Jesus was crucified on Thursday

[FireDragon76]

Jhn 11:9 - Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
12 hours in a day and 12 hours in a night. 3 days equals 72 hours

People in the ancient near east did not count the same way modern people do and they did not count the hours of the day the same either (they didn't even have clocks as we do today). The ninth hour would have been in the afternoon.

 

[BPPLEE]

People in the ancient near east did not count the same way modern people do and they did not count the hours of the day the same either (they didn't even have clocks as we do today). The ninth hour would have been in the afternoon.

I’m not disputing that the 9th hour was in the afternoon. They had to have some way to estimate hours for there to be a 9th hour

 

[FireDragon76]

I’m not disputing that the 9th hour was in the afternoon. They had to have some way to estimate hours for there to be a 9th hour

They usually used the position of the sun. They didn't always have sundials, but sometimes they did. Time back then was somewhat less precise, of course, as a result.

I suspect the 9th hour refers to the 9th hour of daylight. We are used to the AM/PM distinction, but that's just one way of measuring time, one that's relatively recent.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Jhn 11:9 - Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
12 hours in a day and 12 hours in a night. 3 days equals 72 hours

Just because a daytime had 12 hours on a Jewish sundial, doesn't mean every time the word "day" is used in scripture it always is referring to a full 12 hours. In our society today a day is only 12 hours long on the equinox. All other days is either somewhat longer than 12 hours or less than 12 hours. The Jews, on the other hand, used devices similar to sundial, where each hour was counted by the position of the shadow. These devices had to be adjusted throughout the year so there were always 12 hours in a full day. But it doesn't logically follow that when the word "day" is used in literature, that each day had to be 12 hours before it could be counted as a day. If a person died at 3pm then that would be the "first day", even though the day was not yet complete. The Jewish Encyclopedia in its definition of day mentions that even IF a child was born minutes before the end of the day it was considered as one day in the eight day countdown to its circumcision.

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

In summary, yes, there were 12 hours in a day. That doesn't mean if someone died and there was only a short time before the end of the day, that that day would not be counted. The hour of one's death is the "first day" of their death. In our society, day is used in various ways. There are 24 hours in our day but if one worked eight hours and went home, that would be one day of work, even though it did not use all 24 hours.

 

[BPPLEE]

Just because a daytime had 12 hours on a Jewish sundial, doesn't mean every time the word "day" is used in scripture it always is referring to a full 12 hours. In our society today a day is only 12 hours long on the equinox. All other days is either somewhat longer than 12 hours or less than 12 hours. The Jews, on the other hand, used devices similar to sundial, where each hour was counted by the position of the shadow. These devices had to be adjusted throughout the year so there were always 12 hours in a full day. But it doesn't logically follow that when the word "day" is used in literature, that each day had to be 12 hours before it could be counted as a day. If a person died at 3pm then that would be the "first day", even though the day was not yet complete. The Jewish Encyclopedia in its definition of day mentions that even IF a child was born minutes before the end of the day it was considered as one day in the eight day countdown to its circumcision.

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

In summary, yes, there were 12 hours in a day. That doesn't mean if someone died and there was only a short time before the end of the day, that that day would not be counted. The hour of one's death is the "first day" of their death. In our society, day is used in various ways. There are 24 hours in our day but if one worked eight hours and went home, that would be one day of work, even though it did not use all 24 hours.

Great .But Jesus said 3 days and nights
Mat 12:40 - For as Jonas was three days and three-nights in the whale's belly;so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[FireDragon76]

Great .But Jesus said 3 days and nights
Mat 12:40 - For as Jonas was three days and three-nights in the whale's belly;so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

That's an idiomatic expression. It doesn't have the precision you claim it does. Jesus wasn't an analytical philosopher.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Great .But Jesus said 3 days and nights
Mat 12:40 - For as Jonas was three days and three-nights in the whale's belly;so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Yes, that one verse is difficult to harmonize with the Friday to Sunday tradition. I believe the vast majority of the evidence clearly supports the traditional view but Matthew 12:40 cannot be harmonized with that tradition. Atheists love to offer this as a contradiction in the Bible because the rest of the gospels, outside of Matthew 12:40, teach the Friday crucifiixion to Sunday resurrection view. I don't know how to explain Matthew 12:40 to an atheist but I am compelled by the evidence everywhere else in the gospels to take the Friday to Sunday view. If Jesus died on a Wednesday, then Wednesday would be the "first day" and Friday would be the "third day". If Jesus died on a Thursday, then Saturday would be the "third day". So, those days cannot be reconciled with the remaining 99.9% of the verses that deal with the subject of Jesus's resurrection.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

That's an idiomatic expression. It doesn't have the precision you claim it does. Jesus wasn't an analytical philosopher.

FireDragon76,
I have tried hard to prove that Matthew 12:40 is an idiomatic expression for years. I have examined many arguments that claim they can prove it is an idiom but so far they have all failed to do so. This is one verse I cannot reconcile with the Friday to Sunday view as much as I would like to. Someone has suggested to me in the past that it may have been an emendation made by a scribe very early in the history of transcribing the text of Matthew. However, there is no proof and that is what I need, proof. So I just admit I can't reconcile that verse and stick with the 99% of the other verses that deal with Jesus's resurrection which is clearly three days and on the "third day".

 

[FireDragon76]

FireDragon76,
I have tried hard to prove that Matthew 12:40 is an idiomatic expression for years. I have examined many arguments that claim they can prove it is an idiom but so far they have all failed to do so. This is one verse I cannot reconcile with the Friday to Sunday view as much as I would like to. Someone has suggested to me in the past that it may have been an emendation made by a scribe very early in the history of transcribing the text of Matthew. However, there is no proof and that is what I need, proof. So I just admit I can't reconcile that verse and stick with the 99% of the other verses that deal with Jesus's resurrection which is clearly three days and on the "third day".

I think an idiom or a scribal gloss are the most likely explanations.

Of course, some people of a certain religious orientation will never accept it, but it's widely accepted among reputable scholars that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all primarily contain oral traditions. Which fits with the scribal gloss interpretation.

 

[Der Alte]

FireDragon76,
I have tried hard to prove that Matthew 12:40 is an idiomatic expression for years. I have examined many arguments that claim they can prove it is an idiom but so far they have all failed to do so. This is one verse I cannot reconcile with the Friday to Sunday view as much as I would like to. Someone has suggested to me in the past that it may have been an emendation made by a scribe very early in the history of transcribing the text of Matthew. However, there is no proof and that is what I need, proof. So I just admit I can't reconcile that verse and stick with the 99% of the other verses that deal with Jesus's resurrection which is clearly three days and on the "third day".

Where have you looked? How about the O.T.? Here are a few quotes from an 11 page article I came across about 20 yrs ago +/-

Noah: In Genesis 7:4, God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth." But in verse 10 we read, "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."
The marginal reading expresses it as "on the seventh day." Pity the poor chronologer who tries to figure that one out! When did the flood come? In seven days? On the seventh day? Or after seven days? The answer is simple when inclusive reckoning is applied. The day on which God spoke to Noah counted as the first day, and the day on which it started raining was the seventh day. Even if God spoke just ten minutes before the end of that first day, it was still counted as one of the seven. And if it started raining at noon on the last day, it was also counted one of the seven....
Those who insist that Christ was in the grave a full seventy-two hours contend that the three days and three nights must be taken in the fullest literal sense. But such a contention is absolutely contrary to the testimony of the Scriptures. An example of the way the scripture uses the term is found in Esther 4:16. Do not overlook the fact that they were to fast "three days and three nights." Yet Esther 5:1 tells us, "it came to pass on the third day" that they ended their fast. Here is a perfect example of how three days and three nights terminate on the third day!​

I just checked this link is still valid.
Three Days and Three Nights

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Where have you looked? How about the O.T.? Here are a few quotes from an 11 page article I came across about 20 yrs ago +/-

Noah: In Genesis 7:4, God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth." But in verse 10 we read, "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth." ​

The marginal reading expresses it as "on the seventh day." Pity the poor chronologer who tries to figure that one out! When did the flood come? In seven days? On the seventh day? Or after seven days? The answer is simple when inclusive reckoning is applied. The day on which God spoke to Noah counted as the first day, and the day on which it started raining was the seventh day. Even if God spoke just ten minutes before the end of that first day, it was still counted as one of the seven. And if it started raining at noon on the last day, it was also counted one of the seven....​

Those who insist that Christ was in the grave a full seventy-two hours contend that the three days and three nights must be taken in the fullest literal sense. But such a contention is absolutely contrary to the testimony of the Scriptures. An example of the way the scripture uses the term is found in Esther 4:16. Do not overlook the fact that they were to fast "three days and three nights." Yet Esther 5:1 tells us, "it came to pass on the third day" that they ended their fast. Here is a perfect example of how three days and three nights terminate on the third day!​

I just checked this link is still valid.
Three Days and Three Nights

Hi Der Alte,
I know all about inclusive reckoning but that doesn't help prove that three days and three nights is an idiom. I believe in Jewish inclusive reckoning. Friday would be the first day, Saturday would be the second day, and Sunday would be the third day. But no one can prove that Matthew 12:40 is an idiom. Here is something I wrote on this forum back in June.

MESSIANIC GOOD NEWS wrote:
1 Samuel 30:12-14, when David and his men returned to Ziklag on “the third day” (Verse 1). They found the place had been devastated in their absence, and their families and property carried off as spoil by the Amalekites; they found also an Egyptian slave, who had eaten no bread nor drunk water “three days and three nights” (Verse 12); but in the 13th verse we read that it was “three days ago” that he fell sick, and the impression left on the mind is that it was a period of about three days.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
The day the abandoned slave was discovered he told them he fell sick three days ago. If the slave was revived on Sunday afternoon then three days ago would be Thursday daytime. That means three days and three nights would fall neatly between Thursday afternoon and Sunday afternoon. The slave fell sick before he was abandoned by his master. Sometime after he fell sick, say Thursday at sunset, then three days and three nights later would be Sunday daytime, three days and three nights. There is nothing to in this passage to indicate that “three days and three nights” can be reckoned as “two days and two nights”. There isn’t even anything in this passage to indicate that it can be “three days and two nights” so this passage doesn’t help.

MESSIANIC GOOD NEWS wrote:
In Esther 4:16 we read that after Esther had been sufficiently roused by Mordecai to the imminent danger which was threatening, she sent a message to him: “Go, gather all the Jews that are present in Shushan and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days—night and day; I also and my maidens will fast in like manner.” –“But it came to pass on the third day”(Chapter 5:1), and evidently early on that day, that she appeared before Ahasuerus and on that same day we find her already at the “banquet” to which she had invited him and Haman.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
There is no evidence in this passage that Esther and the Jews in Shushan began their fast at daytime so Esther 4:16 and 5:1 does not prove three days and three nights meant something less than three days and three nights such as two days and two nights. In fact, it is highly probable that Esther and the Jews began their fast at night time so when Esther approached the king on the third day then the third night had already occurred, before sunrise on the third day. Again, there is no evidence in the Scriptures that three days is an idiom meaning two days and two nights. I say two days and two nights because Jesus was entombed late Friday afternoon, all of Friday night time, Saturday daytime, and most of Saturday night. The tomb was already empty on Sunday morning before sunrise according to John 20:1.

MESSIANIC GOOD NEWS wrote:
4. It is common legal practice that when a criminal is sentenced to an imprisonment of say three days, if he enters on a Friday afternoon, for instance, before 5 o’clock, he is released on the Monday morning. But has he spent 72 hours in jail? No. Yet he has satisfied the law, and he is legally reckoned as having spent three days in jail.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Actually, according to Hebrew reckoning, Monday morning would be the *fourth* day, not the third. I am discussing Hebrew reckoning. But I get the point. Jesus died late afternoon of Friday. That would be the first day. Saturday would be the second day and Sunday would be the third day. However, I see that sun hadn’t risen on Sunday morning when the tomb was discovered empty. At least according to the book of John. So, if Jesus rose from the dead before sunrise Sunday morning it would be “two days and two nights”.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Der Alte wrote:
Where have you looked? How about the O.T.? Here are a few quotes from an 11 page article I came across about 20 yrs ago +/-

Noah: In Genesis 7:4, God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth." But in verse 10 we read, "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."
The marginal reading expresses it as "on the seventh day." Pity the poor chronologer who tries to figure that one out! When did the flood come? In seven days? On the seventh day? Or after seven days?

SABER TRUTH TIGER
The flood came on the seventh day. In the Bible, "AFTER three days" was interchangeable with the "third day". We can see this clearly in the Christian Greek Scriptures. When you use a harmony of the Gospels and compare Mark 8:31 and 9:31 with the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke you will find that the gospel writers used "after three days" and "the third day" interchangeably. It is also worthy to note that even in our regular use "after three days" can sometimes be interchangeable with "the third day." If I went to jail on Monday morning and I was released on Weddnesday afternoon it can be said "after three days in jail I returned home". This can actually be said. After three days must be examined for context because it doesn't always mean "the fourth day". When Jesus rose from the dead on the third day it can also be said to be "after three days in the tomb, he resurrected from the dead" even if the third day was incomplete. So, IN three days, ON the seventh day, and yes, AFTER seven days. They all fit in the Biblical narrative.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I think an idiom or a scribal gloss are the most likely explanations.

Of course, some people of a certain religious orientation will never accept it, but it's widely accepted among reputable scholars that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all primarily contain oral traditions. Which fits with the scribal gloss interpretation.

I too, think it was an emmendation or a scribal gloss but I cannot prove it. All I know is 99% of the verses that deal with Jesus's resurrection clearly place the crucifixion on the day before the weekly Sabbath and his resurrection on the first day of the week, Sunday. Many people will often point out "Oh, that's a tradition, and traditions are almost always wrong." I don't know for a fact that almost all traditions are wrong but I do know the Friday to Sunday tradition is very likely correct. There are a couple of other references to the sign of Jonah in the gospels and neither of them mention anything about it being "three days and three nights". One of them claims that there would be no sign at all given to the Pharisees.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, that one verse is difficult to harmonize with the Friday to Sunday tradition. I believe the vast majority of the evidence clearly supports the traditional view but Matthew 12:40 cannot be harmonized with that tradition. Atheists love to offer this as a contradiction in the Bible because the rest of the gospels, outside of Matthew 12:40, teach the Friday crucifiixion to Sunday resurrection view. I don't know how to explain Matthew 12:40 to an atheist but I am compelled by the evidence everywhere else in the gospels to take the Friday to Sunday view. If Jesus died on a Wednesday, then Wednesday would be the "first day" and Friday would be the "third day". If Jesus died on a Thursday, then Saturday would be the "third day". So, those days cannot be reconciled with the remaining 99.9% of the verses that deal with the subject of Jesus's resurrection.

With Saturday being the 3rd day at sundown the new day started. That would be the first day of the week.
But I’m not going to spend any more time debating this. It makes no difference which day it was, it only matters that Jesus rose from the dead

 

[Der Alte]

Hi Der Alte,
I know all about inclusive reckoning but that doesn't help prove that three days and three nights is an idiom. I believe in Jewish inclusive reckoning. Friday would be the first day, Saturday would be the second day, and Sunday would be the third day. But no one can prove that Matthew 12:40 is an idiom. Here is something I wrote on this forum back in June. ...[quotes from other members omitted]

IOW "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh." Did you read the entire 11 page article I linked to? But we are still ignoring where Jesus used 3 different terms to refer to the same event, "three days and three nights," "in three days," and "after three days." Something there is certainly an idiom. All 4 gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on "parasceue" which we call Friday. It is clearly before the weekly Sabbath the only Sabbath in passion week. Here are all the vss. with the three references.
Third day: Mat 16:21, Mat 17:23, Mat 20:19, Mat 27:64, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 13:32, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:7, Luk 24:46, Act 10:40, 1Co 15:4
In 3 days: Mat 26:6, 1Mat 27:40, Mar 15:29, Joh 2:19, Joh 2:20
After three days: Mat 27:63, Mar 8:31, Luk 2:46

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Der Alte wrote:
IOW "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh."

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Where did I say, in any words, that YOU are wrong and I am right? Please show me where I even imply that? I actually agree with you that Jesus die on a Friday and rose from the dead on early morning Sunday. I just don't agree that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. YOU however. disagree with me. So, tell me, if I disagree with you about x then that means I am saying "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh" But, if you disagree with me about x, for some reason that is NOT you saying "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh"? Can you explain this discrepancy?

DER ALTE
Did you read the entire 11 page article I linked to? But we are still ignoring where Jesus used 3 different terms to refer to the same event, "three days and three nights," "in three days," and "after three days." Something there is certainly an idiom. All 4 gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on "parasceue" which we call Friday. It is clearly before the weekly Sabbath the only Sabbath in passion week. Here are all the vss. with the three references.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
I read the entire article a long time ago and I agree with most of it, you know, the part about Jesus being crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday. All I disagree with is that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. I disagree with you and it's You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh." Yet you disagree with me and for some reason it's NOT You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh."

DER ALTE
Third day: Mat 16:21, Mat 17:23, Mat 20:19, Mat 27:64, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 13:32, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:7, Luk 24:46, Act 10:40, 1Co 15:4
In 3 days: Mat 26:6, 1Mat 27:40, Mar 15:29, Joh 2:19, Joh_2:20
After three days: Mat 27:63, Mar 8:31, Luk 2:46

SABER TRUTH TIGER
I have read all those verses many many times over the last fifty years (since 1974) and I agree with all of them except that other verse Matthew 12:40 in which I find no idiom. If you want to discuss this further, I would suggest you provide me with your evidence that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. There is no need to repeat the verses above because I agree with all of them.

 

[Der Alte]

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Where did I say, in any words, that YOU are wrong and I am right? Please show me where I even imply that? I actually agree with you that Jesus die on a Friday and rose from the dead on early morning Sunday. I just don't agree that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. YOU however. disagree with me. So, tell me, if I disagree with you about x then that means I am saying "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh" But, if you disagree with me about x, for some reason that is NOT you saying "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh"? Can you explain this discrepancy?

IOW means "in other words," saying essentially the same thing with different words. A better way to quote separate paragraphs is place your cursor at the end of the section and press "enter" the selected section will appear in a separate quote block.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

IOW means "in other words," saying essentially the same thing with different words. A better way to quote separate paragraphs is place your cursor at the end of the section and press "enter" the selected section will appear in a separate quote block.

Yes, in other words, "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh." In any other words you state it, it still is inappropriate to make that comment to someone who disagrees with you, if they are disagreeing respectfully. Can you provide me a reason, why, in other words "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh." applies to me? Thanks for your information in replying to someone's post.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, in other words, "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh." In any other words you state it, it still is inappropriate to make that comment to someone who disagrees with you, if they are disagreeing respectfully. Can you provide me a reason, why, in other words "You are wrong and I'm right, am too, nuh huh." applies to me? Thanks for your information in replying to someone's post.

Only if the other person says "That is incorrect because <reasons>. In the 11 page article I linked several OT instances were listed where day references did not agree.

Noah: In Genesis 7:4, God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth." But in verse 10 we read, "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."​

​

Joseph: Further proof for inclusive reckoning is seen in Joseph's dealing with his brethren. Genesis 42:17-19 says "He put them all together into ward three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; ... go ye. ..."
Taxes: Consider also the tax issue between King Rehoboam and the people. 2 Chronicles 10:5,12 says, "Come again unto me after three days. ... So ... all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day."​

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Only if the other person says "That is incorrect because <reasons>. In the 11 page article I linked several OT instances were listed where day references did not agree.

Noah: In Genesis 7:4, God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth." But in verse 10 we read, "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."​

These do not conflict. I have already mentioned this type of usage elsewhere in this thread. "In seven days" and "AFTER seven days" do not necessarily contradict. Take Mark 8:31 and 9:31 and you will see the inspired writer uses "after three days". Then, grab yourself a Harmony of the Gospels and check the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke and you will see that "after three days" and "the third day" are interchangeable. That's because with Jewish inclusive reckoning part of a day would be counted in a number of days. Imagine I was thrown into jail on a Monday morning and released on a Wednesday afternoon. It would not be improper to say. "after three days in jail I was released". The expression "after x days" does not always mean "x + 1" as in the fourth day instead of the third day. The scriptures are very flexible when it comes to expressing a number of days in a count. So, "yet seven days" and "after seven days" do not confflict, they are supplemental.​

These do not conflict. I have already mentioned this type of usage elsewhere in this thread. "In seven days" and "AFTER seven days" do not necessarily contradict. Take Mark 8:31 and 9:31 and you will see the inspired writer uses "after three days". Then, grab yourself a Harmony of the Gospels and check the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke and you will see that "after three days" and "the third day" are interchangeable. That's because with Jewish inclusive reckoning part of a day would be counted in a number of days. Imagine I was thrown into jail on a Monday morning and released on a Wednesday afternoon. It would not be improper to say. "after three days in jail I was released". The expression "after x days" does not always mean "x + 1" as in the fourth day instead of the third day. The scriptures are very flexible when it comes to expressing a number of days in a count. So, "yet seven days" and "after seven days" do not confflict, they are supplemental.

Joseph: Further proof for inclusive reckoning is seen in Joseph's dealing with his brethren. Genesis 42:17-19 says "He put them all together into ward three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; ... go ye. ..."​

Taxes: Consider also the tax issue between King Rehoboam and the people. 2 Chronicles 10:5,12 says, "Come again unto me after three days. ... So ... all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day."​

This poses no problem, because three days is interchangeable with "after three days". In Jewish reckoning a part of a day can be counted as a whole day. So, if Joseph put his brothers into the ward three days then on the third day they would be released. If he put them into ward on Sunday, the first day of the week and kept them in there for three days then Monday would be the second day and Tuesday would be on the third day. After spending a few hours in ward on Tuesday the partial day could be counted as three days, not two and a half.

Once again, read the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for the word "Day".

DAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Just read this and you will see the truth. We agree, just not that "three days and three nights" is an idiom that means "two days and two nights".

Thanks for reading.