Subject: Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? |
Bible Note: --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. Well it is your assumption, due to theology that it means preeminence. I personally would take a slightly more reliable approach and compare the uses of firstborn throughout the Bible. To do this we must consider PROTOTOKOS very carefuly. The first thing we note is that PROTOTOKOS in both the LXX and NT, when followed by a genitive is never used in reference t preeminence. That is of considerable interest to us, because it is always firstborn, with the one being part of and belonging to the group, as the one born first! Should we suddenly stop and change our use of this at Colossians 1:15 because it does not fit our theology? Of course not. We must be consistent with the scriptures. This again ties back in with my statement on the partitive genitive. Because, again, going by the other examples we should be consistent. We should not issolate one example of a set pattern and try and do a total reverse because of our predetermined theology. Here are some examples of PROTOTOKOS in the LXX. All are in reference to the one born first, often followed by the genitive: [[unable to post these here because of size limit.. will post in the next mssg]] --2) Secondly, the contexts of your examples do not match what you --claim for Col. 1:15-16. Well of course the situations are different, but this has established that other translators agree that the use of the word "other" with PAS/PANTA is a grammatically acceptable thing. The NWT actually takes it a step further than these other translations, but adding brackets to indicate such. Considering the other uses of PROTOTOKOS with the genitive, unless we choose to be theologically biased in our reading, I do not see how we can possibly remove Jesus out of the group of creation here. --a) Neither Luke 13:2, nor Mt. 26:35 uses a partitive genitive --construction at all. That was not my purpose in demonstrating with these scriptures. I was simply showing that other translators use "other" when rendering PANTA. To attack the NWT and say "Well it isn't in the Greek so it shouldn't be there." is an attack based on ones personal theology and is inconsistent with what ther translators have demonstrated. --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. And this is again where we must look back to determine if it is a title or a place in order. Based on every other example of the use of firstborn, I see no way one can possibly justify this being something other than the one born first, and by such, a partitive genitive. --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. Reply: Well again, I would certainly argue, based on EVERY other example of PROTOTOKOS in a similar situation, that Jesus is demonstrated as part of the group. THerefore, just as these translators used "other", the NWT does it in the same way. The point is this. While your theology might not agree, just as these other translators have added "other", it can be argued in the NWT's defense that "other" is also justified. |