MOG....
Look at: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/home.htm there you will some answers .... about the NWT and differences when comparing it to other translations...
But if you download the watchtower library 2007 and install it you can find all answers that you want/need .... (normally that is only for JW that are baptized only...) in the forum you surely can find...
Ex 3:14 :....
***
cl chap.1 pp.9-11"Look! This Is Our God"***The
Meaning of God’s Name7
Jehovah chose his own name, one rich in meaning. "Jehovah" literally means "He Causes to Become." True, he brought all things into existence. That in itself is an awe-inspiring thought. But is that the point of God’s name? Moses evidently wanted to learn more. You see, the divine name was not new. People had been using it for centuries. Really, in asking God’s name, Moses was asking about thepersonrepresentedbythename. In effect, he was saying: ‘What can I tell your people Israel about you that will build their faith in you, that will convince them that you really will deliver them?’
8
In response Jehovah explained the meaning of his name. He said to Moses: "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." (Exodus 3:14) Many Bible translations here read: "I am that I am." But the careful rendering in the NewWorldTranslation shows that God was not merely affirming his own existence. Rather, he was teaching Moses—and by extension all of us—what that name implies. Jehovah would "prove to be," or cause himself to become, whatever was needed in order to fulfill his promises. J. B. Rotherham’s translation pointedly renders this verse: "I Will Become whatsoever I please." One authority on Biblical Hebrew explains the phrase this way: "Whatever the situation or need . . . , God will ‘become’ the solution to that need."9
What did that mean to the Israelites? No matter what obstacle loomed before them, no matter how difficult the predicament in which they might find themselves, Jehovah would become whatever was needed in order to deliver them from slavery and bring them into the Promised Land. Surely that name inspired confidence in God. It can do the same for us today. (Psalm 9:10) Why?10
To illustrate: Parents know how versatile and adaptable they must be in caring for their children. In the course of a single day, a parent may be called upon to act as a nurse, a cook, a teacher, a disciplinarian, a judge, and much more. Many feel overwhelmed by the wide range of roles they are expected to fill. They remark upon the absolute faith put in them by their little ones, who never doubt that Daddy or Mommy can make the hurt better, settle all disputes, fix any broken toy, and answer whatever question pops into their endlessly inquisitive minds. Some parents are humbled and occasionally frustrated by their own limitations. They feel woefully inadequate to fill many of these roles.11 Jehovah too is a loving parent. Yet, within the framework of his own perfect standards, there is nothing he cannot become in order to care for his earthly children in the best possible way. So his name, Jehovah, invites us to think of him as the best Father imaginable. (James 1:17) Moses and all other faithful Israelites soon learned that Jehovah is true to his name. They watched in awe as he caused himself to become an unbeatable Military Commander, the Master of all natural elements, a peerless Lawgiver, Judge, Architect, Provider of food and water, Preserver of clothing and footgear—and more.
12 So God has made his personal name known, has explained its meaning, and has even demonstrated that the meaning is true. Unquestionably, God wants us to know him. How do we respond? Moses wanted to know God. That intense desire shaped Moses’ life course and led him to draw very close to his heavenly Father. (Numbers 12:6-8; Hebrews 11:27) Sadly, few of Moses’ contemporaries had the same desire. When Moses mentioned Jehovah by name to Pharaoh, that haughty Egyptian monarch retorted: "Who is Jehovah?" (Exodus 5:2) Pharaoh did not want to learn more about Jehovah. Rather, he cynically dismissed the God of Israel as being unimportant or irrelevant. That outlook is all too common today. It blinds people to one of the most important of all truths—Jehovah is the Sovereign Lord.
Ez 43:3 .... it looks that in the handwritten copies sometimes there are "variations" or little different used words ... so we do not need always worrie about all diffent (little) possibilities/meanings .... but a better expanation follows next:
***w73 6/1 pp.350-351 Questions From Readers***
Does not John2:19 indicate that Jesus would resurrect himself?—U.S.A.
As evident from the context, John 2:19 pertains to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. We read: "Jesus said to them: ‘Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ Therefore the Jews said: ‘This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said:"—John 2:19-22.
It should be noted that, in telling about the fulfillment of Jesus’ statement, the Bible does not say ‘he raised himself up from the dead,’ but "he was raised up from the dead." Other scriptures clearly show that God was the One who resurrected his Son. The apostle Peter told Cornelius and his relatives and close friends: "God raised this One up on the third day." (Acts 10:40) Hebrews 13:20 speaks of God as the One "who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an everlasting covenant, our Lord Jesus." And, in his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul wrote: "If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in you." (Rom. 8:11) Accordingly, Jesus Christ simply could not have meant that he would raise himself up from the dead.
Jesus, however, did know that he was going to die and be resurrected. On another occasion he told unbelieving scribes and Pharisees: "A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matt. 12:39, 40) Having this advance knowledge about his death and resurrection, Jesus, in a predictive sense, could speak of ‘raising up the temple of his body.’ Since he foretold it, it was just as if he was going to do it. This might be illustrated with Ezekiel 43:3, where the prophet Ezekiel states: "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] to ruin," that is, by foretelling its destruction. Ezekiel as an exile in Babylon had no part in actually destroying Jerusalem; that was done by the Babylonians. But his prophecy, being divinely inspired, made it as good as done. (Compare also Jeremiah 1:10.) Similarly, Jehovah God resurrected his Son, but Jesus could speak of doing so in a prophetic sense.
Moreover, God’s will, charge or command respecting his Son was that he die and be restored to life. Jesus willingly surrendered his life in harmony with his Father’s purpose. Jesus could therefore raise up the temple of his body in the sense that he had the authority to receive life again.
On the third day God commanded Jesus to rise from the dead, and he did so by accepting or receiving life at his Father’s hand, by God’s authority. Along with life as a spirit Son, he received the right to perfect human life that, by dying in full innocence, he had not forfeited. This merit of his human sacrifice he thereafter presented to his Father in heaven. (Heb. 9:11-14, 24-28) This is in agreement with Jesus’ words at John 10:17, 18: "The Father loves me because I lay down my life, to receive it back again. No one has robbed me of it; I am laying it down of my own free will. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back again; this charge I have received from my Father."—NewEnglishBible.
About john 1:1
***tip.28 What About Trinity "ProofTexts"?*** ViolatingaRule?
SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os´), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the·os´] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."
But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.
Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.
Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell’s questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God’s Word.