Nowhere said:
: and I want to add, to you who favor the NWT translation.
Not sure who you think favors the NWT.
: AlanF, you said that the NWT is good because of the very litteral rendering.
No, I did not. This is what I said:
New World Translation: The most literal that I regularly use. Sometimes wooden and sometimes overly literal to the point of unintelligibility. Extremely accurate word for word except when JW theology dictates an exception.
I think that a number of very literal translations are useful also. I like the NASB for this reason. It's just that I'm used to the NWT, and most important for my own personal use, I find it "accurate word for word except when JW theology dictates an exception."
: But when can you trust the rendering?
Most of the time, I think, "except when JW theology dictates an exception."
: My experience is that you have to dubble-check every word to see if the translation has used JW-rendering or not.
Such an exaggerator you are! My experience is that those with your experience have only used the NWT in areas where JW theology dictates an exception as defined by their personal religious views. And of course, most probably in the areas of traditional doctrinal dispute, especially concerning passages bearing on the Trinity. But many of these are not matters of being accurate to the text or context, but opinions about JW theology versus other Christian theologies, and how such overall opinions should influence the translation of texts that have several potential meanings.
: Why not use an interlinear translation when you want to be litteral? even the NWT interlinear is good.
Good point. I do that all the time with several interlinears. That's why I have an opinion about the accuracy of the NWT.
AlanF