One more evidence against KJV onlyism.

[JonC]

Mod Hat On

Be careful not to post in a demeaning way towards God's Word (regardless of English translation).

This applies to antiquated and current language translations.

Each translation has strengths and weaknesses. Each translation was accomplished by men doing their best to provide a translation faithful to the Scriptures.

Mod Hat Off

 

[Alan Gross]

Ever heard of The Kralitz Bible?

"Kralitz Bible. Willimowitz, Moravia, 1579-1593.

"The followers of Jan Hus, the Bohemian Brethren,
while under heavy persecution by the Roman Catholic Church,
produced a Czech Bible under clandestine conditions.

"It was printed in Kralitz at the castle of Baron John von Zerotin,
near Willimowitz in Moravia.

"The translation was made by a group of eight scholars,
whose text and commentaries were to become a standard for study
of both the Bible and the Bohemian language until modern times.

Once printed, the Bible was zealously suppressed by the Jesuits;
hence its extreme rarity today.

from: "From Papyri to King James:
The Transmission of the English Bible, by Beam, Kathryn L.
...

Jesuit Attempts To Destroy The Translation.
In 1605 A.D. a Jesuit plot to assassinate the King
by blowing up the House of Lords on its opening was uncovered.

Eight men, including the traitor Guy Fawkes
were captured and executed.

If he had succeeded, all of history definitely would have been different, including the publication of the greatest work of English literature
of all time, the King James Bible!

from: The Path to the King James Bible of 1611.
by The Bible Baptist Church of Ballincollig,
Enterprise Park, Innishmore, Ballincollig, Cork.

Quite the Gift of God The King James Bible has been.

Be careful not to post in a demeaning way towards God's Word
(regardless of English translation).

Jesuit agents attempted to thwart the English Bible
before its release by insisting that the Apocrypha be included in it.

This info is from www.puritanboard.com/threads/
and you will not care for it, or believe it,
however the source for The Attack,
for instance, is from Alberto Rivera, whom you will also denounce,
as a matter of course and laugh yourself silly about

but, you did not provide any
sound documented evidence for disproving my "unsupported claim", at all,
so I'll gladly take my sources over hundreds of billions of nothingness
that you unearth which oppose them.

Especially, on a thread where The 3 Rs are found wanting.

Ah, don't click on them and don't dare think about reading them
and researching them just to make out like you're a Christian and they're not.

Spare us. Don't go there to them, if you're just predisposed
to them being a Comic Book Joke.

Why would you waste your time doing that?

You'll have nothing to say for Jack Chick, either,
and call me a KJV-Only-ite again.

Big deal. Have a nice day.

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THESE LINKS DO NOT MEET
ANY KIND OF RULES PUT FORTH BY THE BB.

WARNING.

THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE AND LINKED TO ANSWER A QUESTION
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
AND I ASK THAT YOU JUST PLEASE NOT GO THERE,
IF OFFENDED BY STATEMENTS THAT MENTION 'THE DEVIL', ETC.,
THAT CLEARLY ARE NOT ACCEPTED HERE.

Jan 15, 2014 #1

"It was a wonderful Chick booklet called Sabotage
which first opened my eyes on Issues dealing
with Ancient Heretics & God Haters
who had attempted to corrupt & destroy The Word of God.

"Also one called The Attack which I'd like to mention.
Does anybody have any thoughts
or fond memories in regards to this matter?"
...

Was Alberto Who He Claimed To Be?

"As soon as Alberto Rivera went public with his testimony,
the Roman Catholic Church began its damage-control operation.

"Alberto knew too much! Having been prepared for leadership
in the Jesuit order, he had been briefed on things
too sensitive to put in writing. Now he was telling the world!

"Alberto was immediately denounced as having never been a priest,
even though he possessed clear documentation.

"Christianity Today printed an article written by Gary Metz,
attacking Alberto and accusing him of all sorts of things.

"Alberto refused to spend his life arguing with his accusers.

"Instead, he just pushed on, preaching the gospel,
and trusting God to defend him.

"The Lord raised up other Christians
who examined the charges against Alberto,
and found him to be exactly what he claimed to be.
Below is an abundance of evidence. Read it for yourself."

Was Alberto Who He Claimed To Be?

 

[Alan Gross]

IMHO;

Reading:

Meanings deduced in the conclusions from any given reading effort,
i.e.,:

a KJV error

should be in some way that is related to what has been read, relevant,
i.e.,:

Exodus 12:40.

...

Writing:

Words included in the form of a written communication,
i.e.,:

KJV translator George Abbot

should be in some way that regards the subject matter, relevant,
i.e.,

a Roman Catholic Jesuit agent

Arithmetic:

Numbers, when added or subtracted, as is found appropriate,
i.e.,:

Archbishop George Abbot,
who had been one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615

should return a sum or the difference, respectively,
that in some way renders those numbers relevant,
i.e.,:

In 1611, an English Bible, was completed.

 

[JonC]

Ever heard of The Kralitz Bible?

"Kralitz Bible. Willimowitz, Moravia, 1579-1593.

"The followers of Jan Hus, the Bohemian Brethren,
while under heavy persecution by the Roman Catholic Church,
produced a Czech Bible under clandestine conditions.

"It was printed in Kralitz at the castle of Baron John von Zerotin,
near Willimowitz in Moravia.

"The translation was made by a group of eight scholars,
whose text and commentaries were to become a standard for study
of both the Bible and the Bohemian language until modern times.

Once printed, the Bible was zealously suppressed by the Jesuits;
hence its extreme rarity today.

from: "From Papyri to King James:
The Transmission of the English Bible, by Beam, Kathryn L.
...

Jesuit Attempts To Destroy The Translation.
In 1605 A.D. a Jesuit plot to assassinate the King
by blowing up the House of Lords on its opening was uncovered.

Eight men, including the traitor Guy Fawkes
were captured and executed.

If he had succeeded, all of history definitely would have been different, including the publication of the greatest work of English literature
of all time, the King James Bible!

from: The Path to the King James Bible of 1611.
by The Bible Baptist Church of Ballincollig,
Enterprise Park, Innishmore, Ballincollig, Cork.

Quite the Gift of God The King James Bible has been.





This info is from www.puritanboard.com/threads/
and you will not care for it, or believe it,
however the source for The Attack,
for instance, is from Alberto Rivera, whom you will also denounce,
as a matter of course and laugh yourself silly about

but, you did not provide any
sound documented evidence for disproving my "unsupported claim", at all,
so I'll gladly take my sources over hundreds of billions of nothingness
that you unearth which oppose them.

Especially, on a thread where The 3 Rs are found wanting.

Ah, don't click on them and don't dare think about reading them
and researching them just to make out like you're a Christian and they're not.

Spare us. Don't go there to them, if you're just predisposed
to them being a Comic Book Joke.

Why would you waste your time doing that?

You'll have nothing to say for Jack Chick, either,
and call me a KJV-Only-ite again.

Big deal. Have a nice day.

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THESE LINKS DO NOT MEET
ANY KIND OF RULES PUT FORTH BY THE BB.

WARNING.

THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE AND LINKED TO ANSWER A QUESTION
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
AND I ASK THAT YOU JUST PLEASE NOT GO THERE,
IF OFFENDED BY STATEMENTS THAT MENTION 'THE DEVIL', ETC.,
THAT CLEARLY ARE NOT ACCEPTED HERE.

Jan 15, 2014 #1

"It was a wonderful Chick booklet called Sabotage
which first opened my eyes on Issues dealing
with Ancient Heretics & God Haters
who had attempted to corrupt & destroy The Word of God.

"Also one called The Attack which I'd like to mention.
Does anybody have any thoughts
or fond memories in regards to this matter?"
...

Was Alberto Who He Claimed To Be?

"As soon as Alberto Rivera went public with his testimony,
the Roman Catholic Church began its damage-control operation.

"Alberto knew too much! Having been prepared for leadership
in the Jesuit order, he had been briefed on things
too sensitive to put in writing. Now he was telling the world!

"Alberto was immediately denounced as having never been a priest,
even though he possessed clear documentation.

"Christianity Today printed an article written by Gary Metz,
attacking Alberto and accusing him of all sorts of things.

"Alberto refused to spend his life arguing with his accusers.

"Instead, he just pushed on, preaching the gospel,
and trusting God to defend him.

"The Lord raised up other Christians
who examined the charges against Alberto,
and found him to be exactly what he claimed to be.
Below is an abundance of evidence. Read it for yourself."

Was Alberto Who He Claimed To Be?

The Apocrypha was included in the KJV because of tradition and historic value (not that they were considered Scripture).

You have to remember that the focus of the KJV translators was to provide an English translation that supported the English monarchy. The Church of England, at the time, were very much Catholic in their faith, minus the pope (for political reasons, the king was ultimately over the church).

The Church of England did not leave the Roman Catholic Church because of theology. They left because of politics.

And yes, King James had both male and female relationships. We don't know his preferences, but we do know of three romantic relationships with men.

 

[Logos1560]

Jesuit Attempts To Destroy The Translation.
In 1605 A.D. a Jesuit plot to assassinate the King
by blowing up the House of Lords on its opening was uncovered.

Eight men, including the traitor Guy Fawkes
were captured and executed.


from: The Path to the King James Bible of 1611.
by The Bible Baptist Church of Ballincollig,
Enterprise Park, Innishmore, Ballincollig, Cork.

This source fails to prove its claims to be factual and true. This source avoids or ignores historical evidence. The plot was aimed at the king and the House of Lords, not at the making of the KJV.

Will and Ariel Durant indicated that King James suspended the recusancy laws against Catholics and that he allowed Roman Catholic priests to enter the country and say Mass in homes (Age of Reason Begins, p. 140). With this relaxation of the laws against them, the number of Catholics grew so rapidly that it alarmed the Protestants. G. M. Trevelyan wrote: "A brief relaxation of the penal laws revealed the numbers of the crypto-Catholics and struck panic into the mass of his subjects" (History of England, p. 158). Fraser noted that "Parliament declared that the number of priests in England had swollen from one hundred to one thousand within three years of the accession of King James" (Faith and Treason, p. 81). Fraser also pointed out that "by the end of 1603 it was believed that a hundred thousand people were attending Mass" (Ibid.). The House of Commons condemned James's relaxation of the anti-Catholic laws. Under great pressure, James reluctantly allowed the anti-Catholic laws to be renewed.

G. M. Trevelyan observed that it was this re-enforcement of fines for "recusancy" after being promised relief that incensed a group of Roman Catholics to form the Gunpowder Plot aimed at destroying the King and the two Houses of Parliament (History of England, p. 159). Fraser noted that "the Catholic community had been cozened to believe that James, the son of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots, would act as its deliverer once he ascended the throne" (Faith and Treason, pp. 286-287). Fraser also observed that Oswald Tesimond, a Jesuit priest, in his Narrative claimed that James made "generous promises to favour Catholics actively," that "he would admit them to every kind of honour and office in the state," and "at last he would take them under his complete protection" (Ibid., pp. 41-42). John Gerard claimed: "It is certain he [King James] did promise that Catholics should not only be quiet from any molestations, but should also enjoy such liberty in their homes privately as themselves would desire, and have both priests and sacraments with full toleration and desired quiet" (Condition of Catholics, p. 24). Manfred Barthel maintained that James "had actually promised to reintroduce Catholicism as the state religion before he came to the throne" [of England] (Jesuits, p. 165). J. P. Kenyon pointed out that the tactic of James of "buying time by promising all things to all men misfired badly with the Roman Catholics, who deluded themselves into believing the king's vague and expansive promises of toleration, and were disillusioned when he bowed to pressure from his ministers and Parliament for persecution. The result was the Gunpowder Plot of 1605" (Stuart England, p. 50).

Even after the Gunpowder Plot and the call for stronger measures against the Catholics, it is amazing that within in a few years King James was again relaxing the anti-Catholic laws. W. K. Jordan noted: "Following the gradual relaxation of the penal laws in 1611 the Catholics were to enjoy rather more than a decade of comparative peace" (Development of Religious Toleration, p. 89). Jordan pointed out that in 1622 James gave Archbishop Abbot instructions to relay to all the clergy that they were not to question the king's Catholic policy. Part of these instructions were that the clergy "shall not preach the damnation nor cry out against the pope or any of his sect or any other thing pertaining to him" (Ibid., p. 100). Henry Clark maintained that the King issued a series of instruction in 1622 which enjoined “silence upon the pulpits in respect of what might be called the particular points of Puritan pleading” (History, I, p. 251). J. B. Marsden asserted that these instructions “amounted, in fact, to a prohibition of all doctrinal preaching” (History, p. 345). Jordan also observed: "James had promised that the penal laws would be enforced, and they had been completely relaxed; he had promised that no religious concessions would be made in the marriage treaty, and he had in fact permitted France to dictate the religious articles in the treaty" (Development, pp. 113-114). Hunt pointed out that "James had abandoned the view that the Pope was Antichrist" (Puritan Moment, p. 180). Lockyer noted that in 1622 Buckingham wrote a letter to Count Gondomar, "almost certainly at the king's command," indicating that "the penal laws had been relaxed, and imprisoned priests and recusants had been set at liberty" (Buckingham, p. 128). Buckingham's letter to Gondomar confirmed that King James had made it unlawful for preachers "to rail against the Pope or the doctrine of the Church of Rome" (Gardiner, History of England, IV, p. 354).

 

[37818]

None of these arguments negate that we have good textual evidence for the identity of the original reading for Exodus 12:40 against the KJV reading.

 

[37818]

None of these arguments negate that we have good textual evidence for the identity of the original reading for Exodus 12:40 against the KJV reading.

 

[Alan Gross]

None of these arguments negate that we have good textual evidence for the identity of the original reading for Exodus 12:40 against the KJV reading.

That's great because the KJV passage is perfectly correct as it is.

It's just another proof of the preservation of the Word of God.

Praise the Lord.

 

[Alan Gross]

None of these arguments negate that we have good textual evidence for the identity of the original reading for Exodus 12:40 against the KJV reading.

Cool. Doesn't matter if there is anything supposedly 'against' the KJV reading.

The KJV Exodus 12:40 verse has no problem with it.

It's just one more verse in the Bible that's fine.

I always like to see something that we can worship God for. Hallelujah.

(and I always like to see someone on the O.P., except for rule number 3.
"Do not start a thread with an attack or a flame as your premise.
This is in violation of BB rules."
Eleven Simple Rules for Posting)

 

[Alan Gross]

The Apocrypha was included in the KJV because of tradition and historic value (not that they were considered Scripture).

You have to remember that the focus of the KJV translators was to provide an English translation that supported the English monarchy. The Church of England, at the time, were very much Catholic in their faith, minus the pope (for political reasons, the king was ultimately over the church).

The Church of England did not leave the Roman Catholic Church because of theology. They left because of politics.

And yes, King James had both male and female relationships. We don't know his preferences, but we do know of three romantic relationships with men.

“Gesundheit” is a German word that means “health” and is used to wish someone good health, especially after they sneeze. It's formed by combining the words “gesund” (“healthy”) and “-heit” (“-hood”). The tradition of wishing someone good health after they sneeze is believed to prevent the illness that a sneeze often portends. English speakers often respond to “achoo” with either “gesundheit” or “God bless you”. “Gesundheit” is the most common expression for English speakers who prefer not to say “God bless you”,
like those always aiming at the KJV for no good reason.

Merriam-Webster
Gesundheit Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster


babbel.com
How To Respond To A Sneeze In 6 Different Languages - Babbel
1. German. Interestingly, Gesundheit, the German response to a sneeze, is also the most common expression for English speakers who prefer not to say “bless you.” It simply means “health,” which is used in a number of languages when someone sneezes (makes sense).
The phrase reflects the superstition that a sneeze can cause the soul to fly out of the body. Saying the phrase prevents this from happening.
In the 1940s, the popularity of “Gesundheit” waned with rising anti-German sentiments. By the 1960s, the word had not disappeared, but evolved to be “Americanized” with lower case spelling, and is then used as an interjection only with the sole meaning of wishing good health.

 

[JonC]

“Gesundheit” is a German word that means “health” and is used to wish someone good health, especially after they sneeze. It's formed by combining the words “gesund” (“healthy”) and “-heit” (“-hood”). The tradition of wishing someone good health after they sneeze is believed to prevent the illness that a sneeze often portends. English speakers often respond to “achoo” with either “gesundheit” or “God bless you”. “Gesundheit” is the most common expression for English speakers who prefer not to say “God bless you”,
like those always aiming at the KJV for no good reason.

Merriam-Webster
Gesundheit Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

View attachment 9420
babbel.com
How To Respond To A Sneeze In 6 Different Languages - Babbel
1. German. Interestingly, Gesundheit, the German response to a sneeze, is also the most common expression for English speakers who prefer not to say “bless you.” It simply means “health,” which is used in a number of languages when someone sneezes (makes sense).
The phrase reflects the superstition that a sneeze can cause the soul to fly out of the body. Saying the phrase prevents this from happening.
In the 1940s, the popularity of “Gesundheit” waned with rising anti-German sentiments. By the 1960s, the word had not disappeared, but evolved to be “Americanized” with lower case spelling, and is then used as an interjection only with the sole meaning of wishing good health.

There is no need for anybody to aim at God's Wird, regardless of translation (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV...etc.)

If you have seen anybody taking aim at any translation ofoGod's Word then you need to report it so we can deal with the conduct.

I love the KJV. Is it my go-to translation? No. It is not a good translation in the English vernacular. While I disagree with some of the philosophy behind the translation (I am Baptist, and American....so that's a given) I still read the KJV.

 

[Baptist4life]

If you have seen anybody taking aim at any translation ofoGod's Word then you need to report it so we can deal with the conduct.

Well I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems that in trying to argue against KJVOnlyism the KJV version is attacked and demeaned repeatedly, numerous times daily.

 

[Mikoo]

There is no need for anybody to aim at God's Wird, regardless of translation (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV...etc.)

If you have seen anybody taking aim at any translation ofoGod's Word then you need to report it so we can deal with the conduct.
.

Well I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems that in trying to argue against KJVOnlyism the NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV...etc versions are attacked and demeaned repeatedly.

 

[37818]

That's great because the KJV passage is perfectly correct as it is.

The KJV Exodus 12:40 verse has no problem with it.

How does KJV Exodus 12:40 reading teach the 430 years are from the promise give to Abraham to Moses being given the Law, per Galatians 3:16-17?

 

[37818]

Well I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems that in trying to argue against KJVOnlyism the NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV...etc versions are attacked and demeaned repeatedly.

By the KJVonlyists.

 

[JonC]

Well I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems that in trying to argue against KJVOnlyism the KJV version is attacked and demeaned repeatedly, numerous times daily.

It is probably perception.

What I see are members criticizing the KJV only position (not the Bible).

I have seen KJV only people demeaning God's Word in other translations (NIV, NASB, ESV).


That said, I have not read every post on this thread.

If you see a member attacking God's Word (regardless of translation) then please report the post so it can be handled.


I consider an attack on the KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. to be a type of blasphemy. It is attacking God.

That said, pointing out translation issues is not an attack.

 

[JonC]

Well I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it seems that in trying to argue against KJVOnlyism the NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV...etc versions are attacked and demeaned repeatedly.

Agree.

I have most often seen KJV only people posting blasphemous claims against God's Word. But I think that is out of ignorance.

 

[Alan Gross]

How does KJV Exodus 12:40 reading teach
the 430 years are from the promise give to Abraham
to Moses being given the Law, per Galatians 3:16-17?

Exodus 12:40; "Now the sojourning
of the children of Israel*, who dwelt in Egypt**,
was four hundred and thirty years***."

Galatians 3:16; "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

17; "And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was
four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect."

The 400 years date from Isaac's birth (Acts 7. 6).

The 430 from the "promise"
or Covenant here made (cp. Gal. 3. 17),
and include the whole "sojourning" (Ex. 12. 40)

The prophecy that God gave to Abraham concerning the length of time of four hundred years stated in Genesis 15:13;

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety
that thy seed shall be a stranger
in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them;
and they shall afflict them four hundred years;"

and its fulfillment of four hundred thirty years as found in
Exodus 12:40; "Now the sojourning
of the children of Israel*, who dwelt in Egypt**,
was four hundred and thirty years***."

*"Israel". Figure, by which one man’s name, Israel,
is put for his father and grandfather.

**"who dwelt in Egypt". A form of Parenthesis
used to further define the People
and connect the two parts of their history.

Specifically, *Exodus 12:40; "sojourning". Commenced with Genesis 12:1.
Quite a different subject from the dwelling in Egypt."

"Now the LORD had said unto Abram,
Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,
and from thy father's house,
unto a land that I will shew thee:"


*** "four hundred and thirty years."

There are two reckonings of the sojourning:

one starting from the “promise” to Abraham,
Ex. 12:40;
Gal. 3:14, 16,17;
=430 years;

the other reckoning of the sojourning
is starting from the recognition of his “seed” (Isaac), Gen. 21:12.

See Acts 7:6
and Gen. 15:13
=400 years. N.B.

This dwelling in Egypt was 215 years (see Ap. 50);
and is to be distinguished from the “sojourning”,
which was another 215 years.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS
The Companion Bible (Condensed): Ap. 50, Page: 6,7.

B.C.
(That is, from the Common Era A.D.)

1946? Abraham's First "Call", in Ur of the Chaldees (Acts 7:2-4).
1921 Terah d. (205).
Abraham's Second "Call" (Haran).
The 430 year sojourning begin.
**
1920-1912 Abraham goes down into Egypt.
Attempted destruction of the Seed
Abraham returns from Egypt.
1911 Abraham (85) marries Hagar (Gen. 16:3).
1910 Ishmael b.(Abraham 86).
1897 Covenant of Circumcision.
(Abraham 99).
1896 Isaac b. (Abraham 100).
1891 Isaac becomes "the Seed" (Gen. 21:10; 12:7).
Ishmael "cast out". The 400 years of Acts 7:6 begin.
1878 Salah d. (433).
1863? Isaac (33) offered up.
1859 Sarah d. (127).
The only woman whose age is given in Scripture.
For significance of this, cp. Gal. 4.
In Sarah's age we
have, allegorically, the period of duration of the Old Covenant.
1856 Isaac (40) marries Rebekah.
1846 Shem (Melchizedek?) d. (600).
Abraham (150) marries Keturah?
1836 Jacob b. (Isaac 60).
1821 Abraham d. (Isaac 75. Jacob 15).

1727) (The six years of "Jacob's trouble" in the Land.)
1732 Dinah raped. Another attempt to destroy the "Seed", by raising the country against the "tribe".
(Cp. Gen. 34:30; 35:5.)
1491 The Exodus.
430 years from Gen. 12:4,
and 400 years from Gen. 21:10.

 

[37818]

The 400 years date from Isaac's birth (Acts 7. 6).

No. Doesn't teach that.
The 400 years began Genesis 21:8-9. Acts 7:6, . . . and entreat them evil four hundred years. Genesis 15:13, . . . and they shall afflict them four hundred years; . . .

 

[Alan Gross]

The 400 years began Genesis 21:8-9.

NNE KNOWS WHAT YEAR ISAAC WAS WEANED.

NOTHING SAYS THE FOUR HUNDRED YEARS STARTED WHEN ISAAC WAS WEANED,
in Genesis 21:8-9,
OR ANYWHERE ELSE, RIGHT?

WHEN DID THEY START THAT?

The Birth of Isaac.

(Romans 8:12-17; Galatians 4:1-7)

1 And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said,
and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.

2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son
in his old age, at the set time
of which God had spoken to him.

3 And Abraham called the name of his son
that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac
being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

5 And Abraham was an hundred years old,
when his son Isaac was born unto him.

6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh,
so that all that hear will laugh with me.

7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham,
that Sarah should have given children suck?
for I have born him a son in his old age.

8 And the child grew, and was weaned:
and Abraham made a great feast
the same day that Isaac was weaned.

9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,
which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
..

The reckoning of the sojourning
is starting from the recognition of Abraham's “seed” (Isaac),
Genesis 12:7, 15:13, 21:12, Acts 7:6,

Genesis 12:7; "And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him."

Genesis 15:13; "And he said unto Abram,
Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger
in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them;
and they shall afflict them four hundred years;"

Genesis 15:13, . . . and they shall afflict them four hundred years; . . .

Genesis 21:12; And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The 400 years date from Isaac's birth (Acts 7. 6).

Acts 7:2b-8a; "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

3 "And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country,
and from thy kindred, and come into the land
which I shall shew thee.

4 "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans,
and dwelt in Charran: and from thence,
when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.

5 "And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised
that he would give it to him for a possession,
and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

6 "And God spake on this wise,
That his seed should sojourn in a strange land;
and that they should bring them into bondage,
and entreat them evil four hundred years.

7 "And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.

8 "And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day;"

Acts 7:6, . . . and entreat them evil four hundred years.

= 400 years.
...