Who is the Whore of babylon

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I commend the debaters against this ghastly and haughty modern Arianism; you avail what I cannot for the life of me. Christ Jesus sees; He hears every word uttered against Him in defiance of its eternal consequence. He also hears True Believers’ candid confession of Faith of the God of our salvation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

After the resurrection, I agree

ALWAYS (John 1:1, John 1:14, Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:6, 1 Tim. 3:16).

Neither was Jesus when he was in the flesh

Then address Rev. 13:8, which says He was slain BEFORE the foundations of the world. His sacrifice is ETERNAL, Einstein. He is the SON who ALWAYS existed.

I guess we’ll have to create another list of your ignorant remarks . . .

By faith as a joint-heir with Christ, I can claim that as well.

You can claim EVERYTHING that the Father has??

The Father was the CREATOR. Can YOU claim that??
Jesus can (John 1:1).

You have LOST this round of the debate and you will KEEP losing because you don’t know the Word of God.

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of CHRIST” – St Jerome

 

[BreadOfLife]

You mean no amount of truth will change your mind. I quoted a highly respected trinitarian Greek grammar and a scholar who knows a whole lot more Greek than you, but you ignored it because you have been indoctrinated into trinitarianism.

Sooooooo, ONE Greek scholar agrees with you - and that should be enough for ALL of us?? I don’t think so, Einstein.

I’ll tell you what – I’ll make it easy for you and will just deal with John 1:1 – and NONE of the rest.
Since you’re so impressed with what ONE Greek scholar has to say on the subject - here are MANY Greek scholars who DISAGREE with you . . .
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear TransIation): "A shocking mistranslation. "Obsolete and incorrect." It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1 :1 "The Word was a god.'

Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article. . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. . . . in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "GOD." and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "Irepre-hensible" , " If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article "a'" means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase "the Word was a god."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar In their mistranslation of John 1 :1 "

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar" .

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of , or read of any Greek Scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses . . . I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. Walter Martin (late): "The translation "a god" instead of "GOD' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." ..

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow , Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations John 1:1 is translated: ". . the Word was a god," a translation which is grammatically impossible. . . . It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with "God" in the phrase "And the Word was God." Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction. . . . "a god" would be totally indefensible".

Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago; "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. "My Lord and my God." - John 20; 28.".

Dr. Philip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Iogos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. In the form that John actually uses, the word "theos" is placed at the beginning for emphasis."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No Justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as "the Word was a god." There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct. . . I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John. 1 .1 , there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible- The committee worked under him.)

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text, not the English parts used in the Emphatic Diaglott ):
"So numerous, and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1: 1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth".

 

[gadar perets]

Christ Jesus sees; He hears every word uttered against Him in defiance of its eternal consequence.

I spoke nothing against Yeshua as I glorified his Father, Almighty YHWH. It is you all who rob YHWH of His glory and give it to His Son.

 

[gadar perets]

Sooooooo, ONE Greek scholar agrees with you - and that should be enough for ALL of us?? I don’t think so, Einstein.

I’ll tell you what – I’ll make it easy for you and will just deal with John 1:1 – and NONE of the rest.
Since you’re so impressed with what ONE Greek scholar has to say on the subject - here are MANY Greek scholars who DISAGREE with you . . .
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear TransIation): "A shocking mistranslation. "Obsolete and incorrect." It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1 :1 "The Word was a god.'

Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article. . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. . . . in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "GOD." and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "Irepre-hensible" , " If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article "a'" means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase "the Word was a god."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar In their mistranslation of John 1 :1 "

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar" .

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of , or read of any Greek Scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses . . . I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. Walter Martin (late): "The translation "a god" instead of "GOD' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." ..

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow , Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations John 1:1 is translated: ". . the Word was a god," a translation which is grammatically impossible. . . . It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with "God" in the phrase "And the Word was God." Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction. . . . "a god" would be totally indefensible".

Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago; "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. "My Lord and my God." - John 20; 28.".

Dr. Philip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Iogos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. In the form that John actually uses, the word "theos" is placed at the beginning for emphasis."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No Justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as "the Word was a god." There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct. . . I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John. 1 .1 , there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible- The committee worked under him.)

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text, not the English parts used in the Emphatic Diaglott ):
"So numerous, and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1: 1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth".

It is interesting that, in your carnality, you call me "Einstein" and then continue to erroneously post commentaries that have NOTHING to do with my post on John 1:1c. Every commentator you cited is coming against the JW's translation which I also reject since JWs read the Son into the text as well. The word "theos" is not identifying the "logos" as a being, but as a quality of the "logos".

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is interesting that, in your carnality, you call me "Einstein" and then continue to erroneously post commentaries that have NOTHING to do with my post on John 1:1c. Every commentator you cited is coming against the JW's translation which I also reject since JWs read the Son into the text as well. The word "theos" is not identifying the "logos" as a being, but as a quality of the "logos".

Apparently, you didn't R*E*A*D them because they not only destroy the JW position but support the idea of the deity of Jesus

 

[Phoneman777]

I've been told multiple times that the whore of babylon from revelation is the Roman Catholic Church and the vatican yet I have read revelation 17 and 18 multiple times and a better match seems to be pagan rome which took place in the time revelation was written, why do people keep claiming that the whore of babylon is the catholic church when alot of the evidence suggests pagan rome

A "woman" in prophecy represents the "church". The "woman clothed in light" of Revelation 12 represents God's people and the harlot woman represents the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Phoneman777]

Since this woman is called Mystery Babylon, she represents every false and idolatrous religion since the tower of Babel, and they all will culminate in the worldwide and universal religion of the Antichrist. Today we have Ecumenism, which tries to bring all religions together. Unfortunately the church of Rome is also included in this, since the Vatican promotes False Christianity as well as Ecumenism.

The woman is the RCC and the beast upon which she rides is the secular state, just like apostate Jezebel who held the reins of Ahab.

 

[gadar perets]

Apparently, you didn't R*E*A*D them because they not only destroy the JW position but support the idea of the deity of Jesus

Of course they support the deity of "Jesus". They read him into John 1 just like all other Christians do. Why? Because they grew up on the trinitarian false translations of John 1. They rightfully destroy the JW position, but they don't go far enough and destroy their own position of reading the Son into the logos and into the text. I will not make that same blunder.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The woman is the RCC and the beast upon which she rides is the secular state, just like apostate Jezebel who held the reins of Ahab.

And that kind of idiotic interpretation is indicative of a person who is totally ignorant of Scripture.

Apostate Jerusalem is the whore and Babylon is pagan Rome, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course they support the deity of "Jesus". They read him into John 1 just like all other Christians do. Why? Because they grew up on the trinitarian false translations of John 1. They rightfully destroy the JW position, but they don't go far enough and destroy their own position of reading the Son into the logos and into the text. I will not make that same blunder.

WRONG, Einstein.

One of the scholars even states that he is neither Christian NOR Trinitarian. He's just a Greek scholar.

So much for your moronic assertions . . .

 

[gadar perets]

WRONG, Einstein.

One of the scholars even states that he is neither Christian NOR Trinitarian. He's just a Greek scholar.

So much for your moronic assertions . . .

Cite the work where Dr. J. Johnson made that statement. Do not cite a reference that says he made that statement unless it cites the source.

Even if he did make that statement, it does not change the fact that it has nothing to do with my position. Since you can't actually refute my position, nor can you cite references to scholars who do refute my position, my position stands as a valid understanding of John 1.

BTW, you will be judged by Yeshua for your hatred of me and your carnality and the mocking, derogatory names you use for EVERYONE that disagrees with you. The language you use to reply to us reveals how childish and carnal you really are.

 

[brakelite]

The following is an excerpt from a study on the Godhead by pastor Terry Hill.

n the beginning John opened his gospel by writing “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 Interesting is the way the New English Bible renders this verse. It says “When all things began, the word already was. The word dwelt with God and what God was, the word was.” John 1:1 New English Bible In previous chapters we have clearly seen that “God” (the Father) and “the Word” (the Son of God) are two separate divine personages so we will not go over this again here. What we will note is that one literal rendering of this verse could be ‘In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God [Gr. ton qeon], and the Word was God [Gr. qeov]’. In this particular instance, in using these words this way, John was conveying the thought that in the sense of divine personages, ‘the God’ was separate from ‘the Word’ yet the Word ‘was God’. By his usage of words, John is saying that the Word was God essentially (the Word was everything that God is) but He is not God in personality (in personage). Here ‘the God’ is the Father. Look at it this way. If John had said that ‘the Word’ was with ‘ton qeon’ (the God), and the Word was ‘ton qeon’ (the God)’, this would not make any sense. It would be saying that both ‘the Word’ and ‘the God’ are the same individual personages - which they are not. Here he is saying that the Word is fully and completely God yet at the same time differentiating Him from the ‘one God’, meaning the infinite God, the Father (see John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). This was his purpose in writing this way. He wanted to say that both were God – also that God (which must mean the Father) and the Word were two separate personages. This does not make ‘the Word’ (the Son of God) any less divine than ‘the God’ (the Father) because as we shall repeatedly see, the Scriptures clearly reveal that Christ is God Himself in the person of the Son. It is just that the Son is not ‘the God’ in individual personage. The latter is the Father. John’s purpose was to identify the personage of the Son (see John 20:31). In an article I found on the web called ‘Trinitarian trickery’ I found an interesting statement. It said (this was referring to John 1:1)
“A point of contention concerning this passage has been the signficance of the absence of the definite article ho ("the") with the second occurrence of the word theos. John says "the word was with the theos and the word was theos" but he does not say "the word was the theos." In Koine Greek it was conventional to precede a person's name or title with the definite article when referring to that person. So in Koine Greek it was conventional to refer to "God" as "the god," unlike our English convention.” (Trinitarian trickery, A complete exposé of the false doctrines of the Trinity, www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinitarian-trickery-John-1-1.html) In the New Testament we find that many times the word ‘God’ has the definite article but almost every time it is translated without it (i. e. ‘God’ not ‘the God’). This is the way in English we use the word ‘God’. In modern Greek, a personal name is usually accompanied by the definite article but in English we would not say ‘the Terry’ but just ‘Terry’. This ‘beginning’ spoken of by John was not speaking of ‘forever’ but from when the revelation of God began. To put this in another way – the ‘beginning’ in John 1:1 is the beginning of the revelation of God. It is when God began expressing Himself. How God had His existence prior to what is revealed here (in John 1:1) we have not been told. Speculation therefore is pointless. God Himself has no beginning – therefore it cannot be speaking of the beginning of God.

 

[brakelite]

Christ – as much God as God the Father That the Son of God (the Word) is as much ‘God’ as is God the Father is not in question. As Paul wrote to the Colossians “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9 Other translations render this verse this way “For it is in Christ that the fulness of God's nature dwells embodied, and in Him you are made complete.” Colossians 2:9 Weymouth New Testament “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 New International Version “For in Him the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily” Colossians 2:9 Holman Christian Standard Bible “For in him all the wealth of God's being has a living form” Colossians 2:9 The Bible in Basic English “For in him, bodily, lives the fullness of all that God is” Colossians 2:9 The Complete Jewish Bible God was indwelling in Christ in reality meaning bodily (corporeal). There was no pretence involved. Christ is God in flesh. There are also other texts of Scripture which tell us that Christ is God essentially. These are such as Hebrews 1:8 which says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 Here we can see God talking to the Son yet He (God) is calling Him (the Son) God. This is a citation from Psalm 45:6. Another text to consider is Philippians 2:6. This one says concerning Christ “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” Philippians 2:6 Apart from being told that in His pre-existence Christ was “equal with God”, we are also told that He was once “in the form of God”. As we reason this through, we need to remember that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul wrote “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16

 

[BreadOfLife]

Cite the work where Dr. J. Johnson made that statement. Do not cite a reference that says he made that statement unless it cites the source.

Even if he did make that statement, it does not change the fact that it has nothing to do with my position. Since you can't actually refute my position, nor can you cite references to scholars who do refute my position, my position stands as a valid understanding of John 1.

BTW, you will be judged by Yeshua for your hatred of me and your carnality and the mocking, derogatory names you use for EVERYONE that disagrees with you. The language you use to reply to us reveals how childish and carnal you really are.

I had to delete references and sources because the forum only allows 10,000 characters per post – including the previous post.

Here are a few sources for Dr. Johnson’s remarks – along with MANY others . . .

Mistranslations - Redi-Answers on Jehovah's Witness Doctrine - Study Resources

Scholar's opinion about New World Translation

John 1:1 - New World Translation vs 19 bibles - Doctrines of Faith

John


Oh, and nobody “hates” you – so stop bearing FALSE WITNESS.
That IS something that you will be judged for . . .

 

[Marymog]

All misused and misunderstood verses.

LOL....by your response it looks like "YOU don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on . . ." just like @BreadOfLife said!

I was hoping you would at least TRY....

 

[gadar perets]

I had to delete references and sources because the forum only allows 10,000 characters per post – including the previous post.

Here are a few sources for Dr. Johnson’s remarks – along with MANY others . . .

Mistranslations - Redi-Answers on Jehovah's Witness Doctrine - Study Resources

Scholar's opinion about New World Translation

John 1:1 - New World Translation vs 19 bibles - Doctrines of Faith

John

You gave me four sources that quote each other (or plagiarize each other except fr one), but you did NOT quote the source of Dr. Johnson's words.

Oh, and nobody “hates” you – so stop bearing FALSE WITNESS.
That IS something that you will be judged for . . .

Do your words ooze with love for me and others? No. All you do is mock and belittle people.

 

[gadar perets]

LOL....by your response it looks like "YOU don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on . . ." just like @BreadOfLife said!

I was hoping you would at least TRY....

I guess you didn't read post #168.

 

[gadar perets]

The following is an excerpt from a study on the Godhead by pastor Terry Hill.

n the beginning John opened his gospel by writing “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 Interesting is the way the New English Bible renders this verse. It says “When all things began, the word already was. The word dwelt with God and what God was, the word was.” John 1:1 New English Bible In previous chapters we have clearly seen that “God” (the Father) and “the Word” (the Son of God) are two separate divine personages so we will not go over this again here. What we will note is that one literal rendering of this verse could be ‘In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God [Gr. ton qeon], and the Word was God [Gr. qeov]’. In this particular instance, in using these words this way, John was conveying the thought that in the sense of divine personages, ‘the God’ was separate from ‘the Word’ yet the Word ‘was God’. By his usage of words, John is saying that the Word was God essentially (the Word was everything that God is) but He is not God in personality (in personage). Here ‘the God’ is the Father. Look at it this way. If John had said that ‘the Word’ was with ‘ton qeon’ (the God), and the Word was ‘ton qeon’ (the God)’, this would not make any sense. It would be saying that both ‘the Word’ and ‘the God’ are the same individual personages - which they are not. Here he is saying that the Word is fully and completely God yet at the same time differentiating Him from the ‘one God’, meaning the infinite God, the Father (see John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). This was his purpose in writing this way. He wanted to say that both were God – also that God (which must mean the Father) and the Word were two separate personages. This does not make ‘the Word’ (the Son of God) any less divine than ‘the God’ (the Father) because as we shall repeatedly see, the Scriptures clearly reveal that Christ is God Himself in the person of the Son. It is just that the Son is not ‘the God’ in individual personage. The latter is the Father. John’s purpose was to identify the personage of the Son (see John 20:31). In an article I found on the web called ‘Trinitarian trickery’ I found an interesting statement. It said (this was referring to John 1:1)
“A point of contention concerning this passage has been the signficance of the absence of the definite article ho ("the") with the second occurrence of the word theos. John says "the word was with the theos and the word was theos" but he does not say "the word was the theos." In Koine Greek it was conventional to precede a person's name or title with the definite article when referring to that person. So in Koine Greek it was conventional to refer to "God" as "the god," unlike our English convention.” (Trinitarian trickery, A complete exposé of the false doctrines of the Trinity, www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinitarian-trickery-John-1-1.html) In the New Testament we find that many times the word ‘God’ has the definite article but almost every time it is translated without it (i. e. ‘God’ not ‘the God’). This is the way in English we use the word ‘God’. In modern Greek, a personal name is usually accompanied by the definite article but in English we would not say ‘the Terry’ but just ‘Terry’. This ‘beginning’ spoken of by John was not speaking of ‘forever’ but from when the revelation of God began. To put this in another way – the ‘beginning’ in John 1:1 is the beginning of the revelation of God. It is when God began expressing Himself. How God had His existence prior to what is revealed here (in John 1:1) we have not been told. Speculation therefore is pointless. God Himself has no beginning – therefore it cannot be speaking of the beginning of God.

He makes the same mistake everyone else does. He reads the Son into the text. He makes the logos the Son. Major error. YHWH spoke His Son into existence when His spoken words and thoughts became flesh.

 

[gadar perets]

Christ – as much God as God the Father That the Son of God (the Word) is as much ‘God’ as is God the Father is not in question. As Paul wrote to the Colossians “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9

This verse does not say Yeshua is God. It says God dwelt in Yeshua in all His fulness. And there is no such thing as a "Godhead". That is a trinitarian invention to make it appear as though God is comprised of several heads/parts. The word simply means "divinity" or "deity".

These are such as Hebrews 1:8 which says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 Here we can see God talking to the Son yet He (God) is calling Him (the Son) God. This is a citation from Psalm 45:6.

God (Elohim) is calling His Son (elohim). Even men are called "elohim", but they are not "Elohim". Yeshua said there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD (ELOHIM), his Father YHWH (John 17:3).

Another text to consider is Philippians 2:6. This one says concerning Christ “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” Philippians 2:6 Apart from being told that in His pre-existence Christ was “equal with God”, we are also told that He was once “in the form of God”.

Yeshua never was and never will be equal to God (his Father YHWH). Other versions correct the KJV translation to read, "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," NASB and many others.

As we reason this through, we need to remember that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul wrote “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16

A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage."

E.W. Bullinger writes, “The Revised Version prints "He Who", and adds in margin, "Theos (God) rests on no sufficient evidence". The probability is that the original rending was ho (which), with the Syriac and all the Latin Versions, to agree with musterion (neut.) The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making OC (He Who), which ho thought made better sense. Later another put a ark in this O, making the word OC, the contraction for OEOC, God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink.”

Many other references say the same thing.