Three days and three nights

[vooks]

Post with some merit (the last point e.g.), but demerits which cancel out every good thing in it.

WHY?

Four reasons,

One,
The writer has no idea of IDIOM, in this case, that 'after three days' in Matthew 28:63, 'meta treis hehmeras' is IDIOM for "ON the third day" not only in Greek, but in more than one modern languages.

Two,
The writer has no idea of METAPHOR or FIGURATIVE language, in this case, accepting the 'thought', that <<<Jesus was in the earth>>> for "three (literal) days and three (literal) nights" while the actual phrase reads "in the HEART of the earth" which obviously is figurative and not literal, language.

Three,
Most important: The writer not only ignores, but flatly refuses to recognise the prophetic figure for the "three days" and "third day according to the Scriptures" OF THE PASSOVER in Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch as the specific, "ESSENTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL, BONE-DAY" of the last Suffering-Passover of Yahweh in Jesus Christ the Passover Lamb of God.

Four,
The writer tries to explain the “three days and three nights” in ISOLATION while not taking into account the COMPLETE bulk of Scriptures that follow Jesus’ Last Passover precisely his whole Last Week and whole journey in Passover-Suffering "three days and three nights" long: 1) step by step; 2) day by day and 3) HOUR BY HOUR.


So, HERE ARE THE RELEVANT SCRIPTURES

1A) HERE BEGINS the NIGHT and the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
wherein Jesus ENTERED IN in “the Kingdom of my Father” (Jesus’ Jonah’s descent to hell) :–
Mk14:12/17; Mt26:17/20; Lk22:7/14; Jn13:1.

1B) HERE BEGINS the MORNING of the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
in which Jesus was delivered and crucified :–
Mk15:1/Mt27:1/Lk23:1/Jn19:14

1C) HERE is the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
when Jesus DIED and was deserted by all :–
Mk15:37–41; Mk27:50–56; Lk23:44–49; Jn19:28–30


2A) HERE BEGINS the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
the day whereon Joseph WOULD BURY the body of Jesus :–
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50–51, Jn19:31/38.
“The Feast of Unleavened Bread” Exodus 12:15b
= “The Preparation …
= “… which is the Fore-Sabbath …
= “… for THAT DAY WAS great day sabbath” of passover.
= FRIDAY!
= Abib 15, Thursday night and Friday day = Sixth Day ....


2B) HERE is the NIGHT of the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
wherein Joseph begged the body, and according to the law of the Jews – the passover’s law – undertook and prepared to bury Jesus:–
“the first night” unleavened bread was eaten John 19:39
Mk15:43–46a; Mt27:58–59; Lk23:52–53a; Jn19:31b–40

2C) HERE is the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
when Joseph and Nicodemus had laid the body and had closed the tomb; and men and women left for home :–
Mk15:46b–47; Mk27:60–61; Lk23:53b–56a; JN19:41–42


3A) HERE BEGINS the THIRD of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
THAT JESUS WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD ON :–
Lk23:56b
“The day after the sabbath” OF THE PASSOVER Leviticus 23:11,15
= Abib 16, Friday night and Saturday day = Seventh Day Sabbath....

3B) HERE is the MORNING of the THIRD of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
Pilate ordered a guard “for the third day” :–
Mt27:62–66

3C) HERE is “IN the Sabbath’s Fullness MID–AFTERNOON” of the THIRD of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD :–
Mt28:1–4.
__________________________________________________ ___

Abib 17, Saturday night and Sunday day = First Day ....

4A) HERE begins the day AFTER the “three days” (fourth day of the passover season) :–
that Jesus WOULD APPEAR on :–
Mk16:1, “When the Sabbath was past ..... they BOUGHT ....”

4B) HERE is the EVENING of this day,
Jn20:1–10 Mary sees the DOOR STONE was away from the tomb (discovers tomb has been OPENED);

4C) HERE is the NIGHT of this day,
Lk24:1–10 “DEEP(EST) DARKNESS” ––– “women with their spices” and ointments go to salve the body; “they found Him NOT” (discover tomb is EMPTY);
Mk16:2–8 “very early (before) SUN’S RISING” ––– women’s return–visit to ascertain; “they fled terrified and told NNE”.

4D) Here is sunrise (‘Sunday’ morning),
Jn20:11f, Mk16:9 “Mary had had stood behind” .... saw the gardener (sunrise); “Risen, early (sunrise) on the First Day, Jesus first APPEARED to Mary ....”
Mt28:5–10 “The angel explained to the (other) women (Mt28:1–4) .... As they went to tell .... Jesus met them” (after sunrise).
Mt28:11–15 Guard to high priests.

The Gospels in clear and completely unambiguous chronological sequence follow every of the "three days" from beginning until ending of Jesus' Last Passover-SUFFERING.

Christ's Last Passover-SUFFERING sets the path and the pace for the Old Testament passover to follow in, at, and after.

The OT Passover of Yahweh and Jesus' Passover of Yahweh-SUFFERING must and will be seen to correlate and synchronize and agree PERFECTLY.

Watching pacman, remind me to respond to your irrelevant glib in an hour's time

 

[rstrats]

　
　
vooks,
re: "Excellent. Now, Friday would be FIRST day since what?"

It would be the first day since Thursday.



re: "Now you are tying yourself in knots. If Friday was the FIRST day since they killed him..."

Where did I say that Friday was the first day since they killed Him?
　



re: "Could you please share one scriptural instance where the day following an event is regarded as the FIRST and not the SECOND day..."

We're talking about the first day since an event took place and not just the first day. If an event takes place on Tuesday, then the first day following the event would be Wednesday.
　


re: "So if Jesus rose again the THIRD day(obviously third day since he died not since he was born!), is there any other conclusion you can draw other than he rose the day following the day after he died?"

Yes there is. We have 4 verses that are specific regarding the phrase "the third day". There is Matthew 12:40 which says that 3 night times were involved (this could only happen with 4 calendar days); there is Luke 24:21 which says that the first of the week was the third day since these things happened, so assuming the last thing was the crucifixion, 4 calendar days would have to have been involved; and then there is Matthew 27:63 and Mark 8:31 which say after 3 days. So it must be implied that the phrase "the third day" is referring to the third day after the crucifixion.



re: "In what sense would Friday be FIRST day?"

In a correct sense. If Sunday is the third day in a three day sequence, then Friday would be the first day in the sequence.



re: "...if Friday would the the FIRST day, wouldn't Saturday, Sunday and MONDAY be the SECOND, THIRD and FOURTH days respectively?"

Yes.



re: "How then can Monday be BOTH FOURTH and THIRD day with regard to the same event?"

Monday is the fourth day in a 1,2,3,4 day sequence with Friday being the 1st day in the sequence and at the same time it is the third day since Friday. Saturday would be the first day since Friday, Sunday would be the second day since Friday and Monday would be the third day since Friday.
　


re: "Please share with me scriptural application of 'nights and days' phrase where it is obviously literal as opposed to idiomatic

I don't know of any, if by "literal" you mean a full 12 hours for daytimes and a full 12 hours for night times.
　



re: "why not?"

Because I haven't had an interest in that particular issue.
　



re: "Aha....common. How many references do you need to demonstrate it was 'common'?"

As a minimum there would have to be at least two, although I think that most would understand the word to mean something more than that.
　
　


re: "Look at the phrase here by Josephus; When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his palace and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position...And Matthew 4:2 (KJV) And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred"

And your point would be?
　



re: "Acts 20:31 (KJV) Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tearsmore than that. Interesting this Acts 20:31. Did Paul preach/warn continuously for 1,080 days and nights?"

It seems highly unlikely. But can you show for sure that at least a portion of each one of the 1,080 days and at least a portion of each one of the 1,080 nights absolutely wasn't somehow involved?

 

[Darrell C]

Watching pacman, remind me to respond to your irrelevant glib in an hour's time

There's a movie?

Or a show?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C,
re: "Maybe that is due to being so enthralled with what sixth day advocates have to say you have lost the ability to compute what I have said?"

The answer to your question is no. I have indeed understood your comments. It's just that you haven't provided any writing that shows a phrase being used which says that a daytime or a night time was to be involved with an event when the actual event couldn't have included at least a part of the daytime or at least a part of the night time.
　


re: "The Lord also says three days. What's not to understand He was not demanding three days and [three] nights?"

Why did He say three nights if He knew it was only going to be for two nights?




re: "And Vooks has quoted the Law and shown three days can entail the time of a day until the following third day which does not include three nights?

Now here I don't understand your question.
　



re: "Can you just tell me why you spend so much time with this?"

I spend a lot of time on a number of things. For this one, Im simply curious to know if there is any proof that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language.

What other issues interest you, RStrats?


God bless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

　
　
vooks,
re: "Excellent. Now, Friday would be FIRST day since what?"

It would be the first day since Thursday.



re: "Now you are tying yourself in knots. If Friday was the FIRST day since they killed him..."

Where did I say that Friday was the first day since they killed Him?
　

No; you, Strats, force 'Thursday' supposedly the 'high day' of the passover, in between 'Wednesday' Crucifixion and the Preparation Day Burial.

Yours is the WC graffiti gospel with KFC spicing Friday special.

 

[rstrats]

Darrell C,
re: "What other issues interest you, RStrats?


That would be a subject for anothr topic. Perhaps you could start one to query the folks on the board with regard to their interests.

 

[vooks]

　
　
vooks,
re: "Excellent. Now, Friday would be FIRST day since what?"

It would be the first day since Thursday.



re: "Now you are tying yourself in knots. If Friday was the FIRST day since they killed him..."

Where did I say that Friday was the first day since they killed Him?
　



re: "Could you please share one scriptural instance where the day following an event is regarded as the FIRST and not the SECOND day..."

We're talking about the first day since an event took place and not just the first day. If an event takes place on Tuesday, then the first day following the event would be Wednesday.
　


re: "So if Jesus rose again the THIRD day(obviously third day since he died not since he was born!), is there any other conclusion you can draw other than he rose the day following the day after he died?"

Yes there is. We have 4 verses that are specific regarding the phrase "the third day". There is Matthew 12:40 which says that 3 night times were involved (this could only happen with 4 calendar days); there is Luke 24:21 which says that the first of the week was the third day since these things happened, so assuming the last thing was the crucifixion, 4 calendar days would have to have been involved; and then there is Matthew 27:63 and Mark 8:31 which say after 3 days. So it must be implied that the phrase "the third day" is referring to the third day after the crucifixion.



re: "In what sense would Friday be FIRST day?"

In a correct sense. If Sunday is the third day in a three day sequence, then Friday would be the first day in the sequence.



re: "...if Friday would the the FIRST day, wouldn't Saturday, Sunday and MONDAY be the SECOND, THIRD and FOURTH days respectively?"

Yes.



re: "How then can Monday be BOTH FOURTH and THIRD day with regard to the same event?"

Monday is the fourth day in a 1,2,3,4 day sequence with Friday being the 1st day in the sequence and at the same time it is the third day since Friday. Saturday would be the first day since Friday, Sunday would be the second day since Friday and Monday would be the third day since Friday.
　


re: "Please share with me scriptural application of 'nights and days' phrase where it is obviously literal as opposed to idiomatic

I don't know of any, if by "literal" you mean a full 12 hours for daytimes and a full 12 hours for night times.
　



re: "why not?"

Because I haven't had an interest in that particular issue.
　



re: "Aha....common. How many references do you need to demonstrate it was 'common'?"

As a minimum there would have to be at least two, although I think that most would understand the word to mean something more than that.
　
　


re: "Look at the phrase here by Josephus; When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his palace and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position...And Matthew 4:2 (KJV) And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred"

And your point would be?
　



re: "Acts 20:31 (KJV) Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tearsmore than that. Interesting this Acts 20:31. Did Paul preach/warn continuously for 1,080 days and nights?"

It seems highly unlikely. But can you show for sure that at least a portion of each one of the 1,080 days and at least a portion of each one of the 1,080 nights absolutely wasn't somehow involved?

There is a word of acting dumb

Please observe these verse closely
Mark 8:31 (ESV)
31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again

Matthew 16:21 (ESV) 21
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised

Would you agree with me that;
1. Both 'three days' and 'third day' give us the timing of Jesus resurrection?
2. The two are in complete agreement; Jesus resurrecting three days AFTER his his death is the same as Jesus resurrecting the third day since his death?
3. Had Jesus HYPOTHETICALLY resurrected after four days, the relevant parts of those verses would have read, 'four days' and 'fourth day'?

 

[rstrats]

vooks,

Why did you quote all of my post #182 and then not address any of my comments to your previously asked questions? What was your reason for quoting it?

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C,
re: "What other issues interest you, RStrats?


That would be a subject for anothr topic. Perhaps you could start one to query the folks on the board with regard to their interests.

It is actually just interacting with members that we see their interests. For example, we have two members whose entire purpose for being here is to debunk the Pre-Trib Rapture. We have one consumed with racial hatred. We have some with no particular emphasis.

When we get so caught up in one issue we seldom allow room for growth which is vital so that we can draw conclusions based on a fuller text. There are some here who are posting the same arguments they were when I first joined this forum. One fellow's campaign began on a different forum I was on, and he was caught up in the same quest then.

Better to expand our interests, this helps us to grow.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

re: "Please share with me scriptural application of 'nights and days' phrase where it is obviously literal as opposed to idiomatic

　
Genesis 1

King James Version (KJV)


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

vooks,

Why did you quote all of my post #182 and then not address any of my comments to your previously asked questions? What was your reason for quoting it?

Because it is obvious you are acting dumb. Let me demonstrate it.

You say Friday is the FIRST day since Thursday which is when Jesus was crucified.
In short, you EXCLUDE the very day an event took place in reckoning the number of days that passed since that event which is contrary to scriptures.

In Acts 10, Cornelius had a vision and he dispatched his messengers the same day. They arrived at Peter's the next day, left back for Caesarea the day after and arrived the next day. When they arrived, Cornelius says he had a vision four days ago. So Cornelius includes the very day of the vision event in measuring time. But by your reckoning, he should have said 'three days ago' the FIRST day being the day after the vision when they arrived in Joppa, the SECOND being the day they left for Caesarea and of course the THIRD day being the day they arrived in Caesarea.

Jesus said he would rise the third day or after three days.
John 2:19 (KJV)
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
'Three' and 'third' are obviously from his death not from the day after his death. We know very well that on Sunday, it was the THIRD day since he died which would place his death on Friday. But rather than admit this, you claim Friday was the FIRST day since an event that happened a day before.

The FIRST day of Jesus death was the very day they killed him, the SECOND day was the day after and the THIRD day was the following day. So if we can positively identify the third day as Sunday, we can easily place his death on Friday. This is in perfect harmony with scriptures which deem the day after tomorrow as the THIRD day

In other words, if you report to a job on Monday and on Wednesday I ask you for how long you had worked, you'd tell me Wednesday is your SECOND day. But you worked THREE days on Monday, Tuesday and that Wednesday. Wednesday is clearly your THIRD day in the office, Tuesday your SECOND and of course Monday your FIRST. Note this would not matter regardless of the time you reported on Monday or the time I asked you the question on Wednesday; as long as you joined ON Monday, Wednesday would be your THIRD day. Conversely, if I ran into you and you told me Wednesday was your third day in the office, I'd deduce that you joined us on Monday

And this is the dilemma of Wednesday/Thursday crucifixion theorists; Sunday( not Saturday) is the THIRD Day and no amount of wresting scriptures and logic can change that. It is fixed and that fixes Friday as the crucifixion day. Sunday can't have been THIRD day if crucifixion happened on Thursday or Wednesday; it would have been FOURTH and FIFTH day respectively.

A literal three days and three nights period by any definition covers more than THREE days Jesus prophesied he would remain in the grave, and this makes nonsense of all the 'three days' and 'third day' mentions of the resurrection timing.

 

[rstrats]

vooks,

If on a Thursday Cornelius said "one day ago I was fasting until this hour", to what day would he be referring?

 

[vooks]

vooks,

If on a Thursday Cornelius said "one day ago I was fasting until this hour", to what day would he be referring?

Yesterday/Wednesday

Now it's your turn
1. How many days lapsed between Cornelius vision and Peter's arrival?

2. What is the difference between YESTERDAY and ONE DAY AGO?

 

[rstrats]

vooks,
re: "Yesterday/Wednesday"

OK, you got that one correct.


re: "1. How many days lapsed between Cornelius vision and Peter's arrival?"

There were 3 full calendar days between the vision day and the arrival day. However, there were 5 calendar days involved with the whole event.



re: "2. What is the difference between YESTERDAY and ONE DAY AGO?"

There is no difference. They mean the same thing.

 

[rstrats]

vooks,
re: " ...if you report to a job on Monday and on Wednesday I ask you for how long you had worked, you'd tell me Wednesday is your SECOND day."

No I wouldn't. I'd tell you that Wednesday was my 3rd day of work.



re: "But you worked THREE days on Monday, Tuesday and that Wednesday. Wednesday is clearly your THIRD day in the office."

Correct, and that is what I told you.




re: "Note this would not matter regardless of the time you reported on Monday or the time I asked you the question on Wednesday..."

Agreed.
　



re: "...if I ran into you and you told me Wednesday was your third day in the office, I'd deduce that you joined us on Monday."

And you would be correct in your deduction.

 

[vooks]

vooks,
re: "Yesterday/Wednesday"

OK, you got that one correct.

Refer to my Q2

re: "1. How many days lapsed between Cornelius vision and Peter's arrival?"

There were 3 full calendar days between the vision day and the arrival day. However, there were 5 calendar days involved with the whole event.

Peter spoke of FOUR days ago.....
1. what were those, 'full calendar days', 'calendar days' or what kind of days were those?
2. Should he have said 'THREE 'full calendar days' ago' or 'five calendar days were involved between......'?
3. What day was it when Peter arrived since Cornelius had a vision,FIRST,SECOND,THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH day?

re: "2. What is the difference between YESTERDAY and ONE DAY AGO?"

There is no difference. They mean the same thing.

There is a slight difference. Both refer to the previous day but whereas 'yesterday' may mean ANY part of the previous day, 'one day ago' properly conveys a longer duration. That's why you can't study scriptures up to 2355H and then after ten minutes you tell us you last studied scriptures 'one day ago'

 

[vooks]

vooks,
re: " ...if you report to a job on Monday and on Wednesday I ask you for how long you had worked, you'd tell me Wednesday is your SECOND day."

No I wouldn't. I'd tell you that Wednesday was my 3rd day of work.

Excellent.

re: "But you worked THREE days on Monday, Tuesday and that Wednesday. Wednesday is clearly your THIRD day in the office."

Correct, and that is what I told you.

Great!

re: "Note this would not matter regardless of the time you reported on Monday or the time I asked you the question on Wednesday..."

Agreed.

　

Wow!

re: "...if I ran into you and you told me Wednesday was your third day in the office, I'd deduce that you joined us on Monday."

And you would be correct in your deduction.

What this means is what is called INCLUSIVE reckoning. You count days from the very day an event took place.

Finally, supposing I ran into you on Wednesday and asked you HOW MANY days you had been working. What would you answer?

A. ONE day
B. TWO days
C. THREE days

 

[rstrats]

vooks,
re: "Peter spoke of FOUR days ago....."

I'm not aware of Peter saying anything about 4 days. What do you have in mind?



re: "There is a slight difference....you can't study scriptures up to 2355H and then after ten minutes you tell us you last studied scriptures 'one day ago' "

I probably wouldn't say it that way, but it wouldn't be inaccurate if I did. At any rate, what is your point with regard to the OP?
　



re: " You count days from the very day an event took place."

If the event took place on Monday, what would be the first day "from" Monday?
　



re: " ...supposing I ran into you on Wednesday and asked you HOW MANY days you had been working. What would you answer?

I would ask to what period of time you were referring?

 

[vooks]

vooks,
re: "Peter spoke of FOUR days ago....."

I'm not aware of Peter saying anything about 4 days. What do you have in mind?

Profuse apologies...I meant Cornelius .

You said;

vooks,
There were 3 full calendar days between the vision day and the arrival day. However, there were 5 calendar days involved with the whole event.

Cornelius spoke of FOUR days ago.....

Acts 10:30 (ESV)
30 And Cornelius said, “Four days ago, about this hour, I was praying in my house at the ninth hour, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing
1. what were those, 'full calendar days', 'calendar days' or what kind of days were those?
2. Are your THREE 'full calendar days' different from Cornelius' FOUR days? If yes, how?
3. What day was it when Peter arrived since Cornelius had a vision,FIRST,SECOND,THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH day?
4. Supposing Cornelius had the vision on Monday, which day of the week would he have been speaking these words?

re: "There is a slight difference....you can't study scriptures up to 2355H and then after ten minutes you tell us you last studied scriptures 'one day ago' "

I probably wouldn't say it that way, but it wouldn't be inaccurate if I did. At any rate, what is your point with regard to the OP?

You will find out soon. That's why you don't have 'one day ago' in the scriptures among others
　

re: " You count days from the very day an event took place."

If the event took place on Monday, what would be the first day "from" Monday?

You answered yourself. Did you forget? You report to work on Monday and Wednesday is your THIRD day at work, Tuesday being your SECOND and Monday being your FIRST.

Let's use scriptures

Exodus 19:10-11(ESV)
10 the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments 11 and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.

Supposing you heard God speak these words on Monday. When would you expect Him to come down?
A. Tuesday
B. Wednesday
C. Monday
D. Not sure
E. Thursday

re: " ...supposing I ran into you on Wednesday and asked you HOW MANY days you had been working. What would you answer?

I would ask to what period of time you were referring?

The question is self-explanatory; the period of time you have been working. Is it
A. ONE day
B. TWO days
C. THREE days

Remember your own words

vooks,
re: " ...if you report to a job on Monday and on Wednesday I ask you for how long you had worked, you'd tell me Wednesday is your SECOND day."

No I wouldn't. I'd tell you that Wednesday was my 3rd day of work.

 

[rstrats]

vooks,
re: "1. what were those, 'full calendar days', 'calendar days' or what kind of days were those?"

There were 3 full days and 1 partial day.



re: "2. Are your THREE 'full calendar days' different from Cornelius' FOUR days?"

Of course they are - 3 days are not the same as 4 days.



re: "If yes, how?"
It's self evident - 3 is not the same as 4.



re: "3. What day was it when Peter arrived since Cornelius had a vision,FIRST,SECOND,THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH day?"

It was the 4th day since Cornelius had the vision.



re: "4. Supposing Cornelius had the vision on Monday, which day of the week would he have been speaking these words?"

It would have been Friday because 1 day ago would be Thursday, 2 days ago would be Wednesday, 3 days ago would be Tuesday and 4 days ago would be Monday.



re: "Supposing you heard God speak these words on Monday. When would you expect Him to come down?"

It would be on Wednesday of course. But what is your point?