Fw: Three days and Three nights Part 10
David Lee errancy@infidels.org
Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:41:01 -0400 (00928474861, 00e701beae22$ecac79c0$d65c74cc@ronies)
----- Original Message -----
From: David Lee <ronie@infoave.net>
To: <David Lee>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 10:57 PM
Subject: Three days and Three nights Part 10
> DAVID
> I just picked this up on dejanews. It did not show up in my box...so I
> will answer it now. Sorry for the delay....
>
> Student wrote:
> Hello David
> I am still researching this further, but in the meantime I would
appreciate
> a response on what you understand by 'the third day' and 'after 3 days' as
> used in Mark. Again, I think that here is another example where the terms
> were used interchangeably:
>
> 31 and began to teach them, that it behoveth the Son of Man to suffer many
> things, and to be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and scribes,
> and to be killed, and after three days to rise again;
> Mark 8:31 (Young's Literal Translation)
>
> vs
>
> 31 for he was teaching his disciples, and he said to them, 'The Son of Man
> is being delivered to the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and
having
> been killed the third day he shall rise,'
> Mark 9:31 (Young's Literal Translation)
>
> DAVE
> As I have already stated, I have no problem with the "after three days"
> and "on the third day" passages. Some skeptics love to make an issue out
of
> these but I have no problem with them. I have stated that "after three
days"
> *can* mean "the fourth day" or the "third day", it just depends on
context.
> If by "after three days" the writer means after three days are past, then
it
> is equivalent to the "fourth day". If he means however that after three
days
> in the grave (though not necessarily three full days) then it can be used
> for the "third day". For example, if you read "after a hard day of work
John
> was paid $50.00" it does not necessarily mean he was paid the next day. He
> could have been paid the same afternoon. Or, suppose further you were to
> read "After three days of prayer in the temple the rabbi departed into his
> own house." This does not necessarily mean he went home after sunset at
the
> beginning of the fourth day. He could have departed to his home late in
the
> afternoon of the third day and yet it would be correct to say he had spent
> three days in prayer. Now, it *can* mean the fourth day, but not
> *necessarily*. I do not quibble over these verses in Mark as some do. I
> think the verses in Mark (8:31, 9:31, 10:34) are compatible with a
> Friday-Sunday scheme so I don't press the issue.
>
> I checked into some Greek grammar books and discovered some information
> on why the "pi" letter in Greek gets changed to "ph" in some cases. We
know
> that "apo" is rendered "ap" and "aph" in some cases in the NT. _First Year
> of Greek_ (The MacMillan Company {1921} ) states on page 221 that "pi",
when
> expressed through elision...becomes "ph" before a rough vowel or
diphthong:
> ex. epi= eph. The "ph" in greek is that O with the line through it that
you
> saw in the interlinear version of Luke 24:21. The book states on page 225
> that elision is the cutting off of a short vowel at the end of a word when
> the next word begins with a vowel...the apostrophe marks the omission
except
> in compounds. Further, on page 229 under the heading "Prepositions which
> govern the genitive case only" the author lists "apo" as one and lists it
> like this: b)apo (ap, aph) _ap arches_ "from the beginning" and _aph ou_
> "from which time, since".
> _New Testament Greek, An Introductory Grammar_ (Camelot Press, 1958)
has
> this on page 72 (discussing the changing of "pi") ...The final o of hupo
is
> elided before a vowel: Before a rough breathing the o is elided and the
"pi"
> (pi symbol given) is aspirated "hupf" (the book shows the O symbol with
the
> line through it). On page 11 the author (Eric G. Jay) writes "The same
sign
> for a smooth breathing, ', is used to mark the cutting off or *elision*,
as
> it is usually called, of a vowel. This sometimes happens to the last vowel
> in a word when the next word begins with a vowel."
> I offer this for your consideration. Hopefully this will show up. Had
it
> not been for dejanews I would not even have seen your post.
> Take care,
> Dave M
>
>
>
>