Your condescending tone is tipping your hand here I believe....
Most of them are exactly like the Fortman quote.. It is either nit-picking or completely ignoring the context of the SYBTB quote, I already handled the first one in Franks list in an earlier post, the next two are much the same:
<<<<<<<<<<p.5 - ILLUSTRATED BIBLE DICTIONARY
Booklet: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible...It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."
Source: The Dictionary adds these 3 statements:
(a) "Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the Old Testament and explicit in the New Testament. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the New Testament, we can read back many implications of it in the Old Testament."
(b) "But even in the opening pages of the Old Testament we are taught to attribute the evidence and persistence of all things to a threefold source." (Not 3 sources separate)
(c) "By way of contrast it must be remembered that the Old Testament was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given and in the New Testament after it." >>>>>>>>>>
Reply: The WT is showing from various quotes that the Trinity finds no place formally in scripture, and they do so correctly from the words of Trintarian sources. Even in Franks additional quotes he misses this point, the WT makes the point: "It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."
Which of course this is an accurate quote as upheld in his point a.) "Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible"
This is all the WT is using the quote for, not to show the source as NOT believing in the Trinity, but to show it admits it was not formulated in scripture. In fact it was not formally introduced until the 4th century, ie..it underwent a formulation period! Frank is just missing the point of the quote.<<<<<p.6 - NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Booklet: "The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."
"In the New Testament the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles..."
"In many places of the Old Testament, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity."
"...the minds of God's people (Old Testament) were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament, the revelation of the truth of the Triune life of God was first made in the New Testament, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles."
"Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God."
"...they testify, under divine inspiration, in the belief of the Apostolic Church in a doctrine of three persons in one God." >>>>>
Reply: The quote is only dealing with the OT, and Frank is dealing with the NT for some reason. Obviously any person reading this will understand the Catholic encylopedia is of the Trinitarian persuasion, which makes the WT quote even more relevent. Even they admit the Hebrew scrips do not teach the Trinity...They claim (rather humorously) that the OT was "preparing people" for the Trinity!
Again, just plain sloppy on Frank's part. In fact the heading in the brochure is bolded as " Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures".
I touch on the ECF, Justin to be exact- here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/107582/1872647/post.ashx#1872647