Let's first correct your misinterpretation. The same speaker instructs people to "Depart for 3 days" and also to return "on the 3rd day."
There's no misinterpretation here. We both agree that this is basically what is communicated in your reference.
Their return was not greeted with surprise on the third day and the question asked, "But you were supposed to be gone from here for three days and yet you are here again after only two and a half days!"
Yeah, there's no disagreement here either. Seems like you're trying to set up a straw man but whatever.
You asked for examples, so I gave you several. I didn't make those quotations up; they are indicative of Hebrew thinking and come from an unimpeachable source--the Bible.
What you gave was basically the same example as the passage contested in the Original Post. The word usage is similar with a different context.
What you didn't provide were examples "part of a day=a day" thing applied across the board. There are lots of times and dates in the bible, shouldn't we see this sort of thing elsewhere? Like 10 days = 11 days, or 29 days = 28days and so forth?
If the "point" seemed elusive, it was just this: in ancient Hebrew usage, three days and parts of three days are considered to be the same idea and counted that way...and those quotes, those examples, prove it.
As a result, the customary belief in a Friday Crucifixion with a Sunday Resurrection poses no problems at all.
No, it proves nothing, except that you started from a premise (the one you keep asserting) and found an example of similar wording elsewhere that you think proves something. The only thing that it proves, at least to me, is that you think the Hebrews, who built a temple, who built the ark, who marched around Jericho and did a bunch of other things that would have depended on very basic understanding of ordinal and cardinal numbers, actually didn't. When 2=3 or 3=2, at least sometimes, there's going to be confusion, no matter if the numbers relate to time, to building materials, to people or whatever.
Basically, your theology here calls the ancient Hebrews a confused people who don't understand basic math. Of course it's not just limited to them. Your theology also calls Christ either a liar, or confused about basic math. Because His statement regarding "3 days and 3 nights" and also "the 3rd day" and "after 3 days" are all, on the face of it, contradictory. The ONLY way they actually make sense is that they are all true at the same time, but in some instances the numbers are ordinal, and in others, they are cardinal. But no Christian assumes any of this or thinks about it. It would conflict with their tradition of a bumbling Christ that can't count and doesn't speak the Truth.
inspired2think.wordpress.com