It amazes me how so many people can miss a simple point. So far in this thread, only gumby and freeman have understood even a semblance of what BeDuhn was quoted as saying. From plmkrzy's original post, BeDuhn said:
"It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available"
Note that this does not say, "It is the best English translation available." It says it is the best Interlinear New Testament available. It appears that most posters on this thread do not know the difference between an interlinear and a translation.
Now, I happen to have in my possession about half a dozen different interlinear new testaments, and in terms of ease of use, and accuracy of translation of the interlinear text, I as a practiced amateur agree with BeDuhn. Whenever I have to use an interlinear, I most often use The Kingdom Interlinear. Why? Because it's printed in a particularly easy to read format and the basic translations of the words are generally very good. Note what I said: generally, not always. Over the past dozen years I've compared hundreds of words in the KIT with those in various other interlinears, and with various lexicons, and have found problems only in a tiny number of areas -- areas which the Watchtower itself freely acknowledges are in dispute. The only interlinear I possess that comes close in terms of ease of use is Jay Green's The Interlinear Hebrew Greek English Bible, but because its NT portion is based on the outdated Textus Receptus rather than a modern Greek edition such as Nestle-Aland, or even the now-outdated Westcott & Hort text, it is only marginally useful. It may be that some other interlinears are available that are better than KIT, but I have not done any surveys to see. Perhaps I should.
Now, have I defended anything about New World Translation in the above remarks? Not at all. I have only said things concerning the interlinear part of KIT -- nothing about the NWT text that appears in the right-hand margin. And that is exactly what Jason BeDuhn did. So those of you who completely missed the point are spinning your wheels by whacking away at the NWT itself.
As for the NWT itself, I think that it has a lot of good points and a lot of bad ones. Fred Franz was the main translator, of course, and the rest of the NWT Committee did little more than offer suggestions on polishing the English (somewhat of a joke, given the wooden style), and did most of the busy work such as cross-referencing. As someone pointed out, the KIT is something of a problem in certain cases for JWs, since it shows how old Freddie contorted the text on occasion to correspond with pre-existing Watchtower doctrine. Nevertheless, these cases are relatively rare. In the large majority of cases where texts are disputed, they are disputed more on doctrinal grounds than textual grounds. In other words, the majority of criticisms in doctrinally disputed areas are sectarian rather than substantive in nature.
One point of my post is that, while we ex-JWs have plenty of legitimate beefs with the Watchtower Society, it's a good idea to avoid foolish criticisms, but rather, to attack real problems. God knows there are more than enough real problems to keep us busy.