That's interesting info, Mark, thanks. The one (rather scathing) review I saw was from a pretty conservative ET'er. (I'm pretty conservative, but a conservative heretic :). Anyway, part of his gripe was also about aion, which in this case, was probably just rubbing him wrong. He was making the correlation between JWs translating aion as "cutting off" [annihilationism], and the Emphatic Diaglott as not saying "forever/eternal", etc., rather age or whatever it says. Since the JWs had used the Diaglott, he was tying it all together. But it sounds like the Emp.Diag. is more accurate than the JWs interpretion of it, i.e., "cutting off" - like it's more in tune with Young's for example (which is good).
So, that's interesting info about the JWs and Diaglott, and I bet most don't know - perhaps even fellows like this guy who was ripping it. So to be clear - they did use the original for awhile, then re-translated their own version of it and called it their Interlinear? Is there anything different about the Diaglott today and the one they used? And if not, they just sort did their own "re-writing/re-interpreting" of some things to fit their own doctrine (which the NWT now "fixes" for them)? It's intersting, but a little confusing.
Anyway, bottom line, you see the Diaglott as solid translation, different but not necessarily less accurate than Young's for instance?