John 17:5 (Worldwide English (New Testament)
So now, Father, let my name be great with you. Make my name as great as it was when I was with you before the world was made.
John 17:5 (Amplified Bible)
5And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed.
John 17:5 (New Life Version)
5Now, Father, honor Me with the honor I had with You before the world was made.
John 17:5 (Contemporary English Version)
5Now, Father, give me back the glory that I had with you before the world was created.
It looks more like he is requesting to be restored back to his former glory. That his father would look at him how he used to look at him. Not that he wanted equal glory once back in heaven. Just to have his previous glory restored.
That depends on how you define "with you" or "along with yourself". This seems like a good enough spot to deal with your interesting choice of versions of the Bible. Since your favorite version of the Bible seems to be the New Living Translation, evident by how many times it has been used in the post of yours that I have quoted, that is what I will start with.
At the beginning of the NLT Bible and most Bibles there is a section titled "Introduction to..." where there is usually an explaination of methods/philosophies of translation and which method the certain Bible decided to use. In the NLT, it goes on to state that there are two "general theroies or methods of Bible translation". It then explains the difference between "formal equivalence" an attempt to "render each word of the original language into the receptor language and seeks to preserve the original word order and sentence structure
as much as possible". The next explaination the NLT gives is of what it calls "dynamic" and/or "functional equivalence" where the goal is "to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the
message expressed by the original language text-both in meaning and in style."
The NLT then goes on to explain that it decided to use the "dynamic equivalence" method when it rendered it's version of the Bible. The New International Version by Zondervan Publishing makes the same claim while the New American Standard Version claims to use the "formal equivalence" method. Now, where most versions make an interesting note is when it comes to the rendering of idioms:
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Idiom \Id"i*om\ ([i^]d"[i^]*[u^]m), n. [F. idiome, L. idioma,
fr. Gr. 'idi`wma, fr. 'idioy^n to make a person's own, to
make proper or peculiar; fr. 'i`dios one's own, proper,
peculiar; prob. akin to the reflexive pronoun o"y^, o'i^,
'e`, and to "eo`s, 'o`s, one's own, L. suus, and to E. so.]
1. The syntactical or structural form peculiar to any
language; the genius or cast of a language.
[1913 Webster]
Idiom may be employed loosely and figuratively as a
synonym of language or dialect, but in its proper
sense it signifies the totality of the general rules
of construction which characterize the syntax of a
particular language and distinguish it from other
tongues. --G. P. Marsh.
[1913 Webster]
By idiom is meant the use of words which is peculiar
to a particular language. --J. H.
Newman.
[1913 Webster]
He followed their language [the Latin], but did not
comply with the idiom of ours. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
2. An expression conforming or appropriate to the peculiar
structural form of a language.
[1913 Webster]
Some that with care true eloquence shall teach,
And to just idioms fix our doubtful speech. --Prior.
[1913 Webster]
3. A combination of words having a meaning peculiar to itself
and not predictable as a combination of the meanings of
the individual words, but sanctioned by usage; as, an
idiomatic expression; less commonly, a single word used in
a peculiar sense.
[1913 Webster +PJC]
It is not by means of rules that such idioms as the
following are made current: "I can make nothing of
it." "He treats his subject home." --Dryden. "It is
that within us that makes for righteousness." --M.
Arnold. --Gostwick
(Eng. Gram.)
[1913 Webster]
Sometimes we identify the words with the object --
though by courtesy of idiom rather than in strict
propriety of language. --Coleridge.
[1913 Webster]
4. The phrase forms peculiar to a particular author; as,
written in his own idiom.
[1913 Webster]
Every good writer has much idiom. --Landor.
[1913 Webster]
5. Dialect; a variant form of a language.
[1913 Webster]
Syn: Dialect.
Usage: {Idiom}, {Dialect}. The idioms of a language belong to
its very structure; its dialects are varieties of
expression ingrafted upon it in different localities
or by different professions. Each county of England
has some peculiarities of dialect, and so have most of
the professions, while the great idioms of the
language are everywhere the same. See {Language}.
Idiomatic
This is also where there is pretty big debates between versions. Take for instance, the NLV's version of John 8:58 as you quoted above. While the NIV claims to have used the same mehtod of translation as the NLT, it still renders this idiom that had multiple definitions to it as "... before Abraham was born, I am!" Now what is also interesting is that in the NIV's introduction while there is an explaination of it's method of translation, there is also a validation of who actually did the translation and the specific details they went through to render this version, unlike the NLT. Now, some have called the NLT and most of the other tranlsations you have used in your post paraphrases which when studied shows to be more definitionally true of the NLT and the other translations you quoted.
The most interesting thing to take note of, though, is that for a few years now, there has been a debate going on over some people's belief that the King James Version of the Bible is the only reliable version of the Bible for the English language. Once again, a major issue of debate in this debate has been the various english versions treatment of the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has been found that most of the paraphrase versions of the Bible like the NLT, CEV, etc. treat the divinity of Jesus as almost non existent. For more information on this check out
http://aomin.org/index.php?catid=6 . So is it a suprise that the versions of the Bible you tend to quote and claim "renders it more appropriately" are these versions? Hardly
Sincerely,
SolideoGloria
) 
