Comments exchanged with Mike Ratliff about three days and three nights

Found here. Our commentary on Mr. Ratliff's article found here. It originally appeared here.

Our comments in bold.
------------------------

Mr. Ratliff is one of those Bible commentators who is absolutely convinced of his correctness, to the point that he bristles at disagreement. He posted an article which he claimed solved the age-old problem that Jesus was not in the grave for three days and three nights.  

He did this by claiming that being in the grave is different from being in "the heart of the earth." That phrase actually meant that He was in the hands of the Jewish and Roman leaders. This novel and abiblical theory, like the traditional church understanding, did not align with his acknowledgement that a Jewish day starts at sunset and continues until the next sunset. 

Using this criteria I pointed out to him in a comment that his theory fails (I'm quoting him in italics):

• He was delivered into the hands of sinful men on Thursday evening.
• He was scourged, beaten and crucified on Friday morning.
• Friday evening His burial was rushed and then the Sabbath starts.

This is day one, from evening Thursday to evening Friday.

• On Saturday morning the Sabbath continues. 
• Saturday evening and our Lord remained in the tomb.

This is day two, from evening Friday to evening Saturday.

• Sunday morning our Lord was Raised from the dead.

This is the start of the third day.

So we have a total of a part of two days (Thursday before sundown and Sunday before sun up) and 2 full days. 

Mr. Ratliff comes up short.

Mr. Ratliff replied by requoting several paragraphs of his article and closed the comments. 

Mr. Ratliff published a subsequent article, The Deity of Christ and the Sovereignty of God, which was our first cited article, and here he writes:

I would simply give these people God’s Word and they could only reply with human philosophy and anger. I would then tell them that they either had to believe and conform to what God’s Word said, literally, or I would no longer allow them to comment here with their mean, hateful statements.

I contested this characterization:

Actually, you don’t like it when people disagree. Period. You don’t engage them honestly, you close commenting. Sometimes you’re wrong, sir. Biblically. But you can’t tolerate dissent. It’s your blog, you can do what you want. But it is dishonest to characterize your detractors as emotional, false teachers, or knee jerk.

He replied:

Nope, I don’t close commenting, ever, WordPress does that. If I am wrong Biblically then show me. What I write may offend some doctrinally because their doctrine is not Biblical. I started this blog in the midst of a very serious battle against the seeker sensitive nonsense and other liberal corruption coming from the Leadership Network. I was Ken Silva’s tip of the spear for many years. That was my role. When he died I thought things would quiet down, but actually things got much worse. Your comment is full of accusations and you have proven none of them. Have a wonderful day….

My response was not published because commenting was closed:

If you didn’t close commenting, I apologize. Certainly you can see how this would be interpreted as hostility, and it’s happened more than once when I have commented.

I don’t know who Ken Silva is, or what you mean by tip of the spear, but I readily concede your credentials are superior to mine. This isn’t about credentials, however.

Since you want proof and not accusation, let’s look at your post “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” I quote you: “The Jews reckoning of a ‘day’ was not given as A.M. to P.M. Instead, the day’s start was in the evening to the next evening, from sunset to sunset.” That’s what you wrote.

In my comment I applied this to your calculation. Clearly this yields only two days (plus the part of two other days). Your definition, my application. But instead of replying, you simply reposted your error. This again suggests hostility.

Rather than me writing a long reply, if you want further information, I have examined a number your posts in my blog: https://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/search/label/ratliff

I don’t expect to change your mind. But I do hope for a productive exchange.

I did not receive any sort of response.

Conclusion

Bible teachers are to be subject to discernment. When found wanting, they ought to be approached one-on-one per Matthew 18. Since he rejected this, and lives in another city, it isn't possible to bring a witness, or even tell it to the Church. 

Therefore, Mr. Ratliff ought to marked and avoided.