Also, (and please don't fixate on this as I think the previous post is far more relevant), it's probably worth noting that your examples of other gods in the OP are different from the Trinity in the Christian sense. For example, Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash are linked to each other (representing the Sun, Moon, and Earth if I remember right) but there's no suggestion anywhere I know of that they are also the same being.

In other words, you're saying "similar" is close enough to warrant disqualification. If we're willing to equate a triad of three seperate gods and call that "close enough" to warrant tossing out the idea of the trinity, by the time were done removing all the things from the Bible that have similar equivalents in older religions, you're going to be left with a handful of 100% secular desert goat herders with circumcised junk, and that's about it.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:

I didn't say Christendom's version of the 3-prong god is exactly like those from pagan religions. I said there were trinity gods in existence centuries before Jesus Christ appeared on the earth as a human in the 1st century AD. In other words, the idea of a 3-prong god was nothing new. The Roman Catholics simply copied an old idea from paganism and revised it, and then proceeded to spend the last 1,800 years lying and misleading people by telling them the Trinity is a Bible teaching.

In effect, for centuries people have been praying to a non-existent Trinity god that is nowhere to be found in God's inspired Word, the Bible. The result is that they've been offering polluted, unacceptable worship to Jehovah who made it clear that he will not accept anything less than true worship.

"God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him MUST worship with spirit and TRUTH." (John 4:24)


Did you notice the words "must" and "truth" in the above scripture? "Must" is a command. There's no compromise when it comes to the word "must." Likewise, the word "truth" allows no compromise. There is no mixing of "a little falsehood" with truth because tainted "truth" is no longer truth. It is falsehood.

"God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Just want that for reference to the ESV translation.

This is a non-issue unless you hold to the false teaching that Jesus is a created being. He exists in eternity past, present, and future. He is God after all.

To sum it up, according to you the Bible constantly commands you to worship Jesus and commit idolatry. Quite an argument.

Don't change the word of God, let the word of God change you.

I hate to argue the Trinity, OP but you might want to do a bible translation comparison on key scriptures.

Is there some reason that The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by Watchtower is the only accurate translation?

Rendering of John 1:1

The New World Translation has been criticized for its rendering of John 1:1. Most English translations render this verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." By contrast, the NWT renders the verse: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Controversy regarding the translation of John 1:1 is not unique to the NWT; translations with a similar rendering include Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott (interlinear reading) and Goodspeed's An American Translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wor...oly_Scriptures

ALTER2EGO -to- WIZARD-50:

Your statements amount to your personal erroneous opinions that directly contradict what's said in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Concerning the pre-human Jesus Christ, God's inspired word says:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of ALL CREATION;.." (Colossians 1:15)


Did you notice Colossians 1:15 used the word "ALL" as in "creation"? Notice another scripture that says the same thing.

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-BEGOTTEN son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14)

The words "born" and "begotten" apply to created beings according to any English dictionary.


DEFINITION OF BORN: "Born means having been given life."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born


DEFINITION OF BEGOTTEN: "Begotten means something created something else or someone fathered a child."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/begotten

ALTER2EGO -to- SPLENDOUR:

The fact that you, like most Trinitarians, rely on a single verse of scripture (John 1:1) to argue an erroneous position speaks to a desperate attempt at proving the unprovable.

ALL Bible translations contain translator errors—some more than others—because translations were not done under divine inspiration. However, because most Bible translators are Trinitarians, their versions are riddled with translation blunders aka errors that include deliberately added-in words.

For instance, the Trinitarian word "Godhead" is a completely fabricated expression that did not show up in English translations until the 14th century AD—more than 1,300 years after the last book of the Bible was written under divine inspiration from God. Trinitarian translators also remove words that actually belong in the Bible when such words debunk false ideologies such as Trinity and hellfire.


The scripture at John 1:1 is a classic example of a translation blunder by the King James Version and other Trinitarian Bible versions based off the manuscripts used by the KJV. That verse of scripture is talking about two different beings who are both gods. Trinitarians habitually cherry pick words and ignore context in order to convince themselves—and everybody else—that the pagan Trinity is a Bible teaching.



BTW: The New World Translation is not the only one that correctly translates John 1:1 as follows.

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 -- New World Translation)


Below are a few examples of other Bibles that correctly reflect the NWT's rendition of John 1:1, along with the year of publication. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the questionable portion of John 1:1.



1. Diaglot NT, 1865
"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."


2. (Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)
"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."


3. Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"


4. Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god"


5. Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"


6. Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, "[A]s a god the Command was"


7. Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"


8. Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary), "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"


9. John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god."


10. Belsham N.T. 1809, "the Word was a god"


11. La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel (1928), "and the Word was a divine being."

Okay, first, if you were at all familiar with the Greek, you'd know you just can't squeeze the "a" in there. It's just not there.

Also, the Greek word used in the verse is theos. It is used to describe God, and used to describe The Word. It really couldn't be more clear in the Greek that "God" and "The Word" are made up of the same stuff.

Then there's the fact that one of the most common words to describe God in Hebrew is "Elohim." However, the Hebrew word for "god" is "El." "Elohim" is plural. The word Elohim is used literally thousands of times in the Bible, far beyond what could be considered "translation error."

Since I assume you won't take my word for it, or go to college and study Hebrew or Greek, or have clever ways to ignore the legions and legions of scholars who frustratingly point this out to JW's every day, I have another question.

Let's go ahead and use the translation, "The word was with God, and the Word was a god." This is, apparently, your preferred translation.

My question is simple: How many gods exist?

You've got this guy:

"The Word was with God, and the Word was a god." and he's hanging out with "The Word."

But we also know that: "The word was with God, and the Word was a god."


So, we have God (who is, presumably, a god) who is spending his time with The Word (who is also a god).

Am I to draw the conclusion that there is one god and they are the same person, or draw the conclusion that there is in fact, more than one god?

Jesus was murdered because he emphatically claimed to be God.

Actually we rely on a lot more than one verse.

I was inviting you to research into things instead of letting denominationalism control you.

Bruce Metzger wrote on the JWs: "It is manifestly impossible to attempt to refute in one brief article even a fraction of the distortions of Biblical interpretation perpetrated in the voluminous writings of this sect. It is proposed, rather, to give consideration to one of the fundamental errors of the Jehovah's Witnesses, namely, that which concerns the person of Jesus Christ."

He also points out: "Besides refusing to take into account the evidence set forth above, the Jehovah's Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.

1. In the New World Translation the opening verse of the Gospel according to John is mistranslated as follows: "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." A footnote which is added to the first word, "Originally," reads, "Literally, In (At) a beginning.'" By using here the indefinite article "a" the translators have overlooked the well-known fact that in Greek grammar nouns may be definite for various reasons, whether or not the Greek definite ariicle is present. A pprepositional phrase, for example, where the definite article is not expressed, can be quite definite in Greek, 18 as in fact it is in John 1:1. The customary translation, "In the beginning was the Word," is therefore to be preferred to either alternative suggested by the New World translators.
Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, ". . . and the Word was a god," with the following footnote: "'A god.' In contrast with 'the God.'" It must be stated finite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.

As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ". . . and the Word was God." Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context dernands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20: 28, 'My Lord and my God']." 19

In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1: 1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1: 1 requires that θεος must be translated "a god." None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell's rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.

Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, 21 in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell's rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue. One must conclude, therefore, that no sound reason has been advanced for altering the traditional rendering of the opening verse of John's Gospel, ". . . and the Word was God."

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ:
A Biblical and Theological Appraisal
By Bruce M. Metzger
http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html

More background on the Jehovah Witnesses:
The End of Times - Jehovah's Witness: Charles Russell
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o....cfm?LogID=241

The End of Times - Jehovah's Witness: Jesus Christ Within the Faith
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o....cfm?LogID=242

The End of Times - Jehovah's Witness: The 144,000
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o....cfm?LogID=243

Please note Metzger also explains the following:

One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God "begotten, not created"; and it adds "begotten by his Father before all worlds." Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin? We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We're thinking about something that happened before Nature was created at all, before time began. "Before all worlds" Christ is begotten, not created. What does it mean?

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is just this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set. . . . Now that's the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:
Obviously you're not familiar with how to translate. An adept translator knows that expressions in one language do not necessarily give the correct thought or sentiment when translated literally. So to compensate and give the reader the meaning behind expressions from one language to the next, there are times when general words such as "a" and "the" are included.

I gave the example of 11 different Bible translators (I have another 15 I could give you)--from different centuries--all of whom translated the last part of John 1:1 as "the word was a God." Clearly, they understood Greek when they translated their Bibles. They decided that the correct rendition of that part of John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god" for the following reason: the context—meaning the surrounding words, verses and chapters. Notice part of the context below that you, like all Trinitarians, are ignoring.

CONTEXT #1 – surrounding words:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 -- NWT)

1. "In the beginning was the Word" -- The expression "in the beginning" indicates the pre-human Jesus Christ had a beginning and therefore he was a created being before he came to earth in human form.


2. "and the word was WITH God" -- This first mentioning of the title "God" at John 1:1 is with reference to Jehovah. The expression "with" indicates there are two separate gods involved at John 1:1. Either that or it would amount to Jehovah being with himself, which defies logic.


3. "and the word was a god" -- Because the pre-human Jesus Christ (the Word) had a beginning, it's impossible for him to have been a created being and also be Almighty God. That would amount to Jehovah having created himself. Therefore, the second mentioning of "god" at John 1:1 where it says: "and the word was god" is with reference to a subservient god (the pre-human Jesus Christ) and not with reference to Almighty God Jehovah.


CONTEXT #2 – surrounding verse.
"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-BEGOTTEN son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14)

The term "begotten" applies to created beings according to any English dictionary. The fact that the Word/Jesus Christ was created by Jehovah makes it impossible for Jesus to be in a trinity with Jehovah in which they are CO-ETERNAL. Therefore, the correct rendition at the latter part of John 1:1 should be "the word was a god."


DEFINITION OF "BEGOTTEN": "Begotten means something created something else or someone fathered a child."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/begotten


I will present you with some facts about John 1:1 in another post.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:
I will deal with the words "Elohim" and "El" at another time. I've debunked both of those words at other websites with other Trinitarians, so prepare yourself. For now, I will leave you to deal with what I just said about John 1:1.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:
I will deal with this in another post. I've also debunked Trinitarians on this matter at other websites. So again, prepare yourself.

ALTER2EGO -to- STARVINGWRITER82:
I knew you couldn't resist getting an insult in. Most Trinitarians have no regard for religious truth and tend to attack Jehovah's Witnesses for exposing false teachings such as the pagan-inspired Trinity and hellfire. I will have no mercy on you when I start debunking all your arguments about "Elohim" and "El" and you asking me how many gods exist. Prepare yourself for no mercy.

So why don't you actually provide the REASON that your adept translators chose to stick the article "a" into the sentence, rather than just citing that they did.

There probably around a thousand translators whose work went into translating the NIV, NASB, TNIV, and other more common translations.

This does not follow at all.

Unfortunately for you, when arguing a translational dispute, you need to provide context within the original language, not within the translation. All you do here is provide evidence that the translator chose a consistent perspective, not that he translated it correctly. (Or at least, you attempted to -- I'll admit to not reading it due to its irrelevance.)

OP try thinking of God as a unity not as a unit.

God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit aren't 1+1+1 = 3

They're 1 X 1 X 1 = 1

Apologies in advance for a verbose post!

The first chapter of the "Gospel of John" is one of my favorite chapters in the "New Testament" and Jn 1:1 is likely the only verse I remember in NT Greek ( because I struggled with what that verse really did mean to the intended recipients ). One can find several websites with the NT Greek.

Let me first clarify that "the Word" is "the Logos", not what some Protestants may think is the written "Word" which is often identified with the Protestant canon, but rather the "Living Word" identified in the first chapter of the "Gospel of John" and the epistles of John.

Only choosing between using "a god" or "G-d" for the "θεὸς" in Jn 1:1, would be "incorrect". The first would be incorrect simply from grammatical reasons and the second would be incorrect because that would seem to ignore what is stated earlier in the verse: that the "Word was with G-d"; however, considering its context in the entire book ( well, it's likely the "Gospel of John" was redacted since the original ending was in Jn 20:30-31 and Jn 21 is a nice emendation concerning the reconciliation with Kefa = "Peter", so at least the first 20 chapters ), we shouldn't ignore Jn 17:3 wherein Yeshua states that Hashem ( "YHWH", who he was praying to ) is the "only true G-d" and that Yeshua was sent from Hashem. Fortunately, I am not translating the Greek into English, for if I were, that "θεὸς" would be rendered "god" or "divine". IIRC, the late Catholic priest, Raymond E. Brown ( who authored the Anchor series commentary on this gospel ), suggested that the prologue of the first chapter was likely a hymn - if so, we shouldn't think necessarily that everything stated in the prologue is technically precise as some inerrantists would lead you to believe.

Almost everything is clarified if you consider that the early believers that Yeshua was the Mashiach were almost all Jewish: they understood the Shema, the Hebrew word Elohim could refer to "G-d" or angelic beings or humans such as "judges". Although I don't agree with everything in the following link, it's a link that I refer others to for a better understanding of how some Jewish believers ( that Yeshua is the Messiah ) make sense of Jn 1:1 and Yeshua's "divinity":

http://www.betemunah.org/conundrum.html

The author ( Greg Killian ) is a nontrinitarian and doesn't believe Yeshua is Hashem and does not believe Yeshua was born of a virgin. He makes a subtle distinction between "Deity" and "divinity". His is clearly a minority position of Messianic believers, but not without reason.

Jn 1:18 also states that "No one has seen G-d at any time, but the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father - he has explained Him." ( close to the NASB rendering ).

There are other texts that strongly indicate that Yeshua is "YHWH in the flesh" or "YHWH manifested". There is a strong caveat that one should at least believe something like: that the Father is in the Son and that the Son is in the Father. Is it true that the only means by which Hashem is manifested to humanity is through "the Word"? This, I don't know for certain, but it seems to be the case; then, that makes reading some passages of the Torah quite illuminating!

A careful reading of the Greek ( within the context of the Jewish recipients ) should clarify that "the Word" was sent by Hashem, "the Word" became "flesh" in the human being Yeshua and that Hashem created the "world" through "the Word". "The Word" was not "created" since "all things" were "created" through "the Word"; besides, Jn 17:5 seems clear that "the Word" existed before the "world began."

As for the Trinity teaching and where it came from? It's hard to know for certain and some Messianic believers simply don't believe in that doctrine even if they believe that Yeshua is "G-d". For some reason, the vast majority of NT manuscripts that exist now are in Greek ( Could it be somewhat related to Constantine's use of power to impose his form of "Christianity" on his empire? Maybe it's not a coincidence that Constantinople was inhabited by Greeks. ) whereas it's likely that Yeshua and his disciples spoke Aramaic and/or Hebrew. If you ask Andrew Gabriel Roth, author of the AENT, his answer would be there's another codex in Aramaic that indicates that it's conceivable that 22 of the 27 NT canonical books were originally written in Aramaic and if anyone is really seeking the truth, there are many verses in the NT Greek that could only make sense if the original language ( not necessarily written, but at least spoken ) was either Aramaic or Hebrew ( if anyone must know, I can point some out ). IMHO, it was likely a blend of reasons that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated: there were some that wanted to fight off various dangerous heretical ideas concerning the nature of Yeshua the Mashiach, there were others that simply wanted a unification of ideas or "church practice" and there were others that wanted to consolidate power. Some argue that a great concession was allowing more pagan or Hellenistic ideas to creep into the "Church" and so it was inevitable that antisemitism and false doctrines or ideas would proliferate. Unfortunately, this is the present state of affairs in "Christianity".


For those that are interested, there's also a Wikipedia article on Jn 1:1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

ALTER2EGO -to- SPLENDOUR:
Go ahead and follow human philosophies spouted by Metzger regarding the "creeds" that the Roman Catholics dreamed up and see how far it will get you in terms of religious truth.

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;" (Colossians 2:8)



Likewise, be prepared for philosophies and traditions of men to negatively impact your relationship with Jehovah God who will not tolerate falsehood.

"{6} he must not honor his father at all. And so you have made the word of god invalid because of your tradition. {7} You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, {8} ‘This people honor me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. {9} It is IN VAIN that they keep worshipping me, because they teach COMMANDS OF MEN as doctrines.’" (Matthew 15:6-9)



GO AHEAD, I SAY.

ALTER2EGO -to- SPLENDOUR:

That's what I've been posting on this forum everytime I quote Colossians 1:15. That single verse of scripture indicates the pre-human Jesus was created before he came to earth as a human. Look at the language at the verse of scripture again. This time, do your best to take off your blinders.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of ALL CREATION;.." (Colossians 1:15)

Notice that the word "firstborn" compares Jesus with the ALL creation—indicating Jesus was created prior to every other person (angels and humans) or thing. He would not be compared to everyone and everything else that was created and get assigned the description "firstborn of ALL CREATION" if he himself had not been created. The other angelic sons of Jehovah are created beings. The pre-human Jesus Christ is being compared to them in Colossians 1:15 where it clearly states he is "firstborn of ALL creation."

You do realize quoting the Bible has no merit to 95% of us?

Am I the only one who thinks its sad that people who are intelligent enough to write these detailed posts are spending time on this nonsense? When there are cancers yet to be cured and mouths unfed. Probably not. In fact among those who agree with me is possibly God himself.

I'm glad that the challenge of curing cancer is in other hands tbh.

Your statement could be extended to publishing material concerning poker; some that are religious, might consider it not simply sad, but morally wrong. As humans, if we are only to illuminate those that are curing diseases and helping meet the needs of society, then we are aren't letting the light of Hashem reach all of humanity.

Hashem isn't merely concerned with physical needs, but spiritual needs.

This nonsense(by alter) is maligned as Christian by many, and tarnishes Christians as a whole. Also, a false teacher can lead many astray. I agree it's not looking to be terribly productive in this case, but there is always reason to refute false teaching. Chief among them, because I want good for alter2ego even if he is a blasphemer and heretic.

ALTER2EGO -to- FLAGG LIVES:

The Bible is being quoted for the benefit of fellow Christians who are concerned about what Jehovah says in his inspired Word. This discussion is among people who are interested in exposing false religious doctrines from actual Bible teachings in order to please God. The 95% that view the Bible as having no merit don't concern me. They already made their choice. Non-belief is a choice. You and the other 95% made your choice. I made mine.

Consider the purpose that Shaul wrote this epistle to the congregation at Colosse: it was to refute heresy. Ironically, you are taking Col 1:15 out of context to lower the status of the Supreme Christ by making the pre-existing Mashiach a created being! Shaul, on the other hand, is trying to explain to the congregants at Colosse the supremacy of Christ in plain language. Colossians 1:15 does not explicitly state that Yeshua was created. If anything, the other NT writings support that the "world" was created through "the Word" and Jn 1:3 is clear on the matter: "all things came to be through (the Word)". In context, simply look at the following verses:

Col 1:16-20 (NASB)
==============

¹⁶ For ^[x] by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. ¹⁷ He ^[y] is before all things, and in Him all things ^[z]hold together. ¹⁸ He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. ¹⁹ For ^[aa]it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the ^[ab]fullness to dwell in Him, ²⁰ and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in ^[ac]heaven.


Footnotes:

x. Colossians 1:16 Or in
y. Colossians 1:17 Or has existed prior to
z. Colossians 1:17 Or endure
aa. Colossians 1:19 Or all the fullness was pleased to dwell
ab. Colossians 1:19 I.e. fullness of deity
ac. Colossians 1:20 Lit the heavens

=======

In context, verse 16 states quite clearly "by Him, all things were created". The "Him" in context, can only refer to Yeshua.

To the Jewish reader, the "firstborn" did not necessitate being "born first", but rather having the birthright or being the heir, so the Greek word "πρωτότοκος" in its usage here in Col 1:15 should not imply that Yeshua was "born" but rather that he had the "right of the firstborn" ( or as Nicodemus might ask "How is this possible?" After all, how can Yeshua be "born" if the physical cosmos did not yet exist? ). In context of the passage, Yeshua is the heir of all that exists.

Technically, if one wants to be precise, Yeshua HaMashiach did not really "exist as Yeshua" until his parents gave him that name, so it's better to use "the Word" and consider that Yeshua is the "Incarnate Logos" or "Incarnate Word". OTOH, some Messianic believers think that Yeshua HaMashiach did really exist in the mind of Hashem even before the world began.

The use of "Jehovah" is an erroneous transliteration of the Tetragrammaton and surprisingly first came up as far as the history of translation has shown in Tyndale's use of the vowel points for Adonai ( = Hebrew "lord" ) ( circa 1530 ). It may be better to use Hashem or HaShem rather than "YHWH" ( or "YHVH" ) so as to not offend some Jews.

The "λόγος" was not created; rather, by Him or through Him, all things were created.