dgp:
I must have touched a raw nerve. You even accuse me of "lying". Why does it bother you so much that some in this forum actually enjoy using the NWT among the many versions available?
Somehow, you are twisting my statements, or taking them out of context. Yes, it is clear to both of us, I think, that other editions of the NWT into other languages were done from the English one. Notice, though, the WTS never said that the other NWT editions were done from the original languages, only the original English version. I never claimed either that they were. Ever! What they say is that the other multi-language editions were done from the English translation, but consulting the Hebrew and the Greek originals. To what extent they consulted the originals in those other versions, we will probably never know.
That said, my experience as a NWT user, shows that what the WTS have claimed is what I found to be true. Mind you, I don't want to sound like I am a WT supporter. I am not. I have been victimized enough to know the pain and foolishness of following men who claim to have a special divine knowledge. The WTS claims that the NWT English version was done directly from the originals. My experience with the English NWT supports that claim. The WTS also claims that the other multi-language editions of the NWT were based on the NWT English base, but faithfully consulting the original languages. Again, my experience with these other verisons supports that claim.
I repeat what I stated for the benefit of others following this thread: I said that "in many cases,"in some cases," "when that is the case" the translation team chose to follow the Hebrew or Greek original instead of the English base. I have no doubt about that.
I mentioned John 8:58, where the French (add the Italian version) teams in some editions did not translate "I have been" literally, but went with their own rendering, "I was." I also mentioned that the modern Greek team chose to render that same expression as "I exist." That team did not go with "I have been," "I was," or, even with the modern Greek equivalent "I am" (Modern Greek: ego' eimai). By the way, modern Greek have equivalents for those renderings. But these teams surely knew the equivalents of the original English edition, but they chose other. Why? Would you look into this? And in Genesis 31:38, the modern Greek translation team translated the words of Jacob to Laban saying: "These twenty years of mine I was with you." The LXX here has: ego' eimi (I am). And the Hebrew here reads: "I with you" ('anokhi 'immak). And the English NWT? "I have been." Other versions do the same. Now, why are NWT teams showing this flexibility if they don't know what they are doing? Or, if they could not read the originals? Somehow, the translation teams have some individuals who know what they are doing, and apparently there is a team of translators who bridge differences between the English, the originals, and the target languages.
Take the Spanish edition, itself a translation from the English version. That team had knowledge of language peculiarities. Whenever singular anarthrous (without the article, the) predicate nominatives precede the verb, the English NWT usually uses the indefinite article (a) to complete the thought. For instance, at John 4:19 the Samaritan woman says to Jesus according to the English NWT: "I perceive you are a prophet." The Spanish version reads literally: "I perceive you are prophet," with no indefinite article. [...percibo que eres profeta]. The same is done at John 6:70 and 10:1, where they show "calumniador" and "ladrón y saqueador" with no indefinite article. Of course, Spanish has the indefinite article just as English does. Why, then, did the NWT teams chose to render many of these anarthrous nouns with no indefinite article when the English NWT does? Simply because Spanish does not require it to sound natural, as English does. And that is sometimes true of French and Italian languages as well.
At John 10:36, the NWT cleverly chose to render the literal Greek expression, "Son of the God I am" as "I am God's Son." This rendering shows sensitivity to the original, since in English is not so easy to transmit the Greek sense correctly. Now, observe how the NWT Spanish edition renders it: "...Soy Hijo de Dios? [Lit. ...I am Son of God?]." A careful look at this Greek expression shows it is easier to transmit the correct thought in Spanish than it is in English. Many English versions render this incorrectly: "I am the Son of God." However, a few, such as NIV render it correctly. There is no Greek article (the) before "Son" in the original.
Thus, at least to me, it is obvious that the NWT English edition was carefully done by competent translators. Other NWT versions of recipient languages also had some within their translation teams who knew what they were doing, contrary to the belief that some hold here, that they had zero knowledge. The Branch Organizational directive is clear they want to have uniformity across their many multi-language editions, thus, the statement about foreign translators not required to know the original languages. But it does not mean there is no competent communication between those teams and the WT writing staff and translation directors.