Equality between the Father and Son

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

[NeutralZone]

N.W.T. "In (the) beginning the Word (Jesus) was," Ask yourself who is the Word? Verse 14, N.W.T. "The Word (Jesus) became flesh and resided among us."

"And the Word was with God" Don't talk your way out of that one. Now if the Word was in the beginning with his Father before the creation began, both of them came out of eternity, thus both are eternal, and only God can be eternal.

I see you're now trying to dance your way around Clause #1 of John 1:1 -- where it clearly says the Word/Jesus Christ had a beginning -- by directing me to Clause #2 which says "the Word was with God."

Explain to those reading this thread how you expect Clause #2 of John 1:1 to help your Trinitarian argument in light of the fact Clause #2 also debunks Christendom's Trinity. Taken literally, Clause #2 would mean God was with himself, which makes absolutely no sense. You can't be with someone else and also be that same person. Or didn't you know that?

[NeutralZone]

Neutral zone wrote, John 1:1 has three independent clauses, meaning all three portions separated by commas can stand alone as separate sentences. Notice John 1:1 below from a Trinitarian Bible aka King James Bible.

Commas, are a pause, and then a continuation of the same thought. "Phil ordered a pizza, and he then told them to put extra cheese on it. I went to the store, looked at a shelf full of books, then decided to buy the K.J.B.

N.W.T. "In (the) beginning the Word (Jesus) was," Ask yourself who is the Word? Verse 14, N.W.T. "The Word (Jesus) became flesh and resided among us."

"And the Word was with God" Don't talk your way out of that one. Now if the Word was in the beginning with his Father before the creation began, both of them came out of eternity, thus both are eternal, and only God can be eternal.

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

placebofactor,

Do you even understand what an independent clause is? Yes, commas are a pause within a sentence. But if that sentence has portions before the comma that can stand alone as complete sentences, then each of those portions are considered independent clauses because they can each end with a period.

An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writ ... index.html


FYI: A comma within a sentence does not always mean the same thought is being continued. That's where you're wrong. If the comma happens to be separating independent clauses (as with the example of John 1:1 where we have three independent clauses), the train of thought is not necessarily being carried in each of the independent clauses. Take, for example, the sentence below where we have four independent clauses. (NOTE: The sentence below was copied from the albert blog and followed by the weblink. When you click the link and scroll down, you will find it under the subheading "Why do writers connect independent clauses to other clauses in sentences?")

The sun shone through the leaves onto the forest floor, while squirrels chattered from the branches, birds sang pretty songs, and butterflies floated from flower to flower.
https://www.albert.io/blog/independent-clauses/

All four of those independent clauses can stand alone, each as a separate sentence. And guess what? They are not necessarily related to each other and therefore do not carry the same thought. Why so? Because each clause is talking about something entirely different. Clause #1 is talking about the what the sun is doing. Clause #2 tells the reader what the squirrels are doing. Clause #3 tells the reader what the birds are doing. Clause #4 tells the reader what the butterflies are doing. Notice below what happens when the commas are removed.

The sun shone through the leaves onto the forest floor. Squirrels chattered from the branches. Birds sang pretty songs. Butterflies floated from flower to flower.


Those four clauses are not related to each other because each of them has a different subject: The subject of Clause #1 is the sun. The subject of clause #2 is the squirrels. The subject of clause #3 is the birds. The subject of Clause #4 is the butterflies. And because each of those four clauses has a different subject, then the events within each of those four clauses could be happening at four entirely different locations. Therefore, one cannot argue that they are all part of the same thought.


At another time, I will respond to another portion of your "triplet" of responses from Post 106.

[tygger2]

[Replying to NeutralZone in post #112]

'Spirit' in the NT Greek is a neuter ('it', 'which', etc.) word. It (rarely) seems to be referred to as masculine ('he', 'him', etc.).

We find the pronouns in John 14:17 actually referring to the Spirit as their antecedent, and, therefore, they are the neuter auto (it) and (which)! Most trinitarian Bibles ignore this truth, however, and translate them as him anyway. I find it very ironic that The NIV Study Bible translates John 14:17 as the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him [ - neuter], because it neither sees him [ - neuter] nor knows him. But you know him [ - neuter], for he lives with you and will be in you.

To top off the irony, the NIVSB has this footnote for Jn 14:17 - the Spirit of truth. In essence and in action the Spirit is characterized by truth. He brings people to the truth of God. All three persons of the Trinity are linked with truth. But the inescapable truth is that Holy Spirit is neuter and its pronouns are neuter in the original Holy-Spirit-guided writings of the New Testament. And the translation of the very scripture that this footnote explains has lied against the Spirit of truth by rendering it as him three times! Surely the Spirit of truth has not brought these trinitarian translators to the truth of God.

It is important that we read, analyze, and meditate on this scripture (Jn 14:15-17) very carefully. Then do the same with Jn 4:23, 24 and Jn 17:3.

When we know the truth about pronouns and their antecedents, we are prepared for trinitarian evidence in both the OT and the NT Bible languages. In Micah 2:7, for example (Is the Spirit of Jehovah angry [or limited - KJIIV]; does he do such things?), the masculine pronoun certainly refers to Jehovah, not the Spirit as a few trinitarian apologists insist. Grammar tells us, for instance, that the feminine pronoun would have to be used in the Hebrew if Spirit were its antecedent. Since the masculine pronoun was used, it must refer to Jehovah. Also no trinitarian translation would pass up such an opportunity if the trinitarian translators thought there was any chance that the Spirit was really being called he! But these trinitarian Bibles translate it so that the Spirit is definitely not being called he, but Jehovah himself is: NRSV, NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, BBE, ETRV, Byington, Moffatt, Beck, Darby. E.g., Is the LORDs [Jehovahs] patience exhausted? Are these his doings? - NRSV.

[tygger2]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #113]

Daniel B. Wallace, among the most trinity-biased scholars whose works I have examined, has made an amazing admission concerning the paraclete statements. In discussing gender agreement in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace writes:

John 15:26 .... The use of [that one, masc. is rendered he in most translations] here is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. Such an approach is based on the assumption that the antecedent of is [Spirit]: The masculine pronoun is used in John 14:26 and 16:13-14 to refer to the neuter noun to emphasize the personality of the Holy Spirit. [Wallaces footnote here refers this quote to Young, Intermediate Greek, 78, and others similar. He further says: The view is especially popular among theologians, not infrequently becoming the mainstay in their argument for the personality of the Spirit.]

But this is erroneous, Wallace continues. In all these Johannine passages, is appositional to a masculine noun [paraclete, -]. The gender of [that one,' masculine] thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of . The antecedent of , in each case, is - [paraclete], not . John 14:26 reads - , [which, neuter] - , (the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends in my name, that one will teach you all things). [Spirit] not only is appositional to -, but the relative pronoun [ - which] that follows it is neuter! This hardly assists the grammatical argument for the Spirits personality. In John 16:13-14 the immediate context is deceptive: " , -, - - [.] (whenever that one comes - the Spirit of truth - he will guide you in all truth .... he will glorify me). The reaches back to v 7, where - is mentioned. [Wallaces note: Although translations of v 13 such as that of the NRSV may be misleading as to what the subject of the sentence is (When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you...), their objective is not to be a handbook for Greek students.] Thus, since - is masculine, so is the pronoun. Although one might argue that the Spirits personality is in view in these passages, the view must be based on the nature of a - and the things said about the Comforter, not on any supposed grammatical subtleties. Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.* - pp. 331-332.

* Wallaces note: ... three other passages are occasionally used for this [misapplication of gender interpretation to prove the HS is masculine]: Eph 1:14; 2 Thess 2:6-7; and 1 John 5:7, All of these have problems. In Eph 1:14 [he] refers back to - (v 13), but the masculine relative pronoun [] is easily explained without resorting to seeing theological motifs. [Wallace further explains on p. 338 that the reading ... is doubtful on text-critical grounds. In fact, both the Westcott & Hort and the United Bible Societies New Testament texts chose (which) for this passage. The trinitarian scholars of the UBS said they chose which because of superior external attestation. This simply means that, in spite of their trinitarian preference, these scholars chose to use in their UBS text because the very best of the oldest NT Greek manuscripts originally had which.] In 2 Thess 2:6-7 is nowhere mentioned .... First John 5:7 [in modern translations, e.g. RSV, NIV, NASB, etc.] is perhaps the most plausible of the passages enlisted. The masculine participle in refers to - (v 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirits personality ..., but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender. - p. 332, Zondervan, 1996.

So we find even trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace, known for his detailed defenses of the trinity, admitting that the grammatical use of gender agreement does not show that the Holy Spirit is referred to as a Person in the masculine gender throughout the New Testament as so many trinitarian apologists insist! In fact, the HS was never referred to as a Person in the masculine gender anywhere in the NT or the OT!

[placebofactor]

N.W.T. "In (the) beginning the Word (Jesus) was," Ask yourself who is the Word? Verse 14, N.W.T. "The Word (Jesus) became flesh and resided among us."

"And the Word was with God" Don't talk your way out of that one. Now if the Word was in the beginning with his Father before the creation began, both of them came out of eternity, thus both are eternal, and only God can be eternal.

I see you're now trying to dance your way around Clause #1 of John 1:1 -- where it clearly says the Word/Jesus Christ had a beginning -- by directing me to Clause #2 which says "the Word was with God."

Explain to those reading this thread how you expect Clause #2 of John 1:1 to help your Trinitarian argument in light of the fact Clause #2 also debunks Christendom's Trinity. Taken literally, Clause #2 would mean God was with himself, which makes absolutely no sense. You can't be with someone else and also be that same person. Or didn't you know that?

Quick comment on your last paragraph. For me it's easy! Jesus is our creator, sent by the Father, Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament. Seen by Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Manoah, Jacob, etc. The Creation was his gift from the Father to tohis Son. And the Sn's creation was to glorify his Father. And because Jesus is the Creator, he is the God (Jehovah) of the creation. And when he speaks to his creatures and said, "I will have no other God's before me, that's exactly what he means. When man fell, and he had to punish man with the flood, Jesus (Jehovah) said, Genesis 6:6, "It repented the LORD (the Son) that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." Why? Because the creation was all for the glory of the Father. With the fall of man, the Father was now the offended party, an Jesus was pissed off. "So, concerning John 1:1, "In the beginning, before the creation was the Word (the Son of God, Jehovah), and the Word was with the Father, (who is also Jehovah) and the Word (Jesus) was God." Jesus is God manifest in the Flesh, he is Emmanuel, God with us.

The problem I have with all you geniuses is, what you are claiming is, you're smarter than all the great commentators, theologians, teachers, and laypeople that came before us. You know more about the ancient Hebrew than the Jews themself, and your ancient Greek knowledge is superior to the scholars who wrote the books on translating. People like me and millions of others pick up our Bible, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, and read it like normal people read. Since the 1950s, the confusion you geniuses have caused has divided the church.

I would ask, when discussing a subject with someone, what Bible are you going to use? They may say, the NIV or the NWT. Okay, now I have to ask, what copyright are you going to use? Every copyright is different, with different footnotes, softened word changes, and punctuation changes etc. Then, a decade later, another copyright comes out. With all that nonsense, you in no way can claim God's word is eternal, but a living, ever-changing document, changing from generation to generation. You keep yours; I'll keep mine. God bless the King James Bible! And I do know what a clause is, he comes every December around the 25th.

[NeutralZone]

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

Placebofactor:

You have the audacity at Post 105 (quoted above) to tell me that I shouldn't say anything negative about the King James Bible, while you make a point of attacking the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses? Below is what I correctly stated at Post 97 about the King James Bible--which, I might add--has been confirmed by numerous independent sources on the Internet.

POST 97

FYI: The King James Bible is nothing more than an English translation that was published in 1611. Nothing more, nothing less. And the KJV contains fabricated verses not found in other Bible translations. So if you think the KJV is the gold standard, I've got news for you.

viewtopic.php?p=1174159#p1174159


You, meanwhile, have attacked the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses--referring to it as "corrupt"--because the NWT correctly rendered scripture in modern, easy-to-understand, English. Below is your direct attack on the NWT:

POST 100

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

viewtopic.php?p=1174165#p1174165

I see hypocrisy.

[NeutralZone]

Almighty God Jehovah has never been seen by a human. If that were to happen, the person would not have lived to tell the tale. When Moses asked Jehovah to let Moses see his face, below is the response Moses got from the Almighty.

Exodus 33:17
Jehovah went on to say to Moses: I will also do this thing that you request, because you have found favor in my eyes and I know you by name.

Exodus 33:18
Then he [Moses] said: Please show me your glory.

Exodus 33:19
But he [Jehovah] said: I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will declare before you the name of Jehovah; and I will favor the one whom I favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I show mercy.

Exodus 33:20
But he added: You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.


All of the instances you are referencing in your above response are of incidents where Jehovah was represented by various angels. Whenever that occurred, the Bible identified the angel as "Jehovah," because in that instance, the particular angel became Jehovah's mouthpiece.

. . . .

I'll stop here. every verse above is correct, and every verse you will deny, the N.W.T. has changed, and claims that the rest of the religious world does not know what we're talking about.
I will not accept any idea that my King James, NIV., Douay, Wycliffe, Tyndale Bibles, Adam Clark, Matthew Henry, Noah Webster, Sir Isaac Newton, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Zuck, Walvoord, Ussher, and I can name 100 more are all wrong, and that you're right? Is that what you're going to tell me? Are you going to tell me men like Washington and Lincoln in a time of war were praying to the wrong God? Both men prayed on their knees to the Lord Jesus to save America, and he did save us.

viewtopic.php?p=1173912#p1173912

You've got to be kidding me, placebofactor. That last paragraph from Post 85, quoted above, is laughable. You're hanging your argument for Christendom's Trinity god on a pair of slave mongers who had no problem perpetrating one of the most sadistic forms of chattel slavery upon black people from Africa, while they hypocritically fought for independence from England? Imagine that: they approved and encouraged the kidnapping and enslavement of generations of people, whipping them, chopping off limbs if they ran away and were caught, raping and impregnating their 12-year-old daughters, and selling adult slaves and their children on the auction block -- while they sought dependence from English rule.

And let's not forget how "men like Washington and Lincoln" approved the slaughter of the Native Americans (Indians) in order to steal their land and then proceeded to call the stolen land "The United States of America." It was "men like Washington and Lincoln" that sent the Native Americans to what amounted to internment camps; cheated them out of their land with crooked contracts that the "superior" white people had no intention of fulfilling and forced some of the Native Americans--at gunpoint--on death marches where men, women, and children were forced to walk until they dropped dead. . . . And I could go on and on with this. You expected "men like Washington and Lincoln" and other white people like themselves to be shining examples of Christianity?

Please tell me you're joking.

[placebofactor]

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

Placebofactor:

You have the audacity at Post 105 (quoted above) to tell me that I shouldn't say anything negative about the King James Bible, while you make a point of attacking the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses? Below is what I correctly stated at Post 97 about the King James Bible--which, I might add--has been confirmed by numerous independent sources on the Internet.

POST 97

FYI: The King James Bible is nothing more than an English translation that was published in 1611. Nothing more, nothing less. And the KJV contains fabricated verses not found in other Bible translations. So if you think the KJV is the gold standard, I've got news for you.

viewtopic.php?p=1174159#p1174159


You, meanwhile, have attacked the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses--referring to it as "corrupt"--because the NWT correctly rendered scripture in modern, easy-to-understand, English. Below is your direct attack on the NWT:

POST 100

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

viewtopic.php?p=1174165#p1174165

I see hypocrisy.

Good, don't read it! No, what you see is the truth, and think it's hypocrisy. The N.W.T, has had four (4) copyrights since your first edition came out in 1961. Which of the four is correct? Which one would you suggest? Your bibles aren't God's eternal word, their manufactured Watchtower dogmas.

[NeutralZone]

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

Placebofactor:

You have the audacity at Post 105 (quoted above) to tell me that I shouldn't say anything negative about the King James Bible, while you make a point of attacking the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses? . . . .

POST 100

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

viewtopic.php?p=1174165#p1174165

I see hypocrisy.

Good, don't read it! No, what you see is the truth, and think it's hypocrisy. The N.W.T, has had four (4) copyrights since your first edition came out in 1961. Which of the four is correct? Which one would you suggest? Your bibles aren't God's eternal word, their manufactured Watchtower dogmas.

So your complaint is that the NWT has four copyrights. That's what bothers you? But you're not bothered by the over dozen fabricated verses found within the King James Bible. Where's your priority?

Below is the scripture in the book of Revelation forbidding the addition or deletion of verses from the bible:

Revelation 22:18
I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.



The King James Version aka KJV has over a dozen verses that are questionable and have been removed from most, if not all, of the other Trinitarian Bible translations. Below is the weblink to one of the websites where the fabricated verses are listed.

https://www.passiontoknowmore.com/post/ ... ing-verses


When you get there, scroll down to the subheading that says: These verses arent missing. They were added to later manuscripts.


You certainly will not find any of those verses in the New World Translation aka NWT. So instead of making an issue of the number of copyrights owned by the New World Translation, you should concern yourself with the fabrications in the KJV in light of the fact those added verses are in blatant disobedience to Jehovahs instruction at Revelation 22:18-19.

[placebofactor]

One more thing, I would be a bit more careful how you speak about the K.J.B. Bible. This work has been around for the past 413 years. God's word does not need your approval, and your comments are calling hundreds of millions of Christians who have passed before us either corrupt or stupid.

Placebofactor:

You have the audacity at Post 105 (quoted above) to tell me that I shouldn't say anything negative about the King James Bible, while you make a point of attacking the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses? . . . .

POST 100

If a person who claims to know the Scriptures and doesn't understand the difference between the Holy Spirit being called "He" not "It", or by changing "He" to "That one," they don't need to be teaching. The corrupt N.W.T. changed "He" to "that one" the only Bible in the history of the world that changes "He" to "that one." The Watchtower rejects 1 John 5:7 because it's only in a few manuscripts, yet they change He to "that one" and it's not in any manuscripts. They also changed John 1:1, another intentional corruption. And they add "Other" in Colossians 1:16, to strip Jesus of his divinity, claiming he was created. Don't talk about blasphemy to me, you'd better read Revelation 22 about adding and removing words from God's word.

viewtopic.php?p=1174165#p1174165

I see hypocrisy.

Good, don't read it! No, what you see is the truth, and think it's hypocrisy. The N.W.T, has had four (4) copyrights since your first edition came out in 1961. Which of the four is correct? Which one would you suggest? Your bibles aren't God's eternal word, their manufactured Watchtower dogmas.

So your complaint is that the NWT has four copyrights. That's what bothers you? But you're not bothered by the over dozen fabricated verses found within the King James Bible. Where's your priority?

Below is the scripture in the book of Revelation forbidding the addition or deletion of verses from the bible:

Revelation 22:18
I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.

The King James Version aka KJV has over a dozen verses that are questionable and have been removed from most, if not all, of the other Trinitarian Bible translations. Below is the weblink to one of the websites where the fabricated verses are listed.

https://www.passiontoknowmore.com/post/ ... ing-verses


When you get there, scroll down to the subheading that says: These verses arent missing. They were added to later manuscripts.


You certainly will not find any of those verses in the New World Translation aka NWT. So instead of making an issue of the number of copyrights owned by the New World Translation, you should concern yourself with the fabrications in the KJV in light of the fact those added verses are in blatant disobedience to Jehovahs instruction at Revelation 22:18-19.

I will give you one corruption in the NWT that disqualifies it. In your 1984 edition of the NWT, Colossians 1:16, "because by means of him all (OTHER) things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,"

------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your 2013 edition of the NWT, Colossians 1:16, "because by means of him, all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth," Brackets have been removed, making other part of the verse.

Heres what I asked A.I. Of all the known old New Testament manuscripts, 5800 of them, regarding Colossians 1:16: can the following translation be found? Colossians 1:16, "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth."

Answer: The translation of Colossians 1:16 as: "Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth" is not found in any of the known ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This specific rendering appears only in the New World Translation (NWT) used by Jehovahs Witnesses.

What the Greek Text Actually Says The original Greek of Colossians 1:16 reads: - - ("because in him all things were created")

A.I. There is no Greek word for other (like allos or heteros) in this verse. The phrase means all things, without qualification.
Comparison of Translations
Translation Colossians 1:16
New International Version (NIV) "For in him all things were created..."
King James Version (KJV) "For by him were all things created..."
New World Translation (NWT) "Because by means of him all other things were created..."

The insertion of other in the NWT is not based on the Greek text, but rather reflects a theological interpretation, specifically, the belief that Jesus himself is a created being and therefore could not have created all things without exception.

Scholarly Discussion
This translation has been widely critiqued by scholars and theologians. Many argue that adding other distorts the meaning of the passage and is not linguistically justified. Even Jehovahs Witnesses acknowledge in their own commentary that a literal rendering of the Greek text would be all things

So go argue with the experts, you give the impression your smarter then 60 of Europe's greatest scholars, and translators, all documented concerning their education and qualifications. That's more than anyone can say about the unknowns who were most likely all Jehovah's Witnesses that had an agenda when they published the N.W.T. About your empty accusations concerning these other verses not having manuscript support. How do you know what the King James scholars had and were looking at in their work? You don't know, so stop complaining about things you have no knowledge of.

You Jehovah's witnesses used the King James up to 1961. You were teaching back then what you teach today, only out of the King James Bible. Problem: There is no way that for 75 years before 1961 they claimed Jesus was not God, there is no He, Holy Spirit, there is no Trinity, there is no hell. You cannot draw these conclusions from the King James, so that tells me, your NWT was founded on Taze Russell, his Lawyer Rutherford and the Watchtower's ruling class personal biases injected into God's word.