'other' in Col.1:15-20 in the NWT

Col 1:15-20 NWT . "other".

Col 1:15-20 NWT. "other" in vss16,17 and 20. Why?

The Nestle/Aland Greek NT and the ‘Diaglott’ by Benjamin Wilson (based on the Vatican manuscript 1209) are used as a basis for this discussion.

In the Col 1:15-20 in the NWT, why do the translators insert "other" five times in v16,17, 20 when the word "other" does not appear in the Greek text?

Here is a very good example gross misunderstanding of translation taken from the BBC Christian message board:

"Can you explain why the NWT has inserted the word "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 four times. There exist two Greek words for "other": allos which means another of the same kind; and heteros which mean another of a different kind. Paul could have used either here if he wanted to show that Jesus was "another" created thing. But he did not. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four times unless you are trying to make the original word "Firstborn" translate as first created. This is incorrect because Firstborn in this context means a title of pre-eminence as used in Psalm 89:20 .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.

"The above poster then goes on to direct any recipients of his comments to a web site to prove his argument http://www.douknow.net/jw_col115.htm

The site tries to prove (like the poster) that the NWT has inserted the word "other" due to "theological bias" to prove its argument, that Jesus is part of the created order of things.

What the poster and the internet site mentioned are really saying, is that Jesus is not part of the created order but part of a Trinity, that Jesus is really God-Jehovah and that they have one and the same essence (nature...), that the pre-human Jesus is eternal... and that the NWT has twisted the meaning of certain key texts to its advantage, to support an interpretation, a theology not supported by the Greek or English NT texts themselves.

In the matter of Col 1:15-20 does the NWT twist scripture as the above critics claim, or is it the other way round, that the critics of the NWT's rendering of Col 1:15-20 are twisting the outcome of the Greek texts because of Trinitarian theology (bias)?

First, there are three types of translations. (these are not interlinears)
Basically:

1. Literal (Formal Equivalence) Translations
These tend to look at individual Greek words put them into sentences and 'literally' try to put the 'equivalent' in modern English where necessary and laid out in such a way as to reveal the original style as much as possible. Literal (formal equivelance) translations have their strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes these particular translations incorporate 'Dynamic Equivalence' readings. The KJV, NRSV, NIV and others are examples of this (literal...translation), but sometimes lapse into 'Dynamic' readings.

2. Dynamic Equivalence Translation

These tend to look at blocks of meanings that are sometimes bigger than the word(s) or phrase(s) in order to produce good modern English. Dynamic equivalence is good for the English reader as it reads well, is simplified and is easy to comprehend. The TEV (also known as the Good News Bible), NWT, and others are examples of Dynamic equivalence translations.

Sometimes, when dealing with certain NT verses a dynamic equivalence may lapse into a literal (formal equivalence) translation mode. There is no absolute fine line here, and sometimes there is a crossover at times. Again the above has strengths and weaknesses.

3. Paraphrase

Is common in English. It puts the English in 'other words'. Parahrase has a similar goal as 'Dynamic Equivalence' i.e. to make the English text easily comprehensible and as simple as possible for the English reader.


A Paraphrase should never be looked at as a bible inthe traditional sense of the word. It is a commentary, an interpretation by its author. Care must be taken when handling any paraphrase and if the author's name is left out as if the author had no connection with the paraphrase edition, then suspect deception. It is not a bible and should not be thought as such!

From the Diaglott Greek Text NT.

Col 1:15 ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως1:16 οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοις ουρανοις και επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται1:17 και αυτος εστιν προ παντων και τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν1:18 και αυτος εστιν η κεφαλη του σωματος της εκκλησιας ος εστιν [η] αρχη πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ινα γενηται εν πασιν αυτος πρωτευων1:19 οτι εν αυτω ευδοκησεν παν το πληρωμα κατοικησαι1:20 και δι αυτου αποκαταλλαξαι τα παντα εις αυτον ειρηνοποιησας δια του αιματος του σταυρου αυτου [δι αυτου] ειτε τα επι της γης ειτε τα εν τοις ουρανοις

If we look back to v16 we see"...οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα-panta=(all)..." Transliterated:"because in him were created the things all. οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα πανταbecause in him were created the things all


Put into English sense: Because in him were created all things...

V16

NWT Because by means of him all [other] things were created...

NIV For by him all things were created...

KJV For by him were all things created

NASB For by Him all things were created

AB For it was in Him that all things were created

Why does the NWT read differently to these other translations?

It is because the NWT makes "explicit" what is "implicit", the other translations do not at Col 1: 15-20. Why?

Because of [Trinitarian] theological bias and this will be shown a little later.To convey the correct and full meaning of Koine Greek words or even sometimes just a single word into English may require a translator to use several English words, this is a common practice of NT translators all over.

This may be necessary if the full meaning of the Greek word(s) is to be brought out and fully understood by the reader.The same principle applies to modern languages just as it does to Greek/English etc.

IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT

what does "implicit and explicit" mean when it comes to NT Greek? It has been known for a long time that a NT "source" text(s) such as Col 1: 15-20 has an "implicit" meaning that requires it to be "explicit" so that the reader will fully understand. Making something explicit does not add to the text, it serves to give the reader explicit information which was implicit in the Greek text that its early readers knew and were familiar with, such as "Christians" of the past.

What readers of modern bibles do not realize is that many translations of the NT have added words that do not appear in the source text (Greek NT).

They only realize this when they start to compare different bibles. What they don't realise is that the translators of the Greek NT are making explicit (in the KJ, NIV, AB, RSV, JB, NEB and the NWT...) what is implicit in the Greek NT.

In fact many people would be surprised to learn that the bible or bibles they frequently use contain hundreds of words that are not in the extant NT manuscripts, and these are the sources their NT is derived from.

If you look at various English NTs and look at Col 1:15-20 you will find that the word count is different for these same verses and not only that, but some of the words are different too, there is/are no corresponding word(s) in the Greek text.

Some of these added words are not in any of the Greek text. Ask yourself why there are added words? And the answer is that, the translator(s) is making explicit what is implicit for the benefit of the English reader.

Depending on the English NT you are using the word count for Col 1:15-20 can be from over 100 words to just under 200 words, and that is for the same Col 1:15-20. Why the difference?

The translator has made explicit what he/she saw as implicit by adding more words that are not in the Greek text. If the translator didn't do this, the English text may be incomprehensible to the reader!

When doctrine (theology) is injected into a text.

When it is neither implicit nor explicit, then what is it? Here is a good example of doctrine being forced into an English translation which also reflects the theology and beliefs (Trinitarian) of the translators.
The New International Version (NIV)

The translators have changed "firstborn "of" all creation" to "firstborn "over" all creation". This is a deliberate addition (bias) to the text and cannot be justified. There is no way that "over" can be derived in any way from the Greek "genitive" (article) "of".

What does this mean?

What does this mean? It means that the translators of the NIV injected their doctrinal (Trinitarian) theological beliefs into the Greek text. They make Jesus appear to be "over" creation, apart from it, whereas the Greek genitive "of" would make him not ‘apart’ from creation, but ‘a part’ of creation.

The New English Bible - NEB (NT) reads 1 Col 1:15 this way:

"He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all created things" How does one derive "primacy over all created things" from "firstborn of all creation"? Again, "over" cannot be derived from the genitive (article) "of". Theological interpretation is being injected here, a belief-in other words-bias

Clarification verses Interpretation

When it comes to being 'implicit' and 'explicit' there is a big difference in clarifying a particular text and interpreting that same text. Clarifying a text draws out meanings of Greek words and phrases. But to interpret that same text narrows and sets limitations on the meanings of the text under consideration. It is not uncommon for translators of various English NT bibles to inject their interpretations that reflect their theological beliefs. Unsuspecting NT bible readers are unaware of this, they only realise it, when they compare different NT translations.

These are just two examples of (Trinitarian) translators injecting their theological interpretations into the Greek text. The above two examples are not just cases of illuminating the "implicit or explicit"; they are deliberate alterations to make it look like the Greek text means what they say it means. Many (Trinitarian) translations do this, and the general bible reading public hasn’t a clue this is going on and has been going on for a long time.

For decades the NWT has been repeatedly attacked for using the word "other". But why the decades of attacks? Trinitarians want Col 1 to mean what the NIV, TEV and others translations endeavour to make it mean.

Trinitarians just cannot accept and see the sense behind "firstborn of all creation", as this identifies Jesus as "of creation".

"Other" is distasteful to Trinitarians because it draws their attention that Jesus is in fact "of creation" and not "over", apart from creation.

Other NT texts where "other" is "implied".

The Koine Greek 'pan' ‘all’.

Various forms of 'pan' (all) are used in Col1 and have the basis meaning 'all'.
In English, when we use the word 'all' it usually followed by some sort of ‘noun’. When Paul uses 'all' after pointing out Christ as 'the firstborn of creation' it is in reference to 'the rest of creation'. 'All' is with the exception of God (Jehovah), and semantics can be used when we talk about Jesus, because it is his (Jesus) part in relation to the rest ('all') of the creation that is being talked about. And Trinitarians don’t seem to understand this or seem to ignore it, or explain it away. This again, is due to theological bias.

The word ‘all’ is a common Greek hyperbole; ‘other’ is understood, assumed in the context of Col. 1:15-20.



The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28.


1 Cor. 15: 27 (transliterated) Diaglott

V 27. ‘all things he subjected under the feet of him. When but it may be said, that all things have been subjected, it is evident, that is excepted the one having subjected to him the all things’

V 28. ‘when but may be subjected to him the all things, then [also] himself the son will be subject to the one having subjected to him the all things so that maybe the God [the] all things in all’


In the right hand column of the page in the Diaglott it is put in 19th cent. English sense.

V 27. “for he has subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that all things are subjected it is manifest that HE is excepted, who has subjected all things to him.”

V 28. And when he shall subdued all things to him then the son himself will be subject to HIM who subdued all things to him, that God may be all in all.”

How are we to understand these two verses in 1 Cor. 15?

As written above, ‘all’ is a common Greek hyperbole; ‘other’ is understood, assumed. Paul makes this very clear from the beginning. Note what Paul himself says, God will make all things subject to Christ. Then Paul goes on to make the point clear to his readers “of course” when he says “all things” he doesn’t mean that God (Jehovah) will be subject to Christ-remember “all things”, but Paul means, not that God will be subject to Jesus but “all [other] things will be!

Therefore, Trinitarians can have no legitimate reason in objecting to ‘other’ in Col. 1:15-20. Paul uses “all things” interchangeable with creation. Therefore, we must still reckon with Christ’s place as the “first born of creation”, and so the first born of “all things”.


What I would like to demonstrate (hyperbole) now are two simple examples (and the English NT has hundreds of them) of where ‘other’ is ‘implicit’ and then made ‘explicit’ in the English NT.

Trees and Herbs

Luke 21:29

The Greek (transliterated) is: “the fig tree and all the trees”. The fig tree is obviously a tree and the ancients knew it was a tree. The idiom really means, the fig tree and ‘all’ the [other] trees. The translators of the LB, TEV, NWT and the NAB grasped the ‘implicit’ meaning locked up in the Luke text and made it explicit by bringing it out in their respective English NTs by putting ‘other’ into the English NT of Luke 21:29.

The NRSV, NIV, KJV, AB, NASB the AB violate this principle, their commitment to use modern English style and do not bring out the implicit, explicitly as the LB, TEV, NWT and the NAB do, this is also known as back peddling, hoping the NT reader will not notice. This hides an important truth from the NT reader and proper style of modern English and therefore shows theological bias.

The NAB, TEV and LB translators understand the idiom in Luke 21:29 and many other NT texts but refuse to apply that same understanding to Col 1:15-20 again, because of theological [Trinitarian] bias.


Luke 11:42

“mint and the rue and every pot herb” (transliteration) Diaglott.

NWT. “every [other] herb…

TEV. “all other herb…

KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB all translate Luke 11:42 in such away as to imply that “mint and rue” are not herbs, again confusing the NT English reader who is probably not aware of theological bias.


TEV and NIV again show plainly that they understand the Greek idiom by which ‘other’ is ‘implied’ (implicit) by inserting “all” into the Luke text.

Since the similarity of implication (implicit) is the same, then why do the [Trinitarian] translators not equally bring it out in Col 1:15-20? Again because of [Trinitarian] theological bias. Only the NWT correctly brings to life (makes explicit) the Greek idiom for the English NT reader. As it applies in many hundreds of places in the NT, the NWT equally applies it in Col 1:15-20.

Trinitarian translators are very selective, where in the NT English text where ‘implicit’ readings in the Greek are made ‘explicit’ in modern English, as it all revolves around the Trinity, They have to be very careful so as not to negate, compromise Christ’s position in their Trinitarian “Godhead”

As regards the “fig tree” it is a tree “of” belonging to the tree family, it is a part of the group, class and not ‘apart’ but ‘a part’ of the above; it is a part of the family of trees and not set apart from them.

As regards the “mint and the rue” they are a part “of” belonging to the herb family, they are a part of the group, class and not ‘apart’ but ‘a part’ of the above; they are a part of the family of herbs and not set apart from them as the KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB show in their translations.


What has “fig tree, and mint and rue” got to do with the Trinity?

Readers may think, what has “fig tree, and mint and rue” got to do with the Trinity? It has much to do with the Trinity, in that when [Trinitarian] translators do not make the implicit, explicit, by making the texts say what they want them to say, by misleading and misinforming their NT readers (and trying to hide it (implication) from them)) as the KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB do, they want the NT English reader to think that this is what the Greek actually says! Not so!


Col 1:15-20

We have seen that there are additional words that occur in the English NT (Just one example, see KJV, Col 1:15-20 where certain words that do not appear in the Greek are italicised but appear in the English NT KJV) Trinitarians react badly to the NWT using ‘other’ in Col 1:15-20. Why?


Is it to be said that that Christ created himself [v16]? That Christ is before God and that God (Jehovah) was made to exist by means of Christ [v17]? That Christ too needed to be reconciled to God [v20]?

When the use of ‘other’ is just shoved aside by Trinitarians it can be seen how ridiculous the opposition charge is to the use and insertion of ‘other’, when it is clearly ‘implicit in the text of Col 1.

Those who object to the use of ‘other’ want to do away with the real meaning of ‘firstborn of creation’. When the subject of ‘adding words’ to the English NT is looked at, we see translators freely adding words and ideas not supported or not implicit’ in the Greek text. The only way the reader can find out is to do their own research and that takes time, plenty of time…and they may be shocked by the results they find…!

The irony is, the NWT has been hammered by Trinitarian translators and scholars…because of their theological bias from the start!
And they don't like it when they themselves are exposed for taking liberties with the Greek text and for hiding the real truth from the NT reading public, who are generally ignorant of what goes on behind the translating scene.

“If the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB translators are willing to” add words” in an effort to be transitive (shift) to the meaning of the passage away from the Greek text of Col 1:15-20 (or any other text in Greek) , Christ’s connection with creation and “all things”, then the NWT is correct and justified in adding ‘other’ to Col 1.

Many translators in their translations have consistently misunderstood and (knowingly) misapplied 1 Col 1:15-20 and that the principles laid down by ‘Nida and Taber’ are being flagrantly ignored by Trinitarian translators. The ‘implicit’ has to be made ‘explicit’ if the English NT (from the Greek) demands it and Col 1:15-20 like other English NT texts (Luke 21:29; 11:42 and hundreds of others) demands it!

Col 1 says Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”; he is “of” creation. He belongs to (creation) the family, group, and class of creation. He is not ‘apart’ from the creation but he is ‘a part’ of it.

A final note.

It has been shown, that Trinitarian translations of the Greek NT have deliberately and subtly translated in such a way that the reader may think that, this is what the Greek NT actually says and it doesn’t. The word ‘other’ in the Greek of Col. 1:15-20 does not occur in the Greek, but has been made ‘explicit’ in the NWT because it is ‘implicit’ in that text, just as it is ‘implicit’ in other parts of the NT as in Luke 21:29 “fig tree” and “mint and rue” in Luke 11:42 (See TEV and TNIV).
The Trinitarian translators of the TEV and TNIV understand the ‘implicit’ in the texts of Luke 21:29; 11:42 and therefore use their judgment in translation and bring out (make explicit) the ‘other’ in these Luke texts. That being the case, why do they not apply the same rule to Col. 1:15:20 and make ‘other’ explicit? This is due to theological bias. One cannot have one rule for one and then not apply this same to another, just because it upsets one’s Theology, as this would qualify as unmitigated bias on the part of the translator and this has been shown in the various texts above.

letusreason