Maybe it's just me, but I thought that this verse sounds funny:
Daniel 11:10, NWT: "Now as for his sons, they will excite themselves and actually gather together a crowd of large military forces. And in coming he will certainly come and flood over and pass through. But he will go back, and he will excite himself all the way to his fortress."
Compare this to the RSV:
Daniel 11:10, RSV: "His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."
The Hebrew word in question is garah in the Hitpael which Holliday's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament lists as meaning: 1. stir onesf. up (against), oppose; 2. venture into struggle, plunge into misfortune; 3. abs. get ready. Since meaning "excite oneself" is close to "stir oneself," I can't really say that the translation is wrong. Maybe it's my own mind that reads into "excites oneself" more than it should.
Also strange in this verse is "And in coming he will certainly come." which in Hebrew is uba'bo'. This is a very common use of the verb in Hebrew where two verbs of the same root appear together with one in the infinitive. Waltke and O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax says the following concerning such a construction: "Usually the intensifying infinitive with the perfective conjugation forcefully presents the certainty of a completed event...With the non-perfective conjugation the infinitive absolute often emphasizes that a situation was, or is, or will take place." (p. 584) Thus, a better translation would be "and he will surely come."
The New World Translationdoes understand how this type of construction should be rendered. This can be seen in Genesis 2:17 which says "you will positively die" (mot tamot) and not "dying you will die," though this is given in the footnote as the "literal" reading. Actually, "And in coming he will certainly come" is a double reading where two possible ways of rendering the text have been fused together in the body of the translation. A literal reading, like "dying you will die," for uba'bo' would be "coming he will come". But since the New World Translation knows that the two verbs are functioning together to intensify the verbal idea, then they have inserted "certainly" in the middle of the "literal" reading. In actually it should either read "And coming he will come" (hyperliteral, deserving at the very most a footnote) or "And he will certainly come" (best for the body of the translation).
However, there is a further problem that might explain why the New World Translation inserted "certainly" into the "literal" translation. Jehovah's Witnesses "do not recognize the Hebrew waw as having any conversive power over the verb with which it is ?combined, even when causing that verb to have a certain mark (da•gesh´ for´te) or to change its tone or to shorten ?its form." (see Forward of New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) The first verb, uba' is a perfect waw-consecutive which just about everyone else would understand as being imperfect in aspect. Since the New World Translation rejects this, this verb is must be understood as perfect in aspect in a context that is future. In a case like this, the New World Translation translators have stated: "In Hebrew the perfect verb used to speak of a ?future action or state as if it had already occurred and were past, this to show its future certainty or the obligation of it ?to occur." (Forward, New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) Thus, it is likely that here in Daniel 11:10, the two verbs (which should have been understood as intensifying the verbal idea to show certainty as in Genesis 2:17) was translated literally, then the perfect aspect of the first verb was taken to show "future certainty" so "certainly" was inserted into that translation yielding "And in coming he will certainly come."
Something is obviously wrong in all this for why would the author use two different ways to convey the idea of certainty here? If the above logic is the basis for the translation "And in coming he will certainly come," shouldn't the translation read something like "And he will absolutely, positively come without fail" to convey the excessive emphasis on certainty? I will keep things simple. The perfect waw-consecutive here should be understood as imperfect in aspect in a context that demands a future tense (i.e., and he will come). Further, the use of the two verbs here of the same root with one in the infinitive should be understood as "emphasiz[ing] that [the act of coming]...will take place." Thus, the best translation would be "and he will surely/certainly come"
Anyways, sorry to have gone off on a tangent.