Thorn's in a rose bush

[placebofactor]

[Capbook]

There HAS TO BE translating done to render the English language from the Greek. Otherwise we would just have the Greek. We must translate to get the meaning of the Greek language and put it into English.

"Highest degree of accuracy" is questionable. There have been at least 16 other versions of the Bible posted here that say "the only begotten SON" instead of the only begotten God.

You assume that UASV as questionable, but drawing conclusion from such un-evidenced assumptions is at best, a confirmation bias. Here, you can clink the link about UASV as faithful and closed as possible to the original languages.

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is considered a literal word-for-word translation. It aims to be a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into modern English, striving to preserve the meaning and structure of the source language as closely as possible. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+upda ... e&ie=UTF-8.

Ok, once again, here's the original Greek of the New Testament by Wescott and Hort.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) ?????G2316 N-ASM? ???????G3762 A-NSM-N? ????????G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT? ???????G4455 ADV? ??????????G3439 A-NSM? ?????G2316 N-NSM? ??G3588 T-NSM? ???G1510 V-PAP-NSM? ????G1519 PREP? ????G3588 T-ASM? ???????G2859 N-ASM? ????G3588 T-GSM? ???????G3962 N-GSM? ????????G1565 D-NSM? ??????????G1834 V-ADI-3S

Your Westcott and Hort presentation doesn't seem complete. Where is the article in front of the first "God" mentioned? It should be there.
I haven't seen a copy of the UASV so I can't comment on it. I'm going to research that and other versions in comparison to it. I just thought......you are at odds with the 1891 version of the Emphatic Diaglott because it is later than the 1864 version, yet you go along with the later version of the UASV. Explain?

Would it mean you want to complete the original? I would think that JWs are keen to adding the originals. Is it correct or incorrect?
You can find it as UASV+, you do research? Good we're going deeper now.
I am at odd to 1891 version than to the original 1864 because when the author Benjamin Wilson died the plates were given to your Church founder.
UASV+ is an updated version and had important notes of support, especially from older manuscripts recently found like Papyrus 75.

The work of Benjamin Wilson speaks for itself to any honest-hearted person. The Watchtower didn't add anything to the Scripture, but appreciated the work that was already done. (And you didn't respond to my question in my former post above.)

Ok, you compare my reliance to old original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott and to Updated ASV+?
Because the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott ended in the hands of a Church that keen on adding words on the Bible, while the Updated ASV's textual basis still remain to United Bible Society and Novum Testamentum Graece.
That aims to maintain the highest accuracy to the original Bible languages.