings on the subject?

DAVID 53
In 51 above, the argument is both sound and valid. Whether it is true or not is another
matter. An argument of the deductive nature can be both sound and valid but be untrue.
Since I can not know premise 1 is true without some kind of source outside of myself
telling me so I must defer to authorites. I could still be wrong if I chose the wrong authority
but there is no way I could determine the truth of premise 1 without no prior knowledge on
the subject. John, how do you inductively determine the truth of premise 1 without any
prior knowledge of the subject? You had never heard of the Alamo before, or Jim Bowie,
or even Dave Crockett? You claim you can determine the truth of the argument in 51
with inductive reasoning alone. Could you show me how?

DAVID 54
And how do you know the premises are true in cases where
you need authorities?

DAVID 55
This tautology is true. If I need an authority to tell me just what the heck the Alamo was
then obviously I wouldn't know without him. But that is why I need him, because I
will not even know what the heck the Alamo is until I learn it somehow, through someone,
in print, through personal contact, or some other means. Was the Alamo a ship? A fort?
A prairie? An important hill? Just what the heck was the Alamo? If I don't know, show me
an inductive way to know. Then, who the heck was Jim Bowie? Was he a general, a lower
ranked officer? A scout? What? How would I determine this through induction and
determine the truth of this valid deductive argument without appealing to some kind of
information?

DAVID 56
But if I can't know without them, then I need them to know! If I need the authorities to
know, then I would consult them. You said the following mouthful...1) since I cannot
know what the Alalmo was and who Jim Bowie was without an authority, then I
must have the authorities to know (55 above). 2) However, since I must have an authority
to know then I cannot know without them (duh). 3) However, since I don't need the
authorities to know, (why don't I need them? I just stated that I do need them because I
wouldn't know without them) then (tautology) I wouldn't need the authorities to know!
SAY WHAT?

What kind of logic is this? I need authorities to determine the truth of premises
1 and 2 above. You say I don't need authorities to determine the truth of premises 1 and 2.
What do I need to determine the truth of premises 1 and 2?

DAVID 57.
1. Over 1600 people died on the Titanic the night she
sank.
2. Rebecca Clemmons was one of the 1600.
3. Therefore, Rebecca Clemmons died the night the
Titanic sank.

Now tell me how you know this valid argument is true
without having some knowledge of the event?

[quote=POWELL 57]
It's a true argument, alright.

DAVID 58
It's not a true argument, it's a valid and sound argument. There is quite a difference between
a valid and sound deductive argument and a true argument. All three premises are false even
though the argument is valid and sound.

DAVID 58
So, you do need appeals to authority in a deductive argument. The inductive appeals to
authority to determine the truth of a deductive argument pretty much answers your
question. Even if you make an appeal inductively to authority to determine the truth of
a deductive argument, you are still appealing to authority to determine the truth of
a deductive argument. How would I know that David 57 above is false in both of
its premises and conclusion without an appeal to authority, whether or not I used
inductive methods? I still need to make an appeal to authority.

DAVID 59
That's true.

DAVID 60
The first two premises are false. The conclusion is false, even though the argument is
valid. An appeal to authority would have shown that the first two conclusions were false.

DAVID 61
And from whence comes that knowledge? From people off
the streets? Movies? Or recognized authorities? Or what?

DAVID 62
In other words, before you can even make an argument, valid or not, you need some life
experience and have accumulated some knowledge. Without such knowledge and
experience, you could never tell whether the Titanic argument above was false. I was
able to tell it was false becauase I knew it to be false via information from authorities
about the Titanic and not inforamation from philosophers and novices.

DAVID 63
1. All Jewish scholars are well trained in Jewish
terminology.
2. David Lee is a Jewish scholar
3. Therefore, David Lee is well trained in Jewish
terminology.

In this valid argument, would my background be
irrelevant?

DAVID 64
If the person proposing the argument was the person IN the argument would his background
be relevant?

DAVID 65
I am not talking of the argument's validity (it IS a valid argument) but whether or not the
background of the person in premise 2 has any relevance to the truth of the conclusion?

What about this one?
1. All the men in Custer's regiment were killed in the Battle of the Little Big Horn?
2. Colonel Benteen was in Custer's regiment during the Battle of Little Big Horn.
3. Therefore, Colonel Benteen was killed in the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Try determing the truth of the conclusion without resorting to any authorities, whether you use
inductive reasoning or whether you use a spirit medium, or just common sense. We both know the
arguent is VALID. But I am not asking for you to show the validity of the argument.

DAVID 66
Those who said the "three day period required four
Onah's" were referring to the fact that since each
jewish day had two onahs the least ammount of Onah's
required for a three day period was four Onahs, one Onah
for day 1, 2 Onahs for day 2, and another Onah for day
3. Then, there were the three day periods that contained
five Onah's. Two Onahs for day 1, two Onahs for day 2,
and one Onah for day 3.

There was also one onah for day one, two onahs for day
2, and two onah's for day 3. Then, in the case of three
days, the maximum amount of Onahs was six, two for each
of the three. The rabbis were dealing with three days
and showing how these three days could be reckoned by
four, five, or six Onahs.

DAVID 67
Maybe I should ask them...oh, but they are dead, so I will have to read their writings
on the subject. I will put this near the top of the list. I have already uncovered so many
links on the topic it should keep everyone busy for awhile.