Thanks ILoveTTATT2 for your thoughtful responses.
I wonder if you've read my response to Laika on page 9 on the subject of corruption of the text. One response to a corrupt text is to say it can't be inspired. But another possible possible response is to say that God has restored it in his due time. I'm not making a strong argument for this view. What I'm saying is that it's a possible way of looking at the situation for those who maintain both the divine name and the inspiration of the text.
It is not mentioned often enough in the debate, that the earliest NT copies contain nomina sacra KS and so on, not Kyrios in full. Yet most apparently believe Kyrios stood in the original. So in fact, when you think about it, both JWs and their opponents agree that the earliest NT manuscripts don't match the originals when it comes to Kyrios/YHWH/Iao. Where they differ is in whether KS replaced Kyrios or replaced YHWH or Iao. Something definitely happened between the production of the autographs and the earliest extant copies of the NT in relation to scribal treatment of Kyrios and other nomina sacra. The question is what happened and why. I think explantion that the divine name was removed (as it was from the LXX) is the best explanation.
And you are certainly correct about some of the J Bibles equating Jesus and Jehovah. They were produced by Trinitarians so it should be no surprise. That opens a can of worms for the WT because of how they present the issue. It doesn't affect the likelihood of the divine name in the NT. I'm certainly not here to defend every dubious statement the WT has ever made on this subject (including the use of J references).