Colossians 1:15 A Conversation with a Jehovah Witness

[McKeehan]

An Example Conversation with a Jehovah Witness (JW) and historic Christian belief on Colossians 1:15

Background to our conversation: (Colossians 1:15 declares that Jesus Christ is the "first¬born of all creation." Twisting the meaning of the term "first-born" to indicate "first created," Jehovah's Wit¬nesses use this passage to prove that Jesus had a beginning. The following discussion between Jehovah Witness (JW) and a Historic Christian illustrates the difference in use of the term first-born):
_______________________________________________________________

JW: If you turn to Colossians 1:15 you will see that Paul declares Jesus to be the first created being.

Historical Christianity: As I read the passage it says that He is the "first-born of all creation," not first created being.

JW: Well, when a person is born he comes into existence. Thus, first-born means that he was the first one to come into existence.

Historical Christianity: But if first-born means the first one to come into existence as you say, how would you interpret Psalm 89:20, 27? " it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB). David was the tenth child!

JW: I don't see what you are getting at.

Historical Christianity: First-born here means "the highest of the kings of the earth." Let's check another passage. Turn to Jeremiah 31:9 where it says "and Ephraim My first-born." Who was born first—Manasseh or Ephraim?

JW: Manasseh was born first.

Historical Christianity: Then why is Ephraim called the first-born?

JW: What are you getting at?

Historical Christianity: The word first-born cannot mean the first one born in this passage, either. In both of these passages it must refer to rank or position of preeminence.

JW: Ok! I would agree.

Historical Christianity: But you see, the term first-born means preeminence regardless of whether it was the first, second or last son. That is the meaning of the term.

JW: What are you getting at?

Historical Christianity: Let's go back to Colossians 1:15. Paul is talking about the preeminence of Jesus over all creation in Colossians 1:15, not His being the first creature brought into existence.

JW: You don't really believe that, do you?

Historical Christianity: Paul leaves us in no doubt as to what he means by first-born here. He proceeds to tell us that Jesus is the - preeminent one because "in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:16).

JW: You mean all "other" things.

Historical Christianity: No, Paul specifically says "all things." Were do you find in the text all "other" things?

JW: Well, Jesus was the first created being who brought all the things, apart from himself, into existence.

Historical Christianity: If Paul had meant that Jesus was the first created being, he would have used the specific word for first created, Gr. protoktistos, not first-born Gr. prototokos. Furthermore, the passage clearly states that He brought all things into existence. A different word would have been used if he meant all "other" things. He is the preeminent one because He is the creator of all things. "All things have been created... for Him" (Col. 1:16). Therefore He must be God. (See Gen. 1:1.)

JW: But what about Colossians 1:18 where he is "the first-born from the dead"?

Historical Christianity: His triumph over death in His resurrection further proves His preeminence over all things, including the power of death.

Side Note: (In Revelation 3:14, Jesus refers to Himself as "the Beginning of the creation of God." Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret this to mean that Jesus is the beginning of God's creation in the sense that He is the first creation. This passage actually harmonizes with the rest of Scripture, which teaches the deity of Jesus Christ):

JW: Revelation 3:14 is quite clear about Jesus being the beginning of creation which God created.

Historical Christianity: As I read the passage it literally says that He is the "Beginning of the creation of God."

JW: Same thing!

Historic al Christianity: Oh no! There is a great difference between be¬ing the first one made by God and being the One who made all things—the Creator.

JW: Agreed!

Historic al Christianity: It seems to me our difference centers around the word "beginning." That word could easily be translated as origin or source, which would declare Jesus to be the one who begins creation, the origin of creation, the Creator, and then He must be God.

JW: I agree with you that our difference lies in the translation of the word "beginning." The word means he was the first one made.

Historic al Christianity: In your own translation of the Bible the same Greek word, “arche”, is translated "origin" in John 1:1. If we carry that translation to Revelation 3:14 it means that Jesus is the origin of the creation of God, or the one who made all things. Can anyone else but God create?

JW: No only God can create!

Historical Christianity: Jesus must be the same one Creator God!

Historical Christianity; Do you believe the Bible statement in Malachi 3;6: “I am the LORD, and I do not change.

JW: Yes, I do! Where are you going with this?

Historical Christianity: Do believe the statement Only God can be worshiped?

JW: Yes, clearly Exodus 34;14 says: for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Yes, we are on the same page.

Historical Christianity: So you believe God does not share worship with anyone according to Exodus 34:14?

JW: Yes God is a jealous God and does not share His worship!

Historical Christianity: Very good! Now do you believe God would not share His Glory?

JW: Again the Bible says in Isaiah 42:8: “I am the LORD; that is my name my
glory I give to no other…”

Historical Christianity: We are on the same page but I am a little confused?

JW: Why is that?

Historical Christianity: If what Isaiah 42:8 is true. Why does 2 Peter 1: 17 say: "For he (Jesus) received honor and glory from God the Father when these words from the Majestic Glory were spoken about him: “This is my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with him.”

JW: I don’t know?

Historical Christianity: Jesus must be God!

JW: Exodus 20 :3-5 - You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Historical Christianity: I am in agreement.

JW: Romans 1:25 says: They exchanged God’s truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. People who worship and serve created things, rather than the Creator, have left the truth of God.

Historical Christianity: This is correct! Again, I am a little confused?

JW: Why is that?

Historical Christianity: If Jesus is the first created being as you believe? Why does Hebrews 1:6 say: But when He God again brings the firstborn into the world, He says “Let all the angels of God worship Him. Also, Phil. 2: 9-10 says: At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.

JW: (No answer)

Historic al Christianity: God would be violating His own character to share His worship something created. Jesus must be same one God.

 

[McKeehan]

I can do a similar conversation with a Mormon. The Question: "Is God a Glorified Man?" I know Mormons will be uncomfortable. Do we have Christians interested in this post? I have had hundreds of conversations with Mormons. I have lead Mormons to Christ. I was the instrument of planting the seed and God convicted them to leave Mormonism and embrace Jesus Christ God's eternal (always existed) Son! Is there an interest?

 

[mmksparbud]

I can do a similar conversation with a Mormon. The Question: "Is God a Glorified Man?" I know Mormons will be uncomfortable. Do we have Christians interested in this post? I have had hundreds of conversations with Mormons. I have lead Mormons to Christ. I was the instrument of planting the seed and God convicted them to leave Mormonism and embrace Jesus Christ God's eternal (always existed) Son! Is there an interest?

I'd like to see that Mormon conversation.

 

[Mark51]

I am only commenting on the first to scriptures that is referenced: Psalms 89:27 and Jeremiah 31:9.

There no other spirit son of God in heaven who is honored so highly as this one who appears in Daniel’s vision as “a son of man.” The psalmist identifies him. (Psalm 89:26, 27) This statement of Jehovah does not refer to King David, with whom God made a covenant for an everlasting kingdom in his royal family line, nor to David’s royal successor, Solomon. Neither of these kings were the firstborn sons of their fathers. (Psalm 89:28-37; 2[bless and do not curse]Samuel 7:4-17) The later facts show that Jehovah was referring prophetically to his own “firstborn” in heaven, the Son who had been with him for time indefinite before Jehovah God created man.

Naturally someone may ask, How could God have a “firstborn,” when He had no wife in heaven at that time? In answer to that question, the one who proved to be that “firstborn” speaks for himself. In Revelation 3:14, he says: “These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.” The speaker of those words was the resurrected, glorified Lord Jesus Christ, who is a “faithful and true witness” and who does not lie about the matter. He himself says he is “the beginning of the creation by God.”

The tribe of Ephraim became the most prominent tribe of the northern kingdom of ten tribes, its name often standing for that entire kingdom. Because Jehovah chose to have Ephraim receive the firstborn son’s blessing from his grandfather Jacob instead of Manasseh, the real firstborn son of Joseph, Jehovah rightly spoke of the tribe of Ephraim as “my firstborn.”-Jeremiah 31:9,[bless and do not curse]20; Hosea 11:1-8,[bless and do not curse]12; compare Genesis 48:13-20.

 

[mmksparbud]

Thank you. Perhaps another thread for more of these??

 

[Imagican]

Ok, I read the conversation. What I would like to add first is that I am NOT a JW.

Now I would like to add that not a single one of the quotes you offered concerning the 'firstborn' stated that ANY other than Christ was the 'firstborn' of EVERY CREATURE. I would say that this adds a completely DIFFERENT connotation to the definition. You aren't going to NOW say that 'creature' is in reference to KINGS?????

And it is not only this scripture which points to Christ being 'created' or 'formed' or BEGOTTEN. Yes, begotten. How about that word? Every USE of the word throughout the ENTIRE Bible is in reference to progeny. You know, a son coming FROM a Father. One being basically the SOURCE of the other. If you believe that 'begotten' means something DIFFERENT according to Christ, SHOW us. Not through some man made doctrine like 'trinity', but through the Bible. Show us that 'begotten' means something 'different' according to Christ.

Then there are the words of Christ Himself. Revelation 3: when Christ is identifying Himself, He offers that He is the BEGINNING of the 'creation of God'. Not the beginning of 'creation'. But the 'beginning of the creation of GOD'. And we KNOW that God is THE FATHER of Christ. We KNOW that Christ is the Son of God. What we DON'T KNOW is that the teachings of the 'churches' concerning the existence of Christ has any validity whatsoever. For this same 'church' is the one that once taught that the earth was FLAT. The same 'church' that taught that the Earth was the CENTER of the universe. The same 'church' that indicated that it believed it was given the power to torture and murder at will. Or to steal gold from those that they labeled 'heathen'. Or teach that they have the power to grant or deny salvation. This list could end up being a BOOK. So I believe I have offered ENOUGH evidence of their 'mistakes' to plainly illustrate that the 'church' that created the concept of 'trinity' can't be trusted any more than any other MAN.

So that leaves us with the BIBLE. Do we place our faith in the words offered in the Bible? Or do we choose to place our faith in MEN that tell us what THEY believe the Bible offers?

Well. I can READ. And my comprehension level is well above average. So that leads ME to believe that if I ask, knock or seek with a sincere heart, I am just as capable of comprehending the meaning behind the words offered in the Bible as any other man who is in the same situation.

I am not a JW. But I clearly recognize that the Bible offers that Christ was the BEGINNING of God's creation. He was the "FIRSTBORN of every creature". Plainly illustrating that IN THE BEGINNING, God created His Son FIRST and that the rest of creation was accomplished THROUGH His Son. I don't really go for fairy tales and ideas of fiction created or crafted by the hands of men.

Why do you think that there is NO power within the 'churches' any longer? They have erred in favor of the teachings of men instead of simply following as instructed through the Bible. And most of those that attend the 'churches' have fallen so far away from the truth that they aren't even able to recognize it any longer. Their eyes are just as blinded as those that they choose to follow. Vanity and pride has slipped in and replaced any semblance of truth. Just follow the topics in this ONE forum. Doesn't take but a moment to recognize that just about every one here has a DIFFERENT understanding. And if God is TRUTH, that means that there can BE only ONE understanding IN truth. But there are as many 'truths' as there are men. At least in their minds and hearts. And it is THAT which separates God's children from the rest. God's children RECOGNIZE His voice and LISTEN. Whereas the rest of mankind listens to the voices of men, (or worse: women or even other gods or goddesses), and are therefore incapable of having even a slight idea of God's will.

It is MY belief that we are offered the story of Christ's creation in some of the first words uttered by God: "let there be LIGHT". For Christ IS the 'Light of men'. Without Christ, there is only darkness. While the world places it's faith in it's self, it is incapable of even recognition of the Light. Using the NAME Jesus Christ means nothing in and of itself. It is those that choose to allow the Son of God into their hearts that are capable of serving in TRUTH.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'd like to see that Mormon conversation.

I'd like to see it as well. Thank you.

 

[2ducklow]

oh hey I already took this test. I gave myself 100.

It was real easy for me.
non JW: If you turn to Colossians 1:15 you will see that Paul declares Jesus to be the first born of all creation. .

Historical Christianity: As I read the passage it says that He is the "first-born of all creation," not first created being.

non JW: We'll that's what I said so????

Historical Christianity: But if first-born means the first one to come into existence as you say, how would you interpret Psalm 89:20, 27? " it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB).

Non JW: I see what you are getting at. Verse 29 says that God will appoint to futurity David’s seed. Thus God was making a covenant with David and David was the first born in this covenant. First born is figurative here, but literal with reference to Jesus.
Ps 89.29 Therefore will I appoint, to futurity, his seed, And his throne as the days of the heavens.

.36 His seed, age-abidingly, shall remain, And, his throne, be like the sun before me;

89.26 He, shall cry out unto me, My Father, thou art, My GOD, and my Rock of Salvation

Historical Christianity: First-born here means "the highest of the kings of the earth." Let's check another passage. Turn to Jere¬miah 31:9 where it says "and Ephraim My first-born." Who was born first—Manasseh or Ephraim?

Non JW: you tell me.

Historical Christianity: Then why is Ephraim called the first-born?

Non JW: That’s easy, it’s because Ephraim was the first to believe in God’s promise, thus making him the first born and having the right to call God his Father. It doesn’t mean God begat Ephraim in the same manner as God begat Jesus. God begat Jesus in Mary, Ephraim wasn’t begat by God in a woman, just as we are born again Christians, we aren’t born in a woman. It’s a matter of Ephraim being figuratively the first born, and Jesus being literally the first born.

jer. 31.9 With weeping, shall they come in, And, with supplications, will I lead them, I will bring them unto rivers of waters, By a smooth way, wherein they shall not stumble,—For I have become, to Israel, a father, And, as for Ephraim, my firstborn, is he!

Ephraim was the first born of Israel the rest of Israel became born again so to speak after Ephraim, thus giving them the right to call God their father.

Historical Christianity: The word first-born cannot mean the first one born in this passage, either. In both of these passages it must refer to rank or position of preeminence.

Non JW: I see it differently, as I have already stated. Plus I'm using the word firstborn to mean firstborn, you are changing the word firstborn to preeminence.
[

Historical Christianity: But you see, the term first-born means preemi¬nence regardless of whether it was the first, second or last son. That is the meaning of the term.

Non JW: preeminence is your interpretation, mine is a figurative meaning of firstborn sorta like first born again.

Historical Christianity: Let's go back to Colossians 1:15. Paul is talking about the preeminence of Jesus over all creation in Colossians 1:15, not His being the first creature brought into existence.

Non JW: col 1.15 means that Jesus was the first born of all new creations.
Jesus wasn’t the first born of Adamic race, or of the earth. Jesus was the first born of the new adamic race of men, the last adam

1 cor 15.Thus, also, it is written—The first man, Adam, became, a living soul, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46.Howbeit, not first, is the [body] of the spirit, but that, of the soul,—afterwards, that of the spirit.
47 The first man, is of the ground, earthy, the second man, is, of heaven:

Jesus is human so obviously the only human creation that Jesus could be the first born of was the last adamic race of men. Us Christians.

Historical Christianity: Paul leaves us in no doubt as to what he means by first-born here. He proceeds to tell us that Jesus is the - preeminent one because "in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:16).

Non JW: my interpretation is different than yours. I see the meaning of col. 1.16 as being this. Jesus is the reason that God created everything that he created. Thus all things were created in, through, for, and unto Jesus.

Historical Christianity: No, Paul specifically says "all things."

Non JW: Yea, all things = everything that was created. The whole world.

Historical Christianity: If Paul had meant that Jesus was the first created being, he would have used the specific word for first created, Gr. protoktistos, not first-born Gr. prototokos. Fur¬thermore, the passage clearly states that He brought all things into existence. A different word would have been used if he meant all "other" things. He is the preeminent one because He is the creator of all things. "All things have been created... for Him" (Col. 1:16). Therefore He must be God. (See Gen. 1:1.)

Non JW: You’ve got quite a bit of falsehoods in this statement of yours. For one thing, scripture says all things were created IN him, not BY him. Trinitarains changed those scriptures to accomidate their doctrine. Look it up, it’s the greek word en, which means in.

Historical Christianity: His triumph over death in His resurrection fur¬ther proves His preeminence over all things, including the power of death.

Side Note: (In Revelation 3:14, Jesus refers to Himself as "the Begin¬ning of the creation of God." Jehovah's Witnesses reinter¬pret this to mean that Jesus is the beginning of God's creation in the sense that He is the first creation. This passage actually harmonizes with the rest of Scripture, which teaches the deity of Jesus Christ):

Non JW: Revelation 3:14 is quite clear about Jesus being the beginning of creation which God created. Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of God, the last adam, we Christians are the many brethern that Jesus is the first born of . “firstborn of many brethern”

Historical Christianity: As I read the passage it literally says that He is the "Beginning of the creation of God."

Non JW: Yea well I’ve already cleared up that issue. Didn’t you read what I just said?

Historic al Christianity: Oh no! There is a great difference between be¬ing the first one made by God and being the One who made all things—the Creator.

Non JW: all things were created in Christ, not all things were created by Christ. You’re just using false translations of the word of God invented to support your trinity doctrine.

Historic al Christianity: It seems to me our difference centers around the word "beginning." That word could easily be trans¬lated as origin or source, which would declare Jesus to be the one who begins creation, the origin of creation, the Creator, and then He must be God.

Non JW: well I thing we have to stop here, you keep ignoring what I have said .


Hey that was fun. just put Non in front of JW and it all becomes clear. You just asked the wrong person, you should have asked a non JW instead of a JW. Asking a JW is like picking on the weak guy. Proving Trinity by picking on a church with very weak theology makes trinity look bad. Here's a test for you, which makes more sense, what I said, or saying 3 is one?

also, I can guarantee you that a JW wouldn't answer your questions the way you suppose. They, like everyone, have an answer for every question. PLus they, like everyone, would probably evade your questions and talk about something else that they think disproves your conclusions. Trinitarians do that one all the time.

 

[McKeehan]

Historical Christianity: If Paul had meant that Jesus was the first created being, he would have used the specific word for first created, Gr. protoktistos, not first-born Gr. prototokos. Fur¬thermore, the passage clearly states that He brought all things into existence. A different word would have been used if he meant all "other" things. He is the preeminent one because He is the creator of all things. "All things have been created... for Him" (Col. 1:16). Therefore He must be God. (See Gen. 1:1.)

Non JW: You’ve got quite a bit of falsehoods in this statement of yours. For one thing, scripture says all things were created IN him, not BY him. Trinitarains changed those scriptures to accomidate their doctrine. Look it up, it’s the greek word en, which means in.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Non Jehovah Witness,

Your statement is a little disturbing because you said you could read and understand. You said: "You’ve got quite a bit of falsehoods in this statement of yours..."

You could not tell me I quoted the koine greek wrong. You said it was falsehood. Why?

first created, Gr. proto-ktistos NOT USED
first-born Gr. proto-tokos WAS USED

Let me give you an easy english lesson these two words are not Synonyms. If Paul wanted to say "first-created" he would have used Greek word: proto-ktistos! He did not! If your not a Jehovah Witness you should be.

Still disturbing you can't read :-(

Where does it say? Quote: "...all things were created IN him, not BY him." End of quote!

Your bias blinds your reading in most of your answers. Colossians 1:16 says: "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:" Jesus created what is IN heaven and earth!

I don't see the words "In Him" I would have loved to answer more but you did not read my post and understand it.

 

[2ducklow]

Historical Christianity: If Paul had meant that Jesus was the first created being, he would have used the specific word for first created, Gr. protoktistos, not first-born Gr. prototokos. Fur¬thermore, the passage clearly states that He brought all things into existence. A different word would have been used if he meant all "other" things. He is the preeminent one because He is the creator of all things. "All things have been created... for Him" (Col. 1:16). Therefore He must be God. (See Gen. 1:1.)

Non JW: You’ve got quite a bit of falsehoods in this statement of yours. For one thing, scripture says all things were created IN him, not BY him. Trinitarains changed those scriptures to accomidate their doctrine. Look it up, it’s the greek word en, which means in.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Non Jehovah Witness,

Your statement is a little disturbing because you said you could read and understand. You said: "You’ve got quite a bit of falsehoods in this statement of yours..."

You could not tell me I quoted the koine greek wrong. You said it was falsehood. Why?

first created, Gr. proto-ktistos NOT USED
first-born Gr. proto-tokos WAS USED

Let me give you an easy english lesson these two words are not Synonyms. If Paul wanted to say "first-created" he would have used Greek word: proto-ktistos! He did not! If your not a Jehovah Witness you should be.

Still disturbing you can't read :-(

Where does it say? Quote: "...all things were created IN him, not BY him." End of quote!

Your bias blinds your reading in most of your answers. Colossians 1:16 says: "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:" Jesus created what is IN heaven and earth!

I don't see the words "In Him" I would have loved to answer more but you did not read my post and understand it.

I said you could look up in Greek and see that the greek word used is en which means in , not by. You didn't choose to look it up. So I looked it up for you. the reason I didn't present more evidence showing that col. 1.16 really says "all things were created in HIM" is because I knew you would just ignore it like you did everything else I posted as a non JW. So I was right.

Colossians 1:16
1:16 3754ότι for 1722εν in 1473αυτώ him 2936εκτίσθη were created
3588-3956τα πάντα the whole, 3588ταthe things 1722ενin 3588τοιςthe 3772ουρανοίςheavens, 2532καιand 3588ταthe things 1909επίupon 3588τηςthe 1093γηςearth -- 3588ταthe 3707ορατάvisible 2532καιand 3588ταthe 517αόραταunseen; 1535είτεwhether 2362θρόνοιthrones, 1535είτεwhether 2963κυριότητεςlordships, 1535είτεwhether 746αρχαίsovereignties, 1535είτεwhether 1849εξουσίαιauthorities; 3588-3956τα πάνταthe whole 1223δι΄through 1473αυτούhim 2532καιand 1519ειςin 1473αυτόνhim 2936έκτισταιhave been created

Colossians 1:16 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear


and I didn't say everything you said was incorrect. you are right the greek word is first born not first created. you are wrong: however, when you say Jesus is the preeminent one. you change firstborn to preeminent. You are wrong also because you say all things were created by him, when in fact the greek says 'all things were created in him". you are also wrong because you say Jesus is God because of Gen 1.1. That is an incorrect interpretation of Gen. 1.1 based upon your false translation of col . 1.16.

I would have loved to answer more but you did not read my post and understand it

you'd just have ignored everything I said, just as you ignored my evidence for the correct translation of col. 1.16.

But that was cute how you accused me of saying that you quoted the koine greek wrong when I never said that. attack something I never said and don't believe. but ignore what I said. Cute.

 

[2ducklow]

Colossians 1:16





YLT(i)col. 1. 16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created

col.. 1.16Because, in him, were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the things seen and the things unseen, whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities,—they all, through him and for him, have been created,(Rotherham)

col. 1.16 LITV(i) 16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.

there ye go, 3 literal translations that all translate it as 'in him" and not 'by him".

I'll throw you a bone though. the reason some translators translate en in col. 1.16 is because the take en in that verse to be being used in an instrumental sense. If however, one takes en in a locative sense, then it means all things were created in Jesus which of course would have a figurative meaning just as all things were created through Jesus does.
See in greek the preposistion is overwhelmingly used in a locative sense, but sometimes it's instrumental such as there's a verse in the bible that says 'slain in the sword". Well to the greek mind that means slain in the power of the sword, but we don't ever have an instrumental use of the preposistion In . In is always locative in English.

So really both translations are possible.. The correct one depends on one having the correct doctrine. The correct on depends on what other verses say on the subject who created everything. And since god created everything, and since there is only one God, and since Jesus is the son of that one God, the correct translation cannot be "by Him". Unless one believes that 3 is one, which I do not.

but if the verse had used the prep. apo which means by, then there would be no doubt that the meaning was that all things were cereated by hkm.. but alas apo wasn't used, en was.


here's an example of the prep. en being used in an instrumental sense.

Revelation 19:21
19:21 2532καιAnd 3588οιthe 3062λοιποίrest 615απεκτάνθησανwere killed 1722 εν by 3588 τη the 4501ρομφαία broadsword

3588τουof the one 2521καθημένουsitting 1909επίupon 3588τουthe 2462ίππουhorse, 3588τηby the one 1831εξελθούσηgoing forth 1537εκfrom out of 3588του 4750-1473στόματος αυτούhis mouth. 2532καιAnd 3956πάνταall 3588ταthe 3732όρνεαbirds 5526εχορτάσθησανwere filled 1537εκof 3588των 4561-1473σαρκών αυτώνtheir flesh.

Revelation 19:21 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear

rev.19.21 And, the rest, were slain with the sword of him that was sitting upon the horse, which went forth out of his mouth, and, all the birds, were filled with their flesh.(Rotherham).

actually both translations are incorrect in that en always means in. But they translate it to mean in in an instrumental sense, thus Rtoherham translates it as with, KJV as by. En means neither of those words , it's just we don't use in in an instrumental sense, and they don't want a long explanation like I've given you here.


\

 

[Der Alte]

I said you could look up in Greek and see that the greek word used is en which means in , not by. You didn't choose to look it up. So I looked it up for you. the reason I didn't present more evidence showing that col. 1.16 really says "all things were created in HIM" is because I knew you would just ignore it like you did everything else I posted as a non JW. So I was right.

Let us review all the meanings of the Greek "en."

G1722 ἐν en

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.​

 

[Imagican]

And let me add. God did NOT 'create' Christ as the Earth was 'created'. Jesus is the FIRST and ONLY 'begotten' Son of God. The word begotten indicative of BIRTH, not "CREATION".

I often state that Christ was a 'created being' simply to indicate that there was a time 'before' Christ. That the concept 'trinity' introduces is NOT 'Biblical' in the respect that Christ has NOT 'always' been. God and His Son do NOT share a 'no beginning'. The Bible PLAINLY states that Christ had a 'beginning'.

But the truth is, we are simply not given the specifics of Christ's original BIRTH. But we ARE offered that He was 'begotten'. And ALL other uses of this word throughout the ENTIRE Bible are indicative of 'BIRTH'. And the ONLY argument that one could possibly make against the Bible is the words of men that created 'trinity'. Eliminate 'trinity', (man made concept), and then it is apparent that Christ was BEGOTTEN, BORN, FORMED, MADE, CREATED, by God.

Once again, I believe that if one simply reads the Bible as OFFERED, the indication is that God 'begat' Christ at the moment He uttered the words, "Let there be light". Christ IS the LIGHT. And the LIGHT was formed, created, begotten, made, FIRST before anything else was 'created'. And we KNOW that all things in the heavens and on this Earth was created by GOD, through Christ. So that means that Christ had to be 'created' FIRST before anything else in the KNOWN universe was 'created'.

But read the first words uttered by God. And then we are told that the Sun, moon and stars weren't created until day FOUR. So the 'light' that was created FIRST was obviously NOT the Sun, moon or stars. That means that it was some OTHER form of Light. And the ONLY other form of light that I have found in the Bible IS the LIGHT mentioned in the book of John.

So, READ the book of John and see what it says about the LIGHT. And how was The Light formed? God SPOKE it into existence. We don't have any other information than that. So it was God's Word that FORMED Christ, His Son.

But you can eliminate ALL this by simply accepting what men created in understanding. Even in utter contradiction to the Bible. If reading the Bible is just too difficult, just place your faith in what men TELL you it says.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I once heard a comedian tell a story concerning the tradition of the 'Easter Egg'. It went something like this:

Two guys are sitting around trying to think up a way to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

One guy says, "I got it. Eggs!!!". The other guy says, "Yeah, ok, and...............". Then the other guy says, "Yeah, we'll take eggs............and then we'll boil them". "Ah, ok, we'll boil eggs. And??????" asks the other guy. "Then we'll take the boiled eggs and we'll................COLOR THEM!!! Yeah, that it's we'll boil some eggs and then we'll COLOR them!!!!!". So the other guys scratches his head for a moment and then asks, "Ok, so now we have colored, boiled eggs. Now, what do boiled and colored eggs have to do with Christ?" And the other guy answers, "Well then, WE'LL HIDE EM".

I have often contemplated the concept of 'trinity' and imagined it being created in similar fashion.

One guy says, "Well, in order for Christ to be God He has to have been ETERNAL". And the other guy says, "But the Bible says that He was begotten". So the other guy then, with a light bulb above his head says, "I got it. He is ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN". Then the other guy says, "But that's not in the Bible". So the first guy says, "Well then, WE'LL HIDE IT". (the Bible. Get it?).

Eternally Begotten. Now, who but a 'wise man' would create such a concept???? A concept that is actually a contradiction in terms. You know, like 'Iron Butterfly' or 'Vertical Horizon', or "The Living Dead".

Blessings,

MEC

 

[2ducklow]

I once heard a comedian tell a story concerning the tradition of the 'Easter Egg'. It went something like this:

Two guys are sitting around trying to think up a way to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

One guy says, "I got it. Eggs!!!". The other guy says, "Yeah, ok, and...............". Then the other guy says, "Yeah, we'll take eggs............and then we'll boil them". "Ah, ok, we'll boil eggs. And??????" asks the other guy. "Then we'll take the boiled eggs and we'll................COLOR THEM!!! Yeah, that it's we'll boil some eggs and then we'll COLOR them!!!!!". So the other guys scratches his head for a moment and then asks, "Ok, so now we have colored, boiled eggs. Now, what do boiled and colored eggs have to do with Christ?" And the other guy answers, "Well then, WE'LL HIDE EM".

I have often contemplated the concept of 'trinity' and imagined it being created in similar fashion.

One guy says, "Well, in order for Christ to be God He has to have been ETERNAL". And the other guy says, "But the Bible says that He was begotten". So the other guy then, with a light bulb above his head says, "I got it. He is ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN". Then the other guy says, "But that's not in the Bible". So the first guy says, "Well then, WE'LL HIDE IT". (the Bible. Get it?).

Eternally Begotten. Now, who but a 'wise man' would create such a concept???? A concept that is actually a contradiction in terms. You know, like 'Iron Butterfly' or 'Vertical Horizon', or "The Living Dead".

Blessings,

MEC

Also eternally begotten would require revirginization. Eternal Revirginization..

 

[Imagican]

The point is: The Bible offers no such concept. It is UTTERLY 'created' by the hands, (or minds), of men. There is NO 'eternal generation' offered in the Bible. It's NON sense. It's a contradiction in terms. Eternally being 'regenerated', simply to FIT the idea that Christ was NOT 'created'????? And there are those that actually buy in to such an inane concept????

You know, the JWs come to my door quite often. I have even had one of them bring his son to speak on a day they weren't going door to door. Both he and his son are two of the nicest and polite people I have ever met.

Some would say that he was here trying to get me to BE a JW. But the TRUTH is, after our initial conversation during one of their 'door to door' events, I spoke to him and his partner and what I had to say was so intriguing, when he returned with his son, he ASKED more questions and LISTENED to what I had to offer MORE than he tried to introduce ME to their 'religion'. And I could SEE in the faces of both father and son that quite a bit of what I offered 'sunk in'. They actually HEARD me. They were SEEKING, came to my door and KNOCKED, and once invited in began to ASK.

Just last week two more came to my door. And even after they stood there and listened to ME for about fifteen minutes, they invited my wife and I to one of their meetings. I warned them that I might not 'fit in' very well. And I know enough about JWs to know that they will not accept someone as a member if they do not FIT a 'behavioral pattern' determined by their 'church'. They didn't hesitate to insist that we come visit them. I'm thinking I might.

Not a big fan of Russell. I am well aware of his false predictions and such. But I can't help but admire the fact that the followers of this group are the ONLY denomination that has EVER knocked on my door to tell me Jesus Loves Me. And their devotion is apparent. And there is the PLUS that they haven't allowed 'trinity' to taint their understanding. And unlike MOST 'trinitarians', I have been able to discuss Biblical issues with quite a few of them without our conversation turning into a BATTLE.

And over the years my wife and I have visited quite a few different denominations. And what I have found in most are a bunch of people PRETENDING to be followers of 'something'. Exactly what is often not as clear as one would expect. But mostly it seems to revolve around MAMMON. For money has most often seemed to be the most IMPORTANT issue that they TEACH. And it always seems to involve giving THEM money so that God will bless ME. You know, like the Catholics teaching that one could BUY an indulgence in order to be forgiven? The MORE I give to their 'church' the MORE God LOVES me. Now, let us sing and dance...................

Blessings,

MEC

 

[1213]

Historical Christianity: First-born here means "the highest of the kings of the earth." Let's check another passage. Turn to Jeremiah 31:9 where it says "and Ephraim My first-born." Who was born first—Manasseh or Ephraim?

As a disciple of Jesus I can agree with that interpretation and say Jesus is the highest of all creation. He is the greatest of all that have been created. It doesn’t mean that he is not created. And still, this leaves also this to be remembered:

“..is the image of the invisible God…”
Colossians 1:15

 

[daq]

It seems that there are some here that are somewhat knowledgeable in Greek so I wonder if anyone can tell me kindly which version of the following statement, the portion that is highlighted below, should be considered more appropriate in the opinion of whosoever might respond?

Revelation 14:7 (T/R 1550)
λέγοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Φοβήθητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκυνήσατε τῷ ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν καὶ πηγὰς ὑδάτων
Revelation 14:7 Greek Text Analysis

Revelation 14:7 (W/H)
λέγων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Φοβήθητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ προσκυνήσατε τῷ ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν καὶ πηγὰς ὑδάτων.
Revelation 14:7 Greek Text Analysis

Revelation 14:7 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
7. legon en fone megale, "Fobethete ton Theon kai dote auto doxan, hoti elthen he hora tes kriseos autou, kai proskunesate to Poiesanti ton ouranon kai ten gen kai thalassan kai pegas hudaton."

Which of the following is a more appropriate rendering of "τῷ ποιήσαντι" in this context?

Revelation 14:7 KJV
7. Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Revelation 14:7 NJB (New Jerusalem Bible)
7. He was calling, "Fear God and glorify him, because the time has come for him to sit in judgement; worship the maker of heaven and earth and sea and the springs of water."

Thank you in advance whosoever may respond.

 

[2ducklow]

It seems that there are some here that are somewhat knowledgeable in Greek so I wonder if anyone can tell me kindly which version of the following statement, the portion that is highlighted below, should be considered more appropriate in the opinion of whosoever might respond?

Revelation 14:7 (T/R 1550)
λέγοντα ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Φοβήθητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκυνήσατε τῷ ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν καὶ πηγὰς ὑδάτων
Revelation 14:7 Greek Text Analysis

Revelation 14:7 (W/H)
λέγων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Φοβήθητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ προσκυνήσατε τῷ ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν καὶ πηγὰς ὑδάτων.
Revelation 14:7 Greek Text Analysis

Revelation 14:7 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
7. legon en fone megale, "Fobethete ton Theon kai dote auto doxan, hoti elthen he hora tes kriseos autou, kai proskunesate to Poiesanti ton ouranon kai ten gen kai thalassan kai pegas hudaton."

Which of the following is a more appropriate rendering of "τῷ ποιήσαντι" in this context?

Revelation 14:7 KJV
7. Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Revelation 14:7 NJB (New Jerusalem Bible)
7. He was calling, "Fear God and glorify him, because the time has come for him to sit in judgement; worship the maker of heaven and earth and sea and the springs of water."

Thank you in advance whosoever may respond.

NJB because to means the and poisanti is a noun not a verb. the maker.

 

[2ducklow]

The point is: The Bible offers no such concept. It is UTTERLY 'created' by the hands, (or minds), of men. There is NO 'eternal generation' offered in the Bible. It's NON sense. It's a contradiction in terms. Eternally being 'regenerated', simply to FIT the idea that Christ was NOT 'created'????? And there are those that actually buy in to such an inane concept????

You know, the JWs come to my door quite often. I have even had one of them bring his son to speak on a day they weren't going door to door. Both he and his son are two of the nicest and polite people I have ever met.

Some would say that he was here trying to get me to BE a JW. But the TRUTH is, after our initial conversation during one of their 'door to door' events, I spoke to him and his partner and what I had to say was so intriguing, when he returned with his son, he ASKED more questions and LISTENED to what I had to offer MORE than he tried to introduce ME to their 'religion'. And I could SEE in the faces of both father and son that quite a bit of what I offered 'sunk in'. They actually HEARD me. They were SEEKING, came to my door and KNOCKED, and once invited in began to ASK.

Just last week two more came to my door. And even after they stood there and listened to ME for about fifteen minutes, they invited my wife and I to one of their meetings. I warned them that I might not 'fit in' very well. And I know enough about JWs to know that they will not accept someone as a member if they do not FIT a 'behavioral pattern' determined by their 'church'. They didn't hesitate to insist that we come visit them. I'm thinking I might.

Not a big fan of Russell. I am well aware of his false predictions and such. But I can't help but admire the fact that the followers of this group are the ONLY denomination that has EVER knocked on my door to tell me Jesus Loves Me. And their devotion is apparent. And there is the PLUS that they haven't allowed 'trinity' to taint their understanding. And unlike MOST 'trinitarians', I have been able to discuss Biblical issues with quite a few of them without our conversation turning into a BATTLE.

And over the years my wife and I have visited quite a few different denominations. And what I have found in most are a bunch of people PRETENDING to be followers of 'something'. Exactly what is often not as clear as one would expect. But mostly it seems to revolve around MAMMON. For money has most often seemed to be the most IMPORTANT issue that they TEACH. And it always seems to involve giving THEM money so that God will bless ME. You know, like the Catholics teaching that one could BUY an indulgence in order to be forgiven? The MORE I give to their 'church' the MORE God LOVES me. Now, let us sing and dance...................

Blessings,

MEC

God sends darkened understandings whem men worship the created above the creator. Hard for me to imagine a darker understanding than eternally begotten.