Jesus, Creation and "I Am,"
With a brief look at Proverbs 8's "Wisdom."

By Hal Goodnight.

(best read with Wordpad)

I. Introduction.

1. Jesus and "I Am" - A Messianic claim or something more?
a. John 8:24 - I Am or I am [he]?
b. John 8:58 - Extension from the Past idiom?
c. "So they took up stones to throw at him..."
d. Exodus 3:14 - "I AM that I AM"?

2. A Brief Look at Proverbs 8's Wisdom.
a. Does Qanah mean "created"?

3. Jesus and his role in creation.

4. A reply to Denis and his bigoted attacks.
a. The mindset of an opposer.
b. Is the New World Translation a "comic book"?
c. Charles Taze Russell,  false prophecies and the majority.

Conclusion.

Appendix A: Firstborn - Literal or figurative?
Appendix B: The use of "other" in Colossians - NWT biased?

I. Introduction.

This document has been made to reply to some issues that were brought up in a discussion at the Walter Martin forum. I have done the best I can to support my theological view, but I do not believe that anything I have said is beyond rebuttal. Nothing ever is. I wanted to take my time on this because I knew I would not be replying further to Mike. I don't have the time to engage in a debate that would probably never end, or possibly never end in a graceful and Christian manner. This way we become familar with eachothers views but also in the end remain equally civil with eachother. I have agreed to give Mike the last word, but I hope that as he reads this document, he considers the possibility that I might be right. And that's all I ask.

-Hal Goodnight.

1. Jesus and "I Am" - a Messianic claim or something more?

Remarkably, in his reply to me Mike tries to create a linguistic parallel between God's words at Ex. 3:14 and Jesus' at John 8:58 (And verse 24). As a Trinitarian, Mike is a bit behind the times, as the more educated trinitarian scholars have shied away from such a comparison, because of the [obvious] linguistic and contextual problems, which I will now exploit. (On a side note, most trinitarians now seem to favor the ani hu sayings of God in Isaiah, ["ego eimi" in the LXX] discussed in many works, including Greg Stafford's book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2nd ed., p. 297-302)

a. John 8:24 - I AM or I am [he]?

In this segment we will look at John 8:24 (And subsequently verse 28) and see whether or not the context warrants a supplied predicate, or if Jesus is claiming something more. Let's first look at verse 24:

"I [Jesus] told you [Pharisees] that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."
-RSV. (The New International Version allso supplies a predicate nominative.)

So the question is: If what Mike says is true, and there is no predicate nominative implied, why have these respected Trinitarian bibles translated this verse in a way that "hides" this fact? Because the translators themselves were conscientious of the context, which we will see works against Mike's claim rather than for it. 

Many scholars recognize the need for a predicate nominative to be supplied by Jesus' hearers, but some aren't sure exactly what predicate nominative should be used, considering the Pharisees question in the very next verse ["Who are you?" -verse 25]. Freed feels that this usage of "ego eimi" is an example of Jesus asserting his Messiahship. He states: "There is probably
no better reason for believing that the words refer to Jesus as the Christ than to consider them in the light of the author's stated
purpose for writing his gospel: 'These [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing [pisteuontes] you may have life in his name' (xx. 31). Belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. In viii. 24 that proposition of faith is emphatically and categorically stated." (-Freed, "EGO EIMI in John VIII. 24," 163-4. On page 167 of his article, Freed concludes: "In John viii. 24 the words ego eimi reveal John's unique concept of Jesus as the Messiah. Unless the Jews believe in the Messiah, they will die in their sins.")

The biblical evidence seems to support such an assertion. Greg Stafford comments:

"Surely we can see how Jesus would tell the Jews that they would die in their sins if they refused to believe that he was the Messiah. Even if his enemies here failed to recognize those things foretold in the Bible about the Messiah, Jesus certainly knew them: "By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear. . . . and he himself carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose." (Isa 53:11-12) Also, in Daniel 9:24-25 we have a prophecy about the time when "Messiah the Leader" would appear, which is directly linked with the finishing off of "sin" and the "atonement for error." Thus, for the Jews' rejection of Jesus, the Messiah who would 'carry their sin,' they would be assured of "death through sin." (Ro 5:12)" -Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2nd ed., p. 252-253.

The context itself seems to favor a reference to Jesus being the Christ, the one that was sent forth by God. This becomes even clearer in Jesus' statements at verse 28:

'Therefore Jesus said: “When once YOU have lifted up the Son of man, then YOU will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things."'
-NWT.

Here, we see in the immediate context that a predicate certainly is implied: Son of man. Jesus' statements in verse 24 clearly have a messianic meaning (see above), and verse 28 links this together with the messianic title used, the "Son of man." Some trinitarian scholars have denied such a linkage of the predicate implied and the phrase "Son of man," but their arguments are disingenious, but can be referred to in Stafford's book (JWD 2nd ed., p. 256-257). Freed also notices the "Son of man" used as the implied predicate in verse 28, and says:

"That our interpretation of 8.28 as the Son of man being identical with the earthly Jesus and that the implied predicate of £yw £iui is the Son of man is correct is confirmed in 9.35-37. here, in accordance with his habit of repeating an idea of a previous passage in a varying form in a later one, the writer makes the point clear. Jesus' words in reply to the question of
the man born blind, whom he had healed, are reported thus: 6 AoAwv P.ETO: aoO exavd^ lariv ("he that is speaking with
you is that one" [that is, "the Son of man"]). The Greek here is clearly a variant form for that in 4.26 and 8.28." -Edwin D. Freed, "The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 86 (1967), 405-406.

We should also take note of Mark 14:61,62, where the High Priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, in which he replies "I am; [ego eimi]." Jesus also links ego eimi with his title "Son of man," in that very same verse, while also testifying to his Messiahship! It is clear that in this context, both verse 24 and verse 28 could be viewed with implied predicates, those which support his claim of being the Christ. We can therefore conclude that Jesus' use of ego eimi in verse 24 and 28 should be viewed in light of his Messiahship. Next we will look at John 8:58, as well as attempted linkages by trinitarians of Jesus' use of ego eimi to God's at Ex. 3:14 (LXX).

b. John 8:58 - Extension from the Past idiom?

A controversial passage, and one in which we will take a close look at in this segment. The American Standard Version (ASV) translates John 8:58 as:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am."

But notice how Mckay translates that same verse:
"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
'There is a clear and unmistakable reason why eimi is used with an expression of past time in John 8:58. An idiom called the
"Extension from Past" (EP) by Kenneth L. McKay occurs when a present verb is "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications."' -Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2nd ed., p. 266. (Quotation from: K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 41.)

Mckay comments:
"The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction." -The Expository Times, 1996, page 302 by Kenneth Mckay.

So how, one might ask, can a present tense verb be rendered by the English perfect? Several references in Neslon Herle's book, THE TRINITY DOCTRINE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY AND THE BIBLE, 2002 edition, helps answer that question. (On pages 56-57):

The Present of Past Action still in Progress. The Present Indicative,  accompanied  by  an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring  to  past time,  is  sometimes used in Greek,... to  describe an  action which,  beginning  in  past  time,  is  still  in  progress at  the time of speaking.  English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases.” (e.a.)-Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods And Tenses in New Testament Greek, p. 10,  section 17. (This describes the syntax (construction) of John 8:58.)

Present Tense...It often stands with adverbial expressions denoting past time, such as palai ‘long since,’ arti or artios ‘just (now),’ where in English the progressive present [another term for a tense which shows an action begun and still in progress, used by some scholars, terminology varies from time to time and from country to country even in countries where the same language is used] seem to be required (I have long been looking)-A.N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, p. 434, §1833. .2.

To describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense (echei) [he is having] where English uses the perfect; cf. viii, 58; xiv, 9,-J.N. Sanders, A Commentary of the Gospel According to St. John, p. 158, footnote 4.

Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense...when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues - a state in its duration; as, Jn. xv.27...viii.58,-George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, (Luneman translation), 1893, p. 267.

-end of quotes-

McKay said in his book "A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek,An Aspectual Approach":
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications(but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Greg Stafford says that 'John 8:58 well illustrates this idiom. We have the present eimi used with an expression of
past time, prin Abraam genesthai. In such a situation, the "past and present are gathered up in a single affirmation ... the full meaning is that something has been and still is."' -JWD, 2nd ed., p. 266. (Quotation from: James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, typeset ed. (Lanham: University Press of America, 1979 [1988]), 84.)

"The truth is, there is no way to translate this Greek passage into English in a strictly literal way, because Greek is an aspectual language and English is not. ...In comparing the above translations we can see that ["I am"]..does not fulfill any of the four requirements[of grammaticality, intelligibilty, faithful conveyance of the message, addition of elements] while ["I was"] and ["I have been"] fulfill three out of the four. My personal preference is for ["I have been"]....as it does not distort the message as ["I was"] does."(The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, p. 237, 238)
Furuli then points out McKays translation of this passage as, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born." as an improvement over all three.

Herle in his book further adds:

'According to Greek grammar, “eimi” (“am”, in the present tense) at John 8:58, because of its being accompanied by and expression of past time, (prin Abraam genesthai) “before Abraham to become”,) should be rendered, in English, in the perfect tense. See: James Strong’s “Greek Dictionary...” in his Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, word 1510. The word is eijmiv some of the definitions of it are: “have been...was.”' -The Trinity Doctrine, 2002 ed., p. 57.

Some, however, assert that eimi in this particular context is absolute, and conveys "timeless being." However, Stafford in his "Defended" book rightly says:

"Indeed, where in classical or other Greek literature do we find an absolute use of eimi denoting eternality and used with an expression of past time, where eimi could not be construed as part of the "Extension from Past" (EP) idiom? The use of the past expression "before Abraham came into existence" appears to be conclusive evidence that eimi does not have an absolute meaning conveying eternality in John 8:58. Rather, it is used with an expression of past time to communicate Christ's existence from a time before Abraham was born, to the present...."-pp. 265,266.
Heinz Schmitz on his website contains a list of bibles that have translated John 8:58 in the non-traditional manner. ( http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/egweimi.htm ) His website also gives further information on John 8:58. ( I also recommend: http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/john8.htm ) But here is the list:
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 
The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was." 
Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) 
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham was, I have been.__ 
Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884) 
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was born.__ 
Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962) 
_With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) ._ 
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._ 
Cotton Patch Version (1970) _To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__ 
Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969) _Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and sum and always will be._,, 
Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972) __Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__. 
Good News for the World (1969) 
_Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.__ 
The New Testament, An American Translation 
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." 
The Complete Bible, An American Translation 
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." 
New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: 
"I existed before Abraham was even born." 
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." 
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 
The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 
Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born." 
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was." 
An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham." 
New Testament Contemporary English Version: "I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." 
The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have already been." 
The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham." 
The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born." 
The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been." 
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have been." 
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795) _Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He._ 
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was." 
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was." 
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." 
The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before Abraham existed I was already what I am." 
The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." 
International Bible Translators 1981 _Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham 
was born!__ 
The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, 
I, I am being." 
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." 
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) _Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.__ 
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born." 
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed." 
The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born." 
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." 
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." 
Swann, G. N.T. (1947) Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born_ 
International English Version (2001) "I was alive before Abraham was born" 

c. "So they took up stones to throw at him..."

What then, concerning the Jews violent reaction after Jesus uttered those particular words? Some claim that is undeniable proof that Jesus was claiming to be God. In fact, here is what Mike said:
[Mike]
Blashphemy would refer to claiming to be God, claiming rights exclusive to God, or using God's name carelessly. If they would have believed that the claim to being the messiah was blasphemy, it could only have been because they thought it was a claim to deity. The Jews were legalists to the extreme, and would not have tried to stone anyone, unless they thought they were following the Old Testament law. In John 8:58-59, the only thing that would fit is if Jesus was claiming to be God. To claim that the Jews would try to stone him just because he claimed to exist before Abraham is ridiculous.
But is it in fact, "ridiculous"? Mckay doesn't think so, in fact, that is his main point:
 "...the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction." -The Expository Times, 1996, page 302 by Kenneth Mckay.
In Heinz' reply to CARM (see above link) he deals with this issue admirably:

'Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender the superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own initiative" and he can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God? So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God? Let us look at the context even more closely: Jesus says they will die (v.21) Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40) Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41) Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44) Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58) Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676) It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put. Was Jesus claiming equality with God at John 10:34? “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? {10:35} If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), {10:36} say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am [the] Son of God?” ASV Here Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where human judges are called gods. Does it not make sense that the Son of God can be called a god also? Jesus was adamant about the ignorance of the Jews, so we should not put too much stock in his enemies. Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."' 
I am often astounded, myself, that people put so much stock into what the Pharisees thought. Brian Holt in his book makes this point further:
"If the religious leaders opinions' of whom Jesus was claiming to be are so valuable, then by the same source Jesus was a glutton and an alcoholic (Matthew 11:19), was in cahoots with Beezlebub (Mark 3:22), was a demon-possessed Samaritan (John 8:48), and was out of his mind (Mark 3:21)." -Jesus - God or the Son of God? p. 5.
William Loader in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Structures and Issues, says:
"The dispute with the Jews heightens in the rest of ch.8. Again Jesus defends himself, using terms familiar to us from the central structure: 'What I have with the Father, I speak and what you have heard from the father you do not do'(8:38); 'now you seek to kill me, a human being,who has spoken the truth to you,which I heard from God'(8:40); 'If God were your Father, you would love me, because I came out from the Father and have arrived here; I have not come of my own accord, but he sent me'(8:42). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's(8:50,54). 'The Father is the one that glorifies me, of whom you say, "he is our God", and you have not known him, but I know him. If I were to say to you I do not know him I should be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word'(8:54f). The conflict reaches it's climax when Jesus asserts his pre-existence: 'Before Abraham came into being, I am'(8:58). Again, the percise meaning of 'I am' will depend on factors outside the immediate passage. The attempted stoning(8:59) might suggest blasphemous utterance of the divine name, but need not either here or elsewhere. Need it mean no more than the stupendous claim: I am in existence since before Abraham?"-p48.
On page 52 he writes further:
"In 6:20, 8:25, 28 and 58 Jesus uses the absolute, 'ego eimi'(lit.'I am'). In 8:25,28 the context favours the meaning, 'I am what I claim to be', understood in terms of the revealer pattern(so:esp 8:28). In 6:20 Jesus is identifying himself: 'It is I(not a ghost or the like)' and in 8:58 the text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic claim but not an allusion to the divine name...."
Greg Stafford also makes an excellent point (By which Mike still has not adequately dealt with): 
"We can see how a rejection of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah would involve their accusing him of blasphemy by a consideration of Jesus' trial before the high priest. Mark 14:60-64 informs us: 
But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am [ego eimi] ; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.-RSV, emphasis added. 
Yes, "the Jews regarded interpretation of and claim to messiahship as blasphemy." There is nothing in the high priest's question that should lead us to conclude that they were condemning him for anything else. The same is true regarding the reaction in John 8:58. Realizing the implications of Jesus' claim to have existed before Abraham, the Jews took up stones to stone the one who came to set them free (Joh 8:36)." -Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, p. 280.
So we can conclude this segment on the issue of John 8: 24, 28 and 58. The New World Translation offers excellent renderings that stands on firm, lexical ground, and is a bible translation that I personally recommend to serious bible students and collectors. Next, we will discuss the issue of Ex. 3:14, and whether "I am that I am" is an accurate translation of the original Hebrew syntax.

d. Exodus 3:14 - I AM that I AM?

Much of what has been discussed so far has been the various statements that Jesus has made. As an overview, we have seen that John 8:24, and 28 both have predicates implied by the context (Compare John 9:9) whereas John 8:58 falls under the idiom "Extension from the Past" which explains the varying translations. However, we have yet to dealt directly with the proposal that some trinitarians have made: Is there a connection between Jehovah's words at Ex. 3:14 (LXX) and Jesus' at John 8:58? Up front, we can categorally deny such a connection between Jesus' words and Jehovah's from the Hebrew OT. Here is why:

'The first point is "I AM that I AM" is not the most correct translation of "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," the Hebrew words found at Exodus 3:14. The actual meaning is either "I shall become what I shall become," or "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be."' -Holt, 'Jesus - God or the Son of God?' p. 65.

Is Holt correct in his assertion?

"Such a translation[in English]as "I am what I am" appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the [Hebrew]verbs here are imperfects. "I am" is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect...The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name to covenants with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis of assurance conderning Yahweh's presence and support. This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonomous with the description "I shall continue to be what I have always been." This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh's faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".-J Washington Watts,Professor of Old Testament,New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968. A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline,1977, pp.140,1.

"The translation I am is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong because am[in an incorrect translation]is used in the sense of essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the supposition that the name is a name of God as the self existent, the absolute, of which the Septuagint's 'ho on' is the most conspicous illustration, must be set aside...the nature of the [Hebrew]verb and the tense pre-emptorily forbid them."-A.B.Davidson,The Theology of the Old Testament,in "The International Theological Library",1920,p.55.

"Most moderns follow Rashe[Shelomoh Ben Yishaq c.1040-1105]in rendering 'I will be what I will be' i.e., no words can sum up all that He will be to His people, but His everlasting faithfulness and unchanging mercy will more and more manifest themsalves in the guidance of Israel. The answer which Moses recieves in these words is thus equivalent to, 'I shall save in the way that I shall save.' It is to assure the Israelites of the fact of deliverance, but does not disclose the manner."-J.H.Hertz,The Pentateuch and Haftorahs,1950,ftnote to Ex.3:14.
(above three quotes taken from the NWT Defense website)

But what of the LXX translation of Ex. 3:14? The Greek Septuagint translates it as "I am THE BEING," or "I am the existing One." This is a translation from the Greek "ego eimi ho on." Notice, *not* just "ego eimi." Also notice in the very next verse, God tells Moses to the Israelites that "ho on" has sent him. Ego eimi isn't even part of the identification God wanted Moses to tell the Israelites! The simple fact is that if John was trying to match Jesus' words up to the Hebrew translation, he could've simply used "esomai hos esomai," or "I will be what I will be" in the Greek language. If he wanted to match Jesus' words up to the LXX, he could've said "ego eimi ho on." But John used neither of these. I feel that trying to find such a parallel is special pleading and shows an ignorance of the facts. Such a parallel is nonexistant and can summarily be dismissed.

2. A Brief Look at Proverbs 8's "Wisdom."

In this segment we will discuss Proverbs 8's "Wisdom," whether it is an attribute of God or the created Jesus. The verse we will pay particular attention to is Proverbs 8:22 which reads:

“Yahweh created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works.” -The Jerusalem Bible.

The Witnesses draw a link between this scripture and Christ's firstborn status. Are they alone? The footnote to this scripture from the New Jerusalem Bible reads:

The expression ‘first-fruits of his fashioning’ (lit. ‘first-fruits of his way’ or ‘of his ways’ according to the versions) is linked to the title ‘first born of every creature’ given to Christ by Paul, Col 1:15 and the title ‘principle of God’s creation’ , Rv 3:14.

It is interesting to note that this footnote identifies Wisdom to be Christ. Wisdom is also said to be a creation of God in that verse, and when Paul referred to Jesus as "firstborn of every creature" Christ is included in the class of those who were created by God. (See Appendix A and B for a discussion on Col. 1:15 on the issue of firstborn.) It is interesting to note that most articles that have been written to discredit this particular linkage between Wisdom and Christ have a very large hole: They expect us to believe that Jehovah, the Most High God, came into possession of a wisdom he did not previously have. However, this is in contradiction to the Bible's teaching of an all-wise and all-knowing Creator. (Job 3:19; 36:4; Isaiah 40:14; Jeremiah 10:12, to name a few.) Jehovah is perfect in knowledge, there is no need for him to acquire or possess a special type of wisdom or knowledge at a later point. That is for imperfect humans. (Da 2:21; Proverbs 2:4-6; 1:5)

The Jerusalem Bible informs us:

"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the O.T. will be resumed in the N.T. which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ.  Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt. 11:19, Lk. 11:49, cf.  Mt 23:34-36: like Wisdom, he participates in the creation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, I Co. 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17. Finally St. John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel throughout  represents  Christ  as  he Wisdom of God, cf. Jn. 6:35. Hence, Christian tradition from St. Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the O[ld].T[est- ament]. the person of Christ himself."

The Harper Study Bible RSV says in a footnote to Proverbs 8:22:

"[T]he New Testament writers looked upon Christ as the Incarnate Wisdom (cf. Jn 8:51 with Prov. 8:35, 36; Rom. 1:24-30)."

Origen, (185-254 C.E.) proclaimed:

'For the Son of God “the First-born of all creation,” [Colossians 1:15, NAB, et al.] although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation [emphasis added]; for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.”'-Against Celsus, book 4, chapter 37.

He also states:
"For wisdom says in Solomon: “God created me in the beginning of His ways, for His works...“Thou my Son, this day have I [the Father, Jehovah] begotten Thee, [the Word, the Son] Ps. 2:7 this is spoken to Him [the Son] by God, with whom all time is to-day...The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it...We must not, however, pass over in silence that He is of right the Wisdom of God, and hence is called by that name...“God created me the beginning of His ways, for His works.”  By this creating act [the birth of the Son in ages past,  Micah 5:2] the whole creation was enabled to exist." -Commentary on the Book of John, chapters 21, 32, 39; ANF, Volume X, pp. 307, 314, 317.

'And therefore we have first to ascertain what the first begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: ‘The Lord created me-the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing He formed me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of water...He brought me forth....He is styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: “is the first-born of every creature.” The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.  Finally, the Apostle Paul says, that “Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God.”' (e.a.)-De Principiis, Book I, chapter II, section I; ibid., Volume IV, p. 246.

Tertullian:

'But in proof that the Greek word [ajrchv] means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense that the initial [first] one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: “The Lord possessed12 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works….12 Condidit: “created”'-Against Hermogenes, chapter XX (20), ANF, Volume III, p 488.

'The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget me.”'-Against Praxeas, chapter VII, ibid. Volume III, p. 602.

Cyprian:

"That Christ is the Firstborn, and that He is the Wisdom of God by whom all things were made.  In Solomon, in the Proverbs: “Lord established me in the beginning of His ways, into His works: before the world He founded me. In the beginning, before He made the earth...the Lord Begot me...”Also Paul to Colossians: “Who Is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature...” That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians...Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Cor. 1:24]-The Treatises of Cyprian, Second Book, first testimony, § one; ibid., Volume V, pages 515-6.

Here is an objection by Mike on the issue worth noting:

[Mike]
"Proverbs is obviously describing wisdom with poetic language, particularly when Proverbs 1:20-21 describes wisdom as a woman crying in the street, 8:12 describes wisdom as living with someone else named prudence and in 9:1 builds a house with 7 pillars... No we do not see Christ/Wisdom as a created being unless you insist that Christ is a woman and literally has a sister named Prudence."

(It is interesting to note that this is almost the word-for-word objection made by Robert Bowman Jr. in his book "Why You Should Believe in The Trinity" p. 60. While I think Rob is wrong I do respect him as a scholar and if you're going to practically quote from his work you should give him credit, or at least mention his name and book once or twice in your post(s).) 
Does Proverbs 8:12 really describe Wisdom having a sister named Prudence that she lives with? Greg Stafford answers:

'The only time Wisdom speaks with the introductory formula, "I, Wisdom," is in Proverbs 8:12. We may also note here that "Prudence" need not be personalized as is Wisdom, for the simple reason that "Prudence" ("shrewdness" NWT) never speaks! The meaning of Wisdom's 'residing' with "shrewdness" is simply that "shrewdness" is a dominant characteristic of Wisdom, "Wisdom inhabits prudence, has settled down, as it were, and taken up her residence in it, is at home in its whole sphere, and rules it."' [Footnote: C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 6, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1993), 177] -JWD, 2nd ed., p. 230.

Secondly, JWs as well as some scholars recognize a significant difference in how Wisdom is discussed in all other places besides Proverbs 8:22-30.

"The portrayal of Wisdom in 1.20-33 and ch. 8 is not the same as in the instructions. She is no longer spoken of in the third person, but is herself a speaker: apart from the short introductions which set the scene (1.20-21; 8:1-3). the whole of these two long poems consist of her words, which she delivers in public. Instead of being a shadowy if important figure, she now appears as a fully fledged character." -The Composition of the Book of Proverbs, p. 35, R, N Whybray

Notice that in 9:1-4 Wisdom reverts back to the impersonal view of wisdom, taken from the third person perspective. Not only that but only in Proverbs 8:22-30 is Wisdom described as something God created, as working along side God as a "master worker." (NWT) These significant differences have led JWs (and others) to conclude that something special and unique is being described here, and not simply a personification of one of God's attributes.
We also do not have to conclude, as Mike suggests, that Christ is a woman from Proverbs 8. Nelson Herle, in his review of "Systematic Theology Roman Catholic Perspectives Volume 1, section 2 on "Creation" by Anne M. Clifford, C.S.J." states:

"The words translated from both the Hebrew (chokmah) and the Greek (sophia) as “wisdom”, are written in the femine gender. This does not make Wisdom a woman. In both languages, words are many times in one gender, while the subject to which they refer are of another gender. E.G.; Solomon refers to himself as qoheleth (“congregator”, Ecclesiastes1:1). Jesus referred to himself as petra (“rock-mass”, Matthew 16:18) and arche (“beginning”, Revelation 3:14). These words are in the femine gender, however, they do not make Solomon nor Jesus females! Some have argued that since Wisdom is in the femine gender this could not be a reference to the Son of God in his prehuman state as a male Messiah. Of course, the above data shows this argument is the result of a less-than-adequate knowledge of the Hebrew use of gender. Another factor to keep in mind, when Wisdom spoke, Wisdom was a spirit; and of course, spirits are genderless."

Alfred Marshall has also written in his The Revised Standard Version Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: 

"In Greek, gender belongs to the word and not necessarily to what is indicated by the word;  whereas of  course in  English we keep the ideas of  masculine,  feminine, and neuter to men, women, and inanimate things respectively. (English, by the way is the only great modern language to do so)."-p. xi.

Does Qanah mean "created"?

The only other serious objection to the Witness interpertation of Proverbs 8's Wisdom as Christ would be how "qanah," the Hebrew word typically translated as "created," is understood. ‘Qanah’ is defined by the Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew lexicon as “get, acquire...of God as originating, creating,...Gn 14:19, 22, Dt 32:6 (Isr.), Ps 139:13...Pr 8:22.” (pp. 888-9) 

From a footnote on the NET translation of Proverbs 8:22 found at www.bible.org: 
'There are two roots in Hebrew, one meaning ‘to possess,’ and the other meaning ‘to create.’ The older translations did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Genesis 4:1; 14:19; Deuteronomy 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation ‘possess’ because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation ‘create.’ Athanasius translated it, ‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of ‘to acquire’; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning ‘create.’ Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (‘appointed,’ ‘given birth’) argue for the translation of ‘create’ or ‘establish’ (R. N. Whybray, ‘Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,’VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, ‘Where Will Wisdom Be Found?’ JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).” Many translators render qanahas “created.”'

Speaking of the Greek translation, it is interesting to note that the Greek word for "Created" is EKTISEN (#2936). It is used at Mark 13:19; 1Tim 4:3 and Revelation 10:6. The Septuagint uses this word only once in Proverbs, and that is at chapter 8 verse 22. This gives us a clue of how the early Christians and Jews viewed this verse. C.F. Burney, in his article, “Christ As the APXH [ARCHE, are.KAY] Of Creation (Proverbs viii 22, Col. i 15-18, Rev. iii 14)”, in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XXVII, 1926, pages 160-77, had this to report after his investigation of the 88 occurrences of qanah:

[T]he verb kana [his spelling of qanah] always seems to possess the sense ‘get, acquire’ never the sense ‘possess, own’ simply, apart from the idea of possessing something which has been acquired in one way or another...In face of this evidence we must surely conclude that the ground-meaning of kana is that of acquiring something not previously possessed, which may be done by buying or making it, in the case of a child by begetting it, in the case of wisdom [the personal mental attribute, not the person called ‘Wisdom’] by accumulating it through mental application.…The idea of creation is closely connected with the idea of acquisition as being one form of it; whereas the idea of possession without acquisition stands sharply apart, and cannot, as we have seen, be substantiated for a single occurrence of the verb. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that kana cannot rightly be rendered ‘possessed me’, but must have the meaning ‘gat me’ in some sense still to be determined....We arrive, then at the following rendering for the verse as a whole: - The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way, the antecedent of His works, of old.” (pp. 160, 162, 164-165, 168).

In conclusion, it has been clearly shown that Wisdom as portrayed in Proverbs 8 seems to have a strong link to Jesus Christ, the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), the first of God's creative works. A link that not only JW's recognize, but also the early Christians, ANF's and some modern-day scholars.

3. Jesus and his role in creation.

In this section we will be examing closely scriptures that describe Jesus' role in creation. Is Jesus the Creator, a co-creator or an intermediate agency? One scripture we will be taking a close look at is John 1:3. It reads:

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." -NWT.

The Greek word used here for "through" is "dia." However, Ron Rhodes makes the point that "dia" is also used of the Father's role in creation at Hebrews 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10. It seems that Rhodes ignores the fact that context determines how words are used, and with what meaning. The BAGD says that on page 180 that dia refers to Christ as a "as intermediary in the creation of the world [John] 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16." However, it also says on the same page when dia refers to the Father it speaks of him as the "originator of an action."

On page 793 (volume I, Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon ) under semantic domain 89.120, this source makes this observation about XWRIS Jn 1:3: 

"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in everything that was created' or 'he took part in creating everything.'"

It would be improper to use John 1:3 as a prooftext "proving" that Jesus is the creator as a rule of hermeneutics is that no ambigious text can be a prooftext.

Origen acknowledged Christ's role:

"And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?" -Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328

Dia could mean either a "intermediary" or a principle cause depending on the context. Greg Stafford notices:

"An excellent example of dia used for the "principal cause" is found in 1 Corinthians 1:9, where it is said that God is the one "by -whom you were called [Si' ou iK^r\Qr]TE, di' hou eklethete] into a sharing with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." Clearly dia is used here of God, as distinct from "his Son Jesus Christ," and is used for the principal cause. But elsewhere dia is used of the intermediary agent that God used for His 'call,' namely, "through the good news" (816: roO euovyyeAiou, dia tou euangeliou).-2Th2:14." -JWD, 2nd ed., p. 321.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 we see that "Paul chose his prepositions very carefully in order to distinguish between God the Father, who is the ultimate source of creation, and Christ, the Lord, through whom this activity took place." (Clarence T. Craig, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (IB 10; New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), 93.) The Father is the one that "out of whom all things are" and the Son is "through whom all things are." We see that Paul is saying that the Father is the source of creation and that the Son is the intermediary through whom his Father created. Paul chose his prepositions ek and dia and used them carefully to distinguish the two, and this gives us insight into what Paul was meaning when he uses those prepositions elsewhere. It seems unlikely that Paul would've referred to the Father as the source in one passage, and the intermediary agent in another. It also seems unlikely that Paul would've taught that Jesus is the intermediary agent in creation - through whom the Father creates - if John 1:3 taught that Jesus was the Creator. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as the one "from whom" or "out of whom" all things came. With this in mind, we can see why Greg Stafford would say:

 "Many English Bibles translate dia as "by" rather than "through." Modern English readers would naturally associate causation with "by" and agency with "through." In view of the distinction made in 1 Corinthians 8:6 between God as the source of all things and the Son as the intermediary agent, it would be more consistent to translate dia in John 1:3 (as well as Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2) as "through," expressing the Son's secondary role in creation as a "master worker," a role that is more fully outlined in Proverbs 8:22-31." -JWD, 2nd ed., p. 323.

So we see that the Bible supports the conclusion that JWs have reached concerning Jesus' intermediary role in creation. But Mike quotes Isaiah 44:24 and says:

"Here, stretching out the heavens and laying out the earth is an obvious reference to Jehovah creating the heavens and the earth, and it is saying he did this by himself. The question "who was with me?" is not a question that is actually asking for you to find out who was there with him, the Hebrew is more of a rhetorical question that demands the answer that there was nobody at all with him while creating the heavens and the earth... Therefore, if Jesus was the creator of the heavens and the earth, the only logically valid possiblity is that Jesus is Jehovah."

Mike quotes from John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:10 in an attempt to prove that Jesus has created. However, we should mention some problems with his interpretation of Isaiah 44:24. Jehovah stated that in the context of the absurdity of worshipping false idols. (Compare Isa. 44:9 and verses 8-17) Read in this context, it is quite possible that Stafford is right when he says that "there was someone with God when He founded the earth, but not some idol god of the nations." (JWD, 2nd ed., p. 324) However, even ignoring the context we would not be forced to come to the conclusion Mike has given. John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 all refer to Jesus *passively* being involved in the creative process. Jehovah was right when he said there was no co-creator with him. Jehovah is addressing this point and this point *only*. Proverbs 8 clearly allows for another created being (wisdom) to have existed with God in some sort of capacity relating to creation (although not a co-creator). Together with these facts and that the Son was given life and continues to live because of the Father (John 5:26; 6:57) shows that the trinitarian view is unbiblical. Jesus is the passive agent through which the Father creates, Jesus is never said to have created, and the Bible supports these facts. 

Finally, in Isaiah 63:3 Jehovah indicates that he "alone" acted, with no need of assistance of any man when he exacted retribution as a figure for all his enemies ("Edom"), even though literally he did use men as his agents. Deuteronomy 32:12 states: "Jehovah alone (BADAD) kept leading him (Israel), And there was no foreign god along with him." Now, was Jehovah the "only one" leading Israel? Exodus 32:32-34 states that Jehovah used Moses and an angel to lead Israel. (Compare 1Sam.9:16; 13:13-14; 2Sam; 5:1-2)  There are other instances in the Bible where individuals have been spoken of as the sole source or sole originator of their achievements, while they in fact used intermediary agents to carry it out. (Dan.4:30; compare Ex.32:8 with 32:35).

Mike, however, puts special emphasis on the phrase "apart from him" in John 1:3 and claims that it supports his argument. However, his "all inclusive" argument has been dealt with elsewhere (Specifically, Appendix A and B), and I see no reason to repeat the same arguments here. However I will mention that this phrase does not necessarily support what Mike is saying and to put so much emphasis and dogmatic claim on it is clearly unwise.

As for Hebrews 1:10, simply because one scripture originally applied to Jehovah but it is now applied to someone else does not make that person Jehovah. Nelson Herle states: "Here, as well as in the other examples, one individual is the subject of the message in the first application, while in the final application, is applied to another person. An additional use of this type of representational figure of speech is found at Ezekiel 28:13-19; where the king of Tyre is the original subject, but Satan is the final and real subject or referent. In Psalm 102:25, the original referent was Jehovah; in the final application of the words, the referent is the Son. This does not make the Son, Jehovah, anymore than speaking to the king of Tyre in the original application in Ezekiel 28 makes him Satan." -THE TRINITY DOCTRINE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY AND THE BIBLE, 2002 Edition, p. 89-90.

Also notice Hebrews 1:1-2:

"God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."

So we see that in its context, Hebrews 1:10 does not teach that Jesus is the creator, since it specifically articulates that God made all things through his Son, Jesus. It is also appriopriate to refer to various created things as the works of Jesus' hand, in a secondary sense, which we also see the apostle Paul does in verses 1-2. As stated earlier, it seems unlikely that Paul would write Jesus' role specifically as an intermediary and the Father as the source, and later suggest the exact opposite in other writings. (1 Cor. 8:6)

4. A reply to Denis and his bigoted attacks.

In one particular post Denis made some very dogmatic and bigoted remarks on Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions. I had originally planned to deal with them in my conclusion section included here, but decided my reply would be too long and it would be best to create an entire section devoted to it. To start with, we should first like to understand how a person like Denis thinks. As one who has encountered and dealt with many people who have had a similar attitude as Denis', I would think my commentary on the situation has merit and should be considered.

a. The mindset of an opposer.

To give you a taste of some of what Denis has to offer, notice what he says here:

"You both have mentioned verses in the NWT. This "book" was written by men who had no more education than high school, except for one, who was a college drop-out. They had absolutly no formal theological training whatsoever, and no training or qualifications whatsoever in the OT Hebrew or the NT Greek. These men where in no way whatsoever qualified as scholars of the Bible, nor as translators."

Denis takes the fact totally for granted that he doesn't really know who exactly was on the NWT Comittee as no official word has come from other members of the Comittee or the WTB&TS. To make such a dogmatic claim of something he doesn't really know about is, to me, simply amazing. Yet this is exactly what Denis, and others like him, would like to put past you. Denis goes on to make several disparaging remarks about the NWT and the Watchtower Society in general, and we will take a look at those, but we should notice something right off the bat: Opposers to Jehovah's Witnesses (And other minority religions in general) twist the truth about as often as they accuse the ones they're trying to bully of doing.

That is such a basic truism when it has come to my experience in this type of situation that I'm going to write it again: Opposers to Jehovah's Witnesses (And other minority religions in general) twist the truth about as often as they accuse the ones they're trying to bully of doing. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing Denis personally of being a liar. I think that deep down, he is a sincere guy and he believes in what he's doing. But I think he's heard so much garbage about Jehovah's Witnesses that he's been mislead. You can probably look at all of the sources that Denis has read that have criticised JWs, and they all probably have some sort of axe to grind against the group, theological or otherwise. But if we start looking at more objective sources, the truth becomes clear. 

b. Is the New World Translation a "comic book"?

Since Denis doesn't really know who was on the NWT Comittee and has to rely on [questionable] third-party resources to come to his conclusion, I think we can safely dismiss his unwarranted ad hominems. But what have other people said about the NWT? Consider the following:

"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between them by Alan S. Duthie 
J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the original tongues). "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed, to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!" 
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text). "Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as...the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950)." (The Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99) 
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain." 
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by acommittee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) 
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." (Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280) 
WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister schooled in the original tongues). "Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up...surges.. "Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times...It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times" (The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75) 
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239) 
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of "The Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was "an interesting and scholarly work" ) 
ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31) 
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296) 
JASON BEDUHN: (Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). "I have just recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, ...This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students...Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today." 
The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary calls it one of the "major translations of the Bible into English," along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292 
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing." (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52) 
EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College) "Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me...The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text." 
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn koine from this source alone. ...the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear", April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: "Bible Translation how to choose between them" by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate 

Now, I understand that none of what I've said is beyond rebuttal. Nothing ever is. Nor do I doubt that Denis could counter-quote many scholars that are against the NWT. But the concensus is far from universal, and for Denis to say things like: "the NWT is a comic book written by incompetent fools who knew not the scriptures nor the power of God, who are willfully ignorant, who are without excuse and who do these things to their own destruction," is untrue and inexcusable. 

I would like to add that it has been my experience (Which I freely admit is limited), that Bibles such as the NIV take far more liberties than the NWT has ever done. Yet, people plod along with their copies of the NIV tucked at their side, making the same kind of snide remarks that you've seen from Denis, never knowing the wiser. I have seen *many* criticisms labeled at the NWT, yet I haven't seen one that could not be explained by opening up a Hebrew or Greek grammar and/or lexicon and reading the reasoning right out of those secular pages. That's important to note. In reality, the NWT is ahead of it's time when it comes to accuracy and it's renderings, despite the verbally violent accusations you'll sometimes hear. 

c. Charles Taze Russell,  false prophecies and the majority.

Denis in his reply mentions Russell and also the issue of false prophecies. It's no secret that the Watchtower Society has made predictions based on their interpretation of scripture at the time, but is that a false prophecy? Are they a false prophet? I don't think so. While I won't get to the discussion here, as it has been dealt with in an entire chapter of Greg Stafford's book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended (2nd edition), and also on Heinz Schitmz website. (http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/1975.htm) The false prophecy thing has been done, and it has been taken care of. The fact that others have to constantly latch onto this one subject shows a desperate and unwilling attitude to discuss the serious exegetical issues, such as the proper rendering of John 1:1, etc. It boils down to cheap slander, nothing more. If JWs were wrong about that, are they wrong about everything else? No, and to suggest that is a logical fallacy. Denis brought up the 1975 issue, yet that is exactly the date they *cannot* be guilty of being a false prophet! The Watchtower Society never said anything official about that, and for Denis to suggest that they did just shows more of his ignorance and blinded dogmatism. In fact, Bro. Franz said in a talk:

"You have noticed the chart [on pages 31-35 in the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God]. It shows that 6,000 years of human experience will end in 1975, about nine years from now. What does that mean? Does it mean that God's rest day began 4026 B.C.E.? It could have. The Life Everlasting book does not say it did not. The book merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it. . . . What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?' asked Brother Franz. 'Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah's witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975." -"Rejoicing over 'God's Sons of Liberty' Spiritual Feast," The Watchtawer, 15 October 1966, 631 (emphasis added).

Here are some other quotes I leave you with:

We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty to "prove all things."-by the unerring Word,-"and hold fast to that which is good." -- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38. 
Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build. -- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080. 
Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration. . . . A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and comfort of the Scriptures. -- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506. 
We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them. -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110. 

Denis also brought up Russell, which is something I find ironic. I'm always humored by those who use Charles Taze Russell to try to discredit the Witnesses, because not only do JWs follow no man, but Christ as their leader, but the Bible Students believe that Russell started their organization, and not the Jehovah's Witnesses. I've had some debate the point with me before. They offer publications on their website for anyone to download, some of which defend Russell from this kind of shameless slander. Anyone interested can visit their webpage: www.biblestudentslibrary.com

[Denis]
There is an abundance of material, written by qualified scholars, who document their work using official publications of the Watchtower, showing the entire organization, from day one to the present, for what it is. 

Yes, Denis, there are many publications that attempt to discredit the Witnesses any way they can. While I was shopping on Amazon.com I came upon one JW-bashing book that had a price tag well over 100 dollars. Picking on religious minorities is a money-making business, and guys like Ron Rhodes are making money hand-over-fist with their work. There are also many books and groups that attempt to discredit Catholics, evangelicals, Muslims, etc. A lot of people think that the Pope is the anti-Christ. But just because a lot of people think that doesn't make it true. And it's a logical fallacy to pretend otherwise.

Denis, this is all subjective. There are reputable and qualified scholars that defend Jehovah's Witnesses. There are many scholars that bash them. It all boils down to what you want to believe. If you want to believe that the Watchtower Society is a false prophet, then you're probably going to believe it, no matter what I or anyone else says. If you want to believe they're not, there is evidence that supports that conclusion as well. I'll tell you like I told Mike: If you examine both arguments, and still believe that the Watchtower Society is a false prophet, then a discussion with me is probably not going to change that. And I wish you well.

I was also going to deal with Denis' accusation that JWs are a cult, but I'll just sum up my argument this way: the definition of "cult" is so vague that it could easily encompasse any religion, including your own. The fact is, you're using a particular connotation of "cult" to name-call, to devalue the group you're calling a cult. It is ad hominem, plain and simple, and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's also worth noting that religioustolerance.org, while disagreeing with the Witnesses when it comes to their blood policy, do not agree that JWs are a cult. In conclusion, I think you should be a little less insulting and dogmatic with the way you deal with JWs are their arguments. A friend once told me that you should keep a mind that's open enough for it to breathe, but closed enough so your brain doesn't fall out. And that's good advice for all of us.

Conclusion.

In conclusion, I would just like to add that writing this document has been helpful for me and I hope that it will be as equally helpful to those who read it. I've enjoyed putting it together, and I've learned a lot doing it. I would like to mention one last thing though, that Mike said. In reference to the issue of Col. 1:15 and the word "other," he said that "...if it can clearly be shown that Jesus is God, then this would be the only position that could be justified."

But that's a catch-22, isn't it? Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is God anymore than I believe he is God. Remember, to a Trinitarian, there is only one true God, which is the Trinity. For Mike to say that Jesus is God, he is saying that Jesus is the Trinity. Unless, of course, he qualifies his statement to "God the Son, second person of the Godhead." But once he does that, we realize that he is reading post-biblical theology back into the text. Another example of this kind of re-defining of words is how when the Bible makes a distinction between God and Jesus, Trinitarians replace "God" with "the Father." Since the Father is a Biblical term, most JWs usually let this slide by. But if you got them to define who exactly the Father is, that is, "First person of the Godhead," then the penny drops and again we realize that they are reading their theology back into the text. 

And I would have to say that is the number 1 reason why I could never accept the doctrine of the Trinity. There's just too much twisting and exegetical hoops one has to jump through to try and prove that doctrine.

Mike, while I said I would give you the last word, I will also recommend to you, or anyone else who is interested, a few websites and books to read. 
Books:
Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, by Greg Stafford.
Jesus - God or the Son of God? by Brian Holt.
The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, by Rolf Furuli.

Other books you may find of interest:
Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life, by the WTB&TS.
Reasoning from the Scriptures, by the WTB&TS.
Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1 and 2, by the WTB&TS.

Websites:
www.jehovah.to
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/
http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/nwtmain.htm
www.jw-media.org
www.watchtower.org

I suggest you read both sides, compare the arguments and decide for yourself. If by that point you still believe in the Trinity doctrine, then it's unlikely a prolonged discussion with me would change your mind. I wish you well.

-Hal Goodnight.

P.S. My email address is jwdefender17@yahoo.com and anyone who needs a point clarified can contact me there.

Appendix A: Firstborn - Literal or figurative?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." -Colossians 1:15, NWT.

In this scripture we see Jesus referred to as "firstborn." Is Jesus a literal firstborn in that he was the first of God's creative works? Or was he, as trinitarians claim, heir to what God (= the Father) has given him? This is a verse we will take a close look at and hope to answer that very question.

Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Christ is merely a created being. We believe that the biblical account shows that Jesus is the only-begotten (monogenes) god (John 1:18), the only direct creation from the Father. That being the case, Jesus well deserves the unique and honorable title of "firstborn." (prototokos)

Scholars have stated on this subject:

The first-born of every creature - He was begotten; first-born before the creation of all things. The pro, in prototokos, first-born, governs the genitive ktiseos, creature. Time is an accident of the creature. Therefore the origin of the Son of God precedes all time.-John Albert Bengal, New Testament Word Studies, Vol. 2, p. 454.

Christ...is the first-born of every creature, that is, born before every creature - having come to personal existence, entered upon subsistent being, ere [before] anything created was extant.... The genitive pases ktiseos [of all creation]  moreover, is  not the partitive genitive  (although de Wette still [also], with Usteri, Reuss, and Baur,  holds this to be indubitable) [that “first-born of”, is a partitive genitive]…‘the first-born in comparison with every crea- ture’...that is, born earlier than every creature.-Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon, pp. 224-5.

Answering the objections.

The first objection to the literal interpretation of "firstborn" is that of Psalms 89:27 (LXX). The NWT reads:

"Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn, The most high of the kings of the earth."

Some have claimed that this meaning of firstborn is "sovereign," and not of a literal firstborn. We tend to agree with that statement, but does this have any bearing with how we view Christ's firstborn status? No, because nowhere do we read God appointing Christ as firstborn, whereas Psalms is referring to the position that God is giving David. 

Brian Holt comments on this:

 "There are some examples in the Old Testament where the term "firstborn" is used to designate a position where someone is the head of others or enjoys the privilege of being superior to others. (See Psalms 89:27, Jeremiah 31:9, Exodus 4:22, Genesis 48:13-20.) Manfred Brauch mentions these examples and then states that Paul is using the same meaning in Colossians 1:15. He also states that Christ, though head over creation, is not part of creation. This argument does not have scriptural support in either the Old or New Testament. For instance, Psalms 89:27 does show that David is the firstborn of the kings, yet at the same time we realize that David is still a king. So while David is the head of the kings, he is still included among the group... In each of these instances the firstborn, though meaning the head of the group, is still part of the group. Thus, if we stick to the argument used by Trinitarians, even if the term firstborn, when used with Jesus, means he is the head of creation instead of the first of creation, he is still part of creation. There are no examples of someone not being part of the like group that he is firstborn (meaning "head") over." -Holt, 'Jesus - God or the Son of God?' p. 251.  (emphasis added)

Still, none of those examples are analogous to Colossians since they are all "placed" or "appointed" as firstborn, while Christ is simply called "firstborn." However, Greg Stafford informs us:

"There is, however, one sense in which a figurative meaning could be given to "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15, though this would not necessarily apply to the use of this same term in Hebrews 1:6 (see below). In 1 Peter 2:13 ktisis("creation") is used in reference to political figures, such as "kings" and "governors." It is possible, then, that Colossians 1:15 could be a fulfillment of Psalm 89:27, where "firstborn" is used figuratively. The one called "firstborn," in the Psalm, is "placed" in this position and viewed as preeminent among "the kings of the earth." But this interpretation is doubtful in Colossians 1:15 for at least two reasons: 1) Christ is not said to have been "placed as"or "given" the position of "firstborn" (see discussion above); and 2) the use of pas ("all") in Colossians 1:15 appears to remove any suggestion that "creation" in this verse refers only to political figures." -Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2nd ed., p. 218-219.

Another objection is noted from coming from Mike himself. He states:

[Mike]
"Another point is that when the firstborn of . . . is used as the first in order of a series of something, the firstborn gets its existence from what follows of. For example, the firstborn of Mary would come from Mary, the firstborn of a beast would come from the beast it was the firstborn of, and so on. Following this pattern, by Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, his existence would have to come from all of creation, rather than creation getting his existence from him."

However, we will see this is not a legitimate argument, as Brian Holt demonstrates:

"However, this argument is a hat trick that is not entirely accurate. True, if we say Jesus was the "firstborn of God" we could then rightly understand that God gave birth to Jesus. [footnote: And the scriptures do say Jesus is God's "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6.] The same can be said if we say a prince is the "firstborn of Pharoah." However, we would not hold to that explanation if we said the young prince was the "firstborn of Pharoah's house." We would then understand that the prince, compared to all other children fathered by Pharoah, was the first child born amongst his brothers and sisters." -'Jesus - God or the Son of God?' p. 250.
The difference boils down to a collective noun and a proper noun. Trinitarians are trying to confuse the two to come up with a strawman argument. "Creation" is not a proper noun describing an individual but is a collective noun describing a group, and "firstborn of creation" must be interpreted in that light. No one would think that the young prince was fathered by Pharoah's house, or that Jesus was fathered by all creation. We see that in both cases the individual is included among the group but isn't considered to be fathered by the group.

Firstborn = Heir?

Some have stated that Paul's use of "firstborn" is figurative, and has the meaning of "heir." In other words, Paul was saying that Christ was going to be the firstborn [heir] of all creation. However, there are several problems with such an explanation. For one, Paul uses "firstborn" a few verses later in a literal, not figurative, meaning. [= verse 18, Christ is "firstborn of the dead" literally being the first one that was raised to heaven.] Secondly, Paul uses the word "heir" (And the plural "heirs") throughout his writings. (Romans 4:13, 14, 8:17; Galations 3:29, 4:7, 30; Ephesians 1:11, 3:6; Titus 3:7; Hebrews 1:2, 6:17, 11:7, 9) Why would Paul use "firstborn" (prototokos) to denote "heir" when in fact he used the word "heir" (kleronomas) or one of its derivatives every other time he wanted to say "heir"? Paul knew what words he had to use to get his point across, and it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses have solid biblical backing on this point. 

There are other, more disingenious arguments used to discredit the Witnesses on their view of Christ and firstborn. However, because of time and space, we will not be considering all of these arguments, although they are included in Greg Stafford's book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended.

Appendix B: The use of "other" in Colossians - NWT biased?

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens." -Colossians 1:15-20, NWT.

On this particular scripture a person asked (Who's name also happens to be Mike, so I will refer to him as Mike #2):

[Mike#2]
"Why was the word 'other' added to the Greek text by the NWT Translators?"

He asks this after he quotes, presumably from a Greek interlinear, which is a word-for-word translation and does not include the word "other." But one should keep in mind that the Greek language does not have any indefinite articles (Such as "an" or "a"), but does that mean we should *never* have *any* indefinite articles at all when translated into another language that does? Of course not. It means that we have to look at the context and judge what the author is saying. This happens a lot also in Latin, that contains no indefinite or definite articles. So literally translated, a phrase might look like: "girl loves boy" which is hardly intelligible at all. Depending on the context, it could be translated as "a girl loves a boy" or "the girl loves a boy" or "a girl loves the boy," etc. 

So we can see that context and theological bias can come into play when it comes to ambigious scriptures. This is true of all bible translations. For instance, the NIV has been criticised for their supplying the word "other" to 1 Corinthians 6:18 as this changes the meaning and adds the translators theology onto the matter. Additionally, the Revised Standard version inserts the word “other” 100 times, the King James version 67 times, and the New Revised Standard version New Testament 31 times. It seems that the NWT has specifically been singled out here, for doing what all other translations have done. We will show that that the word "other" is in fact a part of the Greek word, so it can be correctly stated that the word "other" has not been added. A more accurate wording would be "supplied."
The NWT Defense website states on the issue of "other":
"According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible the phrase "the firstborn of" occurs 36 times. They are Genesis 25:13; Exodus 6:14; 11:5(3); 12:29(3); 13:13; 13:15(3); 22:29; 34:20; Numbers 3:13,40,46,50; 8:16,17; 18:15; Joshua 17:1; 1 Chronicles 1:29; 2:3,13,25,27,50; 4:4; 5:1; 9:31; Nehemiah 10:36; Job 18:13; Psalms 135:8; Isaiah 14:30 and Colossians 1:15. If we examine each and every one of the above we find that the "firstborn" is one of, or part of, belongs to, the group or person it is said to be of. That in every case the "firstborn" had a beginning of existence. Hence, in Exodus 11:5, in the grammatical construction under consideration, the "firstborn of Pharaoh" belonged to, or was of, Pharaoh; the "firstborn of the maidservant" was literally the one born first of the maidservant and the "firstborn of beast" was itself a beast. So, therefore, the phrase in Colossians 1:15,"the firstborn of all creation," would, according to Bible usage, be itself a part of creation, belonged to creation, a created being itself, that it has also a beginning of existence." -http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/useof.htm
Can we do this without brackets? The book The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the NWT by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS." 
[Mike#2]
"The Watchtower does have Scholarly support? By Whom?" 

Dr. Jason BeDuhn wrote the NWT Defense website on this issue and said:
"On Colossians 1:15-20, you have focused precisely on the key to this passage. By calling Jesus the "firstborn of creation" in v.15, Paul has explicitly identified Christ as part of creation. Amazingly, most Christians overlook this fact. The JW's draw attention to it by inserting [other] into the subsequent verses. A bit heavy handed, but in terms of the content and meaning of the passage, perfectly correct. Paul does not mean to assert that Christ created himself, and he of course did not create God; rather he is the agent of creating everything else. Let me add that Christ is both part of creation and creator in this passage. It's not the simple either/or that modern Christianity favors."
Here we have an authority on Greek supporting the NWT rendering of Colossians and the supplying of the word "other." It's important to note that Dr. BeDuhn is *not* a theologian, and does not have a theological axe to grind with the Witnesses. (There is also a list within Nelson Herle's book which contains quotes from various scholars that have commented positively on the NWT in general. Anyone who wishes to see this list can do so by sending me an email (from the address I have specified) and requesting it.)
So why does the NWT supply the word "other"? Heinz Schimtz says in a reply on the issue:

"Col 1:20 says that Jesus will "reconcile all things unto himself." Will he also reconcile Satan unto himself? No! That is because there are exceptions to the word ALL/PAS/PANTA. Why doesn't the Greek text uses ALLOS or hETEROS here? Because "other" is a legitimate part of PAS/PANTA.... In fact, I have gone so far as to check every occurence of ALLOS and hETEROS in the Greek text, and I could not find any occurence of these words alongside PAS/PANTA. Obviously, it was not common to do so, showing again, the superiority of the NWT."

There are many biblical examples that show exceptions to the usage of PAS/PANTA. For instance, notice Ephesians 1:22 in the NWT:

"He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation."

But does that verse mean that literally every single thing is under Christ? No, Jesus did not subject the one who appointed him to his position, God. Examine also Luke 13:2:

'So in reply he said to them: “Do YOU imagine that these Gal·i·le'ans were proved worse sinners than all other Gal·i·le'ans because they have suffered these things?"'

Perhaps Mike#2 might notice that the word "other" does not appear here in the Greek text, but almost all Bibles include it because the context calls for it. As we have seen, the context of Colossians shows that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation," which is practically spelling out the fact that Jesus is a created being, the firstborn, and that through the intermediatory Jesus God created everything else. (Compare Proverbs 8:22-31 and the discussion on "Wisdom.") 
There is one more objection to deal with. This is by Mike, who remarkably states:
[Mike]
"No one disputes that the word all is sometimes used in a sense that is not literally all inclusive. Yet the argument totally falls apart since the Watchtower uses the word in an all inclusive sense when referring to all things other than the Son. That is, they don't believe it refers to most things or a lot of things other than the Son, but literally all things other than the Son."

Let us notice first the most obvious problem with Mike's statement. Mike agrees on the premise that PAS/TA PANTA is at times not all inclusive, but he objects to the Witness view that it is all inclusive, with the exception of the Son. This makes no sense whatsoever, and only works against Mike. The fact that Mike has to mention an *exception* to ta panta shows that it is *not* all inclusive. I'm sure we could rattle off exceptions to almost every occurance of pas/ta panta. By doing that it shows that it is not in an all inclusive sense. Mike has not made a point here. Secondly, this works against Mike as Mike believes that the Son is not created, thereby there are *no* exceptions and it is an all inclusive sense [This is assuming, of course, that the Father and Son are not exceptions, but since Mike did not include the Father in his reasonings, I can only assume that "God" by Mike's reasoning doesn't belong to the group to begin with, therefore is not an exception]. He thereby goes on to base his conclusion that the NWT "is shown to be inferior." I suppose then that every other Bible must be inferior since they actually do take the "all things" in an all inclusive sense, unlike the NWT, which does not, despite Mike's false accusation.
What's interesting is that Mike later goes onto contradict himself. He uses the all inclusive argument concerning John 1:3 against Joe. So is the NWT inferior or not? I think the answer is obvious. While I won't question Mike's motives here, as I'm sure that as a trinitarian he is completely sincere, but I think in his zeal to rebut my arguments he has tended to overlook significant facts. His argument in this regard can summarily be dismissed.
To conclude, I leave you with this excerpt from Heinz' website, that pretty much sums everything up. The link also provides more information concerning the "firstborn" issue.

"TA PANTA were created by means of him" grammatically may or may not include the one in the context. In other words, one cannot make a theologically dogmatic statement from the use of TA PANTA alone. I suppose one could, but one should do so with knowledge of the weakness of the statement. In Col. 1:16, the farthest one can go with this verse recognizing the limitations of the grammar is to say that Christ was involved as indirect agent in the creation of all things. Christ and the Father are certainly excluded from the “all things” because Christ neither created God nor himself! Therefore, there is no basis for complaint for adding the word "[other]" in this verse. Whether or not Christ was also created (or, begotten) first by the Father must be determined elsewhere. In the previous verse, Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation. Therefore, the "all things" that came into existence through Jesus' agency harmonizes well with the teaching that Jesus himself was the created being. In this case, the "all things" and the "all creation" do not have the same reference as is frequently assumed. They are not the same thing”." -http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/prototokos.htm