The problem that I have when confronted with the NWT and Fred Franz's ability with the original languages of the Bible is not whether Franz knew those languages competently enough to translate them into English, but rather whether he used his ability to enlighten his readers regarding what the sacred text says, or, if, emboldened by a supposed higher calling, he sought to confuse the issue by interpreting the text as written.
I rather suspect that Franz laboured under the misaprehension that he was some sort of spiritual oracle especially chosen by the God of the Bible to impart a deeper, more protracted wisdom than was generally accessible to other mere mortals who felt called to render the Bible text into another tongue. It is this hubris that is so offensive when reading the subtext that is inherent in the NWT. The writer of the NWT presumed to know, not simply what the text says, a knowledge available to any other translator, but what it means. This evidently was a specialized knowledge conveyed to Franz exclusively by this god he worshipped. Herein, according to the WTS, is the true value of their "translation"
The problem here is that a fine line exists between the rigours of translating, and interpreting, the latter falling under the purview of the exegete, not the translator.By rendering these two disciplines indistinguishable within the text of the NWT, its value is diminished, not enhanced.
At the risk of sounding pretentious let me give two simple examples of what I am describing.
1 The little word "EN" -"IN'' in the Greek NT occurs 2701 times in the text. Yet Franz saw fit to "translate" this two-letter word in 82 seperate ways, some with paraphrastic combinations involving some 12 letters. [Jude 1: the word "en" is rendered "in relationship with" ] When confronted with this anomaly, the typical WT response is to quote other renderings such as the 20Th Century NT. But this, and other translations like it are admitted by their translators to be paraphrastic, not literal, whereas the NWT categorically denies submitting to any paraphrase [Foreword KIT pg 10 1969 ed] Presuming that this renders the text more "understandable" is nonsense, since equally it may be said that it renders it distorted.
2 Franz expressed a deep concern on the part of the WTS to see what was described as the "name" of God "restored" to the NT text. Evidently the Almighty God of the Bible was incapable of transmitting His word down through the centuries without it being "corrupted" He required the office of Franz et al to restore what He was not Almighty enough to do.
Hence the existence of the word "jehovah" in the NWT NT text. I would have had a greater respect for Franz if he had expressed his concern in a consistent way, rendering the Tetragammaton in such places as was indicated by the so-called "J" printed documents. That he did not is a sad reflection on the artful deceit of a man consumed by his own presumed divine mandate. By being selective, and refusing to place the Tetragrammaton in such places as 1Cor 12:3 as sanctioned by J 14, Franz left himself open to the ridicule of dishonesty.
There is not a fraction of a doubt that Franz went to great lengths and took a lot of trouble, not to enlighten the readers of his "translation" but to obscure the word of God.He resorted to angular word usage and banalities so that the doctrinal perversions he purveyed may get a hearing, entrapping the unwary. I was one.
It is this dishonesty, this crass overbearing arrogance that should rightfully discourage any endorsement of the NWT and it main architect, Fred Franz.