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?

[historia]

I agree we can't be certain what the original pronunciation was, but that doesn't entail that all "educated guesses" are equally valid

Emphasis MINE

Sure, but I did not mention "equality" (a rather subjective assessment when it comes to what is closer to an unknown), I said "can an academic case be made? "

Apologies, I had read your recent comment in post 73 . . .

[T]here are no more reason to accept Jehovah as {quote} " accurate" than there are to accept YAHWEH as "accurate".

. . . in the light of your earlier comment from post 63 (emphasis mine) . . .

If the vowel choices were not merely tranplants from another word but rather influenced by academic considerations, then JEHOVAH would not be considered a "misconstruction and would in fact be as equally valid an English transliteration as any other English equivalent"

. . . as suggesting an equality between 'Jehovah' and 'Yahweh'.

But, if I understand your clarification here, you seem to be arguing instead that 'Jehovah' meets a kind of minimum threshold of validity, without it necessarily being as equally valid as 'Yahweh'. Is that correct?

You brought up the label "a miscontruction" by which (please correct me if I'm wrong to avoid further misunderstandings) you are suggesting there is an absence of sound valid academic reasons to accept it as a transliteration at all.

Not quite. I'll go back to my original reply to this question (emphasis added):

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

So, it's not merely the absence of an argument in its favor, but more specifically the positive evidence that Jehovah is the conflation of YHWH and adonai.

Thus, logically, for me to conclude it is not a misconstruction, I would need to see a compelling argument to the contrary, as I said previously (again, emphasis added):

If there was strong academic support for Jehovah (or Yehowah) as being an accurate transliteration and not the conflation of YHWH and adonai, then it would not be accurate to call it a misconstruction.

But you seem to be proposing a somewhat more general proposition:

Can an academically sound case be made for a three-syllable (Yehowah) transliteration of the Tetragramaton with an e-o-a vowel configuration?

If yes, then it's a valid transliteration (regardless of whether it's a popular one or not). If no, then it is not a transliteration and might justifiably considered a "misconstruction".

I guess. But if such an argument doesn't address my specific reason for calling Jehovah a misconstruction -- i.e., that it is the conflation of two different words -- then it would leave us in a somewhat unresolved position, specifically:

...if Jehovah is accurate at all, it would only be coincidentally so.

Could you explain this statement please?

Sure. So it occurs to me that there is a possible alternative to what I just said above: namely that, it can both be the case that (a) Jehovah is the mistaken conflation of YHWH and adonai and (b) by sheer coincidence, e-o-a was the original vowel combination. After all, any three vowels stand a non-zero probability of being correct, regardless of how they were chosen.

In that scenario, Jehovah would be coincidentally accurate.

If you'd have said, you consider JEHOVAH a less valid academic guess and explained that by "academic guess" you mean a guess as to which is closer to the completely lost and unknown original pronunciation of the Tetragramaton, we would have had no dispute whatsoever.

I'm glad we agree on this point. But if we agree that Yahweh better accounts for the available historical evidence, then the relative standing of lesser, alternative transliterations seems comparatively unimportant, no?

[JehovahsWitness]

But, if I understand your clarification here, you seem to be arguing instead that 'Jehovah' meets a kind of minimum threshold of validity, without it necessarily being as equally valid as 'Yahweh'. Is that correct?

Yes I did say qualify "equally valid as a transliteration" as in, does it qualify as a transliteration according to the understanding of what a transliteration *IS*. As opposed to which transliteration is closer to the original pronunciation in ancient Hebrew which is what I took your "All transliterations are not equal" to mean. Was I correct? Was that indeed what you meant?

But, if I understand your clarification here, you seem to be arguing instead that 'Jehovah' meets a kind of minimum threshold of validity, without it necessarily being as equally valid as 'Yahweh'. Is that correct?

Again, that would depend on what you mean by "validity" ; valid as a transliteration rather than a misconstruction. If so, all transliteration are "equally" since they all meet the criteria of what a transliteration is. There aren't degrees in such a qualification, if the rules of grammar snd pronunciation in both the source and target languages are respected then all transliterations are equal.

To illustrate if a female is defined as a person with XX chromosomes, then all that meet that criteria are "equal" (which was my point). If the point is which most looks like Julia Roberts then no, they are not equal since that is not a discussion about categorization

If you are saying the form JEHOVAH can indeed be categorized as a transliteration then it is equal in the category of "English transliterations of the Tetregrammaton". The question of which like most like the original is another discussion.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

But if such an argument doesn't address my specific reason for calling Jehovah a misconstruction -- i.e., that it is the conflation of two different words -- then it would leave us in a somewhat unresolved position,

Not really because your objection is, excuse me, an ad hoc argument.

There is nothing in the definition a transliteration that that disallows for any coincidental duplication of vowels to earlier tradition. If there was (as I earlier pointed out) YAHWEH (which begins with the first letter of Adonis, would also be disqualified. There is a case for a three syllable e-o-a configuration or there is not. Period. Not liking how a particular vowel was coincidentally used on the past is just so much nonsense.

The reason I havent made the case for the form JEHOVAH is that there would be no point if regardless of how sound the argument, the letters a-e-o had to be barred from inclusion (which would be the height of academic bias since two of those three vowels are also in y-A-hw-E-h) because of the masoretic tradition.

Can an academically sound case be made for a three-syllable (Yehowah) transliteration of the Tetragramaton with an e-o-a vowel configuration?

If yes, then it's a valid transliteration (regardless of whether it's a popular one or not). If no, then it is not a transliteration and might justifiably considered a "misconstruction".

I guess. [...]

Can I take that as a "yes"? If so that Would mean that JEHOVAH is a transliteration, just like all the others.

[...] In that scenario, Jehovah would be coincidentally accurate.

So? So what?! Is a so-called "coincidentally accurate" transliteration a transliteration or a misconstruction?


JW

[tam]

Peace to you both (and all of you),


My post on this thread concerning the name of God is here (though I have a few comments after as well):

viewtopic.php?p=962180#962180


**

That being said, I wanted to comment as to the ongoing discussion about how "Jehovah" came to be formed. Historia has the right of it. "Jehovah" a conflation of the consonants "YHWH" and the vowels of Adonai. That conflation is how the name "Jehovah" came to be. Not because it is true and not because there were grammatical reasons to insert those letters.


No need to take my word for this; no need to take even Historia's word. This fact is confirmed in the JW magazine titled, "The divine name that will endure forever."

I am holding a physical copy in my hand.

From pages 7 and 8:


"While ancient Hebrew was an every day spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation "Ltd." represents "Limited" and "bldg." represents "building").

Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word "Adho-nai' ("Sovereign Lord"). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in every day conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God's name was eventually forgotten.

In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, both vowels and consonants were written down, and the pronunciation as it was at the at time was preserved.

When it came to God's name, instead of putting the PROPER vowel signs around it, in most cases they put OTHER vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho-nai'. From this came the spelling Iehouah, and eventually, Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. "





Perhaps this will help some in your discussion.



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

[2ndRateMind]

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

Why do you like it better than other translations?

The KJV. It's pure poetry, with a degree of heritage included as a bonus.

Best wishes, 2RM

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION Is the form JEHOVAH a legitimate transliteration of the Tetragramaton or an entirely false erroneous and conflation academically disqualified from being considered as such?

• The English form JEHOVAH respects the established consonants of the tetragrammaton and has sound academic basis for the vowels choices made; It thus by any definition qualifies as one of the many transliterations proposed by bible translators today of the divine name.

Would the form JEHOVAH not be disqualified from any serious consideration due to the masoretic tradition which historically influenced the e-o-a vowel configuration?

• Vowels cannot be "disqualified from use because they have historically been used as "fillers". There are six vowels sounds in the Hebrew language and no Hebrew scholars has ever eliminated the use of any of them based on their use in masoretic texts. While the manuscripts with those vowel points do not help in determining how the name was originally pronounced in Hebrew, this doesn't mean that they hinder choices, effectively reducing which vowels may be used . Indeed the first vowel in the much favoured YAHWEH happens to be the the very same "A" of adonai, the first vowel used the masoretic point system. Obviously then, the letters e-o-a have not been eliminated from use by serious bible scholars when considering if they should be included in possible transliterations.

What then is the case for the three vowel e-o-a YEHOWAH/JEHOVAH?

THEOPHORIC NAMES A theophoric name (literally "bearing or carrying a god") embeds the name of a god within it. The ancient Hebrews did this a lot with names of places and people. These names provide a clue to how the original divine name may have been pronounced. For example, the Hebrew name YEHOSHUA (Jesus) is a phosphoric name that means "YHWH saves", notice how it is pronunced in Hewbrew. All theophoric names, which include the divine name YHW- at their beginning, are always pronounced Yehâ„¢- (or Yehow-), without exception.



The YEHO- configuration provides evidence for a three syllable e-o configuration...



MANUSCRIPT 4Q120 This ia an ancient copy of the Greeka Septuagint (LXX) which transliterates the divine named to Iao ( ΙΑΩ ) in Leviticus 3:12 (frg. 6) and 4:27 (frg. 20). Besides that form, early Greek writers also suggest the pronunciations Iae, I·a·beʹ, and I·a·ou·eʹ.

CONCLUSION There is no consensus as to how the Divine Name was originally pronounced but those that suggest that YeHoWah/ JEHOVAH is without solid academic basis that predates and supercedes the masoretic tradition are mistaken. Indeed there is arguably more indication for a three syllable Yehowah than the in vogue YAHWEH given the historical and grammatical indications available.

Further Reading
https://www.academia.edu/10728293/Gods_ ... ceable_why

[JehovahsWitness]

[Cont. to post 86 by JehovahsWitness]



REFERENCES



HEBREW GRAMMAR In Biblical Hebrew, it is not acceptable for two vowels to stand beside each other *, therefore the consonantal sound of W has to be pronounced, and YEHOAH becomes YEHOWAH ( see * Van der Merwe, C., Naudé , J., Kroeze, J., Van der Merwe, C., Naudé , J., & Kroeze, J. (1997). A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (electronic ed.) (30). Oak Harbor)

"There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Jews during the first or second temple [period] pronounced YHWH as Yahweh . But [the] Samaritans had a pronunciation which was not far from Yahweh. When the element YAH occurs in proper names, it is at the end of the name. Looking at proper names in the Tanach, it seems that the first two syllables of YHWH was YAHO or YEHO. - G. W. Buchanan (Some Unfinished Business With the Dead Sea Scrolls, Revue de Qumran, 13:49-52 (1988)).

NOTE: “In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as ‘Ya,’ but never as ‘Ya-weh.’ . . . When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was ‘Yah’ or ‘Yo.’ When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been ‘Yahowah’ or ‘Yahoowah.’ If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been ‘Yaho.’�—George Buchanan, professor emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., Biblical Archaeology Review.

MEANING

" The Name is best represented by the four sounds I-A-U-E or ee-ah-oo-eh. If you pronounce these quickly you will get the combined sound in English. This appears to agree withJosephus, with the Greek transliterations. It would be writtenin English as YAHUEH not strictly YAHWEH, which is the consonantal form. The problem with this proposal is the question of the meaning. These four sounds appear to mean nothing in Hebrew, and they lose their connection with the verb hayah, "to be," upon which the Divine Name appears tobe based. Hebrew names are believed to carry meaning, how much more the case with the very Name of God!The combination YE-HO-AH makes better grammatical sense. In Hebrew "YE" represents the future or imperfect of the verb"to be," "HO" represents the resent, while "AH" representsthe past. specific meaning and not be merely a repetition of vowel sounds. Quite literally YEHOAH means "shall/is/was. . ." - Bible translator and expert in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages Professor James Tabor:
SOURCE

"... perhaps the strongest evidence in favor of 'hovah' (as in YE-ho-vah) is that in Hebrew 'YE' is the future tense of 'to be' as in 'shall', 'HO' is the present tense of 'to be' as in 'is,' and 'AH' is the past tense of 'to be' as in 'was.' Thus YE-HO-AH can mean 'who was, who is, and who shall be.' This is in perfect alignment with YHVH's own words, 'I am that I am.' When we insert the VAV (V sound) we have the pronunciation of: YE-HO-V-AH" - Peter and Linda Miller-Russo, Proclaim His Holy Name: Uncovering the Father's Will For His Name , Only Believe Publishing, 2011, pp. 46-47

"It is true that the Masoretic pointing of YHWH is based on the vowels of a substitute, but we must remember that the real pronunciation of YHWH was lost when the Masoretes did their work. Thus they did not necessarily use vowels which were different from the original pronunciation (which they did not know), but they used the vowels from the substitute word. Their use of the vowels YE:H , or occasionally YE:HO at the beginning does not rule out that YE:HO was used in the original pronunciation. In short: The evidence points to a pronunciation during the second temple [period] which is closer to the three syllabic YAHOWA/YEHOWA than to the two-syllabic YAHWEH - G. W. Buchanan (Some Unfinished Business With the Dead Sea Scrolls, Revue de Qumran, 13:49-52 (1988)).

Further Reading
https://www.hope-of-israel.org/tetragram.html

[marco]

The KJV. It's pure poetry, with a degree of heritage included as a bonus.

I agree. It has a quaintness, an other-worldly charm, as though it were inhaled directly from some ethereal source. David's lament is the finest example of poetry and it is hard to read it without being struck by its emotion.


"Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.

Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew ....."

The cadences are magnificent; there is sad balance in the verbs Tell and publish (later versions have "proclaim" which is much less effective.] The proper names give majesty and the repetition of the "lest" clauses is delightful. Then we move to the address, or apostrophe, to the mountains of Gilboa. The old pronoun "ye" is in harmony with the dejected appeal.... I love these verses! A work of art.

[Difflugia]

I use the ESV most. I started using it because Crossway made electronic versions available for free and kept using it because it's readable, reasonably literal, and I haven't noticed too many dodgy translations. It also includes a number of more likely alternate readings even when the result is theologically challenging (Dt. 32:8 ends in "sons of God" rather than the more popular, but probably later "sons of Israel" as found in the Masoretic Text). It replaced the combination of the NASB and NRSV that I used to use.

I do like Bibles that translate the tetragrammaton as "Yahweh." My favorite of those is the New Jerusalem Bible, but it's mostly unavailable electronically (only in Logos and without footnotes). I have a soft spot for the ASV, but it's too quirky and still too archaic for comfortable reading or study.

The main reason I still use the KJV is because there's a distinction between singular and plural "you" in the New Testament.

To the other posters: Does it not matter at all that the name of the Author of the Bible was removed from all of the translations that you mentioned (except in 4 places in the KJV)?

What do you mean? Ezra's mentioned by name, like, 25 times in those translations.

[brianbbs67]

Yeshua, Yehoshua, all transliterate as Joshua. Some where in the OT, God promises to send another Joshua. He did. Part of His name is in that name as well. And He told us we would forget His name. We have. Our best guess is Yehuah but that is a guess as we have forgotten. Kind of sad, but He said it would happen. I know I wasn't the one who forgot it. But, I also know claiming to know it would be false also.