Answering Questions on Colossians 1 & John 8:58 and the New World Translation

 Question: Let's begin.  In reference to Col l:15-17 your answer was all bibles insert the word "other" where translators feel it is needed.  The KJV does it 67 times, the RSV 100 times, etc.  Well this is true, but they do not use it in this passage.  Now here is the first question.
 Why is the word "other" inserted in this passage.  Again there are two words Paul could have used if he wanted to show that Jesus was another.  First is Allos which means another of the same kind (#243 Strongs Con)  Next is Heteres means another of a different kind (#2087-2088)  By using brackets NWT acknowledges that it is not in Greek.  There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four times.... unless you are trying to support the presupposition that Jesus is not God.

Reply: Col 1:20 says  that Jesus will "reconcile all things unto himself." Will he also reconcile Satan unto himself? No! That is because there are exceptions to the word ALL/PAS/PANTA.
Why doesn't the Greek text uses ALLOS or hETEROS here? Because "other" is a legitimate part of PAS/PANTA.

In fact, had you bothered to investigate  the additions of "other" in the RSV, KJV etc., you would have seen that it most often followed PAS/PANTA, just like it does in the NWT. [The New Living Translation adds the word "else" in verse 17, "He existed before everything else began"] In fact, I have gone so far as to check every occurence of ALLOS and hETEROS in the Greek text, and I could not find any occurence of these words alongside PAS/PANTA. Obviously, it was not common to do so, showing again, the superiority of the NWT.
As we can see, the linguistic reason here is strengthened by the fact that Jesus here (verse 15) is the firstborn, a part of creation.

Question: Why do you interpret the word "first born" to mean first created.  This is not correct because there is a Greek word for "First Created" and it was not used.  The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto:  Firstborn.  The Greek for first created would be proto with ktizo:  first created.  Paul did not use the second but the first. (3)  Your comments please.

Reply: Again, you are falling into the trap you did with ALLOS and hETEROS. 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. 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

The prototokos in Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive. Let us look at the Greek here, "hos estin eikOn tou theou tou aoratou, prOtotokos [firstborn]  pasEs [of all] ktiseOs [creation]"
All the words in red are genitives, but the ones we are interested in are the ones following prOtotokos. This means "firstborn" is in the genitive construction, hence we have the translation, "firstborn of." When checking this with other uses in the LXX (Septuagint), the outcome is devastating for Trinitarians, as "firstborn of" always indicates that the referent is part of the class or group it is joined to.
For example: LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep
(This makes the firstborn a member, or part, of the sheep)
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.
(The firstborn of Pharoah is of the house of Pharoah, the firstborn of cattle was one of the cows, etc).
There are no exceptions to this. Jesus, as the firstborn of creation, is a member of creation, he is a created being.
When the NIV translates Col 1:15 as "the firstborn over all creation," it is actually being dishonest and biased.

Question:     Next in reference to John 8:58 in the 1969 Kit the footnote reads, "This is not the Being, or the "I Am" at Exodus 3:14.  Also in the 1985 Kit appendix 2F, page 1145 it reads, "Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah some say that "E-GOEI-MI is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression "I Am" which is used by God.
Where is the NWT is the Hebrew expression "I Am" that was used by God?  And if it is in Exodus 3:14
Why was it changed to I shall prove to Be?  If Jesus was not using the divine name used by God in Exodus 3:14 KJV "I Am", and if he was not claiming to be God in John 8:58/10:30-33

Reply: The expression "I am" is indeed used by God, as it is also used of those who are not God. [Even in the NWT, looking up phrases like "I am Jehovah" will bring back a positive result]
A few verses after Jesus' statement in John 8:58, a blind beggar also uses the words I AM/EGW EIMI. Does this make him God?
Let me ask you a question. In Exodus 3:12 we have the same Hebrew words that we have in verse 14. But in verse 12, in most of the Bibles I own, it is translated "I will be." Yet, 2 verses later, it is translated "I AM. Why was it changed to I AM? It seems the NWT (and Moffatt etc) are the only ones consistent here.

Question: What misunderstanding did they have about what it was Jesus said that led them to claim that he was making himself out to be God?

Reply: In John 8, they never understood Jesus as claiming to be God. In John 10:30-33, Jesus quoted Psalm 82 where even Judges are called gods. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." If Jesus were really "Equal to God" as the Jews have wrongly claimed by making God his Father, then here would have been a great opportunity to explain the Trinity to an unbelieving nation. But what does he do? He answers, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing. No explanation whatsoever of a Triune Deity. Amazing!

Question: Also, why did the soldiers fall to the ground in John 18:5-6?

Reply: "As Jesus said to them, 'I am he,' they retreated and fell to the ground." NAB
Maybe they tripped over each other, the Bible does not explain, but it was probably for the reason mentioned in the NIV Study Bible, "They came to arrest a peasant, but they were met in the dim light by a majestic person."
Jesus uses EGW EIMI 5 times in John 8, yet no one ever lost their footing. Does this mean that we should read into this that Jesus was claiming to be God the Son, the second person of a triune deity? Don't be silly.
We should be thankful that Jesus was not the Almighty, as then they would have died (Ex 33:20). Even when Moses was approached in Exodus 3, it was actually an angel doing all the talking (see verse 2 and Acts 7:30).

metatron3@gmail.com