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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 22 by tigger2]

I view it differently because "Jesus" as I understand it is the Greek form of His Hebrew name. It is not meant to be the original true name, and I understand that it is not attempting to be.

However, translations for God's (the Father's) name do seem to be attempting to be His literal true name. Correct me if I'm wrong on that though.

In any case, I view the Father's name as the Holiest Name, and I don't wish to mispronounce it or even use another language's translation of it. Since Jesus came down to this earth as a man, I feel more comfortable referring to Him as I would for the names of other humans who walk on this earth where they are translated and/or pronounced differently in other languages.

Jesus' name is different in various languages also, and I don't think it is Greek (in fact, in Greek his name is "Iesous"). 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."

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 29 by historia]

Historia, do you find it acceptable that the personal name of God (YHWH) has been removed from most versions of the Bible, with a substitution of "LORD" instead?

[tam]

To tigger, owh, and jw (peace to you all),


I mean no disrespect to any of you, but how are the three of you not justifying one error with another error? "Jehovah" is incorrect, but since "Jesus" is also incorrect, the first error is okay?

How can one falsehood justify another falsehood?


Does truth not matter?

[onewithhim]

To tigger, owh, and jw (peace to you all),


I mean no disrespect to any of you, but how are the three of you not justifying one error with another error? "Jehovah" is incorrect, but since "Jesus" is also incorrect, the first error is okay?

How can one falsehood justify another falsehood?


Does truth not matter?

The point is....the pronunciations "Jehovah" and "Jesus" aren't "falsehoods." They are pronunciations set forth by some English speaking translators as they rendered the names of the Father and the Son, and they came to be understood and used by most English-speaking people. Yet "Jehovah" is eschewed, while "Jesus" is not. Jesus was not "Jesus" to his contemporaries (more like "Yeshua"), but English speakers have no problem with calling him "Jesus." And we all know who is being referred to---the Son of God. So we really can't call these pronunciations ("Jehovah" and "Jesus" false....they are renderings from the Hebrew and Greek in whatever form a particular language group can identify with.)

I am not upset if a Spanish speaking person calls me Pa-mella or an Egyptian calls me Heqt-hap. They are pronouncing my name from the knowledge they have of how to render it in their language. It is not "false." It is involving their understanding of their own language and how they have translated them from the Hebrew and Greek.

[historia]

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)?

Does it matter to me that most English versions of the Bible translate YHWH using the epithet LORD?

Not at all. Many versions mention -- either in the translation notes or in footnotes, or both -- that when LORD or GOD is used in all-caps that it translates the divine name. I even frequently say 'Yahweh' when reading those in the text, personally.

Despite speculation to the contrary above, I think the evidence shows that Christians have used 'Lord' from the beginning, so it seems altogether appropriate that modern Christian translations continue that practice.

As an aside: the first translation listed in the OP, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), actually transliterates the divine name as 'Yahweh' in over 600 places in the Old Testament. The new version of that translation, now just called the Christian Standard Bible, uses LORD throughout instead. But, since the HCSB is no longer in demand, you can find nice editions of it for cheap on Amazon or Ebay these days.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 35 by historia]

There is evidence that the early Christian congregation used the Divine Name, and surely Jesus did. He considered it the most important thing to pray about. (Matthew 6:9; John 17:6,26) The Tetragrammaton, as you might know, still exists in Hebrew manuscripts and we can see it, about 7,000 times. It seems that men took the name out of the Greek Scriptures somewhere around the 4th century.

We have no problem if people want to say "Yahweh." What is wrong is taking God's name out of the Bible and substituting it with "LORD." It is so misleading and confusing.


I like Young's Literal Translation and the American Standard Bible, and even Darby's Translation, for they use "Jehovah" as the divine name in every instance it appears in the Hebrew Scriptures. The New Jerusalem Bible renders the name "Yahweh."

[JehovahsWitness]

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)?

Does it matter to me that most English versions of the Bible translate YHWH using the epithet LORD?

Not at all.

Respect to Historia for being one of the few believers that clearly admits that taking/removing the name of God, from the bible, is not a problem. If more believers out and out said, God's name doesn't have to be in the bible, I'd save a lot of posting time explaining the paradox of claiming to love, praise and honour a name while at the same time arguing it is irrelevat or has no place in public religious services.

JEREMIAH 23:27

They intend to make my people forget my name - NWT

NOTE:As far as the bible is concerned, the form JEHOVAH is not being replaced by YAHWEH, most popular modern translations are removing any form of the Divine Name entirely. A good thing?


JW

[historia]

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

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

1. Its date

2. Its vowel choice

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

Emphasis MINE


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? 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?


What relevance it's date?




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 38 by historia]

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

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

1. Its date (see above)

2. Its vowel choice

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? What about the vowels in the English JESUS (e-u)? We know for a fact that e-u do not reflect the original hebrew vowel sounds of Yehoshua (e-o-u-a) why are these "wrong" vowels acceptable for the English Jesus but not for the English Jehovah ?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what exactly you are objecting to regarding the vowels choices...is the point that if the vowels come from Lord (which if we don't know what they were is as good a choice as any) that's bad but if I just pick them out of a hat that's fine?

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.




JW