Perhaps of all the current translations of the Bible, the New World Translation has the worst reputation, partially because it was compiled by inexpert people using lexicons and preexisting exegesis. The result was a Bible that not only is inaccurate, but dispassionate and sterile. There is no beauty in it and appears to have been translated by communist propagandists. "Faithful and wise servant" in Matthew 24, also known as the "wise and loyal servant" and the "servant, faithful and wise" (Young's Literal Translation), "faithful, thoughtful and wise servant" (Amplified Bible) and "true servant and prudent" becomes, in the New World Translation, the acerbic "faithful and discreet slave."
The New World Translation is a stinging slap to virtually every other translation from the King James to even the most modern renditions. It sends shivers up the backs of other Christians. Slave? What's the difference between a servant and a slave? If YOU had to be either one or the other, which would YOU be? Slaves are people who work in salt mines or who build pyramids. On the chart of servile tasks, servants rank a few steps higher. Said one theologian, "I will be a servant of God, but I will never be his slave."
C.S. Lewis, in the Screwtape Letters, points out that God wants Servants who can become His Sons, and John tells us that God's Servants can become "joint heirs" with Christ. This is not possible with slaves! In fact, John tells us that when we see God, we shall be like Him. What sort of "slave" finds such honors?
Peter says, "For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (I Peter 4:6) This is impossible for JW understanding despite its shocking clarity. The gospel is preached to the dead, so they can be judged according to men who are alive and in the flesh, but they, themselves, will be alive as spirits. The NWT has to render it thus: " In fact, for this purpose the good news was declared also to the dead, that they might be judged as to the flesh from the standpoint of men but might live as to the spirit from the standpoint of God." The idea in the JW translation is that the men were dead spiritually "from the standpoint of God." That last part is simply not in the original. There is no "standpoint" mentioned in relation to men or God!
So the translation needs to carry the interpretation. Thus, do the JW leadership require that only one type of translation be used in their weekly meetings? And do they entertain discussions on possible translation errors?