Are you aware that the well-known Greek authorities who are cited in Watchtower literature as ALLEGEDLY ..?

Question

supporting the view that the Holy Spirit is a force in fact ALL believe that the Holy Spirit is a person?

The Watchtower Society often cites various Greek scholars in apparent support of their interpretation of the Holy Spirit. For the record, however, let us note that although the following Greek authorities are cited in Watchtower literature, ALL OF THEM BELIEVE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON:
F.F. Bruce
A.T. Robertson
R.C. Trench
John N. Darby
J.H. Thayer
Marvin R Vincent
W.E. Vine
R. Young.

The Watchtower is utterly deciptive in citing such individuals in support of their view.

Answer 1

Have you seen the letters from one of them telling the JW Society to cease and desist saying he supports their Bible or they'd "suffer the consequences?"

Dr. Julius R. Mantey
"...The afore mentioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of Gods Word.

In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on. Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."

On the page before the preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."

If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey"

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/letter_mantey.htm


Dr. William Barclay
"Dear Professor XXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.

If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth West and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point.

It was good of you to write and I don't think I need say anything more to make my position clear.

With every good wish.

Yours Sincerely

William Barclay."

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/letter_barclay.htm

Answer 2

Hey, who cares about th NWT? You don't need the Bible if you want to learn the truth, just the Witness literature. Watchtower 8/15/81 pg 28-29 From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. They do not want to serve “shoulder to shoulder” with the worldwide brotherhood. (Compare Ephesians 2:19-22.) Rather, they present a “stubborn shoulder” to Jehovah’s words. (Zech. 7:11, 12) Reviling the pattern of the “pure language” that Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century, these haughty ones try to draw the “sheep” away from the one international “flock” that Jesus has gathered in the earth. (John 10:7-10, 16) They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous “table” of spiritual food spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses, where truly there is ‘nothing lacking.’ (Ps. 23:1-6) They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago, and some have even returned to celebrating Christendom’s festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25! Jesus and his apostles warned against such lawless ones.—Matt. 24:11-13; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22. Gee, why is it that reading only the Bible people "strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago" So they read the Bible and discover the Witnesses are wrong! Holy Cow! Can't let that happen!! Bible reading, bad! Witness Literature reading, good!!

Answer 3

Nina, I total agree with the missuse of quotes and references in the WT and AWAKE. I would love to see your source..

hess: your normal answer has 32 pages of quotes .. and all you can give is 4 lines and call Nina a liar..

hmmm maybe we are getting closer to the Truth :)

Answer 4

OOH! I like this one! I am going to sit back and watch the denials fly!

Queston: when has the truth about the manipulation of the WBTS made a single bit of difference to the Witnesses on this forum...they just call you names.


OOH Pedi Where did you find that wonderful tidbit?

Answer 5

They quote Calvin's works in stating that he supported Jesus and Michael the Archangel being one and the same, and therefore not God the Son. Calvin can't send them any letters though.

Answer 6

This question is shamefully dishonest. When Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted these scholars, the quotes have been unimpeachably accurate. If the questioner supposes that she has examples of inaccurate citations or misrepresentations of some writers' views, there seems no excuse not to share those examples.

The fact is that nothing in Jehovah's Witness publications could reasonably imply that each and every source for each and every point believes exactly as Jehovah's Witnesses do regarding every point. Consider each writer mentioned in this question...

F. F. Bruce was quoted simply and plainly by Jehovah's Witness publications, albeit very occasionally. Does the quote here (or some other) misrepresent Bruce's position of trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism?
...The Watchtower, page 11, October 15, 1997 [quote]
Today, the total of known manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures is about 6,000, and of the Greek Scriptures, over 13,000. Comparative study of these has resulted in an original-language text that can be trusted confidently. As scholar F. F. Bruce put it: “Variant readings . . . affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”[unquote]

A. T. Robertson was similarly quoted regarding a particular point, rather than the totality of his beliefs. It seems rather obvious that this quote accurately reflects Robertson's ideas regarding that point, since it quotes his own words.
...Should You Believe in the Trinity, page 22 [quote]
At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to "the name . . . of the holy spirit." But the word "name" does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say "in the name of the law," we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament says: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority." So baptism 'in the name of the holy spirit' recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.[unquote]
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_07.htm

Richard ("R.C.") Trench authored a reference work entitled "Synonyms of the New Testament", essentially an amplified dictionary. While Jehovah's Witness publications have at times simply and plainly quoted the book, they have never presumed anything about the author's beliefs.

John Nelson Darby in 1882 published a translation of the bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have merely quoted it, at times noting in particular that the translation uses the name "Jehovah" even in the "New Testament" and at other times noting that the translation does not include spurious passages which have been established as fraudulent additions to the older King James.

Joseph H. Thayer in 1889 published "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament", from which Jehovah's Witnesses have merely quoted. Thayer is also quoted simply and thusly (for example, here):
...Should You Believe in the Trinity, page 28 [quote]
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.”[unquote]
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_08.htm

M. R. Vincent in 1957 published "Word Studies in the New Testament", from which Jehovah's Witnesses have plainly quoted. This answerer was unable to find a single such quote related to any substantive discussion of trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism.

W .E. Vine originated "Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words", and Jehovah's Witness publications have simply quoted from this dictionary. Exposing this question as laughable, Witness publications have quite plainly noted that Vine's disagrees with Jehovah's Witnesses regarding different aspects of trinitarianism and nontrinitarianism.
...Should You Believe in the Trinity, page 15-16 [quote]
Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him? Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.”[unquote]
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_05.htm

Robert Young in 1862 published "Young's Literal Translation". Jehovah's Witnesses have merely quoted it, at times noting in particular that the translation uses the name "Jehovah" and at other times noting that the translation does not include spurious passages which have been established as fraudulent additions to the older King James. This answerer was unable to find a single quote from Young's work in any discussion of trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism in any publication of Jehovah's Witnesses.


Clearly, Jehovah's Witness publications quote from a wide variety of independent non-Witness reference works. It seems rather obvious that the authors of these works would have some differences with Jehovah's Witnesses, or else their works would not be "non-Witness". Of course, anti-Witnesses would then criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for not using outside references.

It is sad that anti-Witnesses sometimes abandon common sense and all semblance of fairness when they foist their criticisms against Jehovah's Witnesses. While Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly not perfect, their quotes from outside reference works are plainly noted and directly related to a specific point (rather than a wholesale embrace of every word the outside author has ever written or spoken). It would seem that is the accepted practice in writing, is it not?

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20000622/
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_01.htm

Answer 7

in our literature we used to quoted from people that are not Christians also recognizing their knowledge in certain filed but that doesn´t mean that people are infallible.