Certainly can't beat an interlinear bible for accurate texts.

Why would you think that? ____ Did you now that the original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha in it? ____ Have you ever seen a copy of the actual 1611 KJV? ____It's language and spelling is more similar to William Tyndale's Bible than the 1769 Version that most people use. _____ https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Tobit-Chapter-1/ ____ https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Mark-Chapter-16/#17 ___ Mark 16:17-18 And these signes shal follow them that beleeue, In my Name shall they cast out deuils, they shall speake with new tongues, 18They shall take vp serpents, and if they drinke any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sicke, and they shall recouer.

Even though the original KJV contained the apocrypha, they made it very clear that it was there as "historical script," and NOT as scripture. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. They rejected it as divine for seven reasons:- Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. As for your second point, it's pointless. The NWT has removed Jesus Christ from many of it's verses, and has removed many verses. https://christianitybeliefs.org/the-most-accurate-bible-translation-comparison-and-deception/ https://christianitybeliefs.org/the-most-accurate-bible-translation-comparison-and-deception/ In fact the NLT admits that it has altered the bible with the way it has translated, so instead of using word for word (formal equivalence),translating the meanings of words and phrases in a more literal way), keeping "literal fidelity." it's claims to have used sense for sense (Dynamic equivalence), translating the meanings of phrases or whole sentences) with readability in mind. Formal equivalence approach tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with "less literal accuracy." So there's your answer from the very facts of how the NLT was translated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence

Why so you give more weight to the KJV based off of newer manuscripts than you do to the actual older more accurate manuscripts? Are you okay with the SPURIOUS extra words in 1 John 5:7 in LATE manuscripts, commonly referred to as the 'Johannine Comma'? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+5%3A7-8&version=NASB,HCSB,NRSV,NLT,NIV 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. Footnotes 1 John 5:8 LATE MANUSCRIPTS of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (NOT FOUND IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY)

An actual word for word translation would not make sense and as far as I know, are non-existent. Several interlinears are close to being word for word but without modern language fillers, they do not make sense.

My extent of knowledge is the NASVU is quite readable imo.

Do you mean the NASB? That is one of the better translations. http://bible.ovu.edu/terry/interpretation/translat.htm English Bible Translations (rated on a scale of 1 to 10 as to literalness) https://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm Chart of Bibles rated from "word for word" to "thought for thought" (paraphrase)