Hi Carl, This idea is also covered at http://midnightcryministries.com/ThreeDays.htm The chief objection is that the phrase would be "three nights and three days". RIP, JPII Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Carl Felland > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 7:53 AM > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Calendar query > > > I agree, and offer another idea for a secondary fulfillment of Matthew > 12: 40. > Night One Betrayal by Judas/14th of Aviv > Day One Day of Crucifixion/14th of Aviv > Night Two 1st night in tomb/15th of Aviv > Day Two 1st day in tomb/15th of Aviv > Night Three 2nd night in tomb/16th of Aviv > Day Three Morning of the 16th of Aviv > > Carl > > Robert Bennett wrote: > > >Here's another solution that makes sense. > > > >"three days and three nights", in Jewish terminology, did not necessarily > >imply a full period of three actual days and three actual nights as in > >modern English, but was simply a First Century colloquialism > used to cover > >any part of the first and third days. > >The expression was always used with an equal number of days and nights; x > >days and x nights, as though for emphasis. > > > >Full discussion at: > >http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/jonah.html#three > > > > > >RIP, JPII > > > >Robert > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl > >>Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 5:39 PM > >>To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Calendar query > >> > >> > >>I'm putting up an article on this subject that seems to have sensible > >>answers to everything -- namely that the crucifixion occurred in > >>AD 31 when > >>there were two Sabbaths. The only reason this question would be > >>important > >>to answer is that precise conformance to prophecy and accuracy of > >>the Bible > >>is at stake. I have no doubts about either. I'm sure there's a correct > >>explanation for what might appear to be a discrepancy. I'm not > >>sure which > >>it is, but the one below seems to make sense. > >>Cheryl > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > >