The correct translation of any text is important because it helps ensure that the reader understands the intended meaning of the text. In the case of John 1:1, this verse is particularly important because it presents a key belief of Christianity: that Jesus is the divine Word of God. Therefore, it is important that the translation of this verse accurately conveys this belief. Additionally, John 1:1 is often used in discussions and debates about the nature of Jesus and the relationship between Jesus and God. Therefore, it is important that the translation of this verse be accurate and precise in order to avoid misunderstandings or misrepresentations of this belief.
How can Exodus 3:13 and 6:13 be accurate because the patriarchs knew and used the divine name? Is this not a contradiction?
John 1:1 is all about capitalization and the tiny word “a,” which in grammar is called the indefinite article. And yet, this clause has been the most debated verse for centuries. So, was the Word “God” or “a god”?
One of the challenges you have in being a lone translator is remembering your lexical (word) choices. Any give Hebrew or Greek word has 2-10 different terms in the lexicon and many times 2-4 are very close synonyms with a little difference in the sense.
I am not going to assume but I am going to make some educated inferences about the Lockman Foundation and the NASB. First, let me preface it with I respect the NASB and every translator that has worked on it from the beginning.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, God gave us his divine name almost 7,000 times and is spelled with four consonants (Heb., יהוה, JHVH)
Dozens of times in the Hebrew Scriptures he tells the readers I want you to call on my name, I will make my name known to all the nations, those calling on my name will be saved.
MODERN textual scholars do not hesitate to omit from the Bible the spurious passage found at 1 John 5:7-8. It is omitted by the translations ERV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, LEB, CSB, UASV, etc.) Commenting on these words, the greatest textual scholar of the 20th century Bruce M. Metzger said, "these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain ..." - Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), 647.
Be honest in all things
Follow the truth regardless
Obey God not man
If textual scholars and translators obey all three of those principles; then, if the text, translation, or interpretation supports our specific doctrinal view, fine, if it does not, fine. A so-called major doctrine does not hang in the balance based on one Bible verse.
What is the fight for the truth worth if the person misrepresents (alters by adding to or removing from) God's Word (Revelation 22:18-19) when the textual reading or the translation does not favor the theological position of a textual scholar or the Bible translator/publisher or an interpreter or a Christian reader. Do we prefer outright lies in the translations? Would Jesus want that?
Let me remind the reader, no doctrine is lost over one verse. Moreover, the policy to follow is, let the textual evidence lead where it leads, the translation go where it goes, the translator do what needs to be done, and the exegete discover what the author meant by the words that he used. God does not need our help in manipulating verses to get our desired outcome.