To be clear I wasn't necessarily talking about Norton since I am just starting to investigate his translations. That is why I'm doing this research as to what I might want to look out for. But I definitely have found, shall we say, troubling variances in AENT, Bauscher, Lamsa, Magiera, Alexander - all modern efforts. And some more so than others.
My suspicion is that, like Etheridge, Norton's will be more unbiased and accurately reflect the text rather than give English words that try to interpret the text. But there is no such thing as an unbiased translation - everybody wants a Bible that matches their own theological viewpoint. Look at the fights that happen even when trying to decide which of the "original" aramaic versions most accurately reflect that of the actual original.
Norton's is of special interest since one of his goals was to show the errors in the then latest scholarly and "most accurate" Greek text of W&H.
My suspicion is that, like Etheridge, Norton's will be more unbiased and accurately reflect the text rather than give English words that try to interpret the text. But there is no such thing as an unbiased translation - everybody wants a Bible that matches their own theological viewpoint. Look at the fights that happen even when trying to decide which of the "original" aramaic versions most accurately reflect that of the actual original.
Norton's is of special interest since one of his goals was to show the errors in the then latest scholarly and "most accurate" Greek text of W&H.