Which Bible translation is the best?

[historia]

Which English translation of the Bible do you like the best?

Why do you like it better than other translations?

And which one do you like second best?

[brianbbs67]

If I could figure out how to vote, I would have multiple choices. ESV, NASB, KJ, JPS Tanakh, Stone's Tanakh, and LXX and the Koine. Seems best to check them against them all.

[onewithhim]

So for those Trinitarians and 'binitarians' who complain about the use of 'Jehovah,' how is it you don't make as big a fuss about 'Jesus' since he is supposedly equally God with Jehovah?

This is a bit of a red herring. A person's Christology has no real bearing on whether they prefer the pronunciation of the divine name as 'Jehovah' or not. There are trinitarians who insist on 'Jehovah', and non-trinitarians who insist on 'Yahweh', and vice-versa.

But let's address the broader point here:

Both "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are pronunciations that were coined by the same language group. If you have no problem with "Jesus," then there should be no problem with "Jehovah."

I disagree. The usual criticism of 'Jehovah' is not that it is a Latinization of the Hebrew divine name. That, in and of itself, is not a problem. Lots of Hebrew names have come into English from Latin, often by way of Greek. These have been in wide use, with evolving pronunciation, by western Christians for millennia.

Rather, the criticism of 'Jehovah' is that it is most likely a late Medieval misconstruction of the divine name. Christian scholars then apparently didn't realize the purpose of the qere perpetuum vowel markings for YHWH in the Masoretic text, and so, when transliterating the divine name into English and other modern languages, combined the consonants of YHWH with the vowels for adonai ('Lord') to create 'Jehovah'.

The word itself only became widely used by Christians in the 17th and 18th centuries -- so comparatively recently -- before rapidly falling out of use in academia in the 19th and 20th centuries, once Christian scholars and translators recognized it was likely mistaken. It is increasingly rare among the general public today. The more accurate transliteration 'Yahweh' has eclipsed it in contemporary usage. Consider this frequency analysis from Google books, or just look at the discussions on the Apologetics forum on this site as evidence.

Given its peculiar origin and usage, 'Jehovah' falls into a different category from other biblical Hebrew names in English. And so those who dislike 'Jehovah' but accept 'Jesus' are drawing consistent category distinctions, in my opinion. Personally, it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

You think "Jehovah" or even "Yahweh" are wrong pronunciations, yet "LORD" isn't even CLOSE to YHWH. Why accept "LORD" when it is more dishonest than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"?

[historia]

Given its peculiar origin and usage, 'Jehovah' falls into a different category from other biblical Hebrew names in English.

From what I can see the two elements that you point out that differentiate JEHOVAH from other English biblical names are

1. Its date
2. Its vowel choice

Yes, although on the second point, it's not simply the choice of vowels, but the fact that the vowels have come from a different word altogether, adonai. I don't know of any other Latinized form of a Hebrew name that is a mistaken conflation of two different words.

I would also add a third reason from my previous post:

3. It has been eclipsed in contemporary usage by another pronunciation.

There are direct transliterations of all of these Hebrew names into English -- Yeshua for Jesus, Yaakov for Jacob, etc. -- but, as far as I know, none have supplanted the Latinized form in contemporary usage. Only Jehovah has been eclipsed by the direct transliteration Yahweh.

Why did you mention "late Medieval" is that relevant? If it was early medieval would that be more acceptable? Or if it were a 5th century construction. In short is an element of your objection it's relative modernity?

I'm simply noting that this differentiates Jehovah from all other Latinized Hebrew names. Those all came into Latin in the first couple centuries CE. Jehovah doesn't appear until a thousand years later.

What if information came to light today they removed all doubt as to the pronunciation, would the date of such information mean it could not be accepted because this new pronunciation would be a 21st Century construction?

If a newer, more accurate transliteration supplants Yahweh, then we should definitely use that instead.

But note here we're now talking about direct transliterations from Hebrew into English. What we're discussing above are Latinized forms of Hebrew names. This new transliteration wouldn't change the fact that Jehovah, an attempted Latinization of the divine name, is different from other Latinized forms of Hebrew names.

Rather, the criticism of 'Jehovah' is that it is most likely a .... misconstruction of the divine name.

"Miscontruction"? Is Yawheh not also a "misconstruction" if by that you are objecting to the chosen vowels not reflecting the original Hebrew sounds?

Indeed, that is not my point. I call it a misconstruction because it is a mistaken conflation of two different words.

NOTE Jehovahs Witnesses have absolutely no problem with any academically sound transliteration of the Divine Name, we simply object to those that claim that the English JEHOVAH is not just as acceptable as the English form JESUS.

I appreciate that clarification. And I have no personal objection to people using Jehovah, if that is their tradition.

I'm simply noting here that there are enough differences between Jehovah and other Latinized Hebrew names to justify placing them into different categories, and thus treating them differently, if one so chooses. So the argument "if you accept the pronunciation of 'Jesus' you should accept the pronunciation of 'Jehovah'" has little to no force, I think.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why did you mention "late Medieval" is that relevant? If it was early medieval would that be more acceptable? Or if it were a 5th century construction. In short is an element of your objection it's relative modernity?

I'm simply noting that this differentiates Jehovah from all other Latinized Hebrew names. Those all came into Latin in the first couple centuries CE. Jehovah doesn't appear until a thousand years later.

What if information came to light today they removed all doubt as to the pronunciation, would the date of such information mean it could not be accepted because this new pronunciation would be a 21st Century construction?

If a newer, more accurate transliteration supplants Yahweh, then we should definitely use that instead.

.

So the date of a transliteration's introduction into the vernacular is, in itself irrelevant in terms of accuracy; it neither invalidates nor validates a usage, would you not agree?

If a pronunciation (read trnasliteration) that dates from the 21st Century wouldn't be invalidated because of its relative modernity, why would something that dates from the middle ages be ? Would you not apply the same "rule" and say this new [XYZ 21st century] pronunciation has only come into use since 2018 and since "[Other names ] all came ... [XYZ] doesn't appear until [two] thousand years later." it will be rejected on the basis of the date of its appearance.

Can you understand some may see this as smacking of double standards ie :

"1518 "No! too modern" ....
2018 "No problem! ... got nothing against modern renditions appearing thousands of years after more established ones!"

NOTE You did not originally make any mention of date "into Latin" you simply stated

Rather, the criticism of 'Jehovah' is that it is most likely ... late Medieval .

Are you suggesting a name must first be transliterated into Latin to be valid and any transliteration directly from the HEBREW invalidates it?






JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Given its peculiar origin and usage, 'Jehovah' falls into a different category from other biblical Hebrew names in English.

There are direct transliterations of all of these Hebrew names into English -- Yeshua for Jesus, Yaakov for Jacob, etc. -- but, as far as I know, none have supplanted the Latinized form in contemporary usage. Only Jehovah has been eclipsed by the direct transliteration Yahweh.

Emphasis MINE

So your point is, that the form JEHOVAH (the English) is now "unacceptable" because (in your opinion) YAHWEH is more popular. Have I understood this point correctly? If so, see response below, if not please clarify.


RESPONSE

• If that were the case Jehovah's Witnesses would, in no way lament this. In fact, if the form "JEHOVAH" ever did for some reason become archaic and pass into complete oblivion our English speakers might well adopt the form YAHWEH instead. The fact is however that YAHWEH has about 500 years of catching up to do, to even approach from a distance the English form Jehovah in terms of familiarity and use.
  
  Jehovah (spelt in olde english) was the form used in the first English bibles and it remains in what , according to The British Library, is the most widely publish text in the english language, namely The King James Version. The KJV was used by many protestant translators as the basis for their translations and as a result transliterations (often very close or identical to the ENGLISH form) became familiar around the world*. It is engraved on churches, figures in prayers and hymns (It may surprise people to learn how popular the form is in Africa and Asia and search for hymns on YTube for example, will result many gospel - non-Witness - churches that use the name freely). The form JEHOVAH remains, because of its history, an integral part of the English language and beyond.
  
  * Jehovah/Yehowah is also found in many of the earliest bible's in European languages.
  
  Another point to bear in mind is unfortunately, bible translators at least are not "eclipsing" the form Jehovah with Yahweh, they are REMOVING the divine name. The "New" King James for example has not replaced its traditional four mentions "Jehovah" with YAWWEH , it has removed it entirely. And if I'm not mistaken (I will stand corrected on this, if I'm wrong), Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) has/stands to remove it's thousands of occurance of YAHWEH from its text.

JEREMIAH 23:27

They intend to make my people forget my name - NWT

And this is not without consequence for Christendoms millions. Setting aside The fact that millions of Catholics have been instructed not to make any mention of the Divine Name (in any form) in their public services, the majority of people with whom I speak, and I speak to a lot of people on this topic, deem God's name unimportant or irrelevant. Even on this board I have been told by believes many times that they will mention God's name on a strictly "have to" basis, but "prefer" not to use it, unless they deem it unavoidable and they are unconcerned with its removal from the bible. One cannot help but wonder if this utter lack of esteem, this total disregard for the value of The Name is due to its systematic removal from the major bible translations of the Divine Name...

CONCLUSION Its hard to see why anyone would suggest that a word's fall out of use would, in itself make that word inaccurate. A change in the meaning and usage of a word (such as "gay" now used to describe being homosexual ) might hinder communication if popular usage is disregarded, but this wouldn't render the archaic use "wrong" or inaccurate ( "gay" did mean happy for hundreds of years). In any case this argument doesn't apply to the form JEHOVAH even if it did make sense (which it doesnt), the form JEHOVAH retains its original meaning in public perception and while the form YAHWEH "eclipsing" the English Jehovah is not problematic for Jehovah's Witnesses, it also happens not to be true.

JW

[tam]

Peace to you,

There are direct transliterations of all of these Hebrew names into English -- Yeshua for Jesus, Yaakov for Jacob, etc. -- but, as far as I know, none have supplanted the Latinized form in contemporary usage. Only Jehovah has been eclipsed by the direct transliteration Yahweh.

So your point is, that the form JEHOVAH (the English) is now "unacceptable" because (in your opinion) YAHWEH is more popular. Have I understood this point correctly?




JW

Not more popular. More accurate.

[tam]

Peace to you,

If that were the case Jehovah's Witnesses would, in no way lament this. In fact, if the form "JEHOVAH" ever did for some reason become archaic and pass into complete oblivion our English speakers might well adopt the form YAHWEH instead. The fact is however that YAHWEH has about 500 years of catching up to do, to even approach from a distance the English form Jehovah in terms of familiarity and use.

Jehovah (spelt in olde english) was the form used in the first English bibles and it remains in what , according to The British Library, is the most widely publish text in the english language, namely The King James Version. The KJV was used by many protestant translators as the basis for their translations and as a result transliterations (often very close or identical to the ENGLISH form) became familiar around the world*. It is engraved on churches, figures in prayers and hymns (It may surprise people to learn how popular the form is in Africa and Asia and search for hymns on YTube for example, will result many gospel - non-Witness - churches that use the name freely). The form JEHOVAH remains, because of its history, an integral part of the English language and beyond.

So in other words, "Jehovah" is the name that is being used because of popularity.


Not because it is true (it is certainly not true).

But because it is familiar, popular and traditional.



This is what we get from the religion that calls itself the 'one true religion' and that denounces other religions for accepting doctrines and falsehoods based on tradition or popularity or familiarity? It does the exact same thing as those it denounces! And people gobble it up, defend it, turn a blind eye to it. (Jeremiah 5:30, 31)


There is no religion that is the truth.

There is only Christ, WHO is the Truth. Not a religion. A person: the ONE to whom we must come (John 6:68), the only one who will lead us into all truth, and the one who has the words of eternal life. He is the One who God told us to listen TO:


"This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to Him!"




May anyone who wishes them be given ears so as to hear the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say to YOU, "Come!" And may anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ Jaheshua,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

I call it a misconstruction because it is a mistaken conflation of two different words.

So it's not which vowels are used but where you believe they came from, is that correct? So...if, instead of getting them from another word, we were to close our eyes and pick random vowels from a hat and they happened to be e-o-a that would be fine?


In short ...

Being absolutely certain the vowels (and number of syllables) in the English JESUS are "wrong" is fine, there is no problem if we know they don't match the original Hebrew.

Being absolutely certain the vowels (and number of syllables) in the English JEHOVAH are wrong is not fine, there *is* a problem if we know they don't match the original Hebrew.

.... only because of where the vowels in question come from (another word).


Does that about sum up the point?


JW

[Tcg]

I call it a misconstruction because it is a mistaken conflation of two different words.

So it's not which vowels are used but where you believe they came from, is that correct? So...if, instead of getting them from another word, we were to close our eyes and pick random vowels from a hat and they happened to be e-o-a that would be fine?

Does that about sum up the point?

JW

I suspect that God is not terribly concerned about which vowels are used to spell his name. Hopefully he is intelligent enough to know who his faithful are addressing when they address him.


I'm not aware of any verses that state, "Cast into the lake of fire those who pick the wrong vowels." Certainly God is not that petty.



Tcg

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 43 by historia]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your objection.

People say that the consonants YHWH are supplanted with the vowels from ADONAI to create "Jehovah." Yet I don't see the vowels from Adonai in the name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." That doesn't make sense.