Concerning Jesus return

[placebofactor]

The following question is difficult for me to ask because of a hundred little details connected to it.  
I believe the time of Jesus' return has been hidden in the book of Daniel and Hosea for several thousand years and is only now to be revealed.

I believe Jesus Christ is the God of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” To support that I use the following.
Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, which is, and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.”

Hebrews 1:10 states that he laid the foundation of the earth and heavens.

Colossians 1:16, "By him were all things created." With that said, we know without doubt that Jesus Christ is God.

Philippians 2:7-8, tells us He had taken on “the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself --.” With Hebrews 2:9, he “was made a little lower than the angels--.”
But after his resurrection, he was given the glory he had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5. God is said to be all-knowing, yet in Mark 14:32, Jesus said concerning his return, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

Because God is all-knowing, it appears his words limit his understanding. So, my question is, did this change after his resurrection? Did he again receive the glory he once had, ‘all-knowing?’ John 17:5. After he was taken into heaven, the Father gave him the Holy Spirit. Jesus then sent him to us. Nothing in scripture tells us the Holy Spirit did not have this information. If he does, are any new revelations ready to be made known? Or has the whole story been told?

[slowrider]

Concerning Jesus return

He is here with me, right now.

Is He visible with you?

Of course.

[onewithhim]

My Bible is a Red-Letter addition, meaning whatever is in Red is being spoken by Jesus.

Did Jesus colour your bible red or would that have been an imperfect human that did the colouring?

Come on, be nice. Your organization used the K.J.B. from its conception until 1951 when they decided the K.J.B. disagreed with too many of their teaching. Look it up!

Were you once a JW?

The organization saw the need for a more accurate version of the Bible. Worldly scholars will say that the KJV is a very bad translation. It was translated by men with religious bias. It contradicts itself all over the place. It is not just JW teaching that Jesus is subservient to his Father, Jehovah. He says so himself. (John 5:19; John 12:49,50; John 17:3) But the KJV resists that fact by overlooking the proper Greek rendering at, for example, John 1:1. We used that version for around 100 years, as it could be shown to carry proper translations in most places, though in many places the translation is absurd. It was not acceptable, either, that the very name of God was erased from most of the 7,000 times it occurred in the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T.). Imagine, getting rid of the name of the Author of His own book. The NWT corrects bad translation and puts back the name of God.

You might look up the work of a professor of religion, Jason David BeDuhn, entitled "Truth in Translation." He brings out some good points. He's not a JW nor does he align himself with any particular religion. He just wants the truth.

[Difflugia]

You might look up the work of a professor of religion, Jason David BeDuhn, entitled "Truth in Translation."

If anyone's interested, the book can be digitally checked out and read online at archive.org. If you do, double-check both his assertions of fact and conclusions.

[Capbook]

Concerning Jesus return

He is here with me, right now.

Is He visible with you?

Of course.

Can you neighbor see God the Son with you?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #7]

onewithhim thanks for your comments. You wrote, "You missed our extensive discussion about the Alpha and Omega."

Before we begin, would you please quote exactly from the Bible you're using the following two verses.

Revelation 1:1

And Revelation 1:8, then I will know better how to discuss this matter with you.

I use all versions of the Bible, but the main one is the New World Translation because it is the most accurate (see Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, 2003, pages 164,165).

In this version Revelation 1:1 says: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Revelation 1:8: "'I am the Alpha and Omega,' says Jehovah God, the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'"

If NWT is accurate why it doesn't follow the original Greek text of John 1:1?
Why do the Almighty Father said, I am the first and the last, as you believe Jesus is the first and the last? (Rev 22:13)

The original Greek text says: "and the Word was a god." See The Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson.

The Father said that He was "Alpha and Omega." Jesus said he was the "first and the last." They are different words to describe God and Jesus.

Yes, but what is the reason why the Father called Himself as the first and the last in Rev 22:13?

I checked out, Jason David BeDuhn, here's what I found.

BeDuhn's comments on the NWT reveal something of the bias of the author himself. Amazingly, he discusses far less of the history and controversy surrounding the translation than he does his other sample translations. Edmund C. Gruss, in his We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work.

While these claims could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored. BeDuhn points out that the translation committee was kept anonymous, though he does not mention why, and compares this to the NKJV committee and the Lockman Foundation, apparently unaware that the list of translators for the NKJV is available from Thomas Nelson upon request, and that the Lockman Foundation has made their list of translators public.

He dismisses claims of bias concerning the NWT with the observation that all Bible translations are biased (quite a non sequitur) but then implies that the NWT is less biased because “[it] is free of the shadow of the King James” (this in the context of explaining that although the translation philosophy is similar to the NRSV, it reads quite differently from the KJV-dependent NRSV). In other words, the purported theological independence of the NWT makes it a better translation. I mention this last point particularly because several times in his work he simply asserts that the various translations are following the KJV example, as though the translators were unable or unwilling to form independent judgments on the meaning of the texts. He does not prove this, but simply assumes it, and in effect, uses the differences of the NWT to support his point, and therefore assumes as evidence what needs to be proved. Of course, apart from real evidence, it is possible that the resemblance to the KJV may mean that the translators have simply gotten it right.

In all fairness to Professor BeDuhn, he does attempt to present a good amount of evidence to support his claims, using the Greek as his reference point, but the evidence that he presents is often inadequate or poorly handled, creating the appearance of misrepresentation. Allow me to present an analysis of two major discussions in his work, his chapter (11) on John 1:1, especially his justification of the “a god” rendering of the anarthrous θεος in 1:1c, and his comments on the personhood of the Spirit in chapter 12.

Since John 1:1c is translated “and the Word was God” in nearly all major translations, and since a tremendous amount of exegetical effort has been expended on this passage, Professor BeDuhn has a great deal of work cut out for him to defend the rendering “a god” found in the NWT. Unfortunately, BeDuhn does not provide nearly enough support properly to engage the subject. I was extremely surprised that he did not interact significantly with the extensive secondary literature on the subject. Admittedly, a popular work is not going to have the same level of interaction that we would expect from a truly scholarly monograph, but BeDuhn certainly could have demonstrated more familiarity with the major works on the subject and would also have avoided making certain mistakes in his evidence and argumentation.
JOHN 1:1c Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

Instead, as is typical of his methodology throughout, he begins by discussing the grammatical principle that he feels to be most pertinent, in this case, the nature of the article. The gist of his description on p. 114-116 is that the presence of the article means that the noun is definite; the absence of the article means that it is indefinite, and normally should be translated with English indefinite article “a/an.” This is quite an oversimplification and ignores the well-known fact that the article and its lack does not always, in all contextual circumstances, equate to the definite article in English or the indefinite.

And there was much more. BeDuhn is a bad example.

[slowrider]

Concerning Jesus return

He is here with me, right now.

Is He visible with you?

Of course.

Can you neighbor see God the Son with you?

That is a question you would have to ask them.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #7]

onewithhim thanks for your comments. You wrote, "You missed our extensive discussion about the Alpha and Omega."

Before we begin, would you please quote exactly from the Bible you're using the following two verses.

Revelation 1:1

And Revelation 1:8, then I will know better how to discuss this matter with you.

I use all versions of the Bible, but the main one is the New World Translation because it is the most accurate (see Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, 2003, pages 164,165).

In this version Revelation 1:1 says: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Revelation 1:8: "'I am the Alpha and Omega,' says Jehovah God, the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'"

If NWT is accurate why it doesn't follow the original Greek text of John 1:1?
Why do the Almighty Father said, I am the first and the last, as you believe Jesus is the first and the last? (Rev 22:13)

The original Greek text says: "and the Word was a god." See The Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson.

The Father said that He was "Alpha and Omega." Jesus said he was the "first and the last." They are different words to describe God and Jesus.

Yes, but what is the reason why the Father called Himself as the first and the last in Rev 22:13?

I checked out, Jason David BeDuhn, here's what I found.

BeDuhn's comments on the NWT reveal something of the bias of the author himself. Amazingly, he discusses far less of the history and controversy surrounding the translation than he does his other sample translations. Edmund C. Gruss, in his We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work.

While these claims could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored. BeDuhn points out that the translation committee was kept anonymous, though he does not mention why, and compares this to the NKJV committee and the Lockman Foundation, apparently unaware that the list of translators for the NKJV is available from Thomas Nelson upon request, and that the Lockman Foundation has made their list of translators public.

He dismisses claims of bias concerning the NWT with the observation that all Bible translations are biased (quite a non sequitur) but then implies that the NWT is less biased because “[it] is free of the shadow of the King James” (this in the context of explaining that although the translation philosophy is similar to the NRSV, it reads quite differently from the KJV-dependent NRSV). In other words, the purported theological independence of the NWT makes it a better translation. I mention this last point particularly because several times in his work he simply asserts that the various translations are following the KJV example, as though the translators were unable or unwilling to form independent judgments on the meaning of the texts. He does not prove this, but simply assumes it, and in effect, uses the differences of the NWT to support his point, and therefore assumes as evidence what needs to be proved. Of course, apart from real evidence, it is possible that the resemblance to the KJV may mean that the translators have simply gotten it right.

In all fairness to Professor BeDuhn, he does attempt to present a good amount of evidence to support his claims, using the Greek as his reference point, but the evidence that he presents is often inadequate or poorly handled, creating the appearance of misrepresentation. Allow me to present an analysis of two major discussions in his work, his chapter (11) on John 1:1, especially his justification of the “a god” rendering of the anarthrous θεος in 1:1c, and his comments on the personhood of the Spirit in chapter 12.

Since John 1:1c is translated “and the Word was God” in nearly all major translations, and since a tremendous amount of exegetical effort has been expended on this passage, Professor BeDuhn has a great deal of work cut out for him to defend the rendering “a god” found in the NWT. Unfortunately, BeDuhn does not provide nearly enough support properly to engage the subject. I was extremely surprised that he did not interact significantly with the extensive secondary literature on the subject. Admittedly, a popular work is not going to have the same level of interaction that we would expect from a truly scholarly monograph, but BeDuhn certainly could have demonstrated more familiarity with the major works on the subject and would also have avoided making certain mistakes in his evidence and argumentation.
JOHN 1:1c Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

Instead, as is typical of his methodology throughout, he begins by discussing the grammatical principle that he feels to be most pertinent, in this case, the nature of the article. The gist of his description on p. 114-116 is that the presence of the article means that the noun is definite; the absence of the article means that it is indefinite, and normally should be translated with English indefinite article “a/an.” This is quite an oversimplification and ignores the well-known fact that the article and its lack does not always, in all contextual circumstances, equate to the definite article in English or the indefinite.

And there was much more. BeDuhn is a bad example.

Yes, the claims of Gruss can be disputed. And where do you get the idea that BeDuhn was biased? He is not aligned with any religion, and he only wants to find the truth. Why should it matter who is on the translation committee for the NWT? The names are not mentioned because the JWs want the name of God to be paramount here, and for Him to receive all the glory for an excellent translation. BeDuhn provides enough evidence to support what he says about John 1:1. You have apprised yourself of what he says about it, yet you choose to disagree. That is your prerogative. I hope that anyone who is interested in this will check out BeDuhn's book themselves.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #7]

onewithhim thanks for your comments. You wrote, "You missed our extensive discussion about the Alpha and Omega."

Before we begin, would you please quote exactly from the Bible you're using the following two verses.

Revelation 1:1

And Revelation 1:8, then I will know better how to discuss this matter with you.

I use all versions of the Bible, but the main one is the New World Translation because it is the most accurate (see Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, 2003, pages 164,165).

In this version Revelation 1:1 says: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Revelation 1:8: "'I am the Alpha and Omega,' says Jehovah God, the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'"

If NWT is accurate why it doesn't follow the original Greek text of John 1:1?
Why do the Almighty Father said, I am the first and the last, as you believe Jesus is the first and the last? (Rev 22:13)

The original Greek text says: "and the Word was a god." See The Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson.

The Father said that He was "Alpha and Omega." Jesus said he was the "first and the last." They are different words to describe God and Jesus.

Yes, but what is the reason why the Father called Himself as the first and the last in Rev 22:13?

I checked out, Jason David BeDuhn, here's what I found.

BeDuhn's comments on the NWT reveal something of the bias of the author himself. Amazingly, he discusses far less of the history and controversy surrounding the translation than he does his other sample translations. Edmund C. Gruss, in his We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work.

While these claims could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored. BeDuhn points out that the translation committee was kept anonymous, though he does not mention why, and compares this to the NKJV committee and the Lockman Foundation, apparently unaware that the list of translators for the NKJV is available from Thomas Nelson upon request, and that the Lockman Foundation has made their list of translators public.

He dismisses claims of bias concerning the NWT with the observation that all Bible translations are biased (quite a non sequitur) but then implies that the NWT is less biased because “[it] is free of the shadow of the King James” (this in the context of explaining that although the translation philosophy is similar to the NRSV, it reads quite differently from the KJV-dependent NRSV). In other words, the purported theological independence of the NWT makes it a better translation. I mention this last point particularly because several times in his work he simply asserts that the various translations are following the KJV example, as though the translators were unable or unwilling to form independent judgments on the meaning of the texts. He does not prove this, but simply assumes it, and in effect, uses the differences of the NWT to support his point, and therefore assumes as evidence what needs to be proved. Of course, apart from real evidence, it is possible that the resemblance to the KJV may mean that the translators have simply gotten it right.

In all fairness to Professor BeDuhn, he does attempt to present a good amount of evidence to support his claims, using the Greek as his reference point, but the evidence that he presents is often inadequate or poorly handled, creating the appearance of misrepresentation. Allow me to present an analysis of two major discussions in his work, his chapter (11) on John 1:1, especially his justification of the “a god” rendering of the anarthrous θεος in 1:1c, and his comments on the personhood of the Spirit in chapter 12.

Since John 1:1c is translated “and the Word was God” in nearly all major translations, and since a tremendous amount of exegetical effort has been expended on this passage, Professor BeDuhn has a great deal of work cut out for him to defend the rendering “a god” found in the NWT. Unfortunately, BeDuhn does not provide nearly enough support properly to engage the subject. I was extremely surprised that he did not interact significantly with the extensive secondary literature on the subject. Admittedly, a popular work is not going to have the same level of interaction that we would expect from a truly scholarly monograph, but BeDuhn certainly could have demonstrated more familiarity with the major works on the subject and would also have avoided making certain mistakes in his evidence and argumentation.
JOHN 1:1c Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

Instead, as is typical of his methodology throughout, he begins by discussing the grammatical principle that he feels to be most pertinent, in this case, the nature of the article. The gist of his description on p. 114-116 is that the presence of the article means that the noun is definite; the absence of the article means that it is indefinite, and normally should be translated with English indefinite article “a/an.” This is quite an oversimplification and ignores the well-known fact that the article and its lack does not always, in all contextual circumstances, equate to the definite article in English or the indefinite.

And there was much more. BeDuhn is a bad example.

You wrote, "Yes, the claims of Gruss can be disputed. And where do you get the idea that BeDuhn was biased?"

I read his work like you asked me to.

You wrote, "He is not aligned with any religion, and he only wants to find the truth."

It makes no difference; he might be an atheist who hates Christians, or an antichrist sent to destroy the truth that has been accepted for the past 2000 years. Or he might be unqualified to do the work of translating ancient manuscripts or just want to sell books to make money, controversial books always sell.

You wrote, "Why should it matter who is on the translation committee for the NWT?"

Would you hire a builder to build you a home if he could not prove his qualifications or never met him? Would you hire an accountant to do your tax returns if they could not prove they had a license and qualifications? Why would I trust anyone's excuses as you say, "The names are not mentioned because the JWs want the name of God to be paramount here, and for Him to receive all the glory for an excellent translation." Then why do you mention men like BeDuhn and others as a source?

You wrote, "BeDuhn provides enough evidence to support what he says about John 1:1. You have apprised yourself of what he says about it, yet you choose to disagree."

Over the past 2000 years, tens of thousands of Greek and Hebrew scholars have disagreed with Mr. BeDuhn, that's why!

You wrote, "That is your prerogative. I hope that anyone who is interested in this will check out BeDuhn's book themselves."

You asked me to check him out and I did, now you're complaining because what I found disagrees with your assessment of the man, Hmmmmm!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #7]

onewithhim thanks for your comments. You wrote, "You missed our extensive discussion about the Alpha and Omega."

Before we begin, would you please quote exactly from the Bible you're using the following two verses.

Revelation 1:1

And Revelation 1:8, then I will know better how to discuss this matter with you.

I use all versions of the Bible, but the main one is the New World Translation because it is the most accurate (see Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, 2003, pages 164,165).

In this version Revelation 1:1 says: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Revelation 1:8: "'I am the Alpha and Omega,' says Jehovah God, the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'"

If NWT is accurate why it doesn't follow the original Greek text of John 1:1?
Why do the Almighty Father said, I am the first and the last, as you believe Jesus is the first and the last? (Rev 22:13)

The original Greek text says: "and the Word was a god." See The Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson.

The Father said that He was "Alpha and Omega." Jesus said he was the "first and the last." They are different words to describe God and Jesus.

Yes, but what is the reason why the Father called Himself as the first and the last in Rev 22:13?

I checked out, Jason David BeDuhn, here's what I found.

BeDuhn's comments on the NWT reveal something of the bias of the author himself. Amazingly, he discusses far less of the history and controversy surrounding the translation than he does his other sample translations. Edmund C. Gruss, in his We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work.

While these claims could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored. BeDuhn points out that the translation committee was kept anonymous, though he does not mention why, and compares this to the NKJV committee and the Lockman Foundation, apparently unaware that the list of translators for the NKJV is available from Thomas Nelson upon request, and that the Lockman Foundation has made their list of translators public.

He dismisses claims of bias concerning the NWT with the observation that all Bible translations are biased (quite a non sequitur) but then implies that the NWT is less biased because “[it] is free of the shadow of the King James” (this in the context of explaining that although the translation philosophy is similar to the NRSV, it reads quite differently from the KJV-dependent NRSV). In other words, the purported theological independence of the NWT makes it a better translation. I mention this last point particularly because several times in his work he simply asserts that the various translations are following the KJV example, as though the translators were unable or unwilling to form independent judgments on the meaning of the texts. He does not prove this, but simply assumes it, and in effect, uses the differences of the NWT to support his point, and therefore assumes as evidence what needs to be proved. Of course, apart from real evidence, it is possible that the resemblance to the KJV may mean that the translators have simply gotten it right.

In all fairness to Professor BeDuhn, he does attempt to present a good amount of evidence to support his claims, using the Greek as his reference point, but the evidence that he presents is often inadequate or poorly handled, creating the appearance of misrepresentation. Allow me to present an analysis of two major discussions in his work, his chapter (11) on John 1:1, especially his justification of the “a god” rendering of the anarthrous θεος in 1:1c, and his comments on the personhood of the Spirit in chapter 12.

Since John 1:1c is translated “and the Word was God” in nearly all major translations, and since a tremendous amount of exegetical effort has been expended on this passage, Professor BeDuhn has a great deal of work cut out for him to defend the rendering “a god” found in the NWT. Unfortunately, BeDuhn does not provide nearly enough support properly to engage the subject. I was extremely surprised that he did not interact significantly with the extensive secondary literature on the subject. Admittedly, a popular work is not going to have the same level of interaction that we would expect from a truly scholarly monograph, but BeDuhn certainly could have demonstrated more familiarity with the major works on the subject and would also have avoided making certain mistakes in his evidence and argumentation.
JOHN 1:1c Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

Instead, as is typical of his methodology throughout, he begins by discussing the grammatical principle that he feels to be most pertinent, in this case, the nature of the article. The gist of his description on p. 114-116 is that the presence of the article means that the noun is definite; the absence of the article means that it is indefinite, and normally should be translated with English indefinite article “a/an.” This is quite an oversimplification and ignores the well-known fact that the article and its lack does not always, in all contextual circumstances, equate to the definite article in English or the indefinite.

And there was much more. BeDuhn is a bad example.

You wrote, "Yes, the claims of Gruss can be disputed. And where do you get the idea that BeDuhn was biased?"

I read his work like you asked me to.

You wrote, "He is not aligned with any religion, and he only wants to find the truth."

It makes no difference; he might be an atheist who hates Christians, or an antichrist sent to destroy the truth that has been accepted for the past 2000 years. Or he might be unqualified to do the work of translating ancient manuscripts or just want to sell books to make money, controversial books always sell.

You wrote, "Why should it matter who is on the translation committee for the NWT?"

Would you hire a builder to build you a home if he could not prove his qualifications or never met him? Would you hire an accountant to do your tax returns if they could not prove they had a license and qualifications? Why would I trust anyone's excuses as you say, "The names are not mentioned because the JWs want the name of God to be paramount here, and for Him to receive all the glory for an excellent translation." Then why do you mention men like BeDuhn and others as a source?

You wrote, "BeDuhn provides enough evidence to support what he says about John 1:1. You have apprised yourself of what he says about it, yet you choose to disagree."

Over the past 2000 years, tens of thousands of Greek and Hebrew scholars have disagreed with Mr. BeDuhn, that's why!

You wrote, "That is your prerogative. I hope that anyone who is interested in this will check out BeDuhn's book themselves."

You asked me to check him out and I did, now you're complaining because what I found disagrees with your assessment of the man, Hmmmmm!

BeDuhn gives excellent reasons why many scholars in antiquity and in these days have been wrong about their translations. He really gets down to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew texts. Many others just follow the KJV, which was not translated from the original Greek or Hebrew.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #7]

onewithhim thanks for your comments. You wrote, "You missed our extensive discussion about the Alpha and Omega."

Before we begin, would you please quote exactly from the Bible you're using the following two verses.

Revelation 1:1

And Revelation 1:8, then I will know better how to discuss this matter with you.

I use all versions of the Bible, but the main one is the New World Translation because it is the most accurate (see Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, 2003, pages 164,165).

In this version Revelation 1:1 says: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Revelation 1:8: "'I am the Alpha and Omega,' says Jehovah God, the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'"

If NWT is accurate why it doesn't follow the original Greek text of John 1:1?
Why do the Almighty Father said, I am the first and the last, as you believe Jesus is the first and the last? (Rev 22:13)

The original Greek text says: "and the Word was a god." See The Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson.

The Father said that He was "Alpha and Omega." Jesus said he was the "first and the last." They are different words to describe God and Jesus.

Yes, but what is the reason why the Father called Himself as the first and the last in Rev 22:13?

I checked out, Jason David BeDuhn, here's what I found.

BeDuhn's comments on the NWT reveal something of the bias of the author himself. Amazingly, he discusses far less of the history and controversy surrounding the translation than he does his other sample translations. Edmund C. Gruss, in his We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work.

While these claims could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored. BeDuhn points out that the translation committee was kept anonymous, though he does not mention why, and compares this to the NKJV committee and the Lockman Foundation, apparently unaware that the list of translators for the NKJV is available from Thomas Nelson upon request, and that the Lockman Foundation has made their list of translators public.

He dismisses claims of bias concerning the NWT with the observation that all Bible translations are biased (quite a non sequitur) but then implies that the NWT is less biased because “[it] is free of the shadow of the King James” (this in the context of explaining that although the translation philosophy is similar to the NRSV, it reads quite differently from the KJV-dependent NRSV). In other words, the purported theological independence of the NWT makes it a better translation. I mention this last point particularly because several times in his work he simply asserts that the various translations are following the KJV example, as though the translators were unable or unwilling to form independent judgments on the meaning of the texts. He does not prove this, but simply assumes it, and in effect, uses the differences of the NWT to support his point, and therefore assumes as evidence what needs to be proved. Of course, apart from real evidence, it is possible that the resemblance to the KJV may mean that the translators have simply gotten it right.

In all fairness to Professor BeDuhn, he does attempt to present a good amount of evidence to support his claims, using the Greek as his reference point, but the evidence that he presents is often inadequate or poorly handled, creating the appearance of misrepresentation. Allow me to present an analysis of two major discussions in his work, his chapter (11) on John 1:1, especially his justification of the “a god” rendering of the anarthrous θεος in 1:1c, and his comments on the personhood of the Spirit in chapter 12.

Since John 1:1c is translated “and the Word was God” in nearly all major translations, and since a tremendous amount of exegetical effort has been expended on this passage, Professor BeDuhn has a great deal of work cut out for him to defend the rendering “a god” found in the NWT. Unfortunately, BeDuhn does not provide nearly enough support properly to engage the subject. I was extremely surprised that he did not interact significantly with the extensive secondary literature on the subject. Admittedly, a popular work is not going to have the same level of interaction that we would expect from a truly scholarly monograph, but BeDuhn certainly could have demonstrated more familiarity with the major works on the subject and would also have avoided making certain mistakes in his evidence and argumentation.
JOHN 1:1c Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

Instead, as is typical of his methodology throughout, he begins by discussing the grammatical principle that he feels to be most pertinent, in this case, the nature of the article. The gist of his description on p. 114-116 is that the presence of the article means that the noun is definite; the absence of the article means that it is indefinite, and normally should be translated with English indefinite article “a/an.” This is quite an oversimplification and ignores the well-known fact that the article and its lack does not always, in all contextual circumstances, equate to the definite article in English or the indefinite.

And there was much more. BeDuhn is a bad example.

You wrote, "Yes, the claims of Gruss can be disputed. And where do you get the idea that BeDuhn was biased?"

I read his work like you asked me to.

You wrote, "He is not aligned with any religion, and he only wants to find the truth."

It makes no difference; he might be an atheist who hates Christians, or an antichrist sent to destroy the truth that has been accepted for the past 2000 years. Or he might be unqualified to do the work of translating ancient manuscripts or just want to sell books to make money, controversial books always sell.

You wrote, "Why should it matter who is on the translation committee for the NWT?"

Would you hire a builder to build you a home if he could not prove his qualifications or never met him? Would you hire an accountant to do your tax returns if they could not prove they had a license and qualifications? Why would I trust anyone's excuses as you say, "The names are not mentioned because the JWs want the name of God to be paramount here, and for Him to receive all the glory for an excellent translation." Then why do you mention men like BeDuhn and others as a source?

You wrote, "BeDuhn provides enough evidence to support what he says about John 1:1. You have apprised yourself of what he says about it, yet you choose to disagree."

Over the past 2000 years, tens of thousands of Greek and Hebrew scholars have disagreed with Mr. BeDuhn, that's why!

You wrote, "That is your prerogative. I hope that anyone who is interested in this will check out BeDuhn's book themselves."

You asked me to check him out and I did, now you're complaining because what I found disagrees with your assessment of the man, Hmmmmm!

BeDuhn gives excellent reasons why many scholars in antiquity and in these days have been wrong about their translations.

Wow, that's a pretty broad and bold statement, naughty, naughty.

He really gets down to the meaning of Greek and Hebrew texts.

I believe he only worked on the Greek.

Many others just follow the KJV, which was not translated from the original Greek or Hebrew.

King James ruled over the Western powers, and under his rule had access to any manuscripts his team needed. I would bet my last dollar they were in possession of more manuscripts than the N.W.T. ever had. The professors who wrote the books concerning Hebrew and Greek did not follow the K.J.B., they wrote it.