Posts by aqwsed12345

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Wonderment

Both 'archē' and 'prōtotokos' are honorific titles for the Son. He himself is the 'archē' and he himself is the 'prōtotokos'. When he uses the same words in the context of "the whole creation" with a genetive, it means the same as, when these titles stands alone, when the NT states that he is the 'archē' and the 'prōtotokos'. The expression 'firstborn' was even correctly interpreted by WTS in another context:

„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)

So if according even to your boss, in a biblical context, the firstborn does not mean the first born in the order, but the pre-eminent heir, then why would it mean anything else in Col 1:15? Just because then you would lose your one-liners?

And the term 'archē' cannot be separated from the connotation it created in the given age, in the given Hellenic world. The Greek philosophers called 'archē' the primordial principle, the source of the created world, the principle from which the world originates. You cannot transfer this connotation to the English term "beginning". This is not a "beginner in time", since He is the BEGINNING himself, the 'archē', the source of creation. This does not make him a creature, on the contrary. Another meaning is: 'ruler'.

"Since when does a simple usage of the verb "was" prove unequivocablly that Jesus is eternal, just by linking it to the phrase "in the beginning"?"

Not by itself from the word "was", but because the prologue of John's Gospel clearly speaks of "the beginning" in the absolute sense, while this cannot be said about the John 8:44 you quoted. John's prologue is clearly about the absolute beginning, since John begins his gospel in a way that is clearly rhymes with the words of the books of Genesis. According to the Septuagint, Genesis 1:1 begins "En archē...", and John 1:1a also harmonizes with these exact words. And in John 8:44 you quote, it says "ēn ap' archēs". No harmony.

Also, it makes "was" without further statement, not in all your other examples. In the begginning. He. Was. Full stop. Thus already existed in the beginning in absolute sence. So John 1:1a just proves that the Logos already in the absolute sense of the beginning 'was', not 'came to be', not created, etc.

"Gen 1.1 tells us (KJV): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void." The verb "was" is being linked to "the beginning." Was the earth eternal?"

Non sequitur. There it is quite clear that "was" is used after creation. So the Earth used to be 'without form, and void'. Your other example of Gen 10:9 is even more stupid.

The fact that John 20:31 calls Chirst "Son of the God" since when excludes that John 1:1a declares that the Son existed in the beginning?

The other interesting fact that Jesus' words in John 8:58 stongly echoes God's name in Exodus 3:14 (LXX), so the NWT had to distort it :)

The other JW "argument" is that the simply "theos" without article can only be a lesser god, and only "ho theos" can mean truly God (which I don't know where they got it from), then why does Thomas call Jesus "ho theos", according to John 20:28?

I ask you too:

Where does the Bible declare that the Son was created, or that he is a creature? Nowhere.
On the contrary: that he was born / begotten.
Where does the Bible declare that the Son is an angel? Nowhere.
On the contrary, He is superior to all the angels (Hebrews 1)
Where does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: the apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
Does it declare the Son is LORD and GOD? Yes, in many places.
Where does the Bible say that the Son had a beginning in time, and there was a time when he didn't exist? Nowhere.
On the contrary, the Bible writes that even time, the ages (aions), were created by him and in the beginning He already "was".

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

slimboyfat

"How do you know what went on inside Jerome’s head? Where’s your evidence?"

For example, from the writings of Jerome? Because I - unlike you - if I want to know what an ancient author thought, I first read his writing, not the opinion of a contemporary author about what he thinks he thought. By the very end of the 4th century, the Arian threat was not significant in the core area of the Roman Empire, as the Arian movements were pushed out to Spain and the Goths (I have already spoken about Wulfila's mistranslation of Philippians 2:6).

Jerome wrote a Prologue to each book of the Holy Scriptures, where he explained his position on its canonicity, the available basic text, and possible translation difficulties. He did not receive, nor would he have received, any instructions as to what theological aspects he should comply with during the translation. His opponent was precisely the school of thought that regarded the Septuagint as inspired, and wanted to see God's providence behind its already obvious mistranslations. Or, for example, Augustine was worried about practical church political considerations, it is indicated that he would cause a break between the Latin West and the Greek Church of the East.

Direct sources about this are still available today, and there is no mention of theological biases anywhere, especially those that would have affected Christology, or the Arian controversy. And I repeat: even the WTS spoke highly of Jerome's work and did not accuse him of theological bias. If you have any direct source that Jerome took into account aspects related to the Arian debate during his work on Bible translation, then bring it up!

I would like to note that this is where the difference between our two positions comes into play. The apostles received the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22), and the Holy Spirit leads the Church (Jn 16:13, 1Jn 2:27). The Holy Spirit was passed on by the laying on of hands by the apostles (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 14:23, Acts 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:1-2, 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:22).

Now, if the true Church has disappeared, then the Holy Spirit has also disappeared, or maybe the Holy Spirit was poured out separately for Russel. Or which successor of the apostle laid his hand on him?

And only the one in whom the Holy Spirit works can speak the truth, and this is only possible if the successors of the apostles communicated the Holy Spirit to him through the laying on of hands.

I would focus on Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18, which excludes the disappearance of God's church for 1800-1900 years, and the fact is that there is no data to suggest that the theology of the early Christians was even remotely similar to today's JWs. See also Mt 18:17, Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1Tim 3:15, 2Tim 2:13.

If the JW conspiracy theory about the "great apostasy", and the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament etc. were true, then the whole of Christianity is a worthless.

"I’m not saying that Jerome definitely removed “created” from Prov. 8.22 for theological reasons, even though the source you cited said it was motivated by Arianism"

Which of source maintains that Jerome translate 'qanani' as "possedit" in order to prevent Arianisms?

"and even though Jerome complained the world “groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian” in 360 CE."

I let you look after when did Jerome start to translate the Book of Proverbs from Hebrew to Latin. A hint: not in 360. Furthermore, where does Jerome's complaint in 360 relate to the fact that he was guided by this aspect when translating the book of Proverbs?

"You say qana shouldn’t be translated “created”, yet experts in Hebrew do translate it as “created”, including Jewish scholars such as Robert Alter. How are we supposed to judge the situation? Hebrew scholars are wrong and aqwsed12345 is right? On what basis?"

You are funny, at least :-) So it's me and only me against the whole scientific consensus, oh really?. I can play also the same: Who should we trust, Robert Alter or Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Jerome and the consensus of the Church of two millenia?

But it's not even like that. I would be happy to ask any of your sources (like the counter-WTS apologists asked George Howard) to clarify their views. Namely, a Hebrew word that has many nuances (Semitic languages are quite compact), and you have to select a word from it during the Bible translation, or you have to use a complete circumscription. Okay, let's assume that linguistically it is not inherently acceptable, but even desirable to translate the Hebrew 'qanah' here with the English verb 'to create', although by definition and necessarily the shades of meaning of this English word will not cover the Hebrew verb "qanah". Can you clarify what you mean by that? Is it then possible to build a doctrine on this English word?

Or, specifically, the question I would like to ask any Hebraist, including your sources:

Let's put aside those principles adopted during biblical exegesis, that e.g. it is necessary to take into account the genre of the given biblical book (that you cannot base a doctrine on a poetic book), its place in the revelation, and the Christian principle (which the JWs completely reject) that the person of Jesus and the gospel are the center of the revelation , so in the event of a controversial question, the New Testament interpretation must guide the Old Testament.
Let us assume that the Wisdom of the book of Proverbs is not an allegory, but literally and one-to-one the Son/Logos revealed in the New Testament, so the statements made here regarding Wisdom are to be interpreted as straight doctrinal truths for him.
In this hypothetic case, the Hebrew sentence "YHWH qānānî rêšîṯ darkōw qeḏem mip̄'ālāw mê'āz" specifically grammatically contradictory and excludes, refutes the statement of the Nicene Creed about the Son that "gennethenta ek toú Patrós ..., gennethenta, ou poiithenta"? Really? Yes or no?

Let's continue...

So according to Adela Yarbro Collins, Justin Martyr professed the the Son was "a lesser god", or demigod (even archangel Michael), just like later Arians and JWs do. Unfortunately, Adela Yarbro Collins does not indicate which of Justin's statements she based this opinion on, so it remains a mystery. To me, what Justin wrote personally seems more relevant than Adela Yarbro Collins' uncorroborated opinion of what she thinks Justin really thought. Here you can find some direct quotes from Justin, where you can read directly what he actually wrote.

https://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

It’s not prejudice, but the logical conclusion of the following facts:

the NT exclusively describes the Son’s orgin from the Father by terms derived from ‘gennao’ and ‘tikto’, and openly states that that in the beginning He already was, even the aeons made through him
the NT exclusively describes the creation’s, and the creatures’ coming in the existence by terms derived from ‘ktizo’ and ‘poioi’
therefore there must be a significant difference in quality between these two
the Scripture cannot contradict itself
therefore the OT cannot maintain that the Son is a creature, especially not the sense of ‘poio’

I assume those secular scholars disregard the point 4. So the logical conclusion can only be, that in the Proverbs 8:22

‘Qanah’ simpy doesn’t mean ‘ktizo’, but ‘ktáomai’, Jerome’s solution.
‘Qanah’ may mean ‘ktizo’, but not in the abused Arian sense, which is actually ‘poio’, therefore in the general meaning of it, which also includes: for example “to appoint”. Athaniasius’ solution.
‘Qanah’ can mean even ‘poio’ (highly unlikely, even from linguistic POV), but applied to the Incarnate Christ, according to which of course He’s a creature
‘Qanah’ can mean whatever, since it’s not literally about the generation of the Son/Logos of the NT, but an allegory of the Wisdom of God, so whatever this means, theologically irrelevant for the Christology. This solution is also acceptable for the WTS.

The choice is yours :-)

Btw, check this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/קנה

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

slimboyfat

I love these expression from you: "the most competent and respected", "the majority of expert". Oh WOW!

This obviously shows your attitude. Obviously, the same "the most competent and respected" and "the majority of expert" scholars would also "scientifically" establish how imperfect the Holy Scriptures are and are actually just a collection of ancient superstitions. This is chronolatry, this arrogant worship of "modern science", that invents completely new things that no one has thought of before. Everyone used to be an idiot centuries before. Everyone is smart now. Some guy living in the 21th century obviously knows what ancient Christians actually professed, than the ancient writers, the church fathers themself, just as the newest iPhone is better than the old one.

If it is described in a Harvard publication that Jesus did not exist, then of course it is so. If an ancient author writes something, it is worthless "because it's [the current year]" (by Trudeau). I don't want to disparage researchers in general, but you don't have to fall for them, of course you have to know their methodology, but especially that everyone obviously wants to discover something "revolutionary".

Athanasius used simply used the LXX, and could defend the Nicene doctrine, just pointing out that the Arians when they read and say ktizo, they actually mean poio. Ktizo can be interpreted in the Orthodox way, and does not imply poio.

Jerome did not make a biased Bible translation at all, even the WTS publications recognize this and present him as a high-impact honest Bible translator, and never accused him of Trinitarian bias (only for translating the Tetragrammaton as "Dominus"). I note that many people in his time criticized Jerome precisely because he was translating directly from the Hebrew scriptures, why he was not from the traditionally accepted Septuagint, and why he was taking lessons from the Jews, learning Hebrew, and accused him of being a Judaizer. He started to translate the Vulgate after the Council of Constantinople, when Arianism wasn't an issue at all for him. He translated "qanani" as "possedit" most probably because this is how the the Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine back then understood it, following Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.

The Peshitta (Syriac) isn't translated from Hebrew, but most likely from the Greek Septuagint.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

Because Book of Proverbs belongs to the Ketuvim, the Wisdom literature, and it must be interpreted according to its poetic genre characteristics. So, if you want to understand what "qanah" means here, compare how "qanah" is used elsewhere in that book, not in the Genesis, written centurie before.

It is quite clear what Arians do, they take one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture.

And again, do you realize that even WTS publications admit that the Wisdom of Proverbs is not literally the Son (the Logos), but a feminine allegory that only can be applied figuratively to the Son as a tipology? So even is the adequate word for creating (bara) stood there, still would not prove the Arianism?

Does the New Testament say that the Son was begotten or born of the Father? Yes or no? Say the same of the creatures or not? Do you think it is a coincidence that the Holy Scriptures describe the origin of the Son from the Father, consistently with a different word it uses for the creatures?

gennao, tikto <-> ktizo, poio

Just read John 1:1a with understanding, "in the beginning was the Word,"... now say it loudly: "in the beginning ... was", and then repeat WAS, WAS, WAS, until the message gets through your mind. And after that: according Hebrews 1:2 even the "ages" (aion) were made through the Son? So without aions there is no time, no temporality, no before and after, so He is eternal.

So how can you say that the following definition for the generation of the Son from the Father in the Nicene Creed is not Scriptural? It's terminology and content is completely scriptural!

"begotten of the Father before all ages (æons)", "begotten, not made"
"γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" [gennethenta pro panton ton aionon], "γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα" [gennithenta ou poiithenta]

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Still doesn't matter, since it's still not "creating" in the sense as Arians interpreted it. Ktizo has a various, as well the english word "create". When the pope "creates" a cardinal, doesn't mean he brings him to existence ex nihilo, but appoints him to a position.

Secondly: the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 is not the Logos of John per se, but a literature allergory, which can be applied (but not equated) to Him, so even if the verb 'bara' stood there, also wouldn't prove the Arian sense of Son's originating.

The NT declares multiple times that Son is "born" / "begotten" of the Father, is it so difficult to accept?

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Have you already checked its basic meaning in the Book of Proverbs?

1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.

So 'qanah' in the whole book of Proverbs means something, but right in 8:22 it means something else, because the JWs need a "one liner" "proof text" ... and doesn't matter if is ruled out by several other specific and literal scriptural statements about the Son, which declare that the Son "in the beginning" already was, and existed even "before" the aeons. It also doesn't matter that neither the Holy Scriptures nor any early Christian writer says he's a "created angel" or Michael.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

BoogerMan

The answer for your question lies in your comment: because of the Incarnation. Look after the dual nature and the hypostatic union of Jesus.

"For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and made flesh, nor yet that it was changed into the whole man (composed) of soul and body but rather (we say) that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man, not according to the will alone or by the assumption of a person alone, and that the different natures were brought together in a real union, but that out of both in one Christ and Son, not because the distinction of natures was destroyed by the union, but rather because the divine nature and the human nature formed one Lord and Christ and Son for us, through a marvelous and mystical concurrence in unity. . . . For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holy Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; but being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone flesh birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh. Thus [the holy Fathers] did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Theokos." (Council of Ephesus)

"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us." (Chalcedonian Definition)

"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead." (Athanasian Creed)

Check this:

http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com/trinity/trinity-jehovahs-witnesses.pdf

Additionally, in the Old Testament we find a number of references to people who claimed that they saw God. For example, in Isaiah 6:1–5 Isaiah gives testimony of having seen God and he is worded because he knew the Old Testament concept that no man can see God and live, a truth that God had stated to Moses at Exodus 33:20. The answer to the apparent problem is simply that Isaiah saw God in a vision. Humans would surely die if they saw God openly displayed in all His infinite power and glory. It would be as if you or 1 were to stand a few inches away from the sun of our solar system. We would be instantly consumed and turned into a puff of smoke (see Hebrews 12:29).

But God can appear to man, either by vision or by concealing Himself in human form. A careful examination of Genesis 18 and Judges 13 should make this truth abundantly clear. This also explains why Jesus Himself could insist, in John 6:46, that no man had ever seen God the Father, yet at John 14:9 He could inform Philip, “...He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (NASB)

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

Of course, I responded to him substantially. Of course, biblical terms, especially in Hebrew, have many nuances of meaning, and even if you translate "qanah" as "ktizo" in Greek or "create" in English (for which there is obviously a precedent, no matter how much you repeat it to me, which of course I was aware of), even then this cannot be justified in the sense of "bara", "poiéō", "creatio ex nihilo", "bring into existence in time", which the Arians asserted. The Nicene creed condemned to use the verb "poiéō", not the "ktizo", in relation of the generation of the Son of the Father.

This is a good example of the fact that it is not enough to look at the dictionary form of biblical exegesis, it is necessary to dive into the specific meaning of each translation (which is necessarily an interpretation).

You should compare how is the verb 'qanah' translated in the Book of Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.

Authoritative ancient Jewish translators such as Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all translated this as ἐκτήσατο, which captures the meaing of "qanah" much better.

κτᾰ́ομαι • (ktáomai)

(transitive) to get, obtain, acquire, gain, win
(transitive, of consequences) to bring on oneself, incur
(transitive, perfect and pluperfect) to have acquired, have, own, possess

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Wonderment:

Why didn't you read the end of the opening comment?

There I specifically mentioned that the translation of "pas", "panta" as "everything else", "all other" is only justifiable, in the case it is already completely clear from the context that the previously mentioned person or thing also belongs to the "all", "everything" group mentioned after, so it's self efident that is also included.

For example, Luke 13:2, which the Watchtower refers to, where it is clear that these people were also Galileans.

Or Luke 21:29 - It is written that the fig tree also belongs to the category of trees. But it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.

And since the Bible nowhere calls the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis), and the the correct meaning of "prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" here is not that he is the first created being, but rather that he is "distinguished, pre-eminent heir (ruler) of the whole creation", thus "over the whole creation", it is not justifiable to put the word "other" in the following.