1 Corinthians 4: 1- 5 (Bible Study)

This passage from 1 Corinthians can be read during the Season of Epiphany, which runs from November 27-December 24. Corinth has been described as the New York City/Las Vegas of the Bible. Agree or disagree? Feel free to reply.

The text existed and was collated by Erasmus prior to 1611 otherwise it could not have been the text that the KJV (NT) was based on SELF EVIDENT FACT! Stephanus died in 1559 and Beza in 1605 decades before the date you give, FACT! The name TR was applied subsequently FACT! I see you are still not willing (or is that not able) to answer my question. It has been fun (well, sort of) but I'm out of this discussion...cheers.

You are way out with that date! William Tyndale's translation of 1526 uses that text, so your more than a century out! It also has "God" instead of "him" as does John Wesley's update of 1765 and I'm pretty certain the Geneva Bible has it too. You don't like the KJV? Really? It was good enough for your organisation for about 80 years! Stop prevaricating and tell us where we can find the Tetragrammaton in the Greek NT! I'm getting bored now.

"ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:16 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ" Here it is in the Received Greek Text. I look forward to your answer, cheers...

Yes, and I have answered your questions. Would you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

Classic Watchtower argumentation! So, you are going to cite 5 modern translations ALL of which deny the "Divine Name" simply because they say "he" and not "God" in 1 Tim 3:16. Anything to win the argument, however dishonest and contrary it maybe to other views you hold! "Religious" people argue like politicians, not men of integrity!

Are these the versions that do NOT have JEHOVAH in the NT? How about answering some questions instead of asking them?

Not necessarily, since NOT all writings that were available made it into the canon of Scripture. Which Greek manuscripts would you use to support the inclusion of the name JEHOVAH in the New Testament? The Textus Receptus manuscripts, or the Nestle Alland?

Oldest doesn't mean most accurate. Thanks.

We are not KJV onlyists in the Ruckmanite/Riplinger sense. You can read an article on our position on our website (see info section of this vid.)

If you used a half way decent translation yourself, instead of a gross perversion of God's word, then maybe we could get into a decent debate! The KJV was good enough for Russell and Rutherford...but wait...don't tell me...you've got "new light" on it now! LOL! Is that because WT realised that it contradicted half their doctrines? Just remind me again of Fred Franz's qualifications as a translator?