"Son of..." in Hebrew, Aramaic and even in Greek and especially in Pagan Roman religion often had a different meaning than what we learned while we were in the Watchtower religion.
The phrase "son of X" carries the sense of "one who has the character of X." This is the way it is translated not in Scripture but in ancient religion of the time of the Bible. It did not mean "child of" or "descendant" of."
In Ezekiel 2:1 God adopts a phrase that he will use instead of Ezekiel's name most of the time when calling him, "son of man," which the New World Translation notes in a footnote is the first of 93 occurrences.
But in most other Bibles today, the phrase is translated as "mortal," such as in the NJPS, the official Jewish translation in English and in the NRSVue, the standard in academia, or "mortal man," in the Good News Bible.
The same thing happens with the Greek phrase "son of peace" at Luke 10:6, which the New World Translation changes to "friend of peace" (see the footnote to the 1984 NWT). Other translations say, "peace-loving person" (Good News Bible), "someone who promotes peace" (NIV), "a person of peace."--NRSVue.
The reason? Again, the phrase "son of X" means "one who has the character of X" and not someone who is necessarily this child of X.
I would run out of space showing examples, like when Jesus refers to Judas as the "son of perdition" or "destruction" at John 17:12. Neither "perdition" or "destruction" can give birth to a child. The NIV translates this as "the one doomed to destruction." Jesus is speaking about the characteristics of Judas, how he is destructive and is doomed to destruction, not that he was birthed by perdition or destruction or literally the male child of such.
At John 19:7 the Jews demand before Pilate that Jesus deserved death on account that Jesus has claimed for himself the title of "Son of God." Verse 8 states that "when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever."
Why would a Roman be afraid of a Jewish superstition? One of the Church Fathers explain that it had to do with the fact that the expression "son of God" meant "deity" or an incarnation of a god in Pagan and Greek religion. And when the Jews were saying that Jesus was claiming to be "son of" the God of the Hebrews, Pilate did not think that it meant Jesus was the "child of YHWH" but the "incarnation of YHWH," and this is why "he was more afraid than ever," and "from then on Pilate tried to release him."--John 19:8-12ff.
Note what just one of the Church Fathers had to say on this:
The malicious design of the Jews had a result they little expected. They wanted to build up an indictment against Christ by saying that he had ventured to sin against the person of God himself. But the weighty character of the accusation itself increased Pilate’s caution, and he was more alarmed and more careful concerning Christ than before. He became more particular in his questions: what Jesus was and where he came from. I think he believed that, though Jesus was a man, he might also be the Son of God. This idea and belief of his was not derived from holy Scripture but the mistaken notions of the Greeks. Greek fables call many men demi-gods and sons of gods. The Romans, too, who in such matters were still more superstitious, gave the name of god to the more distinguished of their own monarchs, and set up altars to them, and allotted them shrines and put them on pedestals. Therefore Pilate was more earnest and anxious than before in his inquiry of who Christ was and where he came from.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, XII--Cyril of Alexandria
While there is little that can be done to convince Jehovah's Witnesses that the expression "son of X" is not limited to the English/American view of Watchtower theology as there are no academics, scholars or actual theologians--not to mention translators with knowledge of philology--the fact that they do at times gloss over the expression "son of X" in various places in the NWT show that even Jehovah's Witnesses are aware that the trope does not mean "child of X" in reference to Jesus. Otherwise places like Luke 10:6 would read differently in the NWT.
The idea that Jesus might have been an incarnation of YHWH frightened Pilate enough (according to the gospel account) that the expression "son of God" was not lost on him as it is on the JWs.
I cannot speak on the Dead Sea Scrolls and what data can be found there, but one cannot argue that the expression "son of X" in the Bible means "child of X," as it was not written in American English. It was a product of a different time and the narratives and the way other translations (and even the NWT) render the expression would not make any sense.
So one cannot lean on the useless Watchtower view that Jesus is the "child of God" and that a voice was heard from heaven at his baptism claiming that this was God's "child," and this is what frightened Pilate, a ruler of the great world power of the time, that a child of a god of a nothing people was standing before them.
But the incarnation of the deity YHWH of the great Temple built by Herod? Standing before him? Being silent? Dragged before him by the jealous Jewish leaders who wanted him dead--on Passover of all days? This was frightening to Pilate. He did not want to touch this.
