Friday, June 2, 2017

Psalm 10:5 and KJV Onlyism

I'm NOT a KJV Onlyist. However, here's an alleged problem with modern translations that I encountered on Facebook by a KJV Onlyist:

I don't claim to know which is the correct translation. However, I don't think the modern translations are necessarily wrong, for the following reasons (which I posted on Facebook).

"Prosper" might be legitimate translation in light of the next verse (6). The context implies that he's boasting that he's secure and that calamity won't strike him. Similar to other passages in the OT where the wicked boast in their riches and earthly blessings.

The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.- Job 12:6 KJV

They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.- Job 21:13 KJV

Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.- Ps. 37:7 KJV

For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.- Ps. 73:3 KJV

Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously?- Jer. 12:1 KJV

The NET Bible footnote on this verse says, "Heb “they are firm, his ways, at every time.” The verb חַיִל (khayil, “be firm, be strong”) occurs only here and in Job 20:21, where it has the sense “endure.”"

John Gill in his commentary says the following (notice Jarchi's interpretation):

To God and to his people; or, "his ways cause terror" (a), so Aben Ezra; make men fear; as antichrist has made the whole world tremble at him, Rev_13:4; or, "his ways are defiled", as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin render it; for to him is nothing pure, his mind and conscience being defiled, Tit_1:15; or, "his ways always remain" (b); they are always the same, there is no change in them for the better: or they "prosper" (c) as Jarchi interprets it; and this is sometimes stumbling to the saints, Jer_12:1;

Albert Barnes prefers the interpretation of the KJV of the word. But Barnes nevertheless admits that it's a difficult word to translate. Here's what Barnes says:

Psalms 10:5
His ways are always grievous - His paths; his manner of life; his conduct toward God; his dealings with men. The word rendered “are grievious,” יחילוּ yāchiylû - has been variously rendered. The Latin Vulgate renders it, “His ways are defiled.” So the Septuagint. Coverdale renders it, “His ways are always filthy.” Prof. Alexander, “His ways are firm.” So DeWette, “Es gelingen seine Wege.” Horsley, “His ways are confident.” This variety in the interpretation arises from the ambiguity of the original word - חול chûl. The meaning of this word, as given by Genesius, is to turn round, to twist, to whirl; and hence:
(1) to dance;
(2) to be whirled, or twisted upon anything;
(3) to twist oneself with pain, or to be in pain;
(4) to bear or bring forth;
(5) to tremble, to quake;
(6) to be strong or stable, as things twisted are.
Hence, he translates this passage, “his ways are firm, or stable, that is, all his affairs prosper.” But it seems to me plain that this is not the idea in the mind of the psalmist. He is not dwelling on the prosperity of the wicked, or on the result of his conduct, but on his character. In the previous verses he had stated some of the traits in his character, and the subsequent verses continue the description; hence, it is natural that we should expect to find some special feature of his character referred to here, and not that there should be an allusion to the stability of his affairs. It seems to me, therefore, that the exact idea here is, that his ways, or his modes of feelling and conduct were always perverse and forced, and hard; that there was always something tortuous and unnatural about him; that he was not straightforward and honest; that he did not see things as they are, and did not act in a plain and upright manner.

When it comes to interpreting the Psalms, I always profit from reading Joseph Addison Alexander's commentary (various versions freely online at

Here's a Screen Shot of of Alexander's commentary on this verse.

I could have written more, but that should suffice to show that the modern translations do not commit a "gross" error.

Friday, August 12, 2016

From Bethsaida To Bethsaida?

In a live webinar Mike Licona addresses an apparent contradiction regarding the circumstances of the feeding of the 5000. He discusses it for about 5 minutes HERE. Basically Mike Licona points out two problems:

1. in Mark 6:45 it says that after the feeding of the 5,000 get onto a boat heading for Bethsaida. However, Luke 9:10 states the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 occurred at or near Bethsaida. The apparent contradiction is that the apostles were already at Bethsaida, so how could they be leaving Bethsaida and crossing the lake in order to arrive at Bethsaida.

2. The gospels seems to be confused as to where they intended to land and/or where they actually did landed. Was it Bethsaida? Gennesaret? Capernaum?

[UPDATE: Mike Licona has an article on the topic at his website HERE. It's uncertain when it was posted, but I suspect it was after the webinar mentioned above]

Regarding the apparent contradiction, I looked up Luke 9:10; Mark 6:32, 45; and John 6:17 in (admittedly dated) commentaries like those of John Gill, Adam Clarke and Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary.

JFB says in John 6:17 "toward Capernaum — Mark says (Mar_6:45), “unto Bethsaida,” meaning “Bethsaida of Galilee” (Joh_12:21), on the west side of the lake. The place they left was of the same name (see on Mar_6:32)."

John Gill in his commentary on John 12:21 also speculates on two "Bethsaida"s. One of which was distinguished by calling it "Bethsaida in Galiliee" (John 12:21).

Gill writes:

"which was of Bethsaida of Galilee; See Gill on Joh_1:44. This place may be interpreted, "the house of hunting", or "of fishing"; for it is not easy to say which it has its name from, since צידא, "saida", signifies both hunting and fishing: and seeing it was in or near the tribe of Naphtali, where was plenty of deer, and a wilderness was near it, where might be wild beasts, it might be so called from hunting: and as it was situated near the lake of Gennesaret, it might have its name from the fishing trade used in it; for Peter and Andrew, who were of it, were both fishermen: but it is yet more difficult to determine, whether this is the same with, or different from the Bethsaida Josephus (s) speaks of, as rebuilt by Philip, and called by him Julius, after the name of Caesar's daughter, as I have observed in See Gill on Luk_9:10, See Gill on Joh_1:44; since this was in Galilee, of which Herod Antipas was tetrarch, and where Philip could have no power to rebuild places, and change their names; and besides, the city, which he repaired, and called Julian, according to Josephus (t) was in lower Gaulonitis, and therefore must be different, unless that, or any part of it, can be thought to be the same with Galilee: wherefore the learned Reland (u) thinks, that there were two Bethsaidas, and which seems very probable; and it is likely, that this is here purposely called Bethsaida of Galilee, to distinguish it from the other, which, by some persons, might still be called Bethsaida, though it had got a new name. Moreover, this Bethsaida is mentioned in other places along with Capernaum and Chorazin, Mat_11:21, which were in Galilee. And Epiphanius says (w), that Bethsaida and Capernaum were not far distant one from another: and according to Jerom (x), Chorazin was but two miles from Capernaum; and who elsewhere says (y), that Capernaum, Tiberias, Bethsaida, and Chorazin, were situated on the shore of the lake of Gennesaret. It is said to be fifty six miles from Jerusalem:........

(s) Antiqu. l. 18. c. 2. sect. 1. Ed. Hudson. (t) De Bello. Jud. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 1. (u) Palestina Illustrata, l. 3. p. 654, 655. (w) Contra Haeres. l. 2. Haeres. 51. (x) De locis Hebraicis, fol. 90. 6. (y) Comment. in Esaiam, c. 9. 1."

John Gill commented on Luke 9:10:

"into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida; the city of Andrew and Peter, Joh_1:44, and which, as Josephus (r) says, was by the lake of Gennesaret, and by Philip called Julias; and this desert place was the desert of Bethsaida, a lonely, wild, uncultivated, and desolate place, not far from it. Hither Christ went with his disciples, that they might be retired and alone, and have some refreshment and rest from their labours, and where they might privately converse together; and he give them some fresh instructions, and directions, and comfort.

(r) Antiqu. l. 18. c. 3."

So, it may be possible that they left Bethsaida (or the area near it) to Bethsaida OF GALILEE (or the area near it). In which case there is no contradiction.

John 6:17 says they "got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum." Mark 6:53 and Matt. 14:34 on the contrary says they arrived at Gennesaret. However, it's not clear whether they intended to get to Capernaum specifically, or whether it was to go in that general direction. Even the KJV and Webster translates it "toward Capernaum" rather than "to Capernaum". Capernaum may or may not have been their intended final stopping point.

When Mark 6:53 and Matt. 14:34 say they arrived at Gennesaret it's not clear (at least to me) whether they mean the LAND of Gennesaret or that side of the lake of Galilee called Gennesaret (i.e. the LAKE of Gennesaret). Though, in the original Greek it might be clear. Since I don't read Koine, I can't determine it either way. It also must be remembered that they may have stopped by various points along the lake (even possibly walking on land temporarily) before they arrived at their final destination and stayed on land.

Even in modern times when one is running errands getting from point A to point E you might stop by point B, C, and D. For example, taking context into consideration, it's no contradiction for someone to say in conversation 1. he arrived at O'Hare Airport, in conversation 2. he got to Office Depot, and in conversation 3. arrived at some hotel in Chicago. That's because he had to get there by plane and so landed at O'Hare. But also dropped by Office Depot to get materials to help him give his lecture at the hotel. His leaving home and FINALLY arriving at the hotel doesn't entail he didn't also arrive at O'Hare and Office Depot.

See also Lydia McGrew's blogpost on this subject:

But wait! There's more! Refuting a claim of discrepancy in the gospels

See also Jonathan McLatchie's blogpost on this subject:

Is Mark "Confused" About the Location of the Feeding of the Five Thousand?

See also Steve Hays' blogpost on this subject:

Was Mark confused?

See also Norman Geisler's article on this subject:

Was Mark Confused or was it Mike Licona?

Was Mark Confused? Birth Narratives? Original Readings?
by James White

See these other podcasts by James White:


Thursday, April 28, 2016

Was Jesus in the Grave 72 Hours in Fulfillment of His Prediction of "Three Days and Three Nights"?

Some claim Jesus could not have been buried on a Friday and raised on a Sunday because that would be less than the 72 hours required to fulfill Jesus' prophecy that He would be buried for "three days and three nights" (cf. Matt. 12:40). Older as well as recent scholars reject that conclusion for Biblical and historical (including rabbinic) reasons.

For rabbinic reasons, see HERE.

For Biblical reasons see the following quotes copied and pasted from another website that may or may not be Evangelical. It doesn't matter whether they are theologically Evangelical (like myself) or not. If they accurately quoted the following Evangelical scholars of the past, then that's all that matters. I'm assuming they did quote them accurately.

Matthew 12:40For 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible. Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
Three days and three nights -
It will be seen in the account of the resurrection of Christ that he was in the grave but two nights and a part of three days. See Mat_18:6. This computation is, however, strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. If it had “not” been, the Jews would have understood it, and would have charged our Saviour as being a false prophet, for it was well known to them that he had spoken this prophecy, Mat_27:63. Such a charge, however, was never made; and it is plain, therefore, that what was “meant” by the prediction was accomplished. It was a maxim, also, among the Jews, in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received as the whole. Many instances of this kind occur in both sacred and profane history. See 2Ch_10:5, 2Ch_10:12; Gen_42:17-18. Compare Est_4:16 with Est_5:1.
In the heart of the earth - The Jews used the word “heart” to denote the “interior” of a thing, or to speak of being in a thing. It means, here, to be in the grave or sepulchre.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832)
Three days and three nights -
Our Lord rose from the grave on the day but one after his crucifixion: so that, in the computation in this verse, the part of the day on which he was crucified, and the part of that on which he rose again, are severally estimated as an entire day; and this, no doubt, exactly corresponded to the time in which Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Our Lord says, As Jonah was, so shall the Son of man be, etc. Evening and morning, or night and day, is the Hebrew phrase for a natural day, which the Greeks termed νυχθημερον, nuchthemeron. The very same quantity of time which is here termed three days and three nights, and which, in reality, was only one whole day, a part of two others, and two whole nights, is termed three days and three nights, in the book of Esther: Go; neither eat nor drink Three Days, Night or Day, and so I will go in unto the king: Est_4:16. Afterwards it follows, Est_5:1. On the Third Day, Esther stood in the inner court of the king’s house. Many examples might be produced, from both the sacred and profane writers, in vindication of the propriety of the expression in the text. For farther satisfaction, the reader, if he please, may consult Whitby and Wakefield, and take the following from Lightfoot.
“I. The Jewish writers extend that memorable station of the unmoving sun, at Joshua’s prayer, to six and thirty hours; for so Kimchi upon that place: ‘According to more exact interpretation, the sun and moon stood still for six and thirty hours: for when the fight was on the eve of the Sabbath, Joshua feared lest the Israelites might break the Sabbath; therefore he spread abroad his hands, that the sun might stand still on the sixth day, according to the measure of the day of the Sabbath, and the moon according to the measure of the night of the Sabbath, and of the going out of the Sabbath, which amounts to six and thirty hours.’
“II. If you number the hours that pass from our Savior’s giving up the ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you shall find almost the same number of hours; and yet that space is called by him three days and three nights, whereas two nights only came between, and one complete day. Nevertheless, while he speaks these words, he is not without the consent both of the Jewish schools and their computation. Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Scabbath, concerning the separation of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists, concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things these words occur: R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four אונות onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an אונה onah? R. Jochanan saith, Either a day or a night. And so also the Jerusalem Talmud: ‘R. Akiba fixed a Day for an onah, and a Night for an onah.’ But the tradition is, that R. Eliazar ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an onah: and a Part of an onah is as the Whole. And a little after, R. Ismael computed a part of the onah for the whole.” Thus, then, three days and three nights, according to this Jewish method of reckoning, included any part of the first day; the whole of the following night; the next day and its night; and any part of the succeeding or third day.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)
So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
That Christ means himself by the "son of man", there is no reason to doubt; and his being laid in a tomb, dug out of a rock, is sufficient to answer this phrase, "the heart of the earth", in distinction from the surface of it; but some difficulty arises about the time of his continuing there, and the prediction here made agreeable to the type: for it was on the sixth day of the week, we commonly call "Friday", towards the close, on the day of the preparation for the sabbath, and when the sabbath drew on, that the body of Christ was laid in the sepulchre; where it lay all the next day, which was the sabbath of the Jews, and what we commonly call "Saturday"; and early on the first of the week, usually called "Sunday", or the Lord's day, he rose from the dead; so that he was but one whole day, and part of two, in the grave. To solve this difficulty, and set the matter in a clear light, let it be observed, that the three days and three nights, mean three natural days, consisting of day and night, or twenty four hours, and are what the Greeks call νυχθημερα, "night days"; but the Jews have no other way of expressing them, but as here; and with them it is a well known rule, and used on all occasions, as in the computation of their feasts and times of mourning, in the observance of the passover, circumcision, and divers purifications, that מקצת היום ככולו, "a part of a day is as the whole" (n): and so, whatever was done before sun setting, or after, if but an hour, or ever so small a time, before or after it, it was reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule, the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; he continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting, though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the son of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish.

A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth —
This was the second public announcement of His resurrection three days after His death. (For the first, see Joh_2:19). Jonah’s case was analogous to this, as being a signal judgment of God; reversed in three days; and followed by a glorious mission to the Gentiles. The expression “in the heart of the earth,” suggested by the expression of Jonah with respect to the sea (Jon_2:3, in the Septuagint), means simply the grave, but this considered as the most emphatic expression of real and total entombment. The period during which He was to lie in the grave is here expressed in round numbers, according to the Jewish way of speaking, which was to regard any part of a day, however small, included within a period of days, as a full day. (See 1Sa_30:12, 1Sa_30:13; Est_4:16; Est_5:1; Mat_27:63, Mat_27:64, etc.).

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
Three days and three nights -
It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty - four hours, for the whole day. Accordingly they used to say a thing was done after three or seven days, if it was done on the third or seventh day, from that which was last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1Ki_20:29; and in many other places. And as the Hebrews had no word to express a natural day, they used night and day, or day and night for it. So that to say a thing happened after three days and three nights, was with them the very same, as to say, it happened after three days, or on the third day. See Est_4:16; Est_5:1; Gen_7:4, Gen_7:12; Exo_24:18; Exo_34:28. Jon_2:1.

The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson
So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights.
Jesus says (Mat_16:21) that he will "be raised again the third day." Hence, in Jewish usage the third day must mean the same as three days and three nights. It was and is customary with the Orientals to make any part of the day stand for the whole twenty-four hours. Compare Mat_16:21, Mar_8:31, 2Ch_10:5 and 2Ch_10:12, Est_4:16, Gen_7:4, Gen_7:12, Exo_24:18, Exo_34:28. A traveler in the East writes: "At length the tenth morning arrived--the tenth morning because, though we performed nominally ten days quarantine, yet it was, really, only eight days. We landed at nine o'clock in the evening of the first day, and were liberated at six o'clock in the morning of the tenth day, but it was held to be ten days according to the custom of the East." Christ was buried Friday evening, lay in the grave Saturday, and rose Sunday, parts of three days, rose "on the third day," and was in the grave the space of time meant in eastern usage by three days and three nights.

John Lightfoot, A Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica.
[The Son of man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.] I. The Jewish writers extend that memorable station of the unmoving sun at Joshua's prayer to six-and-thirty hours; for so Kimchi upon that place: "According to more exact interpretation, the sun and moon stood still for six-and-thirty hours: for when the fight was on the eve of the sabbath, Joshua feared lest the Israelites might break the sabbath: therefore he spread abroad his hands, that the sun might stand still on the sixth day, according to the measure of the day of the sabbath, and the moon, according to the measure of the night of the sabbath, and of the going-out of the sabbath; which amounts to six-and-thirty hours."
II. If you number the hours that passed from our Saviour's giving up the ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you shall find almost the same number of hours; and yet that space is called by him "three days and three nights," when as two nights only came between, and only one complete day. Nevertheless, while he speaks these words, he is not without the consent both of the Jewish schools, and their computation. Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Schabbath; concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things these words occur; "R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanan saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah; and a night for an Onah; but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.
It is not easy to translate the word Onah into good Latin: for to some it is the same with the half of a natural day; to some it is all one with a whole natural day. According to the first sense we may observe, from the words of R. Ismael, that sometimes four Onoth; or halves of a natural day, may be accounted for three days: and that they also are so numbered that one part or the other of those halves may be accounted for a whole. Compare the latter sense with the words of our Saviour, which are now before us: "A day and a night (saith the tradition) make an Onah; and a part of an Onah is as the whole." Therefore Christ may truly be said to have been in his grave three Onoth; or three natural days (when yet the greatest part of the first day was wanting, and the night altogether, and the greatest part by far of the third day also), the consent of the schools and dialect of the nation agreeing thereunto. For, "the least part of the Onah concluded the whole." So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day upon which Christ arose may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.

More  Links  to come:

See also my blogpost:

What Day Did Christ Die?