Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Howard Osgood (ASV Translator) on the American Standard Version Bible



Replying to the request to give some idea of the changes in the forthcoming American Revision of the Bible, I can offer no more than an outline sketch. The subject is too large for a short article.

Our companies of the Old and the New Testaments have always kept strictly within their own spheres, and I can speak only of the Old Testament.

All Bibles, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Latin, German, French, English, are the results of many revisions, not to add to or take from them, but to obtain the most accurate text and translations. The revision under King James, 1611, followed a hundred years of repeated revisions. That revision was an admirable work of high scholarship in Hebrew, Greek and English. But so great has been the change in the meaning and usage of words that some translations, accurate in their day, now misrepresent the Hebrew and Greek, as well as the English, of three hundred years ago. "Prevent" then meant to go before, meet; now it means to hinder. "Let" then signified to hinder; now it means to permit. "Lust" then, as in German now, meant pure pleasure, desire, joy; now it breathes vile passion. And so through a long list of words.

Could those good scholars rise up and see how time has wrenched and changed their words, they, with the same common-sense shown in their previous work, would be the first to advocate making the translation plain in the words of to-day. They believed, as we do, that the Bible was given to be made clear, and not to be wrapped up in dead and misleading terms.

The revision of 1885 removed many of these dark and twisted words, but it also left a large number which the American Company of Revisers have greatly reduced, though they have not been able to get them all out.

Why should we be compelled to read in the Bible the strange spellings "bewray," "ciel," "grisled." "holpen," "hough," "lien," "marish," "minish," "pourtray," "shew," "sith," "strake," "strowed," "victual," and many similar? That is not our spelling, and will not be. A special dictionary of strange Bible words is required to interpret such spellings to us.

There is one word occurring often which has one meaning in England, and an entirely different meaning in our land. "Corn," in England, is grain of all kinds, especially wheat, oats, barley, etc., but with us the word is never so used; it means to us Indian corn, and that alone. We do not call platters chargers, nor the hump of the camel its bunch. Traders with us are not chapmen, nor are merchants occupiers. Umpires are not known as daysmen, and we would never speak of a perfumer as a confectionary. In the language of to-day, conversation is dialogue, but in the Bible it is manner of life. Under the disguise of "fat," we would not recognize a vat, nor in a chapiter the capital of a column. What "go to" means puzzler all except the readers of Old English. We do not dress our soldiers in harness. Our statesmen are arrayed in hosen, but there are few of them who would know their trousers under that name. Farmers, with us, do not speak of the ground's being chapt, or of draining a marish, or of fraying away birds, or of sending a feller to lay the forest low. We do not take our shoes to be clouted, nor do we give cast clouts to the poor. Collops may be familiar to others, but they certainly are not to us. To fine, with us, is to impose a penalty in money, but in the Bible it means to refine; while to impose a fine is, in the Bible, to amerce. But enough. Many pages might be filled with spellings and words that are entirely foreign to us, and which therefore make the Bible more difficult of understanding.

We do not use "an" before strong aspirates,—an heart, an house. The usage in the Bible is a strange medley,—a hard and an hard, a harp and an harp, a hole and an heap. There has been an endeavor to conform to our usage of "an" only before words beginning with the vowel sound. There is the same confusion in the use of "my," "mine," "thy," "thine," before aspirates,—"thy handmaid" and "thine handmaid," "my head" and "mine head,"— and there has been a persistent effort to eliminate the confusion.

Dr. Johnson was a great man in his day of more than a hundred years ago, but he was not strong enough to block the progress of the language; and "which," despite his protest, no longer to us means "who," and "the which" is out of date as a relative.

There are also words remaining in the revision of 1885 that are needlessly harsh and repulsive, which may be replaced by just as accurate translations not so repulsive.

Until Calvin set bankers free by right teaching concerning interest on money loaned, the man who would take interest was exposed to all the penalties of the church. "Usury," in Old English, meant interest. So no interest was taken after the loan, but a bonus was exacted before the loan that put interest to the blush. And all this because of a false interpretation of Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36,37; Deuteronomy 23:19, where the Hebrews were forbidden to lend or give money or food to their poor brethren on interest. The poor would always be with them, and they were to give them sufficient to supply their need, and not make the poor repay them (Deut. 15:7-11). The injunction concerns only gifts to the needy, and has nothing to do with commercial operations. It is interesting to note that there is, among the Jews of New York to-day, a society that, loans money to the poor without bonus or interest.

What "dragons," "cockatrices," "satyrs," meant to the men of 1611 it is difficult to say; to us they are mythical terms. In King James' revision there were twenty-two "dragons." The revision of 1885 replaced fourteen of these by the right translation, "jackals;" the other eight "dragons" by plain translation of the Hebrew, will be seen in their places no more. There were four "cockatrices," with the marginal rendering "adders," in King James' revision, which were replaced by "basilisks" in 1885; but now "cockatrices" and "basilisks" have departed, and the plain translation of the Hebrew "adders" has taken their place. The "satyrs" have ceded their room to an animal that is not a myth, but very familiar, the accurate translation of a common Hebrew word,— the goat.

In "God forbid" and "would God" God is not expressed or understood in the Hebrew. They are simply "far be it" and "would that." Why these plain terms were ever translated "God forbid" and "would God" is a mystery.

Perhaps hasty critics will be astonished that so many of the references in the margins of the revision of 1885 to the Samaritan, Greek, Syriac, and Latin Bibles have been omitted in the American revision. They have been omitted because in a hundred and fifty-one out of the two hundred and forty marginal references the majority of the versions is against the references; in thirty-three places not a single version supports the reference. In 1885 the American Company voted against that set of references, not because they were ignorant on the subject, or wished to preclude investigation, or to shield any theory of inspiration, but because, as true to the Hebrew, Samaritan, Greek, Syriac, and Latin Bibles, they could not approve statements so plainly inaccurate. With no critical text of any of the versions, it is large guessing in the dark to stamp any of them on the margin of our Bibles, when a few years' investigations may nullify the proof. A very greatly reduced number of references to the versions that give some help in difficult places has been retained, and the versions are quoted that contain them.

There is no designation by capital letters of "God," "Jehovah," "the Spirit," in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, or Greek. In these languages the same size of letters employed in common narrative is used for these names. In them we read, as it were, "god," "holy spirit," "the spirit," while in English we read "God," "Holy Spirit." The use of these capitals has become very properly our method to express reverence. Much may be expressed in respect or in depreciation by capitals. When an American writer now intentionally and often prints "bible," "god," "christ," we know that he does so of set purpose to depreciate them. The English-speaking world would be justly shocked if in the Old Testament were found only "god," but, in the New, "God." That would be to us a godless evolutionism carried to its highest power. But what can be said for printing "my spirit" in Isaiah 42: 1 and Joel 2: 28, and, when these very passages are quoted in the New Testament, for printing "my Spirit"? (Matt. 12: 18; Acts 2: 17.) Similarly, "the spirit of the Lord" (Isa. 61: 1) and "the Spirit of the Lord" (Luke 4: 18), "his holy spirit " (Isa. 63: 10) and "the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7: 51). There have been strange vagaries in editions of the Bible in assigning capitals to the "Spirit" in the Old Testament, until at last our Bibles have known no "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit" before the first chapter of Matthew. And yet the New Testament declares that the presence and work of the Holy Spirit or the Spirit was the same under both Testaments; that the Holy Spirit is a person, the same God the Spirit under the Old as under the New Testament. If it would be wanting in reverence to print "spirit," "holy spirit," in the New Testament, what is it to so print in the Old? Such things ought not to be, and there is in the new American revision an endeavor to right the wrong.

Rochester, N. T.



And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth.—Gen. 1: 20.

Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.— Exod. I2: 40.

And that ye may make a distinction between the holy and the common.—Lev. 10: 10.

On the behalf of the children of Israel, that it may be theirs to do the service of Jehovah.— Num. 8: 11.

Jehovah, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as ye are.—Deut. 1: 11.

A great altar to look upon.— Josh, 22: 10.

From heaven fought the stars, From their courses they fought against Sisera. —Judg. 5: 20.

God, my rock, in him will I take refuge.—2 Sam. 22: 3.

And when they were departed from him (for they left him very sick).—2 Chron. 24: 25.

Their young ones become strong.—Job 39: 4.

I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form. —Psa. 17: 15.

I said in my haste,
All men are liars. —Psa. 116: 11.


And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and let fowl fly, etc.—Gen. 1: 20.

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt, was four hundred, etc.—Exod. IS: 40.

And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common.—Lev. 10: 10.

On the behalf of the children of Israel, that they may be to do the service of the Lord.— Num. 8: 11.

The Lord, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times so many more as ye are.— Deut. 1: 11.

A great altar to see to.—Josh. 22: 10.

They fought from heaven, The stars in their courses fought against Sisera. —Judg. 5: 20.

The God of my rock, in him will I trust.-2 Sam. 22: 3.

And when they were departed from him (for they left him in great diseases).—2 Chron. 24: 25.

Their young ones are in good liking.— Job 39: 4.

I shall be satisfied when I am awake, with thy likeness.—Psa. 17: I5.

I said in my haste,
All men are a lie. —Psa. 116: 11.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

The History of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)

The History of the Johannine Comma By Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, from his History of New Testament Criticism 1910

In the First Epistle of John, chap. v., verse 7, most but not all copies of the Latin Bible, called the Vulgate, read as follows:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.

In the first printed edition of the New Testament, called the Complutensian, prepared at Alcala in Spain in 1514 by Cardinal Francis Ximenes, the words here italicised were included, having been translated from the Latin text into Greek; for the Greek MSS. used did not contain them. They are only found in two Greek MSS., one of the fifteenth, the other of the sixteenth century. About 400 other Greek codices from the fourth century down to the fourteenth ignore them. All MSS. Of the Old Latin version anterior to Jerome lack them, and in the oldest copies even of Jerome's recension of the Latin text, called the Vulgate, they are conspicuously absent. The first Church writer to cite the verse in such a text was Priscillian, a Spaniard, who was also the first heretic to be burned alive by the Church in the year 385. After him Vigilius, Bishop of Thapsus, cites it about 484. It is probable that the later Latin Fathers mistook what was only a comment of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (died 258) for a citation of the text. In any case, it filtered from them into the Vulgate text, from which, as we have seen, it was translated into Greek and inserted in two or three very late manuscripts. [Gibbon, in a note on chap. xxxvii. of his Decline and Fall, says that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Bibles were corrected by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicolas, Cardinal and librarian of the Roman Church, secundum orthodoxam fidem. (Wetstein, Prolegom., pp. 84, 85.)]

Erasmus's first edition of the Greek Testament, in 1516, omitted the verse, as also did the second; but in 1522 he issued a third edition containing it. Robert Stephens also inserted it in his edition of 1546, which formed the basis of all subsequent editions of the Greek Testament until recently, and is known as the Received Text, or Textus Receptus.

In 1670 Sandius, an Arian, assailed the verse, as also did Simon, a learned Roman Catholic priest, in his Histoire Critique du Nouveau Testament, part i., chap. 18, about twenty years later. He was followed by Sir Isaac Newton, who, in a learned dissertation published after his death in 1754, strengthened Simon's arguments. Oddly enough, a Huguenot pastor, David Martin (1639–1721), of whom better things might have been expected, took up the cudgels in defence of the text. “It were to be wished,” he wrote, “that this strange opinion had never quitted the Arians and Socinians; but we have the grief to see it pass from them to some Christians, who, though content to retain the doctrine of the Trinity, abandon this fine passage where that holy doctrine is so clearly taught.” With the same tolerance of fraud, so long as it makes for orthodoxy, an Anglican bishop added a footnote in his catechism to the effect that the authenticity of this text, although by many disputed, must be strenuously upheld because it is so valuable a witness to the truth of Trinitarian doctrine. Gibbon, in his thirty-seventh chapter, sarcastically wrote:

The memorable text which asserts the unity of the Three who bear witness in Heaven is condemned by the universal silence of the orthodox fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts. . . . After the invention of printing, the editors of the Greek Testament yielded to their own prejudices, or those of the times; and the pious fraud, which was embraced with equal zeal at Rome and Geneva, has been infinitely multiplied in every country and every language of modern Europe.

This passage provoked an attack on Gibbon from a certain English Archdeacon, Travis, who rushed into the arena to defend the text which Kettner, answering Simon nearly a century earlier, had extravagantly hailed as “the most precious of Biblical pearls, the fairest flower of the New Testament, the compendium by way of analogy of faith in the Trinity.” It was high time that forgers should receive a rebuke, and Porson, the greatest of English Greek scholars and critics, resolved to administer it to them. In a series of Letters to Travis he detailed with merciless irony and infinite learning the history of this supposititious text. Travis answered that Porson was a Thersites, and that he despised his railings. He accused him of defending Gibbon, who, as an infidel, was no less Porson's enemy than his own. Porson's answer reveals the nobility of his character. “Why,” he replies, “for that very reason I would defend him”—a retort worthy of Dr. Johnson.

Scarcely anything in the English language is so well worth reading as these letters of Porson, and I venture to quote from his preface a single passage about Bengel (died 1752), whose commentary on the New Testament called the Gnomon was, for its day, a model of learning and acumen:

Bengel [writes Porson] allowed that the verse was in no genuine MS., that the Complutensian editors interpolated it from the Latin version, that the Codex Britannicus is good for nothing, that no ancient Greek writer cites it and many Latins omit, and that it was neither erased by the Arians nor absorbed by the homoeoteleuton. Surely, then, the verse is spurious. No; this learned man finds out a way of escape. The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. Under what a want of evidence must a critic labour who resorts to such an argument.

Porson made himself unpopular by writing these letters. The publisher of them lost money over the venture, and an old lady, Mrs. Turner, of Norwich, who had meant to leave him a fortune, cut down her bequest to thirty pounds, because her clergyman told her that Porson had assailed the Christian religion.

The revised English version of this passage omits, of course, the fictitious words, and gives no hint of the text which was once so popular. Archdeacon Travis is discreetly forgotten in the Anglican Church; but the truth has far from triumphed in the Roman, and Pope Leo XIII., in an encyclical of the year 1897, solemnly decreed that the fraudulent addition is part of authentic scripture. He was surrounded by reactionaries who imagined that, if they could wrest such a pronouncement from the infallible Pontiff, they would have made an end for ever of criticism in the Catholic Church. The abbot of Monte Casino, the home of the Benedictines, was, it is said, on the point of publishing a treatise in which he traced this forgery to its sources, when the Pope's decree was issued. He thrust back his treatise into his pigeon-holes, where it remains. The aged Pope, however, who was a stranger to such questions, soon realized that he had been imposed upon. Henceforth he refused to descend to particulars, or to condemn the many scholars delated to him as modernist heretics. Of these the Abbé Loisy was the chief, and the outcry against him finally decided Leo to establish in 1902 a commission for the progress of study of holy scripture. For the first time a few specialists were called in by the head of the Catholic Church to guide his judgment in such matters, and Leo XIII. directed them to begin by studying the question of the text, I John v., 8. They presently sent him their report. As this was to the effect that the text was not authentic, it was pigeon-holed. But the aged prelate's mind was ill at ease; and during his last illness, both in his lucid moments and in delirium, he could talk of nothing else. [I derive these statements from the Abbé Albert Houtin, La Question Biblique au XX Siècle. Paris, 1906, p. 94.] He has been succeeded by one who has no qualms, but condemns learning wherever and whenever he meets with it. To be learned in that communion is in our age to be suspect.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Catholics on the King James Version

The Catholic Encyclopedia on the King James Version 1913

The Authorized Version, the name given to the English translation of the Bible used by the Commission appointed by James 1 and in consequence often spoken of as “King James's Bible”. It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics. In order to understand its origin and history, a brief survey is necessary of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures. From very early times portions of the Bible have been translated into English. It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of St. John's Gospel on his death-bed. But the history of the English Bible as a whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380. The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done. Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.) that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the whole were in the hands of good Catholics, and were read by them. The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connexion that it is chiefly remembered. During the progress of the Reformation a number of English version appeared, translated for the most part not from the Vulgate, but from the original Hebrew and Greek. Of these the most famous were Tyndale's Bible (1525); Coverdale's Bible (1535); Matthews' Bible (1537); Cromwell's, or the “Great Bible” (1539), the second and subsequent editions of which were known as Cranmer's Bible; the Geneva Bible (1557– 60); and the Bishops' Bible (1568). The art of printing being by this time known, copies of all these circulated freely among the people. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

In order to counteract the evil effects of these versions, the Catholics determined to produce one of their own. Many of them were then living at various centres on the Continent, having been forced to leave England on account of the Penal Laws, and the work was undertaken by the members of Allen's College, at Douai, in Flanders, which was for a time transferred to Reims. The result was the Reims New Testament (1582) and the Douay Bible (1609– 10). The translation was made from the Vulgate, and although accurate, was sadly deficient in literary form, and so full of Latinisms as to be in places hardly intelligible. Indeed, a few years later, Dr. William Fulke, a well-known Puritan controversialist, brought out a book in which the text of the Bishops' Bible and the Reims Testament were printed in parallel columns, with the sole purpose of discrediting the latter. In this he did not altogether succeed, and it is now generally conceded that the Douay Bible contained much excellent and scholarly work, its very faults being due to over-anxiety not to sacrifice accuracy. In the meantime the Protestants were becoming dissatisfied with their own versions, and soon after his accession King James I appointed a commission of revision—the only practical outcome of the celebrated Hampton Court Conference. The commissioners, who numbered forty-seven, were divided into six companies, two of which sat at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, respectively; each company undertook a definite portion of the Bible, and its work was afterwards revised by a select committee chosen from the whole body. The instructions for their procedure were, to take the Bishops' Bible, which was in use in the churches, as their basis, correcting it by a comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts. They were also given a list of other English versions which they were to consult. The commissioners set to work in 1607, and completed their labours in the short period of two years and nine months, the result being what is now known as the “Authorized Version”. Although at first somewhat slow in gaining general acceptance, the Authorized Version has since become famous as a masterpiece of English literature. The first edition appeared in 1611, soon after the Douay Bible, and nearly thirty years after the Reims Testament; and although this latter was not one of the versions named in the instructions to the revisers, it is understood that it had considerable influence on them (see Preface to Revised Version, i, 2. Also, J. G. Caleton, “Rheims and the English Bible”).

The Authorized Version was printed in the usual form of chapters and verses, and before each chapter a summary of its contents was prefixed. No other extraneous matter was permitted, except some marginal explanations of the meaning of certain Greek or Hebrew words, and a number of cross-references to other parts of the Scripture. At the beginning was placed a dedication to King James and a short “Address to the Reader”. Books such as Ecclesiasticus, and Machabees, and Tobias, which are considered by Protestants to be apocryphal, were of course omitted. Although it was stated on the title-page that the Authorized Version was “appointed to be read in the Churches”, in fact it came into use only gradually. For the Epistles and Gospels, it did not displace the Bishops' Version until the revision of the Liturgy in 1661; and for the Psalms, that version has been retained to the present day; for it was found that the people were so accustomed to singing it that any change was inadvisable, if not impossible. Considerable changes were made, from time to time, in the successive editions of the Authorized Version, in the notes and references, and some even in the text. A system of chronology based chiefly on the calculations of Archbishop Ussher was first inserted in 1701; but in many later editions both the dates and many, or even all, of the references or verbal notes have been omitted.

It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749–52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner's revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, “not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction”. Nevertheless, there remained in the Authorized Version here and there traces of controversial prejudice, as for example, in the angel's salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the words “highly favoured” being a very imperfect rendering of the original*. In such cases, needless to say, Challoner adhered to the Douay. Moreover, while in the Authorized Version the names of persons and places were usually given in an anglicized form already in use, derived from the Hebrew spelling, Challoner nearly always kept, the Vulgate names, which come originally from the Septuagint. It is partly due to this that the Authorized Version has an unfamiliar sound to Catholic ears. The Authorized Version remained in undisputed possession for the greater part of three centuries, and became part of the life of the people. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, it began to be considered that the progress of science called for a new version which should embrace the results of modern research. The work was set on foot by Convocation in 1870, and a Committee was formed, in which the Americans co-operated, resulting in the issue of the Revised Version (1881–84). The Revised Version has never received any definite ecclesiastical sanction, nor has it been officially introduced into church use. It has made its way simply on its merits. But although at the present day it is much used by students, for the general public (non-Catholic) the Authorized Version still holds its ground, and shows no sign of losing its popularity.
-Thomas J. Shahan

[Ed. *The Catholic New American Bible now also uses "Hail, favored one!" instead of "Hail, full of grace."]

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Zorro and Divine Agency

From or

"There's an illustration of agency, and of the difference between the way John and his opponents view Jesus, that I sometimes use when teaching on this subject. Have most of you seen the film The Mask of Zorro? In one scene, the prison guard comes into the prison and asks whether any of the prisoners there is or has ever been the masked man, Zorro. One after another, prisoners start shouting "I'm Zorro", "I am Zorro". This is the sort of claim that John's Jewish opponents think Jesus is making. They accuse him of being mad, of having a demon. They are convinced that there is no way that he could really be the Messiah, God's chosen agent, and so they view him as being like one of these prisoners, who is making claims about himself that are untrue and unjustified, and perhaps even a bit crazy. On the other hand, later in the film Antonio Banderas' character is taught by Zorro, learns his techniques, and his aims become one with the original Zorro's aims. So when he appears on the scene, wearing the mask of Zorro, doing the work of Zorro, there is a real sense in which one can legitimately say that he now is Zorro. This is not completely unlike the way the author of the Fourth Gospel views Jesus. The point John makes again and again is that, as God's Word become flesh, as the Messiah, as one who stands in a Father-Son relationship with God and fully represents God's will as God's appointed agent, Jesus does not 'make himself' or 'make himself out to be' anything. Rather, he is the one whom God the Father has sent, and this is how Jesus is described throughout John's Gospel. As God's true, even supreme agent, he not only bears and expresses God's full authority, but he can even be called by the name of him who sent him, and thus Jesus in John is called 'Lord', 'God' and 'I am'. But he bears these names precisely as God's agent, and thus Jesus is presented in John 8:28-29 as saying "…then you will know that I am, and that I do nothing of my own accord. What I say is what the Father has taught me. He who sent me is with me, and has not left me by myself, for I always do what pleases him". Jesus in John is not a rival to God. He is God's obedient Son and agent. He is the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Word, presented in Jewish categories to answer Jewish objections raised to the beliefs that this Gospel's author and his community held dear. It was this context of conflict, it seems, that was a key, determining factor, which led the author of the Fourth Gospel to present Jesus in the manner that he did. John's development of themes that were present in earlier Christian literature, which viewed Jesus as embodying God's Wisdom and Spirit, and as God's obedient Son, led to this portrait of Jesus as God's unique agent, one who has unique authority precisely because he is uniquely obedient, and who conversely is uniquely obedient precisely
because he is the unique agent, the Word become flesh. None of these ideas is wholly absent from all earlier Christian literature, and they have their roots in Jewish thought. What is unique in John is
the way they are configured and developed. I am convinced that the Fourth Evangelist made these distinctive developments precisely in order to counter the sort of Jewish objections we have just looked at. Non-Christian Jews had objected that Jesus is making himself out to be the Son of God and even God. John answers these objections by emphasizing that Jesus does not do or say anything of himself. He thus does not fit their paradigm for understanding him: Jesus does not look like a glory seeker in the least, because he consistently turns the focus away from himself to the Father who sent him. Yet as God's unique agent, as the Word become flesh, he has an authority that is like that of no other, do speak and act on his Father's behalf."

Hugo also wrote:
"A Rebellious Son? Hugo Odeberg and the Interpretation of John 5.18",
NTS 44 (1998) 470-473.

Monday, August 13, 2018

Was King James Anti-Baptist?

Was King James Anti-Baptist?

From the book, King James Only, by Dr. Robert A. Joyner, D.B.S., Th.D, Ph.D, comes this interesting comment:


It is well known that King James hated Baptists. He said he wanted to 'harrow out of England' all Baptists. The King James Version Was rejected by Baptists when it first came out. When the Baptists first came to America, they brought the Geneva Bible, not the KJV. In fact, some of the first Baptists to arrive here had been run out of England by King James.

King James, in 1612, imprisoned a Baptist preacher named Thomas Helwys for a tract he had written opposing the state church (Church of England).

John Bunyan, a Baptist and author of PILGRIMS PROGRESS, spent many years in the Bedford prison because of persecution from the Church of England (which King James and the KJV translators were part of).

In the early days of this country, when the Anglican Church (Church of England) was the state church in Virginia, they persecuted, imprisoned and beat many Baptists. Thomas Jefferson, the second
governor of the state, made religious persecution illegal. But when they had the power, the Church of England and King James hated and persecuted Baptists. Yet today, many Baptists; want to idolize this
Baptist-hating king.

The KJV translators, when they presented their new translation to the King, said he was as "the sun shining in its strength. (Dedicatory To The Most High and Mighty Prince, James. Page I of the 1611 KJV) Of course, this expression in the Bible refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Many people today, like the KJV translators, would exalt King James to a place he could never deserve."

300 PDF Books on Creation and Evolution on DVDrom

Buy Now Only $5.99 (I only ship to the United States)

Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format

Contact for questions

Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well. Ask me about volume discounts. For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Contents of Disk (created on a Windows computer):

Origin of the Species Abridged by Charles Darwin in Kindle format

Mr. Darwin's Critics by Thomas Huxley 1871

Facts and Arguments for Darwin by Fritz Muller 1869

The Gospel according to Darwin by Woods Hutchinson 1898

Socialism and Positive Science - Darwin, Spencer, Marx by Enrico Ferri 1909

Darwinism stated by Darwin himself, Characteristic passages from the writings of Charles Darwin 1884

The influence of Darwin on philosophy by John Dewey 1910

Darwin and Hegel, with other Philosophical studies by David Ritchie 1893

Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek 1912

Charles Darwin and other English Thinkers with reference to their Religious and Ethical value by SP Cadman 1911

The Foundations of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin 1909

Eugenics and Other Evils
by Gilbert Keith Chesterton - 1922 - 188 pages

Eugenics: The Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding
by Charles Benedict Davenport 1910

Parenthood and Race Culture: An Outline of Eugenics by Caleb Williams Saleeby - 1909

Readings in evolution, genetics, and eugenics 1921

Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences
by Francis Galton - 1891 - 380 pages
(Darwin's Cousin and founder of Eugenics)

Natural Inheritance by Francis Galton- 1894

An Essay on the Principle of Population, Or, A View of Its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness with an Inquiry into our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which it contains by Thomas Robert Malthus - 1826

Heredity and Eugenics: A Course of Lectures Summarizing Recent Advances by William Ernest Castle - 1912

Social Heredity and Social Evolution: The Other Side of Eugenics
by Herbert William Conn - 1914 - 340 pages
The Social Direction of Human Evolution: An Outline of the Science of Eugenics by William Erskine Kellicott 1911

Evolution, Heredity and Eugenics
by John Merle Coulter - 1916 - 135 pages

The Principles of Biology
by Herbert Spencer - 1870

The Laws of Life: Principles of Evolution, Heredity and Eugenics. A Popular ...
by William Marion Goldsmith - 1922 - 431 pages

Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity, and Evolution
by Robert Heath Lock - 1906 - 291 pages

Mendel's principles of heredity: A Defence
by William Bateson - 1902 - 212 pages


Genetics and Eugenics: A Text-book for Students of Biology and a Reference ...
by William Ernest Castle, Gregor Mendel - 1916 - 390 pages

Catholic Churchmen in Science
by James Joseph Walsh - 1910 - 214 pages

Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution: His Life and Work
by Alpheus Spring Packard - 1901 - 412 pages

The Evolution of Man by Wilhelm Boelsche
Featured in an ad in the Socialist Review 1907, with this caption: "Modern Socialism is closely allied to the modern scientific theory of evolution, and it is impossible to understand it without knowledge of the theory. Now evolution is accepted as a working basis in every university in Europe and America, and no one with a scientific basis wastes time in questioning it. Nevertheless, there has been until now been no popular explanation of the evolution of man in simple form at a low price. There is very good reason for this. If laborers understand science, they become socialists, and the capitalists who control most publishing houses naturally do not want them to understand it."

From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea
by Henry Fairfield Osborn- 1905 - 250 pages
The History of Creation, Or, the Development of the Earth
by Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel, Edwin Ray Lankester - 1892

Evolution, old and new; or, The theories of Buffon, dr. Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck
by Samuel Butler - 1882

The evolution of man: a popular exposition of the principal points of human
by Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel - 1897
A Critique of the Theory of Evolution
by Thomas Hunt Morgan, Louis Clark Vanuxem Foundation- 1916 - 190 pages

Evolution and Adaptation
by Thomas Hunt Morgan - 1908 - 460 pages
The Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century
by Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel - 1900

Haeckel, His Life and Work
by Wilhelm Bölsche - 1906 - 330 pages
Freedom in science and teaching
by Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel - 1879 - 115 pages
Erasmus Darwin
by Ernst Krause, Charles Darwin - - 1880 - 210 pages

The Botanic Garden: A Poem, in Two Parts ; Containing the Economy of ...
by Erasmus Darwin - 1825 - 200 pages

Zoonomia; Or, The Laws of Organic Life
by Erasmus Darwin - 1801

The Origin of Species Vol 2
by Charles Darwin - Evolution - 1909 - 545 pages

The Voyage of the Beagle
by Charles Darwin - 1909 - 540 pages

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals
by Charles Darwin- 1913 - 368 pages

The Descent of man and selection in relation to sex
by Charles Darwin- 1909 - 680 pages
"Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."

The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms
by Charles Darwin- 1883 - 328 pages

Darwin and After Darwin: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory
by George John Romanes  - 1910

The Progress of Eugenics
by Caleb Williams Saleeby  - 1914 - 250 pages

Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection
by Alfred Russel Wallace - 1891 - 490 pages

Alfred Russel Wallace- Letters and Reminiscences by Alfred Russel Wallace 1916

Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection: A Series of Essays
by Alfred Russel Wallace 1871

Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection by Alfred Russel Wallace - 1889

Natural selection and tropical nature by Alfred Russel Wallace 1891

The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism by Eduard Oscar Schmidt 1875

Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection by Edward B. Poulton 1896

Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids, and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Muller 1918 (the man who discussed Irreducible Complexity long before Michael Behe)

The System of Nature 1889

The System of Nature (Système de la Nature) is a philosophical book by Baron d'Holbach (Paul Henri Thiry, 1723-1789). It was originally published under the name of Jean-Baptiste de Mirabaud, a deceased member of the French Academy of Science. D'Holbach wrote this book (with the assistance of Diderot) anonymously in 1770, describing the universe in terms of philosophical materialism (i.e., the mind is the same thing as the brain, there is no "soul" without a living body, etc.), strict determinism (free will is an illusion, and whatever happens, must), and especially atheism.
The book was considered extremely radical in its day; even Voltaire rebuked him for it. Though not a scientist himself, d'Holbach was scientifically literate and he developed his philosophy consistent with the known facts of nature and the scientific knowledge of the day.
The book has been nicknamed "The Atheist's Bible". It makes a critical distinction between mythology as a more or less benign way of bringing law ordered thought on society, nature and their powers to the masses and theology. Theology which when it separates from mythology raises the power of nature above nature itself and thus alienates the two (i.e. "nature", all that actually exists, from its power, now personified in a being outside nature) is by contrast a pernicious force in human affairs without parallel.

Plus You get:

The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation: In Two Parts by John Ray - 1735

God's Two Books - Plain Facts about Evolution, Geology and the Bible by George McReady Price 1920

 A View of the Evidences of Christianity: In Three Parts
by William Paley - 1800

Evolution and the Fall by Francis Hall 1910

Evolution explained and compared with the Bible 1883

The Mistakes of Darwin by George Wright 1909

Homo versus Darwin by William Penman Lyon 1872

A Criticism of Darwinism By Otto Effertz 1894

The Mistakes of Robert G. Ingersoll, on nature and God By George Wayne Edgett 1881

The theories of Darwin, and their relation to philosophy, religion, and morality by Rudolf Schmid 1883

Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek

Design and Darwinism by Rev. James Carmichael 1880

Darwinism and race progress by John Haycraft 1895

Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
by William Paley, James Paxton- 1829 - 300 pages

 On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation of Animals
by William Kirby - 1835

 The Hand, Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design
by Charles Bell - 1833 - 210 pages

Anti-theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877
by Robert Flint  - 1894 - 550 pages

The Light of Day: Religious Discussions and Criticisms from the Naturalist's Point of View
by John Burroughs - 1904 - 240 pages

Through Science to Faith
by Newman Smyth - 1902 - 272 pages

Physico-theology: Or, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God
by William Derham - 1720 - 450 pages

Christianity and Positivism: A Series of Lectures to the Times on Natural Theology
by James McCosh  - 1874 - 360 pages

Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever
by Joseph Priestley  - 1787

The Divine Pedigree of Man, Or, The Testimony of Evolution and Psychology
by Thomson Jay Hudson - 1899 - 370 pages

Natural Theology: Or, Rational Theism
by Milton Valentine - 1885 - 270 pages

 The Testimony of Natural Theology to Christianity
by Thomas Gisborne - 1818 - 261 pages

Illustrations of Paley's Natural Theology: With Descriptive Letter Press
by James Paxton, William Paley - 1826 - 80 pages

God in Evolution: A Pragmatic Study of Theology
by Francis Howe Johnson - 1911 - 350 pages

Creation Or Evolution?: A Philosophical Inquiry
by George Ticknor Curtis- 1887 - 560 pages

Creation, Or, The Bible and Geology Consistent
by James Murphey - 1850 - 250 pages

Fragments of The Process of Creation and The Bible Chronology
by W S Prosser  - 1914 - 20 pages

Does science aid faith in regard to Creation?
by Rev. Henry Cotterill - 1883

The Debate Between the Church and Science, Or, The Ancient Hebraic Idea of the Six Days of Creation
by Francis William Upham - 1860 - 430 pages

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by Andrew Dickson White  - 1896

The errors of evolution  by H.L. Hastings
by Robert Patterson - 1885

Evolution and Dogma
by John Augustine Zahm- 1896 - 450 pages

The first Adam and the second
by Samuel John Baird - 1860

Darwin and After Darwin: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory
by George John Romanes - Evolution - 1910

From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea by Henry Fairfield Osborn - 1905

Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory by George McCready Price 1906

Q.E.D. or New light on the Doctrine of Creation by George McCready Price 1917
George McCready Price (1870–1963) was a Canadian creationist. He produced a string of anti-evolution, or creationist works, particularly on the subject of "flood geology". However, his views did not become common amongst creationists until after his death, particularly with the "creation science" movement starting in the 1960s.
rice was born in Havelock, New Brunswick, Canada. His father died in 1882 and his mother joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In 1887, he married another follower of the church. For several years thereafter the couple worked as itinerant sellers of Seventh-day Adventist co-founder Ellen G. White's books in the Maritime Provinces of Eastern Canada.
n a response to a plea from his wife, the Adventist church employed Price as a construction worker first in Maryland. He then was, for a short time, principal of a small Adventist school in Oakland, California before moving again and becoming a construction worker and handyman at a newly purchased Adventist sanatorium in Loma Linda, where he self-published Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory in 1906. In Illogical Geology, Price offered $1000 "to any one who will, in the face of the facts here presented, show me how to prove that one kind of fossil is older than another."

Plus you Get:

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin 1900

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin Abridged

The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin, Volume 1, 1873

The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin, Volume 2, 1873

The Naturalist as Interpreter and Seer (Essays - The Origin of Species in Summary, How "The origin of species" came to be written etc) 1902

Science and a Future Life by Frederic Myers 1893 (Charles Darwin and Agnosticism)

The Foundations of The Origin of Species - 2 essays written in 1842 and 1844, 1909 by Charles Darwin

The Influence of Darwin on Historical and Political Thought, The Influence of Darwin on Psychology, Darwin and Logic, The Influence of Darwin on Sociology Darwin and Evolutionary Ethics, The Influence of Darwin on Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy, articles in Psychological review 1909

Charles Darwin, His Life and Work by Charles Holder 1891

Reception of the Origin of Species by Thomas Henry Huxley (Popular Science Monthly) 1901

On the Tendency of Species to form Variations by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace (Popular Science Monthly) 1901

Charles Darwin by Grant Allen 1885

What Mr. Darwin saw in his voyage round the world in the ship "Beagle" by Charles Darwin 1880 *

The People's Darwin, or, Darwin made easy by Edward B Aveling 1889

Darwin and the Humanities by James Mark Baldwin 1909

Charles Darwin as Geologist by Sir A Geike 1909

Life of Charles Darwin by GT Bettany 1887

Lectures on Man by Carl Vogt 1864 (some claim that Darwin copied parts of this work in Descent of Man)

Science and Revelation - a series of Lectures in reply to the Theories of Tyndall, Huxley, Darwin, Spencer by JL Porter 1875

Analysis of Darwin, Huxley and Lyell, Being a Critical Examination of the View of these Authors by Henry A. DuBois 1866

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Volume 1 1887 ("I do not believe that any one could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much difficulty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands. This taste long continued, and I became a very good shot.")

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Volume 2 1896

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Volume 3 1887

Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species - addresses by Edward Poulton 1909

Darwin and Modern Science by AC Seward 1909

The Influence of Darwin upon Entomology 1901

Darwin and Humboldt 1883

Are the effects of use and disuse inherited? an examination of the view held by Spencer and Darwin by WP Ball 1890

Shelley's view of nature contrasted with Darwin's by M Blind 1886

Socialism and Positive Science - Darwin, Spencer, Marx by Enrico Ferri 1909

All the articles of the Darwin Faith by FO Morris 1877

Is Darwin right? by William Denton 1881

The Three Barriers: Notes on Mr. Darwin's "Origin of Species." by Gilbert Rorison 1861

Darwin's probabilities - a review of his "Descent of man" by WJ Linton 1896

The History of Creation, or, The development of the earth and its inhabitants by the action of natural causes, doctrine of evolution in general, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in particular from the German of Ernst Haeckel Volume 1, 1876

The History of Creation, or, The development of the earth and its inhabitants by the action of natural causes, doctrine of evolution in general, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in particular from the German of Ernst Haeckel Volume 2, 1876

Evolution, Old and New or, the theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, as compared with that of Mr. Charles Darwin by Samuel Butler 1882

Charles Darwin: his Life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters Edited by his son, Francis Darwin 1908

Charles Darwin and Other English Thinkers with Reference to their Religious and Ethical Values by S Parkes Cadman 1910

Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection by Edward Poulton 1896

Darwin and Hegel by David Ritchie 1893

Natural Selection Before Origin of Species by Conway Zirkle 1903

Back to Methuselah. A Metabiological Pentateuch 1921 by Bernard Shaw (Why Darwin Pleased the Socialists, Darwin and Karl Marx, Why Darwin Pleased the Profiteers also, The Dawn of Darwinism)

Darwin on Trial at the Old Bailey, article in The University Magazine 1899

Darwinism and design - Creation by evolution by George St Clair 1873

Darwinism and Race Progress by John B Haycraft 1895

Darwinism stated by Darwin himself by Nathan Sheppard 1884

Darwinism by Alfred Russell Wallace 1891

Design and Darwinism by Rev. James Carmichael 1880

Doubts About Darwinism by a Semi-Darwinian 1903

Facts and arguments for Darwin by Fritz Muller 1869

From the Greeks to Darwin  - An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea by Henry F Osborn 1905

Homo versus Darwin - A Judicial Examination of the Statement Recently Published by Mr Darwin Regarding the Descent of Man 1872

How Darwin Became an Agnostic, article in The Month 1888

Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek by 1912

Luck or Cunning as the main means of organic modification? An attempt to throw additional light upon Darwin's theory of natural selection 1910

Mistakes of Darwin, article in The Bible Student and Teacher 1909

Mr. Darwins critics, article in the Contemporary Review 1871

Nietzsche and Darwinism, article in The International Monthly 1901

Plato and Darwin, a Philosophic Dialogue by Abbe Marcel Hebert 1899

Schiller on Darwinism and Design, article in Natural Science 1897

Darwinism Tested by the science of language by August Schleicher, 1869

Evolution and its consequences by St George Mivart 1872

The Gospel according to Darwin by Woods Hutchinson 1898

The influence of Darwin on Philosophy by John Dewey 1910

The Method of Darwin by F Cramer 1896

The theories of Darwin and their relation to philosophy religion and morality by Rudolf Schmid 1883

The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism by Oscar Schmidt 1875

Emma Darwin - A Century Of Family Letters Volume 1 1915

Emma Darwin - A Century Of Family Letters Volume 2 1915

Ninetieth birthday of Lincoln and Darwin by J Krauskopf 1899

The Darwinian Theory and the Law of the Migration of Organisms by Moritz Wagner 1868

More letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1 1903

More letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 2 1903

Darwiniana - Essays on Darwin by TH Huxley 1898

Species not transmutable, nor the result of Secondary Causes being a critical examination of Mr. Darwin's work entitled "Origin and variation of species" 1860 by Charles Bree

On the Theory of the Origin of the Species by natural selection in the struggle for life by John Crawfurd 1868

Darwin and after Darwin - An exposition of the Darwinian theory and a discussion of post-Darwinian questions by George Romanes, Volume 1 1892

Darwin and after Darwin - An exposition of the Darwinian theory and a discussion of post-Darwinian questions by George Romanes, Volume 2 1892

Darwin and after Darwin - An exposition of the Darwinian theory and a discussion of post-Darwinian questions by George Romanes, Volume 3 1892

Darwin or God in nature by RM Ormsby 1879

Typical methods of thinking in science and philosophy by Lucas Carlisle Kells 1910 (Statement and Analysis of Darwin's Theory)

The Bearing of the Evolutionary Theory on the conception of God by Ukichi Kawaguchi 1916

Evolutionism and Idealism in Ethics by F Cohn 1909

The Ethical Import of Darwinism by Jacob Schurman 1888

The Darwinian theory of the Transmutation of Species by Robert Mackenzie Beverley 1867


Darwin, article in The Journal of Psychological Medicine and Mental Pathology 1882

Essays Speculative And Suggestive by John A Symonds 1907 (Darwin's Thoughts About God)

Belief in God By Charles Gore 1922

English Evolutionary Ethics by MS Read 1902

Evolution and Involution by George Derwent Thomson 1880

Social Progress and the Darwinian Theory by George Nasmyth 1916

Nietzsche and Darwinism, article in The International monthly 1901

God or Gorilla - How the monkey theory of evolution exposes its own methods, refutes its own principles, denies its own inferences, disproves its own case by AW McCann 1922

Darwinism, article in The Baptist Quarterly 1873

A History of European Thought in the 19th Century by John T Merz 1902, Volume 1

A History of European Thought in the 19th Century by John T Merz 1902, Volume 2

A History of European Thought in the 19th Century by John T Merz 1902, Volume 3

A History of European Thought in the 19th Century by John T Merz 1902, Volume 4

Creation or evolution? a Philosophical Inquiry by George T Curtis 1887

Studies in the Theory of Descent by August Weismann, Volume 1, 1882

Studies in the Theory of Descent by August Weismann, Volume 2, 1882

The Philosophy of the Christian Religion by AM Fairbairn 1902 (Darwin's theory of accidental variations, What Darwin Asked, Darwin's Evolution of Ethics etc)

Scientific Sophisms. A review of current theories concerning Atoms, Apes and Man By Samuel Wainwright

The Elementary Principles of General Biology by James Francis Abbott 1914

Plus You Get:

A Doubter's Doubts about Science and Religion by Sir Robert Anderson 1909

Genesis and Modern Science by Warren Perce 1897

Religion and Science from Galileo to Bergson by John Hardwick 1920

Genesis 1 and Modern Science by Charles Warring 1892

Galileo and the Church, article in The Christian quarterly 1869

Galileo and his Judges by FR Wegg-Prosser 1889

The Bible and Science by TL Brunton 1881

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Volume 1 by Andrew Dickson White

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Volume 2 by Andrew Dickson White

Science and the Church by JA Zahm 1896

The Place of the Church in Evolution by John Tyler 1914

History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper 1875

The Religion of Science by William Wood 1922

The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the universe by Dorothy Stimson 1917

The Calumny against the Catholic Church, in reference to Galileo 1849

Religious Beliefs of Scientists, including 100 Unpublished letters on science and religion from eminent men of science by A Tabrum 1910

The Science of the Day and Genesis by E Nisbet 1881

Science and Religion by Benjamin Loomis 1905

The Religion of Science by Paul Carus 1893

The Catholic Church and Science 1908

Harmony between science and religion by JV De Concilio 1889

Where Science and Religion Meet by Mary Dowson 1919

Introduction To The Science Of Religion by F Max Muller 1882

Religion of man and ethics of science by Hudson Tuttle 1905

Religion and Science, a Philosophical Essay by John Merz 1915

The Agreement Between Science and Religion by Orlando Jay Smith 1906

The relation between religion and science: a biological approach by Angus Woodburne 1920

On the Relation between Religion and Science by George Combe 1857

The Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science 1855

Science and Religion, the Rational and the Supperrational by CJ Keyser 1914

Evolution and Scripture - The relation between the teaching of scripture and the conclusions of astronomy, geology and biology; with an inquiry into the nature of the scriptures and inspiration 1892 by Arthur Holborow

Genesis and Near Science by Anna Ramsey 1900

Science and Hebrew Tradition by Thomas Henry Huxley 1901

Evolution and religion by Arthur Dadson 1893

Genesis and Science by John Arnold 1875

The Church and Science by BC Windle 1920

The Principles of Metaphysical and Ethical Science applied to the Evidences of Religion by Francis Bowen 1855

Jesus for the Men of Today, when Science Aids Religion, by George Gilbert 1917

Religion and Science in their Relation to Philosophy by C Shields 1875

The Scientific Temper in religion, and other addresses by PN Waggett 1905 (The more general effect of evolutionary doctrine, Agnosticism and determinism, Natural selection and theism, The Bible and evolution)

Christianity in relation to science and morals by Malcolm MacColl 1890

What should I believe? An Inquiry into the Nature, grounds and value of the faiths of science, society, morals and religion by GT Ladd 1915

Science and Morals and other essays by BC Windle 1919

Christian faith in an age of science by William North Rice 1903

Religion and Chemistry by Josiah Cooke 1864

Evolution and Religion Volume 1 by Henry Ward Beecher 1885

Evolution and Religion Volume 2 by Henry Ward Beecher 1885

Naturalism and Religion by Rudolf Otto 1907

Catholic Churchmen in Science - sketches of the lives of Catholic Ecclesiastics who were among the great founders in science by James Walsh 1906

Naturalism and Agnosticism by James Ward 1915

Vital Problems of Religion by John Cohu 1914

The first Chapter of Genesis as the rock foundation for science and religion by Albert Gridley 1913

Natural Science and Religion by Asa Gray 1880

Science and Religion - lectures on the reasonableness of Christianity and the shallowness of unbelief by RB Vaughan 1879

Religion and Science as Allies by JT Bixby 1889

The Christian Philosopher - The connection of Science and Philosophy with Religion by Thomas Dick 1833

The Final Philosophy - System of perfectible knowledge issuing from the harmony of science and religion by Charles Shields 1877

Argument to Errors of Thought in Science, religion and social life by MP Malter 1911

Creation and Modern Science by GG Greenwood 1874

Religion and Science by HW Watkins 1879

The relations between religion and academic education BY ED MacMaster 1845

Astronomy and the Bible by Lucas Albert Reed 1919

The Debate between the Church and Science by Francis William Upham 1860

Charles Darwin and other English thinkers, with reference to their religious and ethical value by SP Cadman 1911

Article on anesthesia in the Westminster Review (Religious Objections to Anesthesia) 1859

The Bible under Trial in view of present-day assaults on Holy Scripture by James Orr 1907

Catholicism and Freedom of Thought, article in THE UNITED METHODIST FREE CHURCHES 1885

Is Evolution Reconcilable with the Bible, article in The Homiletic monthly 1884

The Rise of Intellectual Liberty from Thales to Copernicus by FM Holland 1885

The Censorship of the Church of Rome Volume 1 by George Putnam 1906

The Censorship of the Church of Rome Volume 2 by George Putnam 1906

Persecution of Scientists by the Church, small article in Everybody's magazine 1914

The Bible and Nature versus Copernicus. A series of lectures in defense of sacred truths discredited by modern science by Samuel Miller 1901

The Bible and Astronomy an Exposition of the Biblical Cosmology, and its Relations to Natural Science by JH Kurtz 1857

Genesis and Geology by Joseph Baylee 1857

Evolution and Creation by Charles Hardwicke 1887

Creation or evolution by George Curtis 1887

Science and faith by Francis Aveling 1906

Last Words on Evolution by Ernst Haeckel 1905

Mr. Darwin's Critics by Thomas Henry Huxley 1871

Bible, Science, and Faith by JA Zahm 1894

Problems of Faith - a Contribution to present controversies by George Argylle 1875

Christian Faith in an Age of Science by William Rice 1903

Does Science Aid Faith in Regard to Creation? by Henry Cotterill 1883

The Irreconcilable Records - Genesis and Geology by William Denton 1871

The Theories of Darwin and their Relation to Philosophy, Religion, and Morality by Rudolf Schmid 1883

The World's Sages, Infidels, and Thinkers - being biographical sketches of leading philosophers, teachers, reformers, innovators, founders of new schools of thought, eminent scientists, etc. 1876 by De Robigne Mortimer Bennett

The Doctrine of the Deluge; vindicating the Scriptural account from the doubts which have recently been cast upon it by geological speculations by Vernon Harcourt Volume 1 1838

The Doctrine of the Deluge; vindicating the Scriptural account from the doubts which have recently been cast upon it by geological speculations by Vernon Harcourt Volume 2 1838

Is the Bible Divine? A 6 Nights' discussion between Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and Mr. Robert Roberts 1876

Conflict of the 19th Century - The Bible and Free Thought by Thomas Mitchell 1893

Evenings with the Bible and Science by JB Sewall 1864

The Credentials of Science the Warrant of Faith by Josiah Cooke 1893

Faith and Modern Thought by R Welch 1876

The New Truth and the Old Faith 1880

Evolution and its Consequences - a reply to Professor Huxley 1872

The Gospel according to Darwin by W Hutchinson 1898

Science and Faith - Man as an Animal, and Man as a Member of Society by Paul Topinard 1899

Evolution and Religion - Faith as a part of a complete cosmic system by John Bascom 1897

Essays on Un-Natural History by John Gerard 1900

Excursions of an evolutionist by John Fiske 1884

Nature and the Bible, Volume 1 by FH Reusch 1886

Nature and the Bible, Volume 2 by FH Reusch 1886

Join my Facebook Group 

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Colossians 1 and The First-Born of Creation

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, The New World Translation).

One website writes: Please note that this passage does not say Jesus was the "first created," but that He was the "first-born." The Bible doesn't use the Greek word for "first created (protoktizo), but firstborn (prototokos) of all creation.

Response: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes:

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6.

From The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 2nd Edition, Revised:

"Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92 
"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom, which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid. V. 14., ibid. p 209

Making Life Count Ministries writes: The word "firstborn" refers to a position of pre-eminence rather than a time of birth. Rights and privileges were usually bestowed upon the child who was born first, but those rights did not always go to him. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of Manasseh and gave him the position of first-born (Gen. 48:13-22). In Jeremiah 31:9, God declares Ephraim to be His first-born, even though Manasseh was born first. 

The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Although Esau was the first one born, Jacob (whose name was change to Israel) received his brother's birthright and his father's blessing and became the first-born. The nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel His first-born (Ex. 4:22). Here again, first-born refers to rank and privilege. It means first in importance, not first in time. The nation of Israel was not the first-born of a woman and not even the first nation to exist. But God called it the first-born among all the nations. In the same way, Jesus is the first-born of all creation. 

The "first-born of the poor" (Isa. 14:30) means "the poorest of the poor." The "first-born of death" (Job 18:13) means Job's disease was the most terrible of diseases. The "first-born" of the kings means the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). David (v.20) was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn. The "first-born of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5) means that Jesus is pre-eminent over death.

Response: But how many of us know that the word PRWTOTOKOS is not used in Greek LXX in Job 18:13 and Isaiah 14:30? Let us look for examples where it is used mostly followed by the genitive like "of": 

Verses used are from the English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1844, 1851.

          LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep 
          and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,

          LXX Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according 
          to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, 
          and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam,

          LXX Genesis 27:19 And Jacob said to his father, I, Esau thy
, have done as thou toldest me; rise, sit, and eat of my 
          venison, that they soul may bless me.

          LXX Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, 
          Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon.

          LXX Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of 
          Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief 
          Sophar, chief Kenez,

          LXX Genesis 38:6 And Judas took a wife for Er his first-born, whose 
          name was Thamar.

          LXX Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before 
          the Lord; and God killed him.

          LXX Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went 
          into Egypt with their father Jacob-- Jacob and his sons. The first-born
          of Jacob
, Ruben.

          LXX Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and 
          the first of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.

          LXX Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say to Pharao, These things saith the Lord, 
          Israel is my first-born.

          LXX Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the 
          sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and 
          Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben.

          LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from 
          the first-born of Pharao that sits on the throne, even to the 
          first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the 
          first-born of all cattle.

          LXX Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the 
          first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that 
          sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the 
          dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle.

          LXX Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt 
          change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: 
          every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.

          LXX Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us 
          away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born
          of man
 and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice 
          every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every 
          first-born of my sons I will redeem.

          LXX Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing 
          floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.

          LXX Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every 
          first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.

          LXX Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with 
          a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every 
          first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear 
          before me empty.

          LXX Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel 
          according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the 
          houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according 
          to their heads, were-- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one 
          that went out with the host--

          LXX Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every
          first-born male
 of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, 
          and take the number by name.

          LXX Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me-- I am the Lord-- 
          instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle 
          of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the 
          children of Israel.

          LXX Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the
          sons of Israel
, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, 
          and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord.

          LXX Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three 
          which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of

          LXX Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of
, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to 
          the holy shekel.

          LXX Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of 
          the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the 
          first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb.

          LXX Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is 
          mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every 
          first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself.

          LXX Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, 
          whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: 
          only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt 
          redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.

          LXX Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves 
          and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats
          they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou 
          shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the 

          LXX Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of 
          ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the 

          LXX Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, 
          and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and 
          your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the 
          first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.

          LXX Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe 
          of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine
and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have 
          vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands.

          LXX Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy 
          God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of 
          thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd 
          and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God 

          LXX Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and 
          thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not 
          work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of
          thy sheep

          LXX Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his 
          horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at 
          once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of 
          Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.

          LXX Joshua 6:26 And Joshua adjured them on that day before the Lord, saying, 
          Cursed be the man who shall build that city: he shall lay the foundation of 
          it in his first-born, and he shall set up the gates of it in his 
          youngest son. And so did Hozan of Baethel; he laid the foundation in Abiron 
          his first-born, and set up the gates of it in his youngest surviving son.

          LXX Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, 
          (for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the 
          firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were 
          in the land of Galaad and of Basan.

          LXX 2 Samuel 3:2 And sons were born to David in Chebron: and his
was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess.

          LXX 2 Samuel 13:21 And king David heard of all these things, and was very 
          angry; but he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because be loved 
          him, for he was his first-born.

          LXX 1 Kings 16:34 And in his days Achiel the Baethelite built Jericho; he 
          laid the foundation of it in Abiron his first-born, and he set up the 
          doors of it in Segub his younger son, according to the word of the Lord 
          which he spoke by Joshua the son of Naue.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of
, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were 
          born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the 
          first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:13 And Jessae begot his first-born Eliab, Aminadab 
          was the second, Samaa the third,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron 
          were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel 
          were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:42 And the sons of Chaleb the brother of Jerameel were, 
          Marisa his first-born, he is the father of Ziph:-- and the sons of 
          Marisa the father of Chebron.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the 
          first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 3:15 And the sons of Josia; the first-born Joanan
          the second Joakim, the third Sedekias, the fourth Salum.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father 
          of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the 
          father of Baethalaen.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel 
          (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's 
          couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; 
          and he was not reckoned as first-born;

          LXX 1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel
          Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and 

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:1 Now Benjamin begot Bale his first-born, and 
          Asbel his second son, Aara the third, Noa the fourth,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:30 And her first-born son was Abdon, and Sur, and 
          Kis, and Baal, and Nadab, and Ner,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:38 And Esel had six sons, and these were their name; 
          Ezricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan, 
          and Asa: all these were the sons of Esel.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 8:39 And the sons of Asel his brother; AElam his
, and Jas the second, and Eliphalet the third.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 9:5 And of the Selonites; Asaia his first-born, and 
          his sons.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 9:36 And his first-born son was Abdon, and he had 
          Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab,

          LXX 1 Chronicles 9:44 And Esel had six sons, and these were their names; 
          Esricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan, 
          and Asa: these were the sons of Esel.

          LXX 1 Chronicles 26:6 And to Samaias his son were born the sons of his
, chiefs over the house of their father, for they were mighty.

          LXX Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our
, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds 
          and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the 
          priests that minister in the house of our God.

          LXX Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and 

          LXX Psalm 136:10 To him who smote Egypt with their first-born; for 
          his mercy endures for ever.

          LXX Jeremiah 31:9 (38:9) They went forth with weeping, and I will bring them 
          back with consolation, causing them to lodge by the channels of waters in a 
          straight way, and they shall not err in it: for I am become a father to 
          Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.

          LXX Micah 6:7 Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten thousands of 
          fat goats? should I give my first-born for ungodliness, the fruit of 
          my body for the sin of my soul?

As you can see there are many examples of the firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS] as a separate,  subordinate, and most of the time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family. 

It should be noted too, that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of "firstborn". He was simply spoken of as firstborn in the temporal sense in passages like the ones at Col. 1:15, 18, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 1:5 and Romans 8:29. When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah (Ex. 11:5) it is a member of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation? Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always thought to be the Wisdom of Proverbs. Is this a stretch?

"She [Wisdom] is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV 

"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8.

Why is this damaging to Trinitarians? Because Wisdom was created!

"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." Sirach 24:9 

The Interpreter's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22: "The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was created before them all, 
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)
The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9
Then the Creator of all gave me his command; 
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT)."

Also see Proverbs 8:22 NRSV, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work."

"The LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of his deeds of old." Smith&Goodspeed

One objection is that the New World Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the Greek. Many state that the NWT translators added to Scripture to make it look like Jesus was the first-created thing among God's creation. 

One website has: This mistranslation of Col. 1:16-17 presents a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Isaiah 44:24 says, "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'". How is it possible for the LORD (Jehovah) to stretch out the heavens alone and yet Jesus, "the first created thing," be the one who did it? They can't both be true. Jesus is not the created, but the Creator (John 1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16).

Response: Well let us see if John 1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16 actually picture Jesus as the creator.

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands". Heb. 1:10 ASV 

In Hebrews 1:10-12 the apostle Paul uses a scripture earlier applied to Jehovah in Ps. 102. Does that make them the same person? No! For instance verse 8 says, "But of the Son [he saith,] Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." These words were earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps. 45:6 (see also 2 Sam. 7:14). Is King Solomon  the same person as Jesus? No! Jesus is simply doing a work earlier prefigured by Solomon, also sharing some of the qualities of Solomon, such as wisdom. So when it comes to Jehovah in Ps. 102 the writer here attributes these qualities to Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the one whom God used in the work of creation and to whom he has now committed all authority "in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18; Col. 1:15-17) Jesus represents the God that no one has ever seen to us fully in all his qualities and actions.(John 1:18) 
Psalm 22, attributed to David, relates, partly in figurative language, some of the sufferings of Christ. (Compare Psalm 22:1 with Mark 15:34; also compare the entire Psalm with the four gospel accounts of Jesus' trial and death.) Are Jesus and David the same person? No! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does than make them the same? No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! They just did a similar work. I think you get the point. 

John 1:3 "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.  {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not.
" ASV 

In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one." 

In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3 

Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages,' showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?" 
Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328 

This scripture ties into the next one at Colossians 1:16. As we can see, the world was made "through him". We have already seen that Wisdom was created, but he was also with him at creation. "When he marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was beside him, like a master workman; And I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov. 8:29, 30 RSV 

The Bible tells us that the angels were there too: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding....When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4,7 ASV But as we can see from Proverbs, Wisdom/Jesus shared a special relationship with his God Jehovah. 

Col 1:16 "for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him" ASV 

Again we see that all things were "created through him". This is the correct way of looking at this especially when the Bible says: "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV 

Now a mediator cannot be the person he is mediating for. For instance, Moses is also called a mediator at Gal. 3:19. Moses, like Jesus, shared a special relationship with God. Both were even called by the respectful title "god", (Ex. 7:1; John 1:1) though Jesus is mightier than Moses. (Is. 9:6) 

But let us expand further. Let us look at Hebrews 1: 
"In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, {1:2} but in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. He is the one through whom God created the universe." TEV 

In verse 1, God spoke. The prophets were intermediate agents (Greek: EN). 
God uses agents to carry out his will. 
In verse 2, God spoke, but just like the prophets, the Son was an intermediate agent (Greek: EN). 

For example, Col 1:16 does not teach that Jesus is the almighty creator. Rather, it uses same Greek preposition EN which is used of the Son with an active source in the context (like the Father in vss. 12 and 13). The Father redeems "BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. The Father creates "BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. Since the Father creates "BY/IN/THROUGH" his Son as agent, it is necessary that the creation of the Son was a special case. That is why Paul explicitly says that the Son is the "firstborn of" all creation (PRWTOTOKOS), the "first-begotten of all creatures" Tyndale. Tyndale also refers to Jesus in Rev. 3:14 as the "beginning of the creatures of God."

In John 1:3 it is clear that agency is intended since DIA is used with a passive verb, or created "THROUGH" (not "by") the Word. That "through" is the clear meaning and not "by" is made explicitly clear by Paul when he said of the relationship between God and Christ in 1 Cor 8:5,6: "One God, the Father, out of (Greek: EK) whom all things are, and we unto him; and one lord, Jesus Christ "through" (Greek: DIA) whom all things are, and we through him."

When you consider all the times that God and Christ Jesus are mentioned in Colossians, the Spirit is mentioned a scant 2 times. Hardly a Trinity! "You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).

It should be noted that Trinitarians do not beleive that Jesus is the Father. They believe that the Father is God, and that the Son, Jesus, is equally God. Yet they are not the same, but at the same time they are not plural, but one. So when trinitarians say that Jesus is God, they don't really mean that. What they mean is that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity...a phrase that is never used in the Bible!

Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New World Translation at Colossians chapter 1. We are going to start by looking at some other scriptures where this is done.
Luke 21:29 
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV) 
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV) 
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible (NAB)

Luke 11:42 
"and every herb." Revised Version (RV) 
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT 
"and all the other herbs." TEV 
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the Greek to omit the word "other". 

In the book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli, when talking about the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."

Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them.