Two questions for Jehovah's Witnesses about Biblical interpretations?

Question

Colossians 1:16 (New International Version)
"16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him".

while the New World Translations says: "16 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. 17"

my question is about that bracket that says [other]. In the back of your Bible it says that it was put there for clarification. It is nowhere in the codex. or anywhere.

Why not just leave the passage how it is? You put something in parenthesis to get people to understand your view that Christ was created, and that he created all other things. Shouldn't you just translate the Bible as it is written, and in another book you write anything additional?

second question please. About the date of 1914. as the date for the start of Jesus invisible heavenly reign, the Watchtower cross references passages from Daniel, Ezekiel, Luke and Revelation. But some books in the Bible are historical. Others poetical. Others say about the end times. we can't get one verse from one and mix it with a verse from the other. The Bible has to be understood literally, using symbol when symbols were meant to be used, as with the context. Bible verses are not like blocks, put this here put that in the side. Also, if I write that "I am blue" and someone years later reads it, that person will know enough to know that it was a phrase.

I hope that no haters answer this. This are questions on Biblical translations and ethics. Please only Christians answer.

Answer 1

Greetings,



The reason the NWT adds the word “other” in Col. 1:16 is because the context and grammar calls for it.



In translation ALL Bibles add words which are not in the original text (the KJ puts them in italics while the NWT placed them in brackets). They do this to make the full meaning of the original clear. It must be done in accord with context and must be allowed by the grammar. This true of where the NWT translators added the word "other" in Col.1:15ff. It was done in order to make the original meaning clear to the reader and is in full agreement with grammar, translation principles and the context.



First, let me address the grammatical reasons which add support for the addition of the word "other."



There is sound grammatical basis for adding the word "other" in these occurrences and in Col. 1:16,17. The word for "all" here is PANTA, a form of PAS. Those who criticize the NWT here fail to mention that this word does not necessarily mean absolutely every thing. It can refer to only one part of a group rather than all of the mentioned group. This is clearly stated in most Greek lexicons and grammars.



Notice what Theo. Dict. of the N.T. says of TA PANTA: "Implicative Significance...(*the context shows who are meant*), 2Cor.4.15, Phil.3:8, Col.3:8. Sometimes...generic: `all *such* things', Ac.17:25...give us all *these* things' (the things associated herewith), Rm.8:32. All *these* things' (*in the world*) is formally used for all things.-Col.1:16."



"A Grammar for New Testament Greek" by James M. Efird says: "PAS may be used in the predicative position and then usually means 'all' in the sense of most, many, a large number (but not necessarily indicating totality)." (p.104).



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





Here are Scriptural examples showing TA PANTA can be used without the thought of total inclusion of all things of the same group.



Phil. 3:8: CEV, NCV and Montgomery Ver. says "The *others*","All *these* advantages"--JER "All *those* things"--TEV "most"--Wilms.

Col. 3:8; KJV, Jer. Bi. & Berk., add "these things", RSV reads "them", NIV adds "such things.

2Cor.4:15; NIV, JB, TAY, & BERK all add "*these* things".

Mk.4:11; KJV adds "these", BERK adds "*these* matters".

Phil. 2:21; Jer. Bi. adds "all the rest".



Notice in each of these "all" is not all inclusive, it frequently excludes the subject even though it is the same "thing". TA PANTA occurs 35 times in NT and in all but two the meaning is of *certain* things. It does NOT include *all* of its group, just a certain part.



Also, notice how many other translations add the word "other" at Acts 5:29. The KJV, NIV, TEV, WEY, & etc., read: "Then Peter and the *other* apostles. . . . ." If you examine the Greek, the word "other" is simply not there. You can see the same thing at Lk. 11:42 and 21:29 (cf. Phil. 3:8; 2:21; Col. 3:8; 2Cor.4:15; Mk.4:11).



Luke 21:29: "Consider the fig tree and all the other trees."--(NAB); "Think of the fig tree and all the other trees."--(TEV)



Luke 11:42: "and all the other herbs."--TEV; "and all other kinds of garden herbs."--NIV



In all these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there because the grammar and context demanded it.



It is interesting that several other translations do the same as the NWT at Col.1:17. The New Living Translation inserts the word "else" (analogous to "other"). It reads: "He existed before everything else began." William Barclay's NT translation also reads "He exists before everything else, and everything else holds together in him."



These few examples demonstrate that the NWT is in complete agreement with standard grammatical rules when it adds the word "other" in Col.1. Anyone who criticizes the NWT for doing this is hypocritically ignoring the facts and presenting faulty and misleading information.



The objection to the adding of the word "other" is based on personal theology and not on grammar.





Next, while the word "other" is not absolutely needed, it makes the original meaning clear. This is because the context explicitly tells us that Jesus was a created being. Not using the word "other" causes readers to miss this point.



Notice what Dr Jason BeDuhn wrote in a letter regarding this: "By calling Jesus the "firstborn of creation" in v. 15, Paul has explicitly identified Christ as part of creation. Amazingly, most Christians overlook this fact. The JW's draw attention to it by inserting [other] into the subsequent verses. A bit heavy handed, but in terms of the content and meaning of the passage, perfectly correct."



(For Jason BeDuhn's recent published analysis of Colossians 1:15ff read the Chapter "Probing the Implicit Meaning" in his book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament." Also good is Rolf Furuli's book "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation.")





Though Jesus was not part of the "all things" that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creation of God.



The Greek word "firstborn" (PRWTOTOKOS) is used 130 times in the Bible (LXX). It always indicates a beginning or generation of something that was not in existence before. So Paul pointedly used a word which in every Biblical use denotes something that had a beginning. The idea of pre-eminence is only the connotation as a result of being "brought into existence first" in comparison to others in the category. The reason Christ is pre-eminent is because he is "first- BORN," eldest among the group of all creatures.



Therefore, Jesus Christ is God's "firstborn" and a *part of God's creation*. This is made explicit in Col.1:15 by the phrase: "firstborn of creation" (PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS). Grammatically, this phrase demands that Jesus be part of creation; a "creature." This is because the grammatical structure is a "partitive genitive" which means that the firstborn has to be part of the group mentioned. Before Col. 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs over 30 times in the Bible, and in every instance the meaning is the same: the firstborn is part of the group. The "firstborn of the sheep" is a sheep (Gen 4:4), the "firstborn of the animals" is an animal, and etc. (Neh. 10:36).



In this instance, the "firstborn of creation" is in fact a created being because the genitive places the Christ in the class of creation, *part of* the created order (KTISEWS). This is explicit evidence that Jesus is a created being.



Therefore, according to all rules of exegesis, applying the term "firstborn" and the phrase "of creation" to Jesus means he is part of creation. Only using eisogesis (forcing our belief on the Scriptures) can we exclude Jesus from being a created being. Using this word and this grammar would have been blasphemous if Jesus had not actually had a beginning or was not part of creation.





The NWTs rendering makes the context clear; that Christ is not "outside of creation" but is part of creation. It also makes it clear that there are two words used here (KTISEWS and TA PANTA) that are not synonymous. So grammatically, the word "other" or other limiting words is allowed. Jesus is part of creation (KTISEWS) but not part of the *[other] things* (TA PANTA) which were "created *through* him."



So the NWT is well within Translational principles in adding the word "other." It cannot be termed a bias. But, it is bias for others to ignore the above evidence and insist that it cannot be properly placed there.





I'm not sure what your question is regarding 1914. But Witnesses derive the date 1914 by using prophetic statements from various scriptures which all deal with the same subject and point to the same time period. Their interpretation of these prophecies are in harmony with standard exegetical principles.





Yours,



BAR-ANERGES

Answer 2

Always in translating a passage from one language to another some sentences do not make sense. These can also be translated several ways or I should say two or three. This is a problem with English and other modern languages and not with the manuscripts. Using several translations will aid in getting a more proper understanding of a scripture as Jehovah's Witnesses regularly do. By inserting a word that would make a sentence make sense it provides assistance in understanding the reading. Instead of just doing so without notice, the NWT uses brackets that point it out similar to when the word "you" as plural it makes it "YOU" and singular as "you".



In another case, at Exodus 28:19, various translations use several different minerals to name the rock used there. The problem is there is no modern clue to what that is. What the NWT did was to use the Hebrew word from the manuscripts as "lashem" stones. This was so that would not mislead anyone.



As to your second question, I refer you to 2 Timothy 3:16. "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." Notice that it does not say "some scripture" or "only the ones I agree with".



Some scriptures are symbols showing something the readers & writers could understand. A description of God's Chariot for example. There was no literal chariot. Each part symbolized different things. An explanation of those things can be found using other scriptures in the Bible.



To classify any books of the Bible as ONLY poetic or ONLY historical is sad, because it allows one to lower what the Bible is as God's Word for all humanity. Yes, some is written in fine poetry. That does not mean there is less truth or inspiration in them. Neither does having written of historical facts along with having value to us for knowing more about Jehovah's qualities.



Yes, some parts of the Bible are to be understood as literal while others are symbolic. Analysis of the context shows which is which. For instance, Jesus used many illustrations. Which ones are literal? Matthew 13:10-11 shows if he was speaking to a crowd, it was a symbolic story. If was only to his disciples or those who came back to him to ask, it was literal. In fact, that was why he used stories. Not only to teach simply, but to cause those with the proper heart condition to ask for explanations.



Taken as a whole Daniel, Ezekiel, Luke and Revelation are in agreement in pointing to God's Kingdom and conditions under that government.

Answer 3

The Faithful Slave make errors, however that does not imply they don't seem to be Jevovah's Channel for supplying the TRUTH to His People. The early Disciples of Jesus made errors, Jesus did not abandon them!They grew to become the cornerstone of the Congregations. They unfold the reality DESPITE their infalibilities! We as Humans are ALL imperfect, even the Annointed ones. The Faithful Slave Class interpret the leadings of the Holy Spirit incorrectly regularly, so later there are up to date.So what! That is why it behoves US ALL to STUDY the Watchtower and many others, which can be BIBLE AIDS. Checking what we're studying is sensible. Be definite it come from the ROOT OF BIBLE TEACHINGS & PRINCIPLES.The Bible is a problematic Book, Bible aids are primary. Just feel approximately climate YOU might KNOW your Bible in any respect should you had no longer been taught via the Watchtower and many others and the Faithful Slave Class? If we went approximately anticipating the Slave to be flawlessly proper every/each time, then what want might they've of Jesus Sacrifice. We, ALL OF US appear foreward to the time whilst imperfection won't break any good meant factor! Just recall King David. He was once imperfect too. He slipped up REAL unhealthy with Bathsheba/Uriah. Yet Jehovah saved utilising him as his consultant in the world. Also remember what occurred to those that of their brain notion David was once NOT FIT to be King thereafter, adding one among his possess Sons. It did not cross good with them did it? EDIT. Do you've a precise educating in brain? Whenever the Slave have made errors, the notion AT THAT TIME was once transparent, no-one ought believe the have got to "query" it, because it might be solidly established at the Scriptures. Only later did/does realisation arise and updates, or readability demands expounding. As for misguided predictions approximately "whilst" the tip might come, those errors are certainly forgivable! Even the early disciples knew that they had been to evangelise the well information and make disciples of persons of all of the international locations, after which the tip might come. But they too had mistaken suggestions approximately "whilst" that might be!! They didn't know the way thorough a witness might accept, and they didn't realize whilst the tip might come, however they notion it might be of their lifetime. We appreciate now HOW that hould no longer be! These are concerns for Jehovah on my own to check, we appreciate that NOW. However we do realize and appreciate that those ARE the final days and the tip is IMMINENT!

Answer 4

#QUESTION: Why does the NWT add the word "other" to Colossians 1: 16?



#ANSWER: No english translation is a word for word rendition of the greek since this would render the english text more or less unreadable; all translators 'add' words to clarify the meaning of any given text. The real question therefore is: does adding the word [other] change the intended meaning of the text at Colossian 1: 16?



Colossians 1: 16 reads [NIV] "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."



Paul here says here that "all things were created by him[Jesus]" including the things in heaven. Since Jesus himself is in heaven, is Paul saying that Jesus created himself? Obviously, not; the expression "ALL things ... in HEAVEN" has at least one exception - the exception being anyone/anything that was NOT created.



To illustrate: And angry teacher dismisses her class saying "everyone out!" Does this include herself? Clearly she means "everyone [else/other than myself] out!"



What Paul is saying is "Jesus created all things [in heaven] OTHER than the things/beings that were not created at all. Thus the word "other" is intrisic to the verse and a suitable word to add to the text to clarify the meaning intended.



Colossians 1: 15, 16 "other"

http://jehovah.to/xlation/other.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPB2nqcoRCc



=========================================



Regarding 2nd "question" 1914 - I see no actual question. I see your instructions as to how to go about understanding the bible but there is no actual question or question mark in the entire paragraph. Thus no answer can be provided. If the asker would like to re-read the 1914 question and actually ask a question I'm sure an satisfying answer can be provided.

Answer 5

"Adding" words in translation is unremarkable. Every translation does it. You couldn't find an English translation that doesn't add words to Colossians 1:15-20.



Accusing the NWT - or any translation - of "adding" words shows a misunderstanding of how translation works. No two languages line up word for word, since different languages have different syntax that is unique to that language. Even interlinear translations that *appear* to line up word for word are not word for word, because the semantic range of the vocabulary words are unique to each language (and the grammar of each language is different).



So it's not important if a translation matches the exact words of the original language. What is important is if the translation matches the *meaning* - no matter what the actual words are - of the original language.



With that in mind, the NWT passes the test in Colossians 1:15-20. It faithfully matches the *meaning* of the original Greek.



The Greek word for "all" - pas - sometimes has the *meaning* of "all other." This is plainly stated by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 15:27. I personally think that it is absolutely unnecessary for the NWT to enclose "other" in brackets in Colossians 1:15-20, since "all other" is a valid translation of the Greek word "pas" (all).



Also, I don't believe that "all other" is a *necessary* translation of the passage. The word "all" by itself is sufficient. This is because the context of the passage shows that "all other" is meant. It is implied, even in English. Jesus is called the "firstborn of creation," so he is automatically excluded from the "all" that follows (Remember 1 Corinthians 15:27).



There are often multiple ways to accurately translate a passage. The NIV is not accurate in Colossians 1:15-20, because it alters the meaning in certain spots. However, the KJV is actually just as accurate as the NWT in this passage.

Answer 6

In Colossians 1:16, the translators apparently put [other] in because the word "all" here implies it. They have us refer to Luke 11:41, 42 which says:

"Nevertheless, give as gifts of mercy the things that are inside, and, look! all [other] things are clean about YOU. 42 But woe to YOU Pharisees, because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the rue and of every [other] vegetable, but YOU pass by the justice and the love of God! These things YOU were under obligation to do, but those other things not to omit."



You see, the word used here for "all things" is pan'ta, an inflected for of pas. This word was used at Luke 11:41, 42 (previously I showed you) and Luke 13:2, Luke 21:29, Philippians 2:21.



In light of all other scriptures, Jesus is indeed created. If you would like more scriptures on that subject, please email me.



Also, these cross-references are used because the entire Bible works together. It is like blocks- the whole Bible makes sense together as a whole.

Answer 7

You need to look at the context of the scripture. The previous verse says (v 15), "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (KJV)

If you look at the word "firstborn" in Strong's concordance it says "of Christ, the first born of all creation", Thayer's lexicon says, "who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things". The same word is used in the Greek Sept. at Exodus 22:29 and Deut 12:17. Vines expository dictionary says of the word firstborn, "where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the "Firstborn" before all creation". That verse set the basis that he came into being through God (was created).



Now the following verse 16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" (KJV)



That verse highlights that everything else (apart from him) were "created by him and for him". Therefore putting the [other] is the highlight the fact that every other thing was "created by him". Verse 15 starts talking about creation of Christ and verse 16 separates the rest because he created them.



I assume your refering to Daniel 4? Jesus spoke of the "seven times," calling them "the appointed times of the nations." He said: "Jerusalem will [continue to] be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) A footnote in the Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible (1984) tells us that "the ‘times of the Gentiles’ [King James Version rendering of “appointed times of the nations”] began with the captivity of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar. . . . Since that time Jerusalem has been, as Christ said, ‘trampled on by the Gentiles.’"



The "seven times," or "appointed times of the nations," would extend much longer than 7 literal years of 360 days each (as Biblical years were calculated), which would amount to 2,520 days. Scriptural precedent indicates that we should substitute one year for each day. (See Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6; compare Revelation 12:6, 14.) Such a calculation would mean that the "seven times" lasted 2,520 years. If they began with Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E., they would end in the year 1914 C.E.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Not a JW nor a former JW.



The New World Tanslation (NWT) by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) was mainly penned by one man whose name is Frederick Franz.



Frederick Franz was the lead writer of the WTBTS for materials from the mid 1930's onward. Franz was head theologian under Knorr and became Knorr's Vice President in 1945 and later President of the WTBTS in 1977 at Knorr's death.



The NWT is a paraphrased book based on the hongenized and pasteurized manuscrips of Westcott and Hort.



From the completion of the NWT in 1961 when the several released sections were combined into one book the NWT continued to be revised continually as wording did not agree with the theological teaching of the WTBTS.



The WTBTS has spent the last 50 researching and finding supporting material among various manuscripts resorting to obvious non Christian works and secular sources.

_______



The WTBTS has a couple of excuses for adding words that skew the meaning such as the word[other] because the WTBTS does not teach Jesus is Elohim of Genesis chapter one and LOGOS of John chapter one.

Answer 10

Firstborn -- Greek, prōtotokos



Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (online):



http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/find_term.pl

(Type in the word and press “Enter”)



//(from protos, "first," and tikto, "to beget"), is used of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, Luke_2:7; further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the "first" to be born. It is used occasionally of superiority of position in the OT; see Ex_4:22; Deut_21:16,17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of the "firstborn" to one born subsequently to the "first" child.//



In some cases, the biblical meaning of “firstborn,” whether translated from the Greek word prototokos or the Hebrew word bekowr is “first in rank” or “preeminent.” Context determines the proper definition. In 1 Sam 17:12-14, we read that David was the youngest of 8 sons. Yet, in Psalm 89:19-27, David is referred to as “firstborn.” Ephraim was the 2nd born to his father, yet he is called “firstborn” in Jer 31:9. The Jews (Israel) were called God’s “firstborn” in Ex 4:22.



Colossians 1:13-22: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: ALL THINGS were CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM: And he is BEFORE ALL THINGS, and BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST. And he is the HEAD of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the PREEMINENCE. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;”



When you read this passage in context, the biblical meaning of prototokos in relation to Jesus (Preeminent One) is unmistakable. It is also noteworthy that if Paul had meant to convey the idea that Jesus was created, surely he would have used the Greek word for "first created," which would have been “proto” (first) with “ktizo” (to create). Instead, he used “proto” with “tikto,” conveying, in this context, that Jesus is the Head and is “before all things.”



The bracketed "[other]" should not have been added to the passage.



John 1:3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.



John 1:10: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.



Hebrews 1:10-11: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment



Rev. 4:11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.