Sorry this is so long, but here is a series of e-mails I sent to the Jehovah's Witnesses United site and their response. It has to do with the NWT inserting the word [other]in Col 1:16,17 and Phil 2:9. Pick it apart as you may. You may need an hour or two to read all of it.
(my original e-mail)
OK, here is one. This is from a website I found and would like to know why these changes have been made. I did not author this, but it is still fact.Read below:
Col. 1:16,17 and Uninspired Word Insertions
One feature of the NWT is the usage of brackets: BRACKETS: In the English readings (interlinear and main) brackets occur. These denote that the word or words enclosed have been inserted by the translator to make some application that is shown by the Greek word or to show something that is understood along with the Greek word because of its grammatical form.
The use of brackets is especially apparent at Col. 1:16,17 where the word other is inserted into those two verses four times. The NWT renders those verses as follows:
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 exist.
The truth is by inserting the word other in that passage, the NWT has distorted its meaning. Since they teach that Jesus is a created being and Col. 1:16 opposes this by stating that Jesus created all things, then basic logic would declare that Jesus can’t be part of his own creation. By inserting the non-inspired word other, which does not appear in the Greek in verses 16 and 17, the meaning is changed, allowing for their erroneous interpretation. Again, the reader should note: The word other does not appear in the Greek text in those two verses! If the Holy Spirit had wanted the inspired writer of that Scripture to use the word other, he easily could have done so as in Gal 1:8,9,19; 2:13; 4:22; 5:17; etc. To insert this word other in Col. 1:16,17 doesn’t clarify Scripture, but instead changes the meaning to a distortion that God never intended.
Phil. 2:9
NWT For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [OTHER] name.
Why did the Watchtower Society unjustly insert the word other in that verse? For anyone who knows the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the answer is obvious. In their minds, apart from Scripture to back it up, they think Jesus is Michael the archangel and not deity. Hence, a created being could never have a name above the eternal God, especially when Psa. 83:18 and 148:13 declare:
That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth (NWT). Let them praise the name of Jehovah, for his name alone is unreachably high (NWT).
Consequently, the word other is inserted in Phil. 2:9, which distorts the meaning of that verse, taking glory away from the Lord Jesus, as was done in Col. 1:16,17.
(Here is his response--veryyyyyyy longggggg)
Hello Michael,
I would be happy to respond to the material you found at:
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/nwt.htm
First, I would like to say that I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to respond to these criticisms, and I think that it would be a good idea that we completely finish discussing one set of criticisms before moving on to the next.
While many translations [For instance, NASB, NAB, NJB. A check of 155 modern translations found that 74 include Jesus in creation, 73 exclude him from creation, and 7 were neutral.] render verse 15b as "the first-born of all creation," the inclusion of "other" in the following verses is, as far as I know, not found in any other Bible translation. There are several issues that need to be addressed before we can determine whether or not "other" indicates bias on the part of the NWT translators.
THE MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD PAS
When Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:15, wrote, "all the men in the [district] of Asia have turned away from me," he obviously did not have in mind every single inhabitant in Asia, but only those who claimed to be Christians. But even this qualification is not enough, because in verse 16 Paul said that Onesiphorus did not leave him, so the statement "all men" must refer to "most of the Christians in Asia."
This illustrates how the word pas and pan do not necessarily have an all-embracing meaning, but besides possibly having the meaning '(absolutely) all,' it may also mean, per the context, "all kinds of," "all sorts of," or "all other ." One characteristic of NWT is that the translators endeavored to convey the most minute nuances of the text. For instance, they differentiate between gnosis ("knowledge") and epignosis ("accurate knowledge"), and between the words anastasis ("resurrection ") and exanastasis ("the early resurrection "). Because it is difficult to know if, at a particular time in the past, the preposition in such words (epi and ek) does in fact represent a semantic difference compared to the forms used without a preposition, the different renderings of such words may be open to discussion. However, there is no doubt that NWT's treatment of these forms is a service to the readers, because they will likely realize that different words are used in the Greek text.
Regarding the word pas/pan we have no doubt that it has different meanings in different contexts. It is not possible to translate the word as "all" every time it occurs, because when it occurs before a word lacking the definite article it often means "every," thus stressing the individual member of the group. When the article occurs, many Bible translations render the word as "all" in every instance. At first sight, this may seem to be a service to the readers, allowing them to decide the meaning, and in some cases this does work well. If Luke 21:29 had been translated, "Note the fig tree and all trees" the reader would have no problem recognizing the meaning "the fig tree and all other trees."
However, the traditional translation of Acts 2:17 will undoubtedly mislead most readers. A comparison of NWT and 70 other translations reveals that NWT is the only one that has hit the target. It is quite obvious that God will not pour out his spirit upon every living man, including those who have committed sin against the holy spirit. Therefore, the TEV rendering, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all men" is misleading, while the NWT rendering, "I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh"[that different "sorts of flesh" are referred to in verse 16 also lends support to NWT’s rendering] is illuminating. Blass-Debrunner, in discussing ellipses, says, "Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§306 (5)) is specifically Greek." [F. Blass and Ao Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert Wo Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), sec. 480, p. 254.] Two examples relevant to our discussion are given: 1 Corinthians 10:31 where the Greek word ti has the meaning "whatever else" and Hermas Mandates 4.3.7, 5.2.8, 8.12 where kai pantes mean "and all others."
Thus, there can be no doubt that from a linguistic point of view, the translation "all other" is perfectly legitimate in Colossians 1:16-17, 20. It is not mandatory, but it is possible. 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.
THE MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD 'ARCHE
We will begin our examination with Colossians 1:18. It reads, "he is the beginning [arche], the first-born [prototokos] from the dead" (RSV). In addition to the word prototokos, which we have already examined, we also find another very important word, namely, arche. In John 1:1 we read "in the beginning [arche] was the Word," but in Colossians 1:18 we are told that Jesus is the arche. Tracking through both the classical and New Testament Greek usage of this word, we find the lexical meanings are as follows: 1) beginning, 2) origin/source and 3) ruler/authority.
In the NT arche occurs 53 times, and 26 of these must have the meaning "beginning," because they are preceded by a preposition (as "from the beginning"). In 8 instances [Matthew 24:8, Mark 1:1; 13:8, 19; Hebrews 5:12; 6:1; 7:3; 2 Peter 3:4] the word occurs in a genitive construction where the meaning is also, clearly, "beginning." In 6 instances [John 8:25; Jude 1:6; Hebrews 2:3; 3:14; Revelation 21:6; 22:13. In several of these texts there is a contrast between the "beginning" and the "end."] the meaning "beginning" is also appropriate. In 2 instances [Acts 10:11; 11:5] it has the meaning "corner." In 11 instances [TEV has the following readings, in parentheses: Luke 12:11 (governors}; 20:20 (authority}; Romans 8:38 (heavenly rulers}; 1 Corinthians 15:24 (spiritual rulers}; Ephesians 1:21 (heavenly rulers}; 3:10 (angelic rulers}; 6:12 (wicked spiritual forces}; Colossians 1:16 (spiritual powers}; 2:10 (spiritual leader}; 2:15 (spiritual rulers}; Titus 3:1 (rulers}.] arche has the meaning "government" or "ruler." The final uses of this word are in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14, which are both theologically significant texts.
From the above it is clear that arche, in more than 75% of its occurrences, means "beginning." Apart from "corner," which also is a "beginning," the word is used in some sense connected with "government." The word arche, with the meaning "source," is nowhere attested in the NT, and 7 of the instances with the meaning "government" are in the plural. Also, the four singular occurrences with this meaning are qualified, either by "every" (1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10) or by a genitive construction (Luke 20:20).
The word arche in Colossians 1:18 stands unqualified as a predication of Jesus, and the meaning "government" seems to be out of the question in this verse. In the next clause Jesus is said to be "the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead," and arche and prototokos occasionally occur together, expressing the concept "the first son" (compare Gen 49:3 and Deut 21:17 in the Septuagint). So arche and prototokos in verse 18 may express the same thought: Jesus is the first one to experience a resurrection from the dead with continuing life in view.
The application of arche to Jesus in Revelation 3:14 is parallel to its use in Colossians 1:15. In Revelation 3:14 arche is qualified by "God's creation," and this presents a problem for those who support the trinity doctrine. The sense "government, authority" is hardly fitting here, but if the translator chooses the only other meaning which is found in the NT, namely, "beginning," then Jesus is described as "the beginning of God's creation," and thus a part of creation.
To avoid including Jesus in creation, a meaning which is found in the Septuagint and in classical Greek (but not in the NT) is introduced, namely, "origin" or "source." It is interesting to note that only in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14 is "origin" or "source" used for arche in many translations. We cannot call this "bias" because "origin" or "source" is a lexical possibility, but the fact that this rendering is used only in the two above-mentioned passages in many translations shows that theology has exerted a strong influence upon the translators.
Getting back to Colossians 1:18, we have found support for rendering arche as "beginning" in other NT examples; even in Revelation 3:14, an important christological passage, the sense of "beginning" is strongly suggested. Additional support is found in the phrase "the firstborn of the dead" in verse 18. The meaning is evidently that he was the first to experience a resurrection. [Regarding the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23 Jesus is called the "first fruit" (aparche). According to Acts 26:23 he was the "first to rise from , the dead," and Revelation 1:5 uses the same phrase as Colossians 1:18, "firstborn of the dead."] The conclusion of the verse supports both "beginning" and "firstborn of the dead," because it gives a basis for these expressions, namely, "that he might become the one who is first in all things."
JESUS AS MEDIATOR IN CREATION
Because ta panta is said to have been created "through him" in Colossians 1:16, Jesus is often viewed as the creator who is separate from the creation. But this is a misunderstanding of his role as mediator. In Colossians 1:16, 17 Jesus' role in creation is described by passive verbs. The agent in an active clause is the grammatical subject. If we transform an active clause into a passive one, the object of the active clause becomes the subject of the passive one (Examples are: "God created the world" [active] and "The world was created by God" [passive]). The agent of the passive clause may be identified by a preposition (in this case, by God), or the agent may simply be implied. [One reason why passive clauses are used is to avoid identifying the agent.] There is little semantic difference between the two clauses.
However, in a Greek passive clause more than the direct agent may be expressed; an intermediate agent may also be expressed. According to Robertson the direct agent is most commonly expressed by the Greek preposition hupo ("by"), and sometimes by apo ("from") and ek ("out of'). The intermediate agent is identified by dia ("through"). [Robertson, Grammar, p. 820.] A literal rendering of Matthew 1:22 may illustrate some of these distinctions: "All this took place because what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by, i [hupo] the Lord through [dia] the prophet must be fulfilled, [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the direct agent and "the prophet" is the intermediate agent.
What, then, is the position of Jesus in relation to creation? In Colossians 1:16 we find the preposition en ("in," "by means of'). This preposition governs auto ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences in the NT of en auto in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being in some place. Only one of the examples points to a direct agent. [Grammatically speaking the phrase en auto in 1 Corinthians 6:2 could either refer to a direct agent or an indirect agent. It is explicitly said in this verse that the holy ones will judge the world, and therefore en auto must represent the direct agent. Each preposition can be used in a number of ways; we see particular patterns but nothing is fixed, so the context must be carefully considered in each case.] In the last part of verse 16 we find the preposition dia, which governs autou in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view Jesus.
Does the context confirm that God is the direct agent of the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that Jesus is the intermediate agent? It certainly does! In Colossians 1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the direct agent (God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through" (dia) Jesus and "to" (eis) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied agent (grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is said that reconciliation occurred "by means or' (en) his fleshly body and "through" (dia) his death.
The conclusion to this matter may be expressed in the words of one commentator: "It should be noted that (in), (through), and (for) are used, but not (from). 'From whom are all things' is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the pre_existent Christ is the mediator of creation." [Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 50, note 125.]
THE REFERENCE OF TA PANTA
Let us now return to the question about the relationship between Jesus and creation, by considering the reference of ta panta. As discussed above, God is the one who acts, the direct agent, and Jesus is the intermediate agent through whom ta panta was created. Therefore, it is obvious that Jesus is not a part of ta panta, but to use this fact as a basis for not including Jesus in "all creation" (pases ktiseos) in verse 15 seems to be circular. As a matter of fact, ta panta may linguistically mean "all things" or "all other things," but to exclude the rendering "all other things" in Colossians 1 - and this is very important - one must demonstrate that ta panta is identical with pases ktiseos in verse 15. [One way to suggest identity would be to show that the lack of article before the noun ktiseos occurring after pases means "every creature" and not "all creation." Jesus could hardly be "the firstborn of every creature," but he could be "the firstborn of all creation." In many instances the lack of the article before pas gives the meaning "every," but in Mark 13:19 and 2 Peter 3:4 the phrase arche ktiseos (the beginning of the creation) without article is used in the inclusive sense. The lack of the article in Colossians 1:15 does not change the meaning from "all" to "every." See Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), pp. 199-200; Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 94, 95; G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Spachidioms (Leipzig, 1862), sec. 18, p. 137.] But this is the very point under discussion, and cannot be presumed.
We will now compare various references to ta panta and compare them with references to with pases ktiseos, and see if they are synonomous. The words ta panta occur 35 times in NT and of these 29 occur in the portion generally accepted as the Pauline corpus. Looking at the different passages, we see that it becomes clear that the words do not have fixed contents, and to understand them we must in each case find their reference. In fact, these words have fuzzy edges, and they serve as "signals" for thoughts, the contents of which can only be found by help of the context.
In Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 4:11 the reference is to all that God has created, precisely the same reference as pases ktiseos in Colossians 1:15. However, the reference may also be more restricted. In 1 Corinthians 12:19 the phrase ta panta refers to all the members of the human body, and by 1 implication to all the members of the Christian congregation. In other instances the contents are abstract and it is more difficult to know exactly what is involved. Some examples include that which can be studied (1 Cor 2:15), all the operations of the holy spirit (1 Cor 12:6), all things in which a Christian may progress (Eph 4:15), and all the things that Christ represents (Co13:11).
The words ta panta may also be used for negative things. In Philippians 3:8 the reference is to all the things offered by the world in contrast with Christian values, in Colossians 3:8 the reference is to all the bad things formerly practiced by the Colossians, and in Galatians 3:22 the reference is to all the things in which sin operates.
Returning to the use of ta panta in Colossians 1, we find it is clear that we cannot, at the outset, take for granted that ta panta in this chapter is all-inclusive and has the same meaning as pases ktiseo ("all creation"). In fact, we know for sure that this is not the case, at least not in verse 20. While ta panta in verses 16 and 17 evidently includes the angels of heaven, the same words in verse 20 do not include them, but must be restricted to those creatures who are sinners, and who are in need of reconciliation with God. [One could get the impression that creatures in heaven would also be reconciled with God through the blood of Jesus Christ, but such a thought is not articulated elsewhere in the Bible. I will not attempt to interpret the words, but I will point out that in Ephesians 2:5, 6 it is said that Christians are already seated in heaven, so the words of Colossians 1:20 need not apply to anyone other than those Christians still looking forward heavenly life.] Thus, we cannot by the help of lexical evidence say that ta panta in verses 16 and 17 has the same meaning as pases ktiseo in verse 15.
THE TRANSLATION OF TA PANTA
In reviewing the evidence, we find that both lexically and grammatically a translation of Colossians 1:15 which includes Jesus Christ as part of the creation has strong support. Of particular importance is the lack of evidence that prototokos has a meaning other than "the one who is born first." Further, we found that, lexically speaking, ta panta could be translated as "all things" or as "all other things." The crucial point, therefore, in deciding between these two is not linguistics, but the context. Because the words ta panta can make different references - sometimes the reference is restricted, as in Colossians 1:2 - we cannot presume that the use of these words in Colossians 1:16 and 17 have the same meaning as pases ktiseo in 1:15. Thus, there is nothing in the context that prevents us from including Jesus Christ as part of creation. In NWT the use of "all other" four times in Colossians 1 cannot be viewed as bias, and it is not interpolation, since the very words of 1:15 reveal that Jesus Christ is a part of creation, which then implies the word "other" in these four places.
I have not responded directly to the Phil. 2:9 verse because I believe the discussion above covers it also. If you would like further clarification, please do not heistate to ask.
I would also recommend reading these posts from the Biblical Greek listserver:
http://ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-08/1068.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-02/0554.html
You may ask your next question when you are ready.
Sincerely,
james Long
(My response)
Well, thanks for responding and proving one of my
theories, that WT uses confusion to subdue its
followers. I asked for a simple explanation and you
give me a novel. After reading what you wrote I still
do not see the reason. AND, if what you say is true,
then why are the words in [brackets]? Shouldnt they be
included w/out brackets? I see that this will be one
unresolved issue.
I forgot to add that I stopped researching what you wrote after I finished this first part. You ASSUME in your explanation that Onesiphorus was in Asia, but it clearly does not state that. Big Difference. I will believe what the Bible says, word for word. Even NWT does not state that Onesiphorus was in Asia.
To me "ALL MEN" means "ALL MEN". What I think that means is "ALL MEN" that Paul evangalized to, including Phygellus and Hermogenus, turned away from him, it does not say all christians, why would he have gone to Asia looking for Christians? It says in the previous scriptures he was appointed as a preacher. The only reasons I brought this up for is because of what you wrote here below.
" so the statement "all men" must refer to "most of the Christians in Asia.""
I dont think so.
(Now his reply-again)
It is unfortunate that you ask me to explain the reasoning behind the use of "other" but then decide not to carefully consider what was written. Perhaps you simply did not expect a thorough answer? In any case, my explanation was not solely dependent upon Onesiphorus being in Asia, a fact that would have been obvious if the entire response was carefully read and digested. Further, the explanation that I gave quoted and referenced non-Witness Biblical scholars that support my views and the definition and use of "pas", therefore what you "think" the word means is of little use in our discussion. What matters is how it is used in context. I do not see a need to discuss this with you further until you consider and reply to the entire explanation. I simply do not have the time to re-explain it to you.
(a second e-mail he sent in reply)
First, the explanation given was not provided by the WT, it was
provided
by me based on the Biblical texts and non-Witness scholarly reference.
Further, I still have your original email and you never asked for a
"simple" explanation, you simply asked me to respond to website
material
that you copied. Further, given the nature of false criticisms, it is
often the case that one must provide detailed information to counter
such claims due to the many falsehoods asserted in them. The bottom
line is simply this: the NWT is honest when it uses the brackets and it
is also honest when they are left out. All major translations add text
to the Bible. It would be impossible not to since Koine Greek is not
precisely equivalent to 20th century English. This issue is far from
unresolved in the academic community, and if you would study the issue
you would come to the same conclusion.
(My reply)
Your a moron and have no idea what you wrote to me.
Your whole explaination stemmed from the first
paragraph and I clearly showed you that you were wrong
about stating "so the expression "all men" must refer
to "most of the Christians in Asia."", right? Like I said, you are a moron and I wont waste any more of my time with you. Think for
yourself for once, slave.
(and his)
Well, I knew it was only a matter of time before you resorted to ad
hominem attacks. Have a nice life.
Sincerely,
James Long
http://jehovah.to
He never really gave me the answer, did he?
Thanks for reading the above and remember, always add pepper to your vomit BEFORE you lap it back up. mmmmm good