Jehovah's Witness have their own version of the Bible that contains several key changes to the English text to support their heretical doctrines called the New World Translation (NWT).

"All things" or "All [other] things" ?

In the first chapter of Colossians Paul glorifies Christ by telling of His creative activity, thus showing that Jesus is God incarnate. This Biblical teaching flies in the face of Watchtower theology which teaches that Christ was Jehovah's first creation - and thus not God. Not able to abide the text in question, the Watchtower has seen fit to add the word "other" into this section not once, but 5 times (1:16-20). They do this without warrant, as their own interlinear (shown below) demonstrates. Is there any good reason to think that this addition is correct? The Watchtower attempt to escape the obvious implication of this passage is one of the plainest examples of eisegesis (reading into the text rather than from the text) that could be offered. To purposefully add a word that changes the meaning of a Biblical text is so obviously wrong it is difficult to imagine how the Watchtower could defend itself, and their explanation shows that they recognize this. In Reasoning from the Scriptures, the JW apologetic handbook, they essentially point to "everything else the Bible says regarding the Son" for their justification. This is a perfect example of circular reasoning. They remove or distort the numerous passages that clearly show Jesus to be God and then point to those passages and say, "See? He's not God."  Amazingly in their booklet entitled Should You Believe in the Trinity?, the Watchtower does not even treat this verse under the section dealing with Trinitarian proof-texts and astonishingly, they even use Col. 3:15 as their own proof text that Jesus is not God! (pg. 26, see pp. 23-28).

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures pg. 896.

"In Him" or "By Means of Him"?

An additional issue is important here. Paul clearly states that all of creation was made in Christ ("en auto" - literally "in Him"). Everywhere else in this passage "en" is translated "in". Yet once again this does not fit with Watchtower theology so they change it when it refers to Christ's role in creation. Suddenly "in" becomes "by means of". Why? Because the proper translation shows that Christ Himself was the creator. Watchtower theology tries to lessen the impact of verses like this by asserting that God merely created "through" or "by means of" Christ. For example, in John 1:3 "panta" is correctly translated. Why? Because the preposition "dia" is used with reference the Christ (which the Watchtower thinks saves their position).

Poor translation and grasp of creation theology notwithstanding, there is still a huge problem for the Watchtower. Yahweh specifically states in Isaiah 44:24 that He was all alone at creation. Thus, if Christ was there at creation then he must be Yahweh. (JW's might quote Job 38 where "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" at God's creation, but this gets them nowhere unless angels are not part of creation. Clearly creation was a process and they were created prior to the earth. This is why the NWT must change Colossians, for it clearly states that Christ created the angels too - thus He was present prior to the first moment of creation and was not part of it).

The Watchtower's Dishonesty and Inconsistency

That "other" does not appear in the original document is without question. The phrase "ektisthe ta panta" literally translates: "it was created the all" or to put it into proper English grammatical format: "all things were created." This not only does justice to the original text, but allows the clear message of Christ's deity to shine forth (Colossians was written as an attempt to stop the very heresy the Watchtower espouses - see vss. 1:15, 17, 18, 19, 2:9, 10, etc. which clearly point to Christ's deity).

The best the Watchtower can do is point to instances in the NT where "panta" is translated into English along with the word "other." They may cite Luke 13:2 which reads, "all other Galileans." It is interesting to note first that in the NWT the word "other" is inserted in this verse without brackets meaning that it is not considered to be an added word, but only one of clarification. This is acceptable here of course, because the word "other" here does not effect the meaning of the sentence at all - its presence or absence only makes the sentence (in English) more or less clear grammatically. This is not the case with Colossians chapter 1. The insertion of the word "other" 5 times in this passage completely changes the meaning of the text.

It is also noteworthy that the first editions of the NWT did not enclose the word "other" in brackets in this Colossians passage. Their dishonesty was pointed out and they were forced to admit their insertion in the 1961 and later editions.

From the original 1950 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
(and this is the second edition, revised May 1, 1951!)

This has not stopped them from continuing the practice though! As can be seen from the words deliberate insertion without brackets in Philippians 2:9 (below) where "other" must be inserted to avoid jesus' name being higher than all.

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures pg. 885.

Another problem for the Watchtower arises from a verse the editors missed while inserting terms needed to make their interpretation look more plausible. In Revelation 5:13 we are told that every ("pan") creature in heaven and on earth bowed to Christ (here pictured as the Lamb of God). If Christ is a creature then how could every creature bow to Him? (notice also that the same glory given to God the Father is given to Christ - although God will share His glory with no other! [Isa. 42:8]).

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures pg. 1090.

Conclusion

It is only the Watchtower's pre-conceived heretical beliefs that force them to dishonestly and inconsistently translate the Greek text into their own particular English version (otherwise why would they need it?). This attempt is not only illegitimate, but embarrassingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense and understanding of how languages work.