Substituting a commutative relation ("in union with") to a non-commutative ("in") makes the whole statement a tautology (which it is not originally).
I think you didn't get my point about the translation of en...What I said is it does not work in reciprocal propositions, for it is a naturally commutative formula.
"I am in union with you" already implies "you are in union with me". The two sentences together form a useless repetition.
"I am in you" does not logically imply "you are in me". The two sentences together create a new meaning.
Darn it, Narkissos. I don't mind that you know Hebrew and Greek but when you know English better than I do I really feel inferior. I did misunderstand your point and appreciate your clarification. I am not convinced it is trinity-connected as the same grammatical form is also used of Jesus and the disciples (John 14:20), but agree the subtlety of the reciprocal proposition is missing in the NWT.
But what would the translation look like if all "added words" were really put into brackets, and reciprocally "missing words", and other differences, indicated?
Besides "additions" and "substractions", you would have to explain that the difference of capital and lower case for "God" is "added" to the text, and that the phrase "came into existence" actually translates one single verb.
The NWT reader is alerted to the fact that there is no article before "beginning" (wtf?), and so thinks s/he is reading a very trustworthy version, but s/he is not told that the indefinite article "a" is similarly "added", or that there is no difference between "God" and "god" in the original text. How convenient...
I am surprised at what you say here, not because it is wrong, but because you know how impractical it would be if "all 'added words' were really put into brackets, and reciprocally 'missing words', and other differences, indicated" in any translation. Although many translations (including the KJV) do indicate some instances where there have been added words, there are no translations which meet the standards you propose as it would be more confusing than helpful.
IOW, any translation is necessarily different from the text.
Which is my point.
But a honest Bible edition will provide the alternative translations, regardless of the theological consequences, in the footnotes.
Does that mean, then, that all translations without footnotes are dishonest ? The fact is that the critical apparatus of the NWT is more comprehensive than the majority of Bibles available, and that most of the footnotes (except those referring to the use of 'Jehovah') have little theological consequence but are helpful in understanding the flavour of what was written. For example, there are numerous verses where the footnotes indicate the reading of the LXX, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac as well as the Masoretic text when they don't concur.
In your criticism of the NWT it seems you are expecting a standard that is not met by any translation, and is unlikely to be attained in the future.
ellderwho, Valis...thanks for your posts...I will reply later.