I have a New English, NIV and King James for the soaring, traditional language. Both my New English and NIV have numerous footnotes indicating alternative translations. It is not a black and white field. When the NWT contains such footnotes, it might be more credible rather than a joke.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
The 'Classical Greek vs Koine Greek' thing. Isn't that how the NWT first mucked up the whole stake/cross ;stauros; thing to begin with?
Stauros means mearly an upright stake or pale in Classical Greek. Reasoning from the scriptures WTS NY 1985, 89
Classical Greek had not been spoken for centuries before Christ's birth.
Stauros in Koine Greek means an upright stake with a cross-beam above it,  two intersecting beams of equal length, or  a vertical, pointed stake [Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament- Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1971- 7;572]
Although I do not know whether this information is useful for you, I would post a link here anyway for you.
This is a collection of links on my website.
Well, I'm sure that Jesus used the Divine Name (YHWH).
But, of course, as Jews, Jesus and his disciples seem to have pronounced as "Adonai" (Kyrios), IMO.
That is called so-called "Qere perpetuum."
Ευχαριστω σοι περι της διδαχης - It's unfortunate (For JW's) that Franz did not have more formal education, but really the NWT should stand or fall on its on merit or lack of merit. Men with more education have done worse.
Agreed TD, the NWT should be judged for what it is, claims as to quality scholarship backing it can be refuted as a seperate issue.
Where it differs from most modern translations is, as has been shown, that there seems to be a deliberate dishonesty in rendering certain verses.
Other translations often reflect the theology of the translators, this is inevitable, but blatant dishonesty is a difficult charge to level at them when instances of their rendering verses that oppose their views in a clear and honest manner are many.
The same cannot be said for the NWT, the only verses they let stand that are theologically difficult for them are ones that it would be totally outrageous to alter.
I'll say one thing for Freddie Franz, he was very clever, if devious, in his renderings, most are difficult to outright condemn, but will be read by any JW as meaning what the WT want them to think, not what the Bible may actually be saying.
Myelaine says: the people who "translated" the NWT also wanted to copyright it...in order to copyright something you have to make it original...
Do you know of ANY bible on the market which isn't copyright protected due to "original" content being added?
I am not going to bother to find the examples, but in reading Ray Franz's books, you will be led to realize how the NWT was written to support JW doctrine, carefully choosing obscure or widely unaccepted variances on definitions to fit their needs.
As far as the New Testament putting in "Jehovah" because the writers were refering to Old Testament verses that contained the Hebrew version of that name, the argument doesn't hold water. There is no evidence that the writers intended to put "Jehovah" or any version of that name into their writings and that it was later removed. If I write in a style that seems to directly reference Quendi or Terry all the time, but I leave out or change some words, then I had some reason to do that. Whether it's supposed to be inspired or not, the writings would have to stand for people to figure out my reasons for changing it unless they could prove that TD or possible-san took my original writings and edited the original words. As awkward as my rendering of Quendi's or Terry's words might be, they would be the words I intended.
Oh, as far as the Hebrew translating goes, I am pretty sure these Bozos just read different versions that used their own Hebrew scholars and blended it into their own work, occasionally doing research on a difficult concept here and there so they could publish that research into the Watchtower (their real Bible) to show how "superior" the NWT really is. That's pretty easy to do when you don't allow varying opinions among the members as to what something should really mean.
I'm also not sure what everyone means by "Version" as opposed to "Translation" It's certainly true that the NWT is a "Version" in some non-English languages inasmuch as it was pretty much translated directly from the English NWT into the target language. But that's not true of the English NWT itself.I can't speak for what anyone else means by "version" as opposed to "translation" but when I said it I meant this: Neither Fred Franz, Nathan Knorr, nor any other member of the NWT Committee translated from an original language text into English. They used Interlinears like the Purple Kingdom Interlinear Bible they used to print, and made up the NWT version of the Bible. They didn't translate from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic into English because they DIDN'T KNOW Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. Knowing some grammatical principals, some vocabulary, and some phrases doesn't qualify one to translate a document from one language into another. Two years of college language courses doesn't equip anyone to translate a book like the Bible. It isn't a translation because nobody translated while creating it. Am I saying there aren't some words, phrases, or even sentences that Franz understood in Greek and chose the English equivalent for based on his limited education? No, there may have been some. But he didn't have the capacity to translate an entire Bible or even entire books. They used other books that were already in English. So it isn't a translation. It just isn't.
If I went to BibleGateway website, looked at all the possible translations and versions I could find, then wrote my own version of the Bible, would my version be a translation? No. English to English is not translating.