I guess we should both be referencing which Edition of the NWT we are using, because I have the "New Edition" of 1981, and Philippians DOES NOT have brackets around "other. We could argue all day long whether this was an oversight, or it was orginally intended to be deceptive, but the bottom line is the reader of this version will never have a clue that this word does not exist in the orginal text, and therefore the reader has been misled. A Bible translation that allows for this to happen regardless of intention cannot be trusted and considered reliable, especially one in which the biased reason why this word was inserted was again to fit the man made theology that "Jehovah" was used in the NT.
You said "it would seem that by "context" you mean your understanding of scripture. But if you believe that "firstborn of all creation" means "the one who is born first (of all creation)" then the context certainly implies "other" when it refers to the rest of creation."
I believe based on what the Bible says as a whole, in other words, the Bible must in general itself be taken in context. You have said in a previous post that what you are defending you believe to be true, rather than defending the organization itself. Consider this: John 1:3 KJV says speaking of Jesus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But if we read Isaiah 44:24 KJV: "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" So the Bible is in absolute contradiction here if Jesus was created by God and is the firstborn of creation in the literal sense as you believe, because if this was the actual intentional meaning of the author in Colossians, then Jesus would have been with God as a separate being when everything else was created! The bottom line is the only way anyone objectively can truly reconcile harmony in these Scriptures regardless of what one believes is by acknowledging that Jesus has deity.
Now taking all of this in consideration, ; 1 John 5:20 makes complete sense in referencing Jesus as the true God, which reads more accurately in the KJV;"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Clearly taken in context, the previous verses are pointing out that eternal life comes through faith in Jesus, and that we are one with God and one with Jesus, who is also referred to as "he that is true" in Revelation 3:7. Now, you bring up John 17:3. Nowhere there does it say that Jesus is not the only true God. Jehovah's Witnesses use faulty inductive logic to mistakenly presume that Jesus is excluded from God here. This is read into the verse without warrant, again simply to match JW theology. When taking the entire Bible in context with the various Scriptures I've mentioned in this post, it is easy to see here that the contrast of "only true God" in John 17:3 is against idols and false Gods, which falls in harmony with 1 John 5:21 guarding against idols.
As for John 20:28, I am pleased to see that you have signs of a somewhat level head on your shoulders, for acknowledging the difficulty of reconciling your belief system with such a clear contradiction to it. You say however: "Although Jesus didn't rebuke him I don't think that was the time or place for it". You've got to be kidding me? The entire disciples are witnessing this exchange, and you expect us to believe that such a blasphemy as this (if Jesus was merely a separate being) would go unrebuked? I'm sorry, Earnest, but your subjectivity is blatantly obvious.On the contrary, what a more appropriate time to settle the matter once and for all if Thomas was wrong!! You also say "An implied rebuke was given by the writer of the account who concluded that "these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God". I am sure Thomas got the message. Did you?" How in the world do you get a rebuke out of that? Your logic is ridiculous. It is obvious that you are grasping at straws, again especially in light of the entire Biblical context which makes your comment nonsensical.