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:
Long QUOTE: 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. End QUOTE
When
it comes to interpreting the Psalms, I always profit from reading
Joseph Addison Alexander's commentary (various versions freely online at
archive.org).
Here's a Screen Shot of of Alexander's commentary on this verse.
Click on picture to better read the comments.
I could have written more, but that should suffice to show that the modern translations do not commit a "gross" error.
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."
"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.
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 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 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and
three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
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.
I found the following video interesting as a solution to the problem of the Curse of Jeconiah. I'm not saying it's necessarily true. What do you think?
