Three days and three nights is a problem for literalists.
However, it wouldn’t have been a problem for literalists in the culture where the Bible was originally written, because that’s how they counted. Any time you count days (and many other things that come in a never-ending consecutive series) you have the problem of asking, “Do I count the beginning? Do I count the end?”
In many Asian cultures when you are born your age is considered to be “1,” and on your first birthday you become “2,” etc. It’s not wrong, just different. Should we insist that all those people change the way they talk? Should we insist that the Bible is wrong and should be corrected for modern Western counting? If it had been written according to our counting, it would’ve been wrong to the people it was originally written to.
It’s clear that Bible writers lived in a culture that counted the beginning and the end of time periods. I Kings 12:5 has King Rehoboam telling people to “depart for three days, then return.” Lo and behold, in verse 12 they came back on the third day. If “three days” had been counted the way we count it, they should’ve come back on the
fourth day.
Of course, even if you want to reject that, the Bible’s still pretty clear that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. So if you want to insist it was really three days and three nights, He was crucified on Thursday. Big difference. Either way, there’s no getting around the
first day of the week. It’s written all over the place. Be consistent and take it literally.
(It also identifies the crucifixion day as the “day of preparation,” which would’ve been the day before the Sabbath, but let’s not split hairs. Wouldn’t want to listen
too closely to what God actually says about it, would we?

)