But the translation is based on a presupposition. You can't justify the translation based on grammatics alone. You would only render it that way if you thought it should be there based on your take on the Deity of Christ (or lack thereof).
1. That's correct. If you read my quote in your reply, I said context must also be taken into consideration.
Then not only is it a unjustified rendering, but it is a inconsistent rendering. If the translators were thinking like me as you suggest, then they wouldn't even have rendered the Col 1:15 verse that way. John 1:3 and Col 1:15-18 are basically saying the same thing, but only one of them are rendered as such [other].
2. The fact that it's inconsistent does not make it inaccurate. That would be an obvious case of a Tu quoque fallacy.
then "proto" would be used with "ktizo".
3. The term (protokistos) is never used anywhere in Scripture and is not found in any ancient literature until centuries later in the Stromata by Clement about 200 AD when he used both words interchangeably. There was an alternate term in existence Paul could have used--"prototokia", which is used in the Bible to indicate the "right of the firstborn" without the connotation of being firstborn, since the rights were transferable to other children. (See LXX-Deu.21:15-17; 1Chron 5:1,3; Gen.25:13,31; 27:19,32,36; 43:33; Heb. 12:16; Heb. 11:28). But Paul instead used "prototokos". Which makes sense as Christ could not be literally called “Firstborn [prototokos] from the dead” had He not been the first human church member to die and be raised to immortality, so also could He not be called “The Firstborn [prototokos] of all creation” had He not been the first created being!
But according to my research, if "first created" would have been the implication, Watchman Fellowship, Inc. - Jesus: First-Born or First-Created? As the above article indicates, there is no justification of "other" being implemented in the verses, unless you have a theological agenda you are trying to push. I rarely post links because we can all post links that seem to agree with our position...however, since you seem to be involved in linguistics, it is for you.
4. Unfortunately, your research wasn't as thorough as it should have been. If it were, you would have known about the usage of proto and ktizo and you certainly would not be pawning me off to someone else's "research". I will address the link's responses if and when I get some time.
All about interpretation. Trinitarians don't believe that they got it right, in fact, we believe the opposite.
5. And the evidence suggests Paul's failure to alternatively use the term proto kitzo is a very bad one.
Scripture has to interpret scripture. If I am reading John 1:1, then Jesus is God, so the question of him being created is not even worthy of a conceptual thought. So based on that scripture alone, I am right in not believing the hype surrounding WatchTower theology and correctly interpreting Col 1:15 as "preeminence".
6. Another example of poor exegesis by the Trinitarians and others:
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [prototokos] over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Paul was emphasizing Christ's deity to the Colossians due to their heavy involvement in angel worship. Michael was their chief angel of worship, and the protecting saint of the city. Their allegiance was based on a tradition he appeared to the people saving the city from a flood. In vs 15 and succeeding verses, Paul attempts to focus the congregants attention to the worship of Christ by expressing how Christ, the Father's firstborn, was created in the Father's image, before anything else, including Michael. He then goes on to state in vs 18
as a consequence of Christ's sacrifice and being the first [prototokos] human member of the church (body) to be resurrected to immortality, He gained pre-eminence. In verse 15, Paul logically begins with Christ's origin. The next several verses explain what He did and the consequence of His actions!
It is justified based on what?
7. The broader context, good exegesis, and as you said yourself-common sense.
The Watchtower is known for their biblical "chopped and screwed" interpretations. Many words are added, taken out, or changed around to fit their theological agenda, and these verses in question is one of the many. And not only that, but Witnesses at one point used to believe in the Trinity, and that is my point..if you believe in it, you leave the bible alone. If you don't believe in it, you must make the bible match your theology, which is exactly what they do. When you have to go through such great lengths to get the bible to match your theology, then you are becoming a sect.
8. As Christians we are suppose to grow in grace and
"knowledge" (2 Pet 3:18). If we are not periodically altering our beliefs, we are not growing in "knowledge".
9. Here is an example of a good one:
Isa 43:10-11"You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant [Jacob] whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God [EL] formed, Nor shall there be after Me.11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.
The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in what grammarians call the third person, nifal stem, perfect tense. The third person simply means the subject (Christ) is referring to someone other than Himself as the producer of the action (created). The nifal stem gives the verb a nuance of something being created. It also gives the verb a passive form making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action. The perfect tense implies a completed past action. What does this all mean? The subject (EL/Christ) is telling us someone other than Himself (third person-The Father) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He (The Father) create One like Him (Christ) in the future! In other words, Christ was created/formed as one of a kind! That Christ was created is confirmed by Paul and John (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14)!
Well, I could go with John 1:1 which states that Jesus is God.[/b][/u].
10. According to which version? The modern "popular" versions exclude the article, while some of the more ancient and "less popular" versions include or imply it:
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
.and unless you have a WatchTower mentality where you want to add the definite article "a" in the mix of things, then John, author of the Gospel, also has "Doctrinitis", because if we are talking about the Deity of Christ, then that verse is about as self explanatory as you will find
11. I don't have a Watchtower mentality, as I disagree with many of their doctrines. I would say I have a biblical mentality.
So basically, anything that doesn't involve linguistics, you don't want to be bothered with. I said that my argument is indepedent of lingustics/translations, and you don't want to be bothered with it. I understand...stick to your strengths
12. My strength is a passion for solid exegesis and extracting truth--not arguing about it.
