“Look! God’s slave-girl.”
I didn’t know you were so exceedingly old that you were at the Tower of Babel. 
Who do you think it was who gave God the idea of creating light first?
After all, it’s hard to create if you can’t see what you’re doing.
[QUOTE=archaeo-, archeo-, archae-, arche-, archa-, archi-, -arch - Word Information]
(Greek: original [first in time], beginning, first cause, origin, ancient, primitive, from the beginning; most basic)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Arche Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster]
Full Definition of ARCHE
: something that was in the beginning : a first principle:
a in early Greek philosophy : a substance or primal element
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Revelation 3:14]
One well known scholar stated:
"The New World Translation…is also in error at Rev.3:14, where it makes the exalted Christ refer to himself as “the beginning of the creation by God.” The Greek text of this verse[en arche tes kitsews tou theou], is far from saying that Christ was created by God, for the genitive case[tou theou], means “of God” and not “by God”(which would require the preposition [hupo]. Actually the word [arche]translated “beginning,” carries with it the Pauline idea expressed in Col.1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of God’s creation(compare also John 1:3, “Apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”)
[/QUOTE]
Well, stop handling the Messiah then.
When this “scholar” produces his/her own translation, maybe I’ll pay heed. Not before.
This is multiple different quotes - primarily to show that you’ve got the sense of the word incorrect.
Do you want to talk about the history of the Watchtower’s ‘translation’ ?
How many on the translation committee actually had any capability to do the work?
Anyone can produce a translation and interpretation of Scripture.
However, the value and accuracy of these works is entirely dependent upon whether or not they align with dougie’s previously instilled biases.
Which, and this is a cogent point - was exactly the design of the NWT when it was “translated”.
Is this a question or bait?
I don’t see a question mark - its a simple statement of fact - backed up by numerous other resources.
Obviously, if existing translations do not clearly support the interpretation you want, then you commission your own, more “accurate” translation which (miraculum deo!) supports your cult’s beliefs.
Let me put it this way: given the context, and logic (and I have Strong ’ s Concordance and an interlinear Greek translation), I think “creation by God” is a better rendering into English. “Creation of God” is ambiguous, suggesting “creating God,” but, of course, God is uncreated. You may quote me to your scholar(s); I see no reason to abandon my point.
And what is you’re scholarly background here? If the natural translation suggests “creating God” - who are you to question the author’s work/choice of words just because you ‘disagree’ with them?
In other words - you’re letting your bias show thru.
Did you pass a test in some course?
Did you read the links beyond the one quoted? the final link is a full article on it, and how the NWT is inconsistent in its translation of the given word.
Pharisaic hair splitting and legalistic obfuscation designed to prevent reasonable persons from discerning the clear intent in a plain reading.
(Of course, the “plain reading” needs to be in Greek, but it is not the Lord’s fault that anyone decided to not learn to read Greek.)
It seems to me that you have an ax to grind. Don’t drag me into it. This has been asked and answered, as far as I am concerned. This * is * bait.
ooohhh - touched a nerve? you haven’t answered anything beyond “what you think” - which has been shown to, well, not count for much.
If you don’t have any qualifications, your translation skills mean nothing and you should just admit that you are parroting the WTs translation.
“axe to grind” ? Read the masthead - “fighting ignorance” - which, with you - is a full time job.
I also find it fucking hilarious that you ask me not to drag you into a conversation you started -
Well, it should be obvious to you that I’m stopping it now.
I should have replied to this post first. Excuse me.
Ignorance, eh? I guess I am to assume that on this topic you have, or cite, specific knowledge I don’t have. What good does it do me?