Gail Riplinger (among many others) has pointed out how most modern versions match the NWT in many passages of great doctrinal importance. It is evident that many on this board have no understanding of the significance of this. Here are a sample of comments from a previous thread: Riplinger does not presuppose the entire NWT is erroneously translated. She does presuppose that the NWT is an attempt to deny the deity of Christ. It is not simply the fact that some verses match from the NWT and the NKJV that is the problem here. The accusation she is making here can not be made against the KJB. Franklinmonroe misses the point. The real issue she raises will be addressed below. And whether the NWTs (or any versions for that matter) rendering of John 1:1 or I Timothy 3:16 is done “honestly” or “dishonestly” in some amateur’s or (professional’s) opinion is not really important – what is important is whether the translation is true. Robycop3 misses the point in the same way. The fact that you can find many places where various versions match is not relevant to the point Riplinger and others make when they compare the MVs to the NWT. She is not just picking out any old verse where the NKJV and NWT happen to match, although one might not always see the significance. She didn’t tone down her claim. It’s evident to any thinking man that Riplinger never thought that the various versions that predated the NWT directly copied the text of the NWT. She meant to say that the readings matched but mistakenly used the synonym copy instead, which was not as precise and ended up sending at least some down a rabbit trail, which while chasing they ended up missing the important point. Her point she did make is not “faulty reasoning”, because the claim she makes about the MVs and the NWT can not be made if one compared the King James Bible to the NWT. So what is this point that many seemed to have missed? Simply that the NWT is an attempt to systematically eliminate scriptural proof of the deity of Christ. And that in many key doctrinal passages that prove the deity of Christ, the MVs read just like the NWT. Make a list of the passages that you use to most clearly establish the nature of the Godhead when you are witnessing to someone who denies the deity of Christ, compare the verses from a KJB to the NWT or almost any other MV, and you will find that the KJB proves the deity of Christ where the MVs (including the NWT) generally will not. The point was not that some MV verses happen to agree with the NWT so therefore by association the MVs must be bad like the NWT. The point was that key doctrinal verses that in a King James Bible prove the deity of Christ read the same in the MVs and the NWT – and that IN BOTH THE NWT AND THE OTHER MVS THEY DO NOT PROVE THE DEITY OF CHRIST. One very clear example of this would be I Timothy 3:16. I have detailed this on other threads. So the question becomes, Why do the MVs in agreement with the NWT generally stand united against the KJB in these crucial passages? I hope you all have something more substantial then, what in essence is, your lexicon or Dr. so and so told you so. Forget about the gnats you find near Riplinger and tackle this camel.