Discrepancy between Esther 4:16 and 5:1?

[JustTheFacts]

The New Testament is written in Koine Greek.

While Koine Greek was widely spoken at the time I find it unlikely that Jesus spoke it to the people of Israel so that makes the NT itself a foreign language translation of what was originally said.

Without the Holy Spirit, I doubt that anyone can actually understand the meaning of what is written in it beyond a simple recounting of the words spoken and events taking place when it was finally put into writing at a later date.

Actually we don't have the original documents nor has there been a record of them so we don't know the original language.

I find it strange that Christians believe in Jesus, but they trust theology more than what is written.
-So you don't believe what John wrote that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples so that they would get their testimony perfect, then Jesus breathed it into them?
-So you don't believe what John wrote that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them after his resurrection?
-So you don't believe that through the Olivet Discourse Jesus assigned four disciples to specifically be his eyewitnesses to document their eyewitness testimony?
-So you don't believe that God would ensure his words were documented and translated exactly?
-So you don't believe that the Holy Spirit would of God would ensure the word of God was perfect throughout the many years and languages? -So you don't believe that as written in Joel 2:28 people will have dreams and visions through the Holy Spirit to ensure the word of God is accurate and understood?

All those claims are not mine--they are written in the Gospels--including the designation of Nicodemus as a disciple in the Gospel of John. I guess I've examined the Bible so closely trying to understand the word of God that I believe everyone of those questions above.

 

[Frankj]

Actually we don't have the original documents nor has there been a record of them so we don't know the original language.

I find it strange that Christians believe in Jesus, but they trust theology more than what is written.
-So you don't believe what John wrote that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples so that they would get their testimony perfect, then Jesus breathed it into them?
-So you don't believe what John wrote that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them after his resurrection?
-So you don't believe that through the Olivet Discourse Jesus assigned four disciples to specifically be his eyewitnesses to document their eyewitness testimony?
-So you don't believe that God would ensure his words were documented and translated exactly?
-So you don't believe that the Holy Spirit would of God would ensure the word of God was perfect throughout the many years and languages? -So you don't believe that as written in Joel 2:28 people will have dreams and visions through the Holy Spirit to ensure the word of God is accurate and understood?

All those claims are not mine--they are written in the Gospels--including the designation of Nicodemus as a disciple in the Gospel of John. I guess I've examined the Bible so closely trying to understand the word of God that I believe everyone of those questions above.

You believe what you believe because you choose to believe for whatever reasons you what I believe because that is how I have found understanding and have chosen to believe what I believe because I seek understanding..

But who can say which is right? As in the story of the blind men and the elephant, which of them was right and which of them was wrong?

So be it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You believe what you believe because you choose to believe for whatever reasons you what I believe because that is how I have found understanding and have chosen to believe what I believe because I seek understanding..

But who can say which is right? As in the story of the blind men and the elephant, which of them was right and which of them was wrong?

So be it.

You don't find it strange that many denominations and Christians claim the Bible is the infallible word of God, yet they ignore the details in it?

 

[Frankj]

You don't find it strange that many denominations and Christians claim the Bible is the infallible word of God, yet they ignore the details in it?

Not really, some just focus on one thing and others on another and some, as was prophecied, follow unsound doctrine because they like what they hear that way and never need to consider the larger picture that is the entirety of the Bible with all parts of it in harmony with each other.

The way I see it, but maybe I'm just getting jaded in my old age.

 

[rstrats]

If the fast started at 7:00 am, three days later at 7:00 am the fast would be over then Esther would see the King that day. Where is the contradiction?

So, you're not counting the first daytime as one of the calendar days?

 

[JustTheFacts]

So, you're not counting the first daytime as one of the calendar days?

First night -- fast (say it is December 28th)
First day and 2nd night --fast (December 29th)
Second day and 3rd night --fast (December 30th)
Third day -- fast, then go to the King's court as the day ends (December 31st)

 

[rstrats]

First night -- fast (say it is December 28th)
First day and 2nd night --fast (December 29th)
Second day and 3rd night --fast (December 30th)
Third day -- fast, then go to the King's court as the day ends (December 31st)

Actually, it should be:
Fast the first night and first day (the 29th)
Fast the second night and second day (the 30th)
Fast the third night and third day ( the 31st) - goes to the king before the day ends

 

[BruceLeiter]

Esther said that she would fast for 3 days, night or day, and that after doing that, that she would go to the king. However, verse 5:1 says that she went to the king on the 3rd day. How can she go to the king on the 3rd day and at the same time go after the 3rd day?

There is no discrepancy. It's clear from ancient Jewish writings that the Jews considered part of day as a whole day. You're looking at an ancient document through modern eyes.

 

[rstrats]

There is no discrepancy. It's clear from ancient Jewish writings that the Jews considered part of day as a whole day. You're looking at an ancient document through modern eyes.

So, then Esther didn't need to mention days and nights because she would just have to say three days. Why do you suppose she made a point of adding them?

But even if you're right about what you say, how could she go on the third day and also go after the third day?

 

[SetFree]

Esther said that she would fast for 3 days, night or day, and that after doing that, that she would go to the king. However, verse 5:1 says that she went to the king on the 3rd day. How can she go to the king on the 3rd day and at the same time go after the 3rd day?

They used the Hebrew calendar reckoning for a day and a night.

The day ended at sundown instead of 12 midnight.

So it's actually pointing to the end of that 3rd day, around sundown. At sundown would begin the 4th day.

And there are no contradictions written in God's Word (I refer to the original manuscripts). Yet there are many contradictions that appear in translations. Yet God left us enough Scripture witnesses to confirm even bad translations.

 

[A Freeman]

Esther said that she would fast for 3 days, night or day, and that after doing that, that she would go to the king. However, verse 5:1 says that she went to the king on the 3rd day. How can she go to the king on the 3rd day and at the same time go after the 3rd day?

Ester 4:16-5:1
4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which [is] not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
4:17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.
5:1 Now it came to pass on the third DAY, that Esther put on [her] royal [apparel], and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.

Where does it actually say that she would wait until after fasting for three days, night or day before she would go to the king? The word "after" (or "then...") doesn't appear anywhere in Ester 4:16 or 5:1. It only states that she would neither eat nor drink three days, night or day, and that she would go unto the king.

Esther 4:16 Hebrew Text Analysis

Similarly, where does it say that she broke her fast before the three days were completed? Again it doesn't state that either.

Further, in our current method for keeping time, one day ends at midnight (literally in the middle of the night), when the next day begins. But that isn't how our Creator taught us to keep time.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the First Day.

When the sun sets on one day, the next day begins, so that the night comes before the day (the daylight hours). The change is therefore at sunset, not in the middle of the night. That's why Joseph of Arimathaea and the others hurried to get the body of Jesus down off of the cross and buried in his tomb before sunset, when the High Sabbath (Lev. 23:5-7; John 19:31) began.

So Ester fasted for three nights and at sometime in the third day, close to the end of her fast, it says she "put on [her] royal [apparel], and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house".

It doesn't say she stopped fasting while she waited for the king.

So the only way someone can mistakenly believe there's a contradiction between those two verses, is if they either don't read them properly, or insert their own ideas about what they say, or are looking for controversy where none exists.

(Links removed by staff.)

 

[jswauto]

Actua

John is clearly talking about Jesus. Moses wrote the summary and wasn't likely present, so we can't be sure what Jacob meant. This doesn't bother me.

Isn't this the story where Abraham made up the story of Sarai being his sister so that he wouldn't be killed?


1 Sam 7:50 states that there "was no sword in the hand" it doesn't state that David didn't have a sword.
My focus has been on New Testament and not Old Testament.

1 Samuel 21:

1Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? 2And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. 3Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

7Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.

8And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's business required haste. 9And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

The sword David used to cut off Goliath's head was Goliath's own sword.