First born means the first child a husband and wife have together or if that person has remarried, then their first child with the other woman would be their first born.

If you do not have a bible of your own I suggest using www.biblegateway.com to look up the scriptures cited. Firstborn has more than one meaning. The firstborn is primarily the oldest son of a father (rather than the firstborn of the mother), the beginning of the father's generative power (De 21:17); also, the initial male offspring of animals, at times designated as “firstlings.”--Ge 4:4. From earliest times the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was the one who succeeded to the headship of the household. He inherited a double portion of the father's property. (De 21:17) Reuben was seated by Joseph at a meal according to his right as firstborn. (Ge 43:33) But the Bible does not always honor the firstborn by listing sons according to birth. The first place is often given to the most prominent or faithful of the sons rather than to the firstborn.--Ge 6:10; 1Ch 1:28 Worth mentioning is that firstborn sons among the Israelites were those in line to become the heads of the various households, they represented the entire nation. Jehovah, in fact, referred to the whole nation as his "firstborn," it being his firstborn nation because of the Abrahamic covenant. (Ex 4:22) In view of his having preserved their lives, Jehovah commanded that "every male firstborn that opens each womb among the sons of Israel, among men and beasts," be sanctified to him. (Ex 13:2) Thus, the firstborn sons were devoted to God. Does God refer to David as firstborn? In Psalm 89 Jehovah refers to "David my servant" and reviews the covenant for the kingdom that was made with him. In the midst of this is the statement: "I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth." (Ps 89:20, 27) The KJV reads: "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." If you notice, God did not say David was firstborn but said he would 'place' or 'make' "David my servant" such. David was not a firstborn son. (1Ch 2:13-15) So it seems that Jehovah was referring prophetically to the one foreshadowed by David, God's own "firstborn" Son in heaven upon whom He confers kingship more exalted than that of any human ruler.--Compare Eze 34:23, 24, where Messiah is spoken of as a shepherd and as "my servant David." Also noteworthy is David means "Beloved" and corresponds well with the declaration that Jehovah made from heaven at the time that Jesus was baptized in water and at the time of his being transfigured on a high mountain: "This is my Son, the beloved." (Matthew 3:13-17; 17:1-5) Jesus likened all mankind to sheep when he said: "I am the fine shepherd, . . . and I surrender my soul in behalf of the sheep."--John 10:14, 15. Jesus Christ is shown to be "the firstborn of all creation" as well as "the firstborn from the dead"--not merely most distinguished in relation to those created or those resurrected but the first one actually created and the first raised from the dead to endless life. (Col 1:15, 18; Re 1:5; 3:14) On earth he was the firstborn child of Mary and was presented at the temple in accordance with Jehovah's law. (Lu 2:7, 22, 23) The apostle Paul speaks of the followers of Jesus Christ who have been enrolled in the heavens as "the congregation of the firstborn," the first ones accepted by God as sons on the basis of their faith in Jesus' sacrifice and the first of Christ's followers to be resurrected with no need to die again.--Heb 12:23. The Almighty God I worship has never died, but his son has.

It can have a range of meanings depending on context. 1) It can mean first created in the sense of a first born child, 2) It can mean pre-eminent, and superior to. In the Colossians passage (1:15-16) where Jesus is called the firstborn of all creation, the context tells me that firstborn is used with the second meaning in mind. i.e Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" ,Jesus is the pre-eminent one of all creation. Why? "For by him all things were created" (ESV)

firstborn means the first one born. The Firstborn does have preeminence but the word firstborn does NOT mean "preeminence". Jesus being the firstborn OF creation would make him a part of creation. This is why Jesus is the SON and the Father is the Father. A Father sires a child. Jesus is the Father's literal firstborn and through him the Father made everything - Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6.

When referring to 'Jesus', the Bible is clear when stating he is the first living creation from God. Proverbs 8 is speaking of Jesus' pre-existence, and refers to him at vs 22,23 as being 'created'. Biblegateway Bibles, 'Contemp. Eng'; ESV; NIRV; NLV. Col. 1:15 refers to Jesus as the 'firstborn' of all creation! Rev 3:14, Jesus refers to himself as "the beginning of the creation by God"! Although he is not God Almighty...he is a 'mighty' god, who became human to restore what Adam lost!!

Since I cannot post a longer 'comment' I will continue from Answer 3. Vicegrip said in the comments that Prov.8 is not refering to Jesus ...plus I said his mouth was foul. He said, "And if you're going to say there was a time when God didn't have wisdom, then He wouldn't have been Almighty God." You put words in my mouth suggesting I say God has no wisdom...that is foul! Nevertheless, your statement reveals that you believe vs 22,23 are referring to 'Gods' wisdom. This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract, as you suggest! The "Wisdom" that is depicted here was "created" or "produced" (Hebrew, qa·nah´) as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. The Scriptures show that Jehovah God himself has 'always' existed, therefore his wisdom has 'always' existed; it never was 'created' or produced; it was not "brought forth as with labor pains." This "Wisdom" must be a personification picturing 'someone', who was created "as the beginning of God’s way." Jesus himself reveals 'he' was Gods first creation... at Rev.3:14. In his prehuman existence he worked with Jehovah in creating all other things. John 1:3 says "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." Provers 8: 22+ is conclusive that this is referring to Jesus, and he did indeed have a beginning! Because Jesus said he existed before Abraham he was accused of claiming to be God. But it was not Jesus that said this. Because they were spreading this Satanic lie, Jesus clearly stated at John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I am." Again showing Jesus is not equal as the Satanic Trinity suggests.

The bible was not written in English. In fact, by the time it was translated into English it went through multiple other languages. Each time there is a translation, there can be a subtle change in meaning and interpretation. I know, god supported each translation. But it is impossible to make literal translations of some ideas...so there has to be some liberty taken with the translation and the interpretation of the translation. What we now read, in English, as the bible, is a document that truly lends itself to multiple interpretations. Just look at how many different christian religions claim to have the "true word", the correct interpretation. Are all of them right? Or just one? Your interpretation or mine?

ViceGrip...this site has rejected this comment at least a dozen times. Then it let me post the little one, and is back to keeping me hanging. This is the response to your "Sorry to keep you waiting" comment in Q3. Theocracy is a 'term' used to describe a form of government ruled by God [ Isaiah 9:6]. The word Trinity, however, describes, what you claim to be a 'doctrine'. Not just any doctrine, the most monumental of all doctrines. One that, if not believed, results in unimaginable suffering for all eternity! When such a paramount 'doctrine' is said to originate from God, it is more than curious that he forgot to mention it...one time. When the people cried out to Jehovah for a physical King they could see, this Earthly king represented God, did he not? Why did God only set 'one' throne, and not three? Why confuse the issue and establish 'one' person to represent his Godhead? The pieces don't fit!! This makes it very confusing... and the scriptures are clear that God would not present such a doctrine that is rife with confusion! [1 Cor.14:33] Also, if Jesus is God Almighty and equal to the Father...why does Jesus refer to him as 'his' God? How can God almighty have a God?[John 20:17]

Why do you suppose that there are so many statements made by Jesus AND the Father that say "I did" or "I will" or "I am"? There are no other logical explanations for this, ether they are one (as Jesus says) or the Bible contradicts it's self and can't be trusted. The problem most people have (including myself, most of the time) when reading the Bible, we read something like "first begotten" and in our day this statement would mean the first born child (although I don't think begotten is even used in our daily communications any more) same with "first born" (as in creation). But if we are to understand the Bible we need to understand the speech of the day, a statement made back then doesn't have the same meaning as it does today. "Begotten" the way it's used in Jesus case means unique and beloved, not born, just like one word in greek and mean a multitude of different things (the word Stauros comes to mind here) and there are ways to tell if the translator "wants" the truth. "First born of all creation" the words "First born" are used else were in the Bible, we can see that from at least one of these that it means "the one ultimately with all the rights of the father". This is the way it is meant about Jesus.

It refers to position in a family structure in biblical times. They would have understood it differently than we do now. It did not mean the first "physically born" son. It referred to his position as the chief heir to the family position of authority and inheritance. It was widely understood this way back then and that is why these words were used in this particular form. Jesus is in just that position.

It means..firstborn of CREATION...the very first thing his Father [ Jehovah] EVER created. This is totally separate from Jesus being the firstborn of Mary. Because when he was born as a man, CREATION had already happened...

From brochure on the Trinity: Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar‧khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar‧khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”) http://bible.cc/luke/13-2.htm http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke21:29;phil2:21;&version=9;78;46;51;45; http://bible.cc/luke/21-29.htm