Subject: Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? |
Bible Note: Greetings Tony! You have to watch those trips 'back'! :-) Your examples just don't back up adding 'other' to Col. 1:16, for several reasons. 1) First of all, you would have to establish that Jesus was in fact a created being. There isn't any Scripture which establishes this point. 'Firstborn' here is not a reference to 'created'. For instance, the same word is used of Christ in v. 18 where it speaks of Him as being the 'firstborn from the dead'. Does it mean 'created' here? Was He the first one to be raised from the dead? No! So, 'firstborn' is clearly being used in the sense of preeminence - Christ is supreme over creation. 2) Secondly, the contexts of your examples do not match what you claim for Col. 1:15-16. a) Neither Luke 13:2, nor Mt. 26:35 uses a partitive genitive construction at all. b) It is not certain that Col. 1:15 is a partitive genitive either. If 'firstborn' is taken as a title for Christ, then this could be an example of a genitive of possession or a genitive of relationship. c) Your examples also clearly identify that individuals from within a larger group are being discussed, which is why 'other' is added. Luke 13:2 says, 'Do you think that THESE Galileans sinners besides the Galileans who were'. Mt. 26:25 says, 'likewise also all the disciples said'. Peter was speaking and we know that he was one of the disciples, so it must have been the rest of the disciples who spoke at the end of the verse. Personally, I would not add the word 'other' even to your two examples. But, at least in these two examples, it can be demonstrated that a part was being contrasted with the whole. Yet, no such thing can be shown in Col. 1:16. The entire context of the Col. passage shows that Christ is not part of the creation, but above it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |