Jehovah's Witnesses, Why does the New World Translation insert the word “other” four times into Colossians?

May 2021 7 74 Report

Jehovah's Witnesses, Why does the New World Translation insert the word “other” four times into Colossians?

chapter 1 when it isn’t in the Greek manuscripts at all? Doesn’t this change the meaning of the text?

Update:

TeeM - You actually believe that crap? Putting the "other" in those verses serves no purpose except to change the meaning, to make a statement by your leaders that Firstborn means first created and this just is not at all Biblical truth. It's plain an simply "Exegesis" so thank you for that example of Eisegesis.

Please read: http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.htm...

Society & Culture / Languages

Verified answer

Heavenly Eyes-Simply because your context calls for it.

As for the question-"other" has been inserted for obvious reasons: it's called EISEGESIS.

Interestingly, the brackets () used with the inserted word 'other ' are missing in the New World Translation 2006 paperback edition.

The brackets are also missing in Philippians 2:9 ...which hides the fact that the word 'other' is inserted ....and of course the insertion greatly alters the meaning of the verses.

It's difficult not to believe that the NWT was purposely produced to support the Watchtower's teachings .

TeeM

Added words at Col 1:15-19

(Added words are defined as “words that change the meaning of the original”)

NIV = 127 words; KJV = 135 words; NASB = 139 words; NWT = 160 words

Of these 4 translations, which translation added words?

Per Jason BeDuhn in “Truth in Translation”

Of these four Bibles, only the NIV, has added words that change the meaning of the original. The two words vs 15: “over all creation” & vs 19: “his [meaning God’s] fullness”.

Page 83, 84: “Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these [NIV, TEV, Amplified, LB, NRSV] Bible translations are rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding innocuous “other” in a way that clearly indicated its character as an addition of the translators. Why is that so? The reason is that many readers apparently want the passage to mean what the NIV try to make it mean. That is, they don’t want to accept the obvious and clear sense of “firstborn of creation” as identifying Jesus as “of creation”. “Other” is obnoxious to them because it draws attention to the fact that Jesus is “of creation” and so when Jesus acts with respect to “all things” he is actually acting with respect to “all other things.” But the NW is correct.”

“Rather Paul uses “all,” after identifying Christ as the first-born of creation, to refer to ”the rest.” “All” includes every being and force and substance in the universe, with the exception, of course, of God and, semantically speaking, Jesus, since it is his role in relation to the “all” that is being discussed.”

“All” is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration. The “other” is assumed. . . . There can be no legitimate objection to “other” in Colossians 1 because here, too, Paul clarly does not mean to include God or Christ in his phrase “all things.” when God is the implied subject, and Christ the explicit agent, of the act of creation of these ‘all things.” But since Paul uses “all things” appositively (that is, interchangeably) with “creation,” we must still reckon with Christ’s place as the first-born of creation, and so the first-born of “all things”.