I can't understand Jeffro77's first objection. Nowhere do I see a claim in the text that anyone other than the committee are the authors of their translation. The committee do announce explicitly that a privilege was granted to them. They are not thanking men for this. We have to adopt a scrupulously NPOV in quoting the donor of that privilege. It is a notable item of Jehovah's belief that all the books of the Bible have a single author in contrast to mainstream Christianity that acknowledges a number of authors at different times. But I choose to say "a heavenly Author, not the heavenly Author, to avoid getting into loaded and POV consideration of that Author being unique or not. Capitalising the "A" in Author is, I think, a reasonable concession to the same convention of capital "G" for God, and "Author" is true to the source. In case you still disagree, let's invite more voice(s) to help.

To Jeffro77's second objection, it is clear that Jeffro77 takes "inspired" to mean "divinely informed" and that Jeffro77 deduces from known dates of publication, that Jehovah's Witnesses include their own translation NWT among the 1 300 or 1 800 uninspired ones. I have no argument against that logic. However it may be too near WP:SYN because the Jehovah's Witnesses may not intend or even be aware of that argument's logic. Unless someone provides an source that says explicitly that the NWT is among the uninspired translations, we may not generate our own criticism this way. However the categorical claim by Jehovah's Witnesses about a remarkably large number of translations on which various faiths rely is notable in our survey of criticism of the NWT. Can this be said better?