Will some explain to me why this question was rated down. I am looking for answer to my question just like everybody else on answerbag.

From my understanding, these verses are showing their unity just as I John 5:7 (In the KJV. most new versions, such as the NIV and the NWT, remove this verse) does. Colossians explains to us the preiminnance and Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I hope that this is helpful. -In the Master's service. Thank you and God bless you!

Psalm 90:2 seems to point to Gods origin as being unidentifiable, no beginning. Acts 7:55 shows Christ at God's right hand, two entities next to or near each other, not the same person as I can't be literally be beside myself. Right hand of God showing Christ in Gods favored position, as his firstborn of creation. Colossians 1:15 Describes Christ as being in the image of God, a perfect reflection of his father, as my son is a reflection of me, a spitting image so they say, but will never be me. He is described as the firstborn of all creation... therefore having a beginning, whereas Psalms 90:2 identifies God as having no beginning. Thus again showing they are not one and the same.

They say that you want to use them to justify your belief in the trinity :) Seriously though, I'm sure you'll agree that NO ONE in the OT used the word trinity or believed in it, and this includes heavy weights like Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. The central character of the NT, Jesus, the “son of man” as he almost always called himself, NEVER used it or taught it either. He used phrases like “your God and my God” and “The Lord OUR God is ONE Lord”, he never said “God is made up of three persons”. The Last Testament or, to give it its formal name, the Holy Qur’an (HQ) is the only scripture that mentions trinity. It says in HQ 4:171 “O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a MESSENGER of God, and His WORD which He conveyed unto Mary, and a SPIRIT from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and SAY NOT "TRINITY". Cease! (it is) better for you! God is only ONE God. Far is it removed from His TRANSCENDENT MAJESTY that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender.” Translated by Mr Pickthall from the original text of the Holy Qur’an.

(Psalm 90:2) Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. (Acts 7:55) But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, (Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; These are directily from the new world translation. Compare them with any bible you have. You will find that they wer translated into the english we use today. not the old english of the 14 Century. simply makes it easer to understand

I would draw your attention to the parallels between Psalm 90:2 and John 8:58. Here is a link to the full article: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christology.htm And here is an excerpt. In this article, the author first covers the relevant passage in John, and then shows how its structure is very similar to the Psalms 90:2, the passage that you have asked about. In order to establish the case that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, we must see in what matter does Jesus use the phrase. Does he use it to imply timeless existence and sovereignty? Or did he use it to simply identify himself as the person whom others were seeking much like the blind man of John 9:9 did when asked if he were the one healed by Jesus? Fortunately, we don't have to look far to find the answer to our question since the answer is there in John 8:58. Jesus' usage of the phrase is to contrast Abraham's beginning with his lack of beginning. In others, Jesus was unlike Abraham since the latter was brought into existence whereas Christ always was. This is brought out more clearly in the Greek verbs John uses to contrast Abraham's origins with the timeless existence of Christ, namely genesthai and eimi: "... the aorist genesthai 'came into being,' used of Abraham, is contrasted with the present eimi, which can express duration up to the present, 'I have been <and still am>' as well as the simple present, 'I am.' Jesus claims that his mode of existence transcends time, like God's, and his I am is understood by the Jews as a claim to equality with God..." (J.N. Sanders & B.A. Mastin as cited by Robert M. Bowman Jr., Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus Christ &The Gospel of John [Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, MI, 1995], pp. 111-112 bold emphasis ours) Bowman goes on to say in refutation of Jehovah's Witnesses' misinterpretation of this passage: "He (Jesus) chose the term that would most strongly contrast the created origin in time of Abraham with his own timeless eternality, the present tense verb eimi... Thus, had Jesus wished to say what JWs understand him to have said- that he merely existed for a long time before Abraham- he could have said so by saying, 'Before Abraham came into existence, I was,' using the imperfect tense emen instead of the present tense eimi. (This point was made by Chrysostom and Augustine, and reaffirmed by such Reformers as Calvin, and is also a standard observation found in most exegetical commentaries on John and never, to this author's knowledge, disputed in such works.) Such a statement would have left open the question of whether or not Jesus had always existed, or whether (like the angels) he had existed from the earliest days of the universe's history. Or, had he wished to make it clear that (as JWs believe) he had himself come into existence some time prior to Abraham, he could have said so by stating, 'Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence" (by using the first person aorist egenomen instead of eimi), or perhaps more simply, 'I came into existence before Abraham.' Having said neither of these things, but rather, having chosen terms which went beyond these formulations to draw a contrast between the created and the uncreated, Jesus' words must be interpreted as a claim to eternality." (Ibid., pp. 115-116 bold emphasis ours) Finally, "What is it about this contrast between genesthai and eimi that has led to such a solid consensus throughout the centuries among biblical scholars that the words contrast created origin with uncreated eternal existence? By itself, of course, the word eimi does not connote eternal preexistence. However, placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai, the word eimi (or its related forms), because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb to be, stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of 'coming into being.' It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 eimi connotes eternality, not merely temporal priority." (Ibid., p. 114 bold emphasis ours) "If all Jesus wanted to say was that He existed before Abraham, all He had to do was to use the imperfect tense 'I was.' But this would not have caused a riot and an assassination attempt. It is His use of the present tense and the way He said it that made them riot." (Robert Morey, Trinity, p. 364 bold emphasis ours) Interestingly, we find the same form of verbs used in the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 90:2 where Yahweh's timeless existence is contrasted with the creation of the mountains: "Before (pro) the mountains were brought into existence (genethenai)... from age to age, you are (su ei). Note the similarity in wording to John 8:58. Both use synonymous Greek terms to contrast the creation of one with the timeless existence of the other. Rob Bowman notes: "The word pro, like prin, means 'before,' and some manuscripts of the Septuagint actually have prin instead of pro. The verb introduced by these prepositions in both cases is ginomai: in Psalm 90:2 genethenai is the aorist passive infinitive of ginomai, while in John 8:58 genesthai is the aorist active infinitive. The use of the active voice instead of the passive voice, of course, does not affect the parallel between the two texts in terms of the created-eternal contrast. These aorist infinitive phrases are then set in contrast to a present indicative main clause in each case: in Psalm 90:2 LXX it is su ei, while in John 8:58 it is ego eimi. These two clauses are identical in terms and meaning except for the fact that the former is second person while the latter is first person; and again, this difference does not affect the parallel in question. "Thus the tense mood forms are identical, the syntactical relations between the two verbs in each passage are identical, and the verbs themselves used in each passage are identical. In other words, it is as if John (quoting Jesus' words in Greek) had taken the relevant words from Psalm 90:2 LXX, perhaps substituted prin for pro, replaced 'the mountains' with 'Abraham' and changed su ei from second person to first person and genethenai from passive to active. One could hardly ask for a more exact parallel, unless the passage itself were actually quoted. Since the parallel in question is fundamentally one of tense (since the issue is the significance in relation to time of the present tense of eimi in John 8:58), and since none of the differences between the two texts affect that parallel, it would be safe to conclude that eimi has the same force in John 8:58 that ei has in Psalm 90:2 LXX. In Psalm 90:2, the Septuagint rendering su ei is clearly intended to assert the eternal preexistence of Yahweh in contrast to the created origin of the mountains... To be consistent... John 8:58 just as clearly affirms the eternality of Jesus." (Ibid., pp. 117-118 bold emphasis ours) Other scholars who agree include the following: "... The vast majority of translators see, as do many commentators, that there is a clear differentiation being made here between the derivative existence of Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. Many scholars rightly point out the same contrasting of verbs as seen in the prologue of John as well as the same kind of differentiation found in the Septuagint Greek rendering of Psalm 90:2." (White, Forgotten Trinity, p. 97 bold emphasis ours) "... The tense of the verb eimi is not in question. It is the present indicative tense. A.T. Robertson comments: I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Ps. 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genethenai). See the same use eimi in John 6:20; 9:9; 8:24, 28; 18:6." (Robert Morey, Trinity, p. 364) Finally, Bowman includes the following scholars in support of the connection between Ps. 90:2 and Jn. 8:58: "Once again, it must be understood that the position taken here is not original. A multitude of scholars have recognized the parallel between Psalm 90:2 LXX and John 8:58 and noted its significance as confirming that Jesus' words connote eternality. Among these should be mentioned Barnes, Barrett, Brown, Bultmann, Godet, Hengstenberg, Hoskyns, Lindars, Milligan and Moulton, Plummer, Robertson, Schnackenburg, and Winer. Not one biblical scholar has ever disputed the parallel or denied that it confirmed the traditional interpretation. Unless some important considerations have been overlooked, this exegetical conclusion would seem to be as well established as any could be." (Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses &Jesus, pp.118-119) These preceding factors clearly affirm that Jesus' I AM statement in John 8:58 served to both affirm his timeless existence and identify him with Yahweh, especially in light of the similarities to Psalm 90:2.