Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
rstrats

Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

Recommended Posts

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (circa A.D. 100), said, "A day and a night make an ’onah [a twenty-four hour period], and the portion of an ’onah is reckoned as a complete ’onah."

 

H. L. Ellison in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), p. 375. Ellison credits the quote to j Shabbath 9.12a.

 

 

The primary meaning of onah is a 12-hour period of daytime or a period of night. But, literally, it means a period of time. Either way, the word isn't in the Bible.

 

I tried to track down the above quote, but couldn't find it. I'm sure it's out of context, inaccurate, and written long after 100 AD. The closest I found is Mas. Shabbath 86a and the topic is ceremonial uncleanness resulting from a woman's period. And, like much of the Talmud, it's a discussion between conflicting view of different Jewish authorities. If the above quote has any truth with it, it probably has to do with Talmudic ceremony, not with any idiom. But, what I actually found is, according to rabbi R. Akiba, "It is always five onahs. And if part of the first onah has gone, a part of the sixth onah is given her." So, by this one rabbi, however far into the day when a woman's period starts, she is unclean until that far into the sixth onah. So, a woman is unclean for exactly 60 hours (and is clean after that, even if she's still bleeding, so says the rabbi R. Eleazar). (The Bible says a woman is unclean for 7 days, I guess the Talmudists don't want to abstain that long).

 

THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IS NOT AN IDIOM. It means three days and three nights. Or, six onahs, if you insist.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Then how is it, if Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, he was 3 days (daytimes) in the ground when He was only in the ground for 2 days (daytimes) and a tiny bit of 1 day before and a tiny bit of 1 day after. Those very tiny bits of time on the two days on either side of the 3 nights hardly make for a full day (daytime) for the 3rd day you require.

 

3 days is not 60 hours, and honestly it does not seem logical to assert that what happens rabbinically concerning women during their periods can be simply applied to Jesus' words as if they were one and the same. There must be a legitimate connection. As you can see, they changed what the bible said, so I don't think their words on the period of uncleanliness of a woman during her period when they shorten the 7 day (168 hours) period required in the bible to 60 hours can be applied.

 

God said 7 days, rabbis said 60 hours, that's less than 3 days.

 

I do not believe Jesus was concerned with how rabbi's interpreted God's word to mean something other than what God said to be in any way controlling what Jesus Himself said on this matter.

 

 

Honestly I can see nothing logical in denying it's an idiom. But I realize you do, so perhaps this is something we will have to agree to disagree about.

 

 

Edited by thereselittleflower

Share this post


Link to post
God said 7 days, rabbis said 60 hours, that's less than 3 days.

 

Talmudists don't follow the Bible, as secular observation. Also, Jesus explained that those who reject him don't believe Moses and the Prophets.

 

I was refuting, with the Talmud the argument attributed to the Talmud that the any part of a day counts as a whole day.

 

The chapter of the Talmud I was referring to does't equate 60 hours with three days. In other words, it just simply says that part of a day isn't whole day in counting to their man-made standard of 2.5 days of uncleanness. Also, the chapter doesn't equate 60 hours with a 7 days.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Here's another line of evidence that Traditional Friday crucifixion is wrong and Wednesday is right:

 

According to John, Jesus was where John the Baptist baptized, on the other side of the Jordan, a long way from Jerusalem (John 10:40) . Jesus then traveled to Bethany six days before the Passover (John 12:1). Then the next day (John 12:12) Jesus enters Jerusalem, which is right next to Bethany. Four days later Jesus is crucified (doing the math, and John only provides details to fill in four days of events).

 

According to tradition, Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday, meaning he traveled to Bethany on the Sabbath. And, then on Friday Jesus was crucified. Friday is five days after Sunday, which contradict's John's timeline of four days. Also, the journey to Bethany was too long to be made on the Sabbath (Acts 1:12).

 

My position is that Jesus traveled to Bethany on Friday, a distance not too far for a non-Sabbath day. The Triumphal entry, a short trip from Bethany, was on Saturday. Four days later, on Wednesday, Jesus was crucified. Saturday, about sunset, maybe just after, Jesus rose. Three literal days and three literal nights in the tomb, the tomb that was discovered empty Sunday morning.

 

Wednesday fits. Nothing else fits. The only biblical argument for Friday I've seen from supporters of Friday is by alleging a contradiction between statements about how long Jesus would be in the tomb. And, then they offer to resolve this fabricated contradiction by saying "three days and three nights" is an idiom. I've already provided several reasons why that isn't an idiom. Besides, there's no contradiction to fix. "The third day" is substantially the same as "three days and three nights when we're at the end of the third day.

 

The more I look into this, the more unacceptable a Friday crucifixion looks.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

And yet, as we talked about before, there is absolutely not one shred of evidence for a Wed crucifixion in the ECF's starting with those who lived right after the apostles in the early 2nd century.

 

If Jesus was indeed crucified on a Wed, they would know and we would see evidence of such claims in the ECF's. Yet such evidence is entirely lacking.

 

In fact there are none who even say anything specific about Thursday either, but there are those who specifically speak of Friday as the crucifixion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Despite this, in ancient Jewish usage, we find this:

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (circa A.D. 100), said, "A day and a night make an ’onah [a twenty-four hour period], and
the portion of an ’onah is reckoned as a complete ’onah.
"

 

H. L. Ellison in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), p. 375. Ellison credits the quote to j Shabbath 9.12a.

I posted about this in post #11

 

The Talmud was written by mentally-challenged Satanists. No one has any business quoting it except to expose it. All other quotes I’ve ever seen are misquotes. I tracted down this quote, and this time is no exception.

 

Several rabbis are debating how long menstruating women are dirty. Two rabbis define “onah” as the period of night, or the period of daylight. Another rabbi, Eleazar, appears to define onah as a whole day, although I’m not clear that is the intent. If it is the intent, he’s in the minority.

 

The first rabbi says a part of an onah is just a part of an onah. Eleazar takes another position, that a portion of an onah is reckoned as a full onah. But, then he elaborates that a small portion of an onah isn’t reckoned as a full onah! So, a small part of Friday and a small part of Sunday would not count. By Eleazar’s reckoning, Friday evening to Sunday morning would have been one day, not three.

 

But, Eleazar doesn’t mean that more than a small part of a day counts as a whole day. He means that if woman bleeds for part of a day, she is ceremonially unclean for the whole day. This has nothing to do with counting a duration of part of a day as the duration of a full day, as in claiming the time Jesus spent on the tomb on Friday count as a whole Friday in the tomb.

 

Those websites using Eleazar’s quote to defend the Friday crucifixion are dishonest, or incompetent, for not checking the context of the quote, which is doubly inexcusable as the source is the Talmud. “Three days and three nights” is not an idiom. Jesus was crucified on Wednesday.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

What happened to the testimony of the earliest christians as to when Jesus was crucified as our best witness given how the calendars are so inexact? We do we not have any evidence from the ECF;s that Jesus was crucified on a Wed?

 

Do people today, divorced from the language, culture and customs of those christians who lived 2000 years ago, know better than they did what actually happened?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I gave a couple early church witnesses that Jesus was arrested on Wednesday. They still said Jesus was crucified on Friday, but the Bible reveals that Jesus was crucified on the same day he was arrested. For Protestants, the statements of the early church fathers are a pale second place to the Bible, and they don't stand at all if they contradict the Bible. A Friday crucifixion contradicts many biblical details about the day of Jesus' death.

 

Another line of evidence is that Jews believed the spirit stays with the body for three days. If Jesus returned before three days had passed, the Jews would just claim he hadn't died and point to the timing of his return as proof. Trying to argue that Friday evening to Sunday morning is three days and nights by alleged idiom is one thing, but it's still only a day as far as proving Jesus was dead.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus was arrested before light, in the morning, and by sunset the same day he was dead. That's how the Bible records it.

 

Another reason the Passover Sabbath might be on Wednesday is because the Jewish leaders would want to avoid a double Sabbath and avoid two Sabbaths in a row. Two Sabbaths in a row would be a hardship (two days in a row of no work, including no cooking) and a double Sabbath would would cause one Sabbath to eclipse the other (only one Sabbath actually gets observed). Remember, before the 4th-century AD, the Jews had no preset calendar. The leaders would determine the start of the year and the months.

Share this post


Link to post
If he was arrested on a Wed then he couldn't have died on a Wed

Actually if he was arrested on Wednesday he would have died on Wednesday. The Jews considered sunset to be the beginning of a new day. Jesus was arrested after sunset of the day of the Last Supper. This was considered to be the next day by Jewish reckoning. The various trials and hearing he underwent took place during the night and early the next day, and he was crucified during the day. Regardless of what day you think he was crucified on, his arrest and death took place the same day by the Jewish calendar.

Share this post


Link to post

As we continue to pile on the reasons why Jesus died Wednesday, not Friday, here's another consideration from the Bible.

 

Jesus said, in John 2:19, and elsewhere, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." In three days? Within three days? The Greek word translated "in" means "through" (by means of). Jesus, really speaking of his time in the tomb, said "through three days".

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry my friends, but I think my continued participation going over the same things I have said before is just an endless circle with no end. Without clear testimony from the earliest christians, who learned from the Apostles on forward, that Jesus died on a Wed, I find this all to be simply idle speculation. I truly see no edification coming from continuing to split hairs on words, etc especially when there is no clear, explicit historical evidence for such interpretations of scripture for a Wed crucifixion, and there is such evidence for a Friday crucifixion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

thereselittleflower,

re: "If you're not asking for proof of a full 72 hours, then where is the argument against 3 days and 3 nights not being an idiom, a synecdoche?"

 

I agree that Matthew 12:40 cannot be saying that 3 complete 24 hour calendar days would be involved with the duration of the Messiah's time in the "heart of the earth". It indeed has to be using idiomatic non-literal language since scripture shows that 3 complete 24 hour calendar days could not have taken place. And I agree that it is common usage because there are a number of scriptures which do the same thing. The OP is not questioning that. However, there are those - usually the 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates - who say that the verse is also using common idiomatic, non-literal language when it says that 3 night times would be involved. I am simply asking for actual examples to support the assertion that it was common to say that a daytime or night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

 

With regard to your comments on rabbi Azariah, even if they were valid, they don't provide actual examples of what is requested.

 

 

 

 

re: "...in English when we say forever, we rarely mean eternity: 'I waited forever for my meal'"

 

But can that mean that no part of forever was involved with the wait?

 

 

 

re: " The real question is, is it an idiom or not, not how common it is."

 

That's an issue for another topic. For the express purpose of this one, I'm only interested in what has been requested.

Share this post


Link to post
I am simply asking for actual examples to support the assertion that it was common to say that a daytime or night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

 

 

It's not common. It's not an idiom. Not at all. Rabbi Eleazar's quote is shamefully taken way out of context, and is of absolutely no help for those who want to count a small part of a day as a whole day. Esther and the Jews did fast for three days and three nights. She just planned with the king to break the fast before the end of the third day, which would have been a meal at sunset (the start of the fourth day, when Sabbath feasts are normally eaten). It's absurd for anyone to argue that she should have waited a fourth night before going to the king to plan breaking the three day fast to prove she literally meant three nights.

 

Technically, it can't be shown that Jesus spent even one minute of Friday or Sunday in the tomb. The Hebrew day was typically broken into morning, the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours, and evening. Without clocks, that's pretty much the precision of their time keeping. Jesus was still on the cross in the evening (Matthew 27:57). And, Sunday morning, Jesus had already risen. Really, we should count the complete end of Friday as a whole day and night, or even as the first day??

 

It's really quite obtuse for anyone to think that a people would hold such a confusing idiom as counting a small part of a day as a whole day, or counting two nights and a day as "three days and three nights" (easily the most important phrase in the Bible regarding how long Jesus would be in the tomb).

 

If you want to speak of idioms, take Matthew 27:63-64, where we're reminded on the Sabbath (the day after the crucifixion) that Jesus said he would rise "after three days" and on the Sabbath day, Pilate responds by having the tomb be made secure "until the third day." The word "until" is used inclusively in the Bible. So, until the third day would mean through the third day. E.g. Matthew 14:32 where Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemane, tells the disciples to sit until he prays, except your translation uses the word "while". Or, Matthew 11:13 where Jesus said all the prophets and the law prophesied until John to Baptist; John prophesied too. It really was their idiom (grammar) to use the Greek word for "until" inclusively of the event that the "until" leads to. Ironically, Friday apologists use Matthew 27:63-64 to argue that "after three days" really means two days (and, still, they think Jesus only spent one day in the tomb).

 

When Jesus explains that he's going to rebuild the Temple "in three days", the Greek word he uses isn't "in", but "through." It's funny that the Friday apologists love to quote "on the third day", while they emphasis the word "on", a word that doesn't even appear in the Greek of the quoted phrase. I have no reason to doubt that "third day" implies a time inclusiveness of three days, even if this is not always the case. Not "on the third day", but "[through] the third day."

 

I'm not saying I've perfect answers for every challenge that can be raised for a Wednesday crucifixion. But, Friday is completely unworkable. There were two Sabbaths. The women appeared to have bought and prepared spices in a day between the two Sabbaths. The timeline puts the crucifixion at four days, not five days required by tradition, after the Triumphal entry, an entry itself which would have been on Saturday, not Sunday, because the previous day's journey was too long to make on the Sabbath. The biblical account of the Passion week only gives details to account for four days, not five days. And, it's not, not, not, not, not, not, not an idiom to count two nights and a day as three days and three nights.

 

BTW, before this topic came up in this forum, I had no opinion on what day Jesus was crucified. I knew of the contradiction of Friday tradition vs. three days, but I hadn't given it any thought.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
thereselittleflower,

re: "If you're not asking for proof of a full 72 hours, then where is the argument against 3 days and 3 nights not being an idiom, a synecdoche?"

 

I agree that Matthew 12:40 cannot be saying that 3 complete 24 hour calendar days would be involved with the duration of the Messiah's time in the "heart of the earth". It indeed has to be using idiomatic non-literal language since scripture shows that 3 complete 24 hour calendar days could not have taken place. And I agree that it is common usage because there are a number of scriptures which do the same thing. The OP is not questioning that. However, there are those - usually the 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates - who say that the verse is also using common idiomatic, non-literal language when it says that 3 night times would be involved. I am simply asking for actual examples to support the assertion that it was common to say that a daytime or night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

 

With regard to your comments on rabbi Azariah, even if they were valid, they don't provide actual examples of what is requested.

 

 

 

 

re: "...in English when we say forever, we rarely mean eternity: 'I waited forever for my meal'"

 

But can that mean that no part of forever was involved with the wait?

 

 

 

re: " The real question is, is it an idiom or not, not how common it is."

 

That's an issue for another topic. For the express purpose of this one, I'm only interested in what has been requested.

 

If we agree that it is idiomatic language than I don't see the relevance of the question. It is or is not idiomatic. With that settled, there is nothing more that would be of import. It would just be a curiosity.

 

Share this post


Link to post

thereselittleflower,

re: "If we agree that it is idiomatic language than I don't see the relevance of the question. It is or is not idiomatic."

 

 

But was it common to say that a daytime or a night time was to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could actually take place?

 

 

BTW, you have a question directed to you in post #39.

 

Share this post


Link to post

As I said I don't see the point in the question(s) except as one of curiosity such as how many camels can dance on the head of a pin (or however it's stated). IMHO this becomes idle speculation I choose not to engage in further. It brings no edification or benefit to our souls.

Share this post


Link to post

thereselittleflower,

re: "As I said I don't see the point in the question(s) except as one of curiosity such as how many camels can dance on the head of a pin (or however it's stated). IMHO this becomes idle speculation"

 

 

So it seems. Since no one has so far provided any writing to support their assertion that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language, they must be making their assertion on idle speculation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
So it seems. Since no one has so far provided any writing to support their assertion that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language, they must be making their assertion on idle speculation.

 

The most emphatic statement in all the Bible about how long Jesus would spend in the tomb is the passage with the phrase "three days and three nights." It's irresponsible for websites to claim this is idiomatic language, for reasons already explained. As far as I can tell, the impetuous of "Friday" simply comes from not distinguishing a Passover Sabbath from a Saturday Sabbath, so that "before the Sabbath" is taken to mean Friday, even though there's no doubt that there was a Passover Sabbath that week.

Share this post


Link to post

With the new year upon us, maybe there will be someone new looking in who knows of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts. And again, remember that the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. As stated, there are other topics that do that. However, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language such as the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when He knew that it would only be for 2 nights. But in order to say that it was common, one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern had to have been used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
. However, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language such as the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when He knew that it would only be for 2 nights.

 

Yes, to reiterate what I've already posted:

 

Idioms that are not meant to be taken literally, but which look like they could be taken literally simply do not exist. If you find one, it's the exception that proves the rule. They don't exist because they're too confusing. Jesus wouldn't have said "three days and three nights" if he "meant one day and two nights" because of the high chance of confusing his audience (like us, who think he meant three days and three nights). The Jewish culture wouldn't have had this idiom because it would be too confusing.

 

Non-literal idioms are generally reserved to casual speech, and Jesus wasn't speaking casually.

 

There also is no use of "three days and three nights" as an idiom in the historical record. The claims to the country are, to say the least, incompetent, as I've already demonstrated. No, not in the Old Testament and not in Talmud, contrary to what some websites claim. Anyone who wishes to establish this as an historical idiom should quote the idiomatic use in context, and explain why it can't be literal. For example, if you point out someone went on a three day and three night fast, and then that someone, on the third day, invites someone else to a banquet, explain why the banquet can't be after the third day, such as after sunset when Hebrews reckon a new day starts, and when feasts are traditionally held after a day of preparation. It does take an exemption level of obtuseness to not be able to distinguish the timing of the invitation from time timing of the feast, not to mention being ignorant of the Hebrew practice of having feasts after sunset, deliberately the day after preparation.

 

Not only is it not a "common idiom", it's not an idiom at all, not even close. Only the OJ jury can think there's still a reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Cornelius,

re: "Not only is it not a 'common idiom', it's not an idiom at all..."

 

 

 

 

Tell that to the 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Reduced Sentence for Sexual Predators Becoming More Common

      By American Media Institute - By Max Diamond, RealClearInvestigations After Jessica Lynn Kanya attempted to sexually abuse a 14-year-old child, she was sentenced to 36 months in prison last March. But Lynn served none of that time behind bars when District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Hiram E. Puig-Lago decided to suspend her sentence. Such leniency is common in Washington, D.C., RealClearInvestigations has found, because of the difficulty of making cases and the alternative to jail presented by the sex-offender registry. Since 2000, almost half of sex offenders convicted in the nation’s capital — the vast majority child-sex offenders — have had their sentences cut in half or suspended altogether. Judges do not comment on their rulings, but an analysis of the records of 364 D.C. offenders convicted since 2000 shows that such sentencing is a pervasive practice by more than a dozen judges, who are appointed and not elected. Sentences are often suspended not just for crimes such as sexually touching a child, which carries jail time of 180 days. In dozens of cases, adult offenders facing years in prison received suspended sentences. The case files, in which the sex of the victims and other details are commonly withheld, include: Alfred Jerome Dockery, charged with sexually penetrating a 14-year-old, was sentenced to 42 months in prison. Judge Geoffrey M. Alprin suspended the entire sentence. Dominique Anthony Annice, in her early 30s at the time, charged with sexually abusing a 6-year-old. After being sentenced to 30 months in prison, Judge Robert E. Morin suspended her sentence. Melvin L. Cromer, who according to the charge “engaged in a sexual act” with a 14-year-old and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. Judge Erik P. Christian suspended his sentence. John Anthony, who according to the charge had anal sex with a 10-year-old girl, was initially charged with first-degree child sex abuse. After pleading guilty to a lower charge, he was sentenced to 60 months in prison. But Judge Wendell P. Gardner suspended almost the entire sentence, and Anthony only had to serve six months. Although there is no national database recording the resolutions of alleged child-sex crimes, experts say Washington faces the same challenges in prosecuting such crimes as everywhere else. The reduced sentences reflect the difficulties and peculiarities of prosecuting crimes involving children and sex. Unreliable Little Witnesses These include the challenges of using children – notoriously unreliable as witnesses and prone to trauma – in prosecutions that often lack physical evidence. And, unlike most other offenses, the penalty for sex crimes cannot be measured just through the length of sentences. Almost always there is an additional sanction that can shadow offenders for life: placement on a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry. James Marsh, a New York-based lawyer who specializes in representing child victims, said there is a tension in such cases “between re-traumatizing the victim through the criminal justice system and obtaining the strongest possible sentence against the perpetrator.” Deborah Tuerkheimer, professor of law at Northwestern University and a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said a further complication is the relationship built up over time between child and adult. Sometimes the adult has threatened the child, and other times the adult has been good to the child. “Sometimes the child will even cover up for the abuser,” said Tuerkheimer. “There are psychological reasons why sometimes the children ally themselves with the abuser. Those behaviors can be used against the child and undermine the child’s story.” But even if a child can testify, that does not entirely solve a prosecutor’s problems, especially given the unlikelihood of there being much solid evidence, like DNA, said Marsh. Sometimes the prosecution is able to get evidence such as text communications “that the offender might have with the victim, or images that they took of the victim that shows criminal activity,” said David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center and a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire. “But physical evidence is often not available.” Given this difficulty, the prosecutor has to ask himself, “Can I win before a jury?” said Marsh. And, “If I can’t, what is the best I can get from this in terms of a sentence, plea deal, and long-term outcomes?” Such complications help explain why sex crimes against children – like most crimes in the criminal justice system – are resolved by a plea deal rather than trial. The prosecutors cannot be sure of conviction, and the accused, even if they believe they are innocent or can win at trial, have a powerful incentive to make the case go away. Prison or the Registry? Except, of course, it doesn’t, which is the unique complication of such sex offenses: Even convicts with a suspended sentence get placed on a sex offender registry – sometimes for years, but often for life. The FBI lists 55 such registries encompassing the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. Their existence forces lawyers, judges, and activists in the criminal justice system to ask: How do we want to punish offenders — through prison or through the registry? “If a prosecutor can get a plea bargain that places [the convict] on the sex offender registry, that is viewed as a good outcome,” said Marsh. If a judge is looking at a first-time offender, and there has been testimony from a psychologist or psychiatrist that the accused not likely to re-offend, “a judge might say, ‘I’m not going to lock this person up,’” said G. Allen Dale, a criminal defense attorney in D.C. who has handled many sex offender cases.  “What purpose would that serve?” But some criminal justice activists worry that while the registry can keep offenders out of prison, it is also a mark that prevents convicts from getting on with their lives. It “makes it impossible for people to reintegrate. It’s like social banishment, social death,” said Emily Horowitz, professor of sociology and criminal justice at St. Francis College in Brooklyn Heights, N.Y. “The registry publicly outs people,” she said. “Once your picture is up there, you can’t get most jobs, you can’t live a lot of places. You won’t get over whatever it is you did.” Being a registered sex offender not only creates problems for the convict, but also for his or her family. “If you have children of your own, it’s a nightmare,” said Dale. “Sometimes you have to have supervision of your own children.” Plus, an offender can’t own a firearm, regularly has to pass polygraph tests, has to clear vacation plans with local authorities, and has to get permission to move from a probation officer, said Dale. “I’ve had clients whose kids have been picked on by other kids – ‘Your daddy’s a pervert,’” he noted. But the registries are deeply entrenched because the public considers them necessary, legal experts say. A Public Demand “The policies exist because the public feels that it has a right to know, and they need to know” about offenders, said Andrew J. Harris, a professor in the school of criminology and justice studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. William Dobbs, a lawyer and criminal justice activist, attributes this attitude to the “can’t stop, won’t stop mythology” – the idea that such offenders are almost guaranteed to reoffend. “The truth is the reoffense is among the lowest of any category of offenses,” he said. Marsh disputes this, calling the claim “absurd.” He argues that studies showing low recidivism rates among sex offenders are due to the fact that “it is a crime that is underreported.” As for the 10 percent of offenders who officially do tend to reoffend, “there’s very little evidence to suggest the sex offender registry reduces recidivism,” said forensic psychologist Liam Ennis. Finkelhor, on the other hand, notes that sex offenses have declined 60 to 70 percent since the registries were introduced in 1992. The registry is just one of the many factors — along with the difficulties of child witnesses and scant evidence — that judges and prosecutors have to weigh in such complicated and incendiary cases. Judges are “typically very concerned about protecting the rights of the accused” in an atmosphere that often demonizes them, said Finkelhor. Striking the right balance is not easy. “Judges across the board are very worried about being maligned in the public eye as being soft on crime,” said Horowitz. “There’s always so much blowback when the media runs with a story about someone getting a light sentence for anything – but anything with sex is like radioactive, and child sex is radioactive times 10.” Source: American Media Institute Reduced Sentence for Sexual Predators Becoming More Common is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Language: English

      A Guatemalan family is suing Universal Orlando Resort following the death of the family's 38-year-old father, calling the park negligent for not providing ride warning signs in Spanish.  In 2016, Jose Calderon Arana had a fatal heart attack after going on "Skull Island: Reign of Kong." He had previous heart problems and didn't speak English, according to the wrongful death lawsuit the family filed this month.    Calderon Arana, who ran a farming operation owned by his family, didn’t feel well after going on the Skull Island ride — his wife thought he had an upset stomach, according to the lawsuit.  He took a break on a bench while his wife and son went another ride. He had collapsed by the time they came back and was taken to a hospital where he later died, said the lawsuit, which also claims there was a delay in rendering aid to Calderon Arana after he collapsed.  A sign at the entrance of the ride says in English, "Warning! This ride is an expedition through the rough terrain of King Kong’s natural habitat. The movement of the truck is dynamic with sudden accelerations, dramatic tilting and jarring actions." It warns that people with heart conditions or abnormal blood pressure, back or neck conditions, and expectant mothers shouldn’t go on the ride.    The family’s personal injury attorney, Lou Pendas, said it’s not unreasonable to have ride warning signs in English, Spanish and French so visitors can make informed decisions about whether they should go on the ride.  Regarding precedent, Pendas told USA TODAY that the argument isn't whether there have been other cases where juries have ruled or concluded whether it's reasonable to include disclosures in multiple languages, but about what is reasonable and what is prudent.   Although it’s difficult to gauge what percentage of visitors to central Florida’s theme parks don’t speak English, local tourism figures show that 6.1 million of metro  Orlando’s 72 million visitors in 2017 came from outside the United States. "This isn’t a crazy request or expectation. It’s actually quite basic in this day and age," Pendas said . "You are asking for international travelers. This is a mecca for tourism. This is a very basic thing that should be thought of for the safety of patrons." https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2018/12/30/family-sues-universal-orlando-resort-over-english-only-warning-signs/2444935002/      I didn't post the entire article, but pieces of it. The full article can be found at the link above.    I am sorry that this gentleman died.     I think in this day and age (and in particular in the United States) people ought to learn at least basic English skills. If (in the US) we are to cater to certain other languages where does it end (or does it end?) - Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, German, Russian, Arabic, etc., etc. What is to stop someone whose native language isn't written from suing? If we cater to a few languages then won't other people who speak differently feel discriminated against?    With all the international travel in English, television shows in English, books, newspapers, movies and even the internet you are now using there is simply no excuse not to learn basic English. It is the international language.    

      in Political Conservative News

    • The Heart Language in a Globalizing World

      At the 2010 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelism, two Americans, Cindi Walsh and Noël Piper, enjoyed meeting an English-speaking Christian sister from Iraq who sat next to them in the plenary sessions. The three women also worshipped together in English until the chorus of each song, when leaders selected another language. When a chorus began in Arabic, the Iraqi woman jumped up and down and turned to the Americans exclaiming, “This is my language! This is how I worship God.” “She was more exuberant in her worship,” Cindi said. She and Noël gained a greater appreciation for the translation projects of organizations like TGC. They had observed that language is extremely personal. Choosing to speak or write in a particular language is about more than utilitarian communication. The Heart Language Personal, resonant language has traditionally been called the “language of the heart.” The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) once considered it the most important language for any given person, especially in multilingual contexts. SIL broadly defines a heart language as “the most effective language for communicating deeply as well as for learning new concepts.” Prioritizing the heart language has decreased in popularity due to the rise of globalization and urbanization. In cities around the world, communication is becoming more singular as people learn languages such as English or French in order to participate in global commerce. As a result, societies are increasingly multilingual. Translation organizations like SIL must now pay attention to more than just language communities (“all the people who primarily speak or identify with a certain language”). Instead, a more inclusive approach to Bible translation acknowledges all of the languages within speech communities (“networks of people who share a common repertoire of language varieties and norms for their use”). In other words, in many urban communities around the world, people will use multiple languages for different functions (i.e. trade, education, religious practices, or family life). In a sense, globalization and urbanization are contributing to the simplification of language barriers. If communities are becoming more bilingual, the communication barrier between individuals is on the decline. At the same time, language barriers also become more complicated. If communities share a repertoire of languages, who decides which language to use in any given situation? This dilemma has further implications for heart languages in contexts like worship and education. What does all of this mean for organizations like TGC that participate in translation projects for theological famine relief? Case Study: Swahili A look at the Swahili language of East Africa shows the complexity behind speech communities. In 2011, International Outreach (TGC IO) translated Finally Alive by John Piper into Swahili and distributed five thousand copies intended for pastors and church leaders in this region. In the following years, IO Director Bill Walsh heard through several missionaries that little need remained for Swahili resources because “most people in East Africa speak English.” As a result, no further Swahili projects were planned. In 2013, Walsh attended a pastors’ conference in Nairobi, Kenya, and he happened to share a car ride with Ronald Kogo, an itinerate church planter based in this city. Though they’d never met in person, Kogo had helped translate the Piper book project and had previously emailed IO to request more Swahili resources. Walsh was able to ask Kogo about the state of the Swahili language. Kogo explained that many Kenyan and Tanzanian people are moving to cities. A lot of these transplants speak some English by necessity. Even so, very few can read English. “It’s one thing to speak a language, it’s another to learn enough to confidently read a book in a language,” he said. “At the end of the day, their first language is not English.” Kogo believes East Africa is one or two generations away from a day when everyone in urban areas is literate in English. Yet if that day comes, there may always be people who benefit more through Swahili. Diverse Challenges for a Diverse World Mark Dunker, a Tanzania-based trainer of pastors with ReachGlobal, says English is often more useful for educational purposes. “Although Swahili is the heart language for most Tanzanians, our experience is that many prefer studying in English when possible,” he said. English can be more helpful in explaining complex meanings, according to Dunker. He explained that occasionally Swahili vocabulary struggles to communicate some finer points of biblical truths. An example of this comes from a lesson Dunker taught his marriage and family class on the concept of biblical submission. No one understood the word ‘submission’ because there is no adequate Swahili translation. The closest word they found was ‘obedience,’ which is used in Swahili translations of Scripture; “wives, be obedient to your husbands” (Eph. 5:22). But the true meaning of the original New Testament word requires more nuance. Dunker’s observation highlights the fact that, despite a globalizing world, resources in many languages are necessary—including the heart languages. In the effort to combat theological famine, communicating biblical truth to the nations requires great wisdom as we seek to reach the hearts of people through the gospel. Editor’s Note: With the help of ministry and translation partners, TGC is finalizing a Swahili version of Prosperity? Seeking the True Gospel for distribution in East Africa. This resource will be available in 2019. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Trump Confirms 'Smocking Gun' Typo Was Just Rollout Of New Common Core Spelling Standards

      WASHINGTON, D.C.—President Trump confirmed Tuesday that his much-maligned typo "Smocking Gun" was actually intentional, being the first part of a rollout of new Common Core standards in spelling and vocabulary. The post Trump Confirms 'Smocking Gun' Typo Was Just Rollout Of New Common Core Spelling Standards appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.