Esther 4:16 refers to a fast of "three days, night or day", but Esther chapter 5 tells us they feast on the third day.

tame_deuces,
re: "Esther 4:16 refers to a fast of 'three days, night or day', but Esther chapter 5 tells us they feast on the third day."

I see nothing in the Esther account that precludes at least a portion of each one three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times. If you think it does, I wonder if you might explain?

N - D
N - D
N - D (feast)

D - N
D - N
D (feast)

So at the minimum you don't have a full day on the third.

tame_deuces,
re: "So at the minimum you don't have a full day on the third."

I'm not asking about full days and full nights.

You are interested in a specific claim of a written prediction of a future event in which someone claims a certain number of days and nights wherein at least one of the days or nights was not included in the accounting of the elapsed time frame, AND this has to come from someone who holds a belief in what you've called "6th day crucifixion."

It is absolutely true that people tend to ignore people who make unreasonable requests. That someone might try to offer a intellectually reasonable substitute shows that sometimes people understand the unreasonableness of your request and seek to provide alternative resolutions to the challenge at hand.

And yet... you still hold out hope for a resolution. It leads me to wonder why you're so stubborn? Why this question? Why such narrow criteria? What is your motivation for pursuing this topic for a decade in the way that you have?

Does it make you feel smarter? More accomplished? More "right" in your beliefs? Why are you so intent on trying to pursue exactly this thing?

Yes. I'm ignoring the unreasonableness of your request. Because the reality is that this part of the criteria is simply stupid. Suppose that someone was not a 6th day crucifixionist and provided you with written documentation. Would that de-legitimize the evidence?

Aaron W.,
re: "...AND this has to come from someone who holds a belief in what you've called '6th day crucifixion.'"

I don't think I've said that the examples have to come from 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates. However, the impetus for starting this topic was prompted by comments from some folks who had said they believed that the crucifixion occurred on the 6th day of the week and tried to explain the lack of a 3rd night time by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period. So at the time it was to them that I was thinking about for this topic.



re: "It is absolutely true that people tend to ignore people who make unreasonable requests."

I don't see how it is unreasonable to ask someone who makes an assertion about something - in this case that something is common - to provide examples to support their assertion. If I tell someone that I'm a concert pianist would it be unreasonable to ask me to demonstrate my ability?



re: "And yet... you still hold out hope for a resolution. It leads me to wonder why you're so stubborn?"

I think you mean persistent as you said in post #12.



re: "Why this question?"

Simply curious.



re: Why such narrow criteria?"

The asserters set the criteria, i.e., that it was common usage.




re: "What is your motivation for pursuing this topic for a decade in the way that you have?"

Simply curious.



re: "Does it make you feel smarter?"

Actually, it would make me feel more knowledgeable if examples were provided. But I guess you might call that smarter in a way.



re: "More accomplished?"

Yes.



re: "Why are you so intent on trying to pursue exactly this thing?"

Simple curiosity.



re: "Suppose that someone was not a 6th day crucifixionist and provided you with written documentation. Would that de-legitimize the evidence?"

Of course not. You know that it wouldn't.

And yet...

You have now openly stated (and seem to be affirming an earlier position) that you've directed your question at a certain sub-population.

Yes, I think we can all see that you don't understand, despite having it explained to you multiple times. But I'll repeat the reasons just for the entertainment of watching you completely ignore it again.

The types of writings you're hoping for simply don't exist. In a largely oral culture, it is not common to find large amounts of writings of mundane things. And given the amount of time that has elapsed since then, one would expect that (if such writings did exist) that they would be lost to history.

Instead, we come to conclusions based on inferences of existing writings. You have already agreed to all of the precepts required to accept the reading to be understood. But you continue to want to be flown to moon and choose not to accept that evidence.

Is there a piano nearby? If not, then yes it's a completely unreasonable request.

Concert Pianist: I'm a concert pianist.
Skeptic: Can you show me?
CP: No. There's no piano nearby. But here's a recording of me.
S: That's not good enough. I want you to show me.
CP: You can google my name if you want.
S: That's not good enough. I want you to show me.
CP: (Calls his friend over) What do I do for a living?
Friend: You're a concert pianist
S: Nope. I want you to play for me.
CP: There are no pianos here. I can't play for you now.
S: Then you're not a concert pianist.

Unfortunately, you've proven yourself to be less intelligent in how you've chosen to approach the topic. You've been given information. You've been given sources for that information. You have chosen to disengage intellectually and continually insist on pursuing just a specific piece of information. A smart person would not do this.

A smart person, over the course of ten years, would have learned enough about the question at hand to understand the difficulty of finding an answer of this specific type. A smart person, over the course of ten years, would have at least opened up to other ways of learning about the situation. A smart person, over the course of ten years, wouldn't continue to be this dumb. Why not become a smarter person?

Aaron W.
re: "You have now openly stated (and seem to be affirming an earlier position) that you've directed your question at a certain sub-population."

That is true. But I haven't stated that any requested examples from a different population would be ignored.



re: "The types of writings you're hoping for simply don't exist...Instead, we come to conclusions based on inferences of existing writings."

I have yet to see any existing writings that would infer that it was common to forecast or say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of the a night time could occur.




re: "You have chosen to disengage intellectually and continually insist on pursuing just a specific piece of information."

That is because that specific piece of information is the only issue that this topic is concerned with.



re: "A smart person would not do this."

When I used the word "smarter" I was referring to being smarter with regard to there being examples of commonality. I wasn't saying anything about being a smart person in general.

You have. But you have refused to accept them as such. Again, you want to be flown to the moon as evidence that man has been to the moon and will not accept other forms of evidence for the claim.

Also:

This sentence, as amended, is false. You have already assented to other sentence structures that say this. You've assented to the existence sourced writings that say this. I think this is a very clear picture of how narrowly you're asking for something.

Also, from a strictly logical point of view, your use of the word "or" makes your original sentence false as this sentence is true.

Your failure here is mere narrow-mindedness. You are only interested in the experience of going to the moon, and not to the broader question of whether man has gone to the moon. Because if you were interested in the latter, you have been shown the evidence for it. You want to claim you're in search of one, but you're clearly in search of the other.

You ought to strive for smart. It's far better than fighting to remain ignorant.

Aaron W.,
re: "Your failure here is mere narrow-mindedness."

Why is it narrow-mindedness to ask for examples to support an assertion by someone?

The meaning of "narrow-minded" usually comes down to some form of unwillingness to accept other perspectives or points of view. One might also consider it to be a certain level of pettiness.

So in this case, you're asking for precisely one thing and one thing alone. You are absolutely unwilling to accept something close, analogous, or even things that are insightful or useful to your understanding. You want X. You only want X. You want nothing but X. Anything that's not exactly X isn't good enough for you. You've been doing this for 10 years and 80 websites or whatever it was.

So your pursuit is certainly closed off to other perspectives. You want X.

You are not really open to considering other points of view, such as "What you're asking is impossible, but here's some other information to inform your understanding." You want X.

When presented with other information, you assume it's because everyone is too stupid to understand your request, which is rather petty of you. You want X.

You seem utterly unreceptive to new ideas. "How about Y? It informs your knowledge of X." No, you want X.

So that's why I would consider you to be narrow-minded. You want to be flown to the moon, and you won't accept anything but that.

So it's not that you're asking for evidence, but that you've literally shut the door on all types of evidence because it's not the EXACT thing you want.

Aaron W.
re: " You want X. You only want X. You want nothing but X. Anything that's not exactly X isn't good enough for you."

By George I think you've got it!

Amusingly, this confirms the criticism of your post that I've been making the entire time, and you're the one who is just now understanding what's going on. You've also confirmed your intellectual stubbornness and shallowness, so you've got that going for you, too.

Rstrats, assuming you don’t buy the idiom explanation, what are your thoughts? It’s a little tough for me to believe it’s a math error; this would be hard to screw up for a first-grader. Calling it an inserted forgery doesn’t seem to help, since a scribe making an insertion would have been able to count the same was you did.

jogger08152,
re: "Rstrats...what are your thoughts"

The only thing I can think of is that no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who try to account for the lack of a third night time by saying that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language are looking in on this topic. However, though it's probably a longshot, someone might still come along in the future.

Given that you don't accept the idiom explanation, your ONLY thought is that nobody of a certain category of people are reading your threads that you've posted throughout the internet? You can't draw any other conclusions at all?

LOL

Aaron W.,
re: "Given that you don't accept the idiom explanation..."

What I don't accept are the examples given. None of them show instances of where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.




re: "...your ONLY thought is that nobody of a certain category of people are reading your threads that you've posted throughout the internet? You can't draw any other conclusions at all?"

In retrospect I suppose it's possible that there are some looking in who meet the criteria, i.e., believe the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, and who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb , and who try to explain the lack of a third night by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the time, but who can't support their assertion of commonality.

Yes. We've been over this. Despite there being other examples of this type of language found elsewhere in the Bible, references to Jewish encyclopedias pointing to this type of language usage, and the fact that you can somehow understand a statement like "I'm going to be in line all day tomorrow at the DMV" as somehow not requiring that you're literally there "all day", you have adamantly chosen a singular type of evidence as the only thing that will satisfy you, one chosen so narrowly as to almost certainly not exist.

Right. Not once would you ever think that maybe you've established a terrible standard of evidence to convince you, nor would you ever think about re-thinking what you're looking for. Because why would you ever think that after posting in 20 different forums and asking the same question for the last 10 years or whatever?

Maybe the answer you're looking for is that these people are simply morons who can't count to three. Would that answer satisfy you?

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

LOL -- One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Since this is such an important topic to you, please share with us what you have discovered in your extensive research in the past eight months. Thanking you in advance.

lagtight,
re: "...please share with us what you have discovered in your extensive research in the past eight months."


That so far no one has furnished any examples to show that it was common to forecast or say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur.

Since its been awhile, someone new looking in might know of examples.

As noted repeatedly, this has been presented to you without the extra clause of a "forecast." That you persist in this way shows more of a willing ignorance than anything resembling an honest intellectual pursuit.

Aaron W.,

Since you apparently don't know of examples, this topic does not apply to you.