It wasn't?? Are you sure?
What you wrote, by leaving out the "in a strictly ontological reference", actually demonstrates the deception practised by the WT in their "Should You Believe in the Trinity" magazine. It gives a totally wrong idea of what I actually said.
The WT is good at this sort of deception and can do it in such a way as to make it seem OK to people who are members of the religion and as SLPCCC says, they have also done that in the Bible by additions to and changes of the text. The example I see with SLPCCC is Col 1 where "other" is added a number of times.
The scholars say that additions like this are OK if it does not change the meaning of the text and the WT says their additions of "other" do not change the meaning of the text because all it does is show that Jesus did not create Himself and is indicated as necessary to avoid confusion because Jesus is said to be part of the creation in verse 15.
The truth is that the second reason above shows that it does change the meaning of the text to suggest that Jesus was created. However IF Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive and shows Jesus to be part of the creation, that does not mean that Jesus was created as it can mean that the uncreated prehuman Jesus stepped into the creation when He became a man.
That it does mean that the prehuman Jesus was uncreated is told to us by the lack of "other" in the original text.
ALL THINGS were created through Jesus.
No exceptions, as John 1:3 tells us.
Another deception that the WT uses is the redefinition of the word "firstborn" and ignoring the lexicon meanings of the word and it's use in the OT in texts about Israel being God's firstborn and about God appointing Jesus to be firstborn (Ps 89:27) (realising that if "firstborn" means only "first one born" it is something that someone cannot be "appointed" to) This sort of redefining of words is seen in other places also with the WT, as with soul, spirit, hades, sheol, resurrection etc. It is as if the WT thinks it has a right to change and add to the Bible and redefine words.
All of this sort of redefining is based on the idea that Christendom theologians and language people have been dishonest and/or deceived about the real meanings of words. So it is OK to say that Christendom is dishonest about things where no dishonesty is obvious but if that is suggested about obvious dishonesty by the WT it is not acceptable.
The WT then goes on to say that "through" indicates that Jesus was agent in God's creation.
But of course this flies in the face of the original text where "ALL THINGS" are said to have been created through Jesus. So the WT needs to add "other" between ALL and THINGS to change the real meaning of the original text.
In regards to the word "through" in such texts:
NIV Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and
through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
NWT Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and
through whom all things exist,
NIV Romans 11:36 For from him and
through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
NWT Romans 11:36 Because from him and by him and
for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.
In the above quotes I guess it is commendable that the NWT does not alter the text of Heb 2:10 and change "through" to another word even though they do so in Romans 11:36.
However ignoring that, I wonder why God is not seen as an "agent" in creation if all things came into existence 'through" Him.
This was certainly a big and unexpected return post to your small post.
