-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question for KJV Fans
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
And the NIV says that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years. The KJV says the sojourning of the children of Israel, which dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. In other words, the total sojourning, of which Egypt was only part, was 430 years.
Israel could not have been in Egypt for 430 years. Kohath, one of the sons of Levi, had already been born by the time Israel came into Egypt. Kohath lived 133 years. Amram, Kohath's son and Moses's father, lived 137 years. The Exodus occured when Moses was 80. If you stretched the entire timeframe out to its limit, assuming that Kohath was born right before Israel came into Egypt, and that Amram was born in the last year of Kohath's life, and that Moses was born in the last year of Amram's life, you will only get 350 years. This is the maximum length of time Israel could have been in Egypt. Here, the KJV is more accurate than the NIV.
See, it works both ways.
Israel could not have been in Egypt for 430 years. Kohath, one of the sons of Levi, had already been born by the time Israel came into Egypt. Kohath lived 133 years. Amram, Kohath's son and Moses's father, lived 137 years. The Exodus occured when Moses was 80. If you stretched the entire timeframe out to its limit, assuming that Kohath was born right before Israel came into Egypt, and that Amram was born in the last year of Kohath's life, and that Moses was born in the last year of Amram's life, you will only get 350 years. This is the maximum length of time Israel could have been in Egypt. Here, the KJV is more accurate than the NIV.
See, it works both ways.
I'll take your word for it.
Yes, it can work both ways. But I think if you were to really tally it up, the KJV would lose the 'which is more accurately translated contest' by a wide margin.
Most of those places you would tally up would be subjective, not objective. For instance, the KJV accurately rendered the Isaiah 45 text you mentioned above. Evil, at the time of translation, could mean trouble, as it often does in the KJV. Now, if you want to advance the argument that language has changed you are certainly free to do that, but you cannot argue against accuracy in that instance.
Instead of taking my word for the Exodus 12 text you ought to go look it up. The bible itself proves that the NIV translators improperly translated that text.
How well do you think the NIV translates these verses? :
Mark 9:44, 46
KJV: 44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
46: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
NIV-?
Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV-?
Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
NIV-?
......and that's just the book of Mark.
http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm
Mark 9:44, 46
KJV: 44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
46: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
NIV-?
Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV-?
Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
NIV-?
......and that's just the book of Mark.
http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm
preacher4truth
Active Member
Don't look for an honest inquiry from Mr. Matto. He puts the NIV in the same category as the NWT! He's no scholar,and has no integrity.
This is from James White :The King James Only Controversy.
"In some examples it is fairly obvious that a verse has been either repeated or imported from another place in the text, In both Mark 9:44 and 46 the phrase 'where their worm dieth not,and the fire is not quenched'has been inserted in later manuscripts in both places, repeating the very same phrase found in verse 48. The manuscripts that do not contain the phrase, while in the minority,make up a wide range of witnesses against these verses. There is no reason for them to have been accidentally omitted, and obviously they were not purposefully omitted because all the manuscripts contain the very same words at verse 48. Hence, both verses are rightly removed from the text as not being part of what Mark originally wrote." (p.199)
He goes on to say that Mark 11:26 is taken from Matthew 6:15 and that Mark 15:28 was taken from was taken from Luke 22:37 or Isaiah 53:12.
44: where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
46: where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
26: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.
26: and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones."
I just used the NIV that we have for visitors in our new church. It's just a cheap hardcover Bible and wow - the verses are there!
44: where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
46: where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
26: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.
26: and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones."
I just used the NIV that we have for visitors in our new church. It's just a cheap hardcover Bible and wow - the verses are there!
But in the footnotes.:tongue3:
Last edited by a moderator:
From the first post in this thread:
(Please don't make a list of verses or parts of verses that are in the KJV and not in the modern translations. That only shows there is a difference in the manuscripts which I already know.)
So? They are there - NOT missing as is so often falsely claimed.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Who are they supposed to have stolen it from? Not the translators of the 1611 version, because they didn't call it that. Nor did King James I. In fact, as far as I can discover, the name "King James Version" was introduced a long time after 1611. Indeed, here, it has only very recently become a widely accepted alternative to "Authorised Version" - the title more usually used here.