@Earnest
"...when a Bible is not translated from the original languages it is more honest to refer to it as a version rather than a translation."
Again, that is a made-up JW definition of the term "Bible version."
Take for instance the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV is considered the top-notch Bible translation in American English. It used an ecumenical translation committee made up of thirty men and women who are among the top scholars in the entire world taken from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox Church and even a Jewish scholar.
Even though this is clearly a translation taken from the original language texts, it is called the NRSV" New Revised Standard Version. This could not be possible if your explanation matched reality.
Jesus and first century Jews spoke an Aramaic mishmash which contained Hebrew, and the Romans involved in the situation spoke Latin. Greek was the language to write things in, not speak. The Greeks had been conquered a couple of generations before, and it was a classical literary idea to keep Greek the language of written documents (the same idea that kept Latin the official language of the Bible for centuries to follow). Koine Greek was called the "lingua franca," a Latin term identifying it as the official written tongue of Rome.
But again, people did not speak or converse in Greek, not when the actual events of the Bible were occurring. As the "lingua franca" Koine Greek was the standard that everyone could translate from, like Latin today. If you write something that you want understood universally, especially in science, write it in Latin. (But even this is changing, and English is fast replacing Latin as the "lingua franca" in the 21st century).
This means that the Bible was a translation of the real events. And by your made-up definition no Bible translation could really be called a "translation." They would all be "versions." But the word "version" doesn't mean "not from the original language," it merely means "taking a unique or different form from another like it."
I have actually traced the origins of this Watchtower "legend," which is what it is. It seems to have originated in the 1970s, before my time, down in Texas with a popular Spanish elder or overseer who spoke English. This JW man gave a talk at an assembly or likely a convention, before even I was associated. The elder was talking about the difference between the NWT and recent Bible "revisions." What he meant to say was that the NWT was not a "revision" of a previous translation but was made directly from the original language texts. However, due to his poor English (and the fact that JWs did not use word-for-word manuscripts to deliver talks back then) the elder said "version" throughout the talk when he meant to say "revision."
This stuck and carried through Texas and many parts of the United States, but not all. New England and much of the East and West Coast was unaffected, and most Witnesses from these parts never heard of such a thing. There is also no mention of this definition in any Witness literature from the 1800s onwards. It was a mistake from someone who couldn't think of the right word, like a recent Governing Body member who said "Spanx," a brand name for women's shapewear when he should have said "yoga pants."
