This thread isn't meant to go into discussing how deceptive the society has been over the translation of this passage of scripture as that has been done many times on here. What I want to know is this - the society has inserted the word other in the collosions verses and the one in Philippians (above every (other) name). They've done this for doctrinal matters. Has the society inserted the word "other" anywhere else in the bible - especially in places where it doesn't matter doctrinally?
Colossians 1:15,16 all (other) things
Here is a list of occurrances of "all" / "every" (Greek πᾶς, Strong's 3956) wherein the NWT (not the revised one) has "other" inserted with it:
Mt 6:33; 26:35; Mk 4:13, 32; Lk 11:41, 42; 13:2, 4; 21:29; Jn 2:10; 10:29; Rom 8:32; 1Co 6:18; 12:26; Php 2:9; Col 1:16, 17, 20
If you have access to the WTLibrary, just copy the line and paste it into the search box of the WTLibrary and it will create a listing of those verses. In many cases English idiom allows for it. Lexicons also define πᾶς (pas) as "each, every, any" "all," "any and every," "whole," "every kind of, all sorts of." (All these definitions were given in Bauer's 3rd edition Lexicon - BDAG, pp. 782-84)
Note that in some cases the NWT has brackets "[ ]" around "other," and in some cases it doesn't. The more recent versions of the NWT (2006 and later) have the brackets removed entirely.
I think the arguments for and against "other" in Colossians would have to be classified as theological arguments. The language itself, both Greek and English, allow for it as one possible way of translating it.
If you are really interested in deceptions in Colossians, you only need to look at the first word of the letter. It's a deception.
Col.1:1 does sound like it could have been written by Freddie Franz.
doug mason, please explain your thought on this
Bobcat is correct in his comments.
You may find a more detailed answer below:
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading.
Colossians is one of the letters that is considered was not written by Paul.
Only 7 of the NT missives attributed to him are considered to be genuinely by him. And of those which are, some are compilations of several letters and some are missing (Laodicea, for example).
For the first two centuries, only "heretics" such as Marcion (mid-2nd century) used Paul's writings but the church fathers did not oppose him by quoting Paul's writings. At that stage, the church considered Paul's writings were not catholic (for the church as a whole) because they were written to a particular church over a specific incident.
We can rightly state that the WTS's NWT does not correctly represent the text that has been provided to it by Christendom. We can rightly say that it has allowed its theology (study of God) to influence its rendering. And for this it stands condemned - and this is a practice it follows regularly across citations of others.
However, we must always keep in mind that in amending the Scriptures according to its prejudices, it is following the practice of Hebrew and Christian redactors for at least 2500 years.
As a scroll was copied (there were not only perishable, they were in constant use), the texts were deliberately amended to make them suit the views of the period. About the 2nd century, the Jews removed all variants they did not agree with but by this time that text was severely corrupted. When the Masoretes invoked their regime of precise copying about 1000 years later, they set the corrupted text in concrete.
The text of the NT is likewise subject to opinion and interference. The Greek text used by the NWT comes from two 19th century Anglican Bishops. The KJV used a different Greek text - the "Textus Receptus". And the WTS is fully aware of disputed passages, which it does not include in its NWT. This shows how throughout the past 2000 years, people have misused their authority to get people to believe what they want the people to believe.
Further, when the 4th century Christian Church decided to create a list of accepted Scriptures, they selected those writings which it decided fitted in with their beliefs. So again we have an example of doctrine influencing the text.
The WTS is not justified in misrepresenting the text it has accepted, but it does follow millennia of tradition of playing with the text to make it say what the editor (redactor) wanted it to say.
thanks doug, very interesting. in a similar vein, i dont believe the torah was written by moses. i highly recommend the book "who wrote the bible?" explains a lot....i have always had some doubts about some of "pauls" writings. im going to haver to dig deeper into this. thanks again