Talk:Jehovah/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Arabic Similarity

Allah is considered by most Islamic scholars to be the proper name for God. The name or attribute Jehovah does not appear in any Islamic source but there some similarities in some of the names and attributes. Example; Al-Hayy (the Ever-Living) in prayers or supplicating Al-Hayy becomes "Ya Alhayy" (O the Ever-Living One) or Ya Allah (O God). The Sufis are known to use the phrase YaHuAllah (Ya Hu Allah)--Oh He is Allah! This ultimate and powerful phrase YAHUALLAH is very close to YAHUWAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abumaya (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Allah is not a name at all, it is a title. It derives from al-Ilah "the god" and has the same linguistic root as El and Elohim. I severely doubt that any "Islamic scholars" would not know that. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah in fiction

I found an awesome website with an awesome story about the death of Jehovah. I was wondering how I might place a link at the bottom of the Jehovah entry in wikipedia that reads "Jehovah in fiction". If there are any other stories about God (websites, movies, etc) I'm certain they could go here. For some reason, the edit button is not present at the top right corner of this page. The website is www.eldruden.com 69.118.193.173 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the word 'Jehovah'. The relevant article for the concept you are addressing is Portrayals of God in popular media.

The edit button is not available to anonymous IP editors because the article is often vandalised, and is is therefore protected so that only known users may make changes. If you would like to edit this article, you will need to register a username.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not for literary autofellatio. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if this article would benefit from a list of usages of the word, 'Jehovah" in popular culture? Of course, such a list would present examples of "taking the LORD's name in vain". Therefore, I'm presenting this idea for discussion, rather than taking action. Downstrike (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Such a list would seem to constitute trivia. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. Does the usage of Jehovah (i.e. God) in the Bible count as usage in fiction? :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Iehovah

You misspelled it. Iehovah is spelled with an "i" not a "j." SeanWheeler (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That spelling is mentioned in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#Introduction_into_English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#Usage_in_English

I suspect that the spelling "Iehovah" would produce a more accurately pronounced transliteration for the English language. However, it seems clear from the cited sources that this spelling has not been used since very early in the 17th century, and is largely forgotten. If the article used that spelling, there would be a lot more people popping in to say that we misspelled it, than there are now. Downstrike (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is from the mistaken belief that the Y in YEHOVAH was a vowel when it is not. YEHOVAH is the true spelling and the Y in YEHOVAH is pronounced the same as the Y in the words YELLOW and YES. 99.32.61.111 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop saying "Jehovah"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.106.79.58 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If the Eternal One has a problem with it, She will correct us, Herr oder Frau Anonym. If you don't like seeing that Name, stay away from discussions of it. --Not Afraid to Sign My Name, Which is Thnidu (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of image

There is an image proporting to be from "A Roman Catholic church named St. Martinskirche" in Switzerland.

Per the image's page, it's actually a Protestant church, and a Protestant image.

See the article at MySwitzerland: http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/interests/excursions/religious-sites/chur-st-martinskirche-st-martin-s-church-graubuenden.html Plan29 (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Different church in different town. Esoglou (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue. This image occurs in the Protestant church, which was a former Catholic church, and the image is not original to the church.

http://www.pfarrei-st-martin-olten.ch/372.0.html

(Google Translate link)

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.pfarrei-st-martin-olten.ch/372.0.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dst.%2Bmartinskirche%2Bolten%2Bswitzerland%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DfGH%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:unofficial%26prmd%3Divmc&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjJzuTTqQCN3bRgmwAHFiZ8DYd5Eg

Plan29 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not having explained more fully my earlier response. Here is a better explanation:

The original description of the image file was "God's name Jehovah at the Roman Catholic church of St. Martinskirche at Olten, Switzerland (1521). The uploader then added the same description in Greek: "Το όνομα Ιεχωβά (Jehovah) στον Ρωμαιοκαθολικό ναό Σεντ Μαρτίν (St. Martinskirche) του 1521, στο Όλτεν της Ελβετίας. On 2 August 2010, Editor Plan29 changed the indication "Roman Catholic" to "Protestant" in the English description, leaving Ρωμαιοκαθολικό in the Greek description, and inserting as support for his change a reference to a (Protestant) church of the same name in a different town. Olten is in the Roman Catholic canton of Solothurn in northern Switzerland. Plan29's church is in the town of Chur in the canton of Graubünden in eastern Switzerland. The 2 August 2010 change therefore seems to be the result of a mistaken identification, and we had better stay with the original identification until better proof is produced of the claim that the original description is wrong. Esoglou (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again, and please read the last link I provided, as well as the one I'm providing here. The church containing this image in Olten WAS Catholic. It became Protestant during the Reformation. It was after the Reformation that the depicted image was put in place. A new St. Martin's church was built in Olten which was Catholic. Olten was a pretty big deal during the Reformation. The myswitzerland page, it seems, was posted too hastily. I refer you to the following link, as well as the earlier posted link:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.olten.ch/de/portrait/kirchen/&ei=t_-wTJ33FsT_lgeL6fDcDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSt.%2BMartinskirche%2Bolten%2Bprotestant%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divb

The church depicted is actually part of the "Old Catholic" church, a Protestant sect.

http://www.oikoumene.org/gr/member-churches/regions/europe/switzerland/old-catholic-church-of-switzerland.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

Plan29 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If I understand rightly, it was by mistake that the link originally posted as support for calling the Olten church Protestant referred to a church in a different town in a completely different part of Switzerland. Would you please post links to the original texts of the web pages you want me to read: I don't understand the machine translations into "English".

It certainly is much more credible that the church in Olten, in the Catholic canton of Solothurn, belongs to the Old Catholics (who would be horrified at being called Protestants) than to a Protestant body. Esoglou (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they consider themselves a Protestant sect, as they are not in communion with Rome and it sprang out of the Protestant Reformation.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Technically, they're Anglican (per the wikipedia page you yourself linked to on the Old Catholic church)... They took the name Catholic not because they

espouse Catholic teachings, but because Catholic can be translated as "universal".

http://occna.org/

That said, here are the links un-Google-ized.

http://www.pfarrei-st-martin-olten.ch/372.0.html

http://www.pfarrei-st-martin-olten.ch/372.0.html

http://www.olten.ch/de/portrait/kirchen/

http://www.oikoumene.org/gr/member-churches/regions/europe/switzerland/old-catholic-church-of-switzerland.html

Plan29 (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. There are two churches dedicated to Saint Martin in Olten: both are shown in the composite image on this web page. The one in the middle is the Old Catholic church, the one on the left the (Roman) Catholic church. The web page says that the Old Catholic (or Christian Catholic, as it calls itself) community, founded in 1870, is in possession of the "town church" and that the Roman Catholic Saint Martin's church was built in 1908-1910. It is therefore safe to conclude that the 1521 image comes from the Old Catholic Saint Martin's, not the Roman Catholic one. I will make the necessary changes in the captions. Esoglou (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah - not to be spoken?

The article states:

"One of these frequent cases was God's name, which was not to be pronounced in fear of profaning the 'ineffable name'."

This may be incorrect. According to http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm:

"Nothing in the Torah prohibits a person from pronouncing the Name of God. Indeed, it is evident from scripture that God's Name was pronounced routinely. Many common Hebrew names contain "Yah" or "Yahu," part of God's four-letter Name. The Name was pronounced as part of daily services in the Temple."

As to the name "Jehovah":

"Some people render the four-letter Name as "Jehovah," but this pronunciation is particularly unlikely. The word "Jehovah" comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name "Adonai" (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written. A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck."

N7ekg (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)--N7ekg (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Ed Carp

The article doesn't claim that it was the Torah which forbade people from using the name of the Jewish god. The source you cite (http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm) continues, "However, by the time of the Talmud, it was the custom to use substitute Names for God. Some rabbis asserted that a person who pronounces YHVH according to its letters (instead of using a substitute) has no place in the World to Come, and should be put to death." The article's reference to the prohibition of pronouncing the 'ineffable name' was indeed in place in the time of the Masoretes (7th to 11th centuries AD), post-dating the Talmud by hundreds of years. There is therefore no contradiction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory POVs

In the Usage in English section list of descriptions of usage for American Standard Version and Green's Literal Translation each claimed that said translations render "all" instances of the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", but gave different numbers. To resolve the contradiction while preserving the information, I've simply removed the "all" POV assertions.

I removed another POV concerning "the original" Greek, since the original text is not available, resolved an ungrammatical conjunction, and shortened verbose descriptions.

I incorporated the description of the Good News Bible from the following paragraph, into the list in chronological order. Downstrike (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring 'all capitals', which has nothing to do with the reason you've indicated for the change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw it as verbose, but don't have a problem with it being restored. Downstrike (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The real Hebrew Root Word for YEHOVAH is hovah

Hovah is in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible in the Hebrew Lexicon.

That is the real Hebrew root word for YEHOVAH. The vowel sounds in YEHOVAH have not been lost. Strong's defines hovah as "extreme evil" or "evil mischief". (hovah Strong's 1943 ruin mischief). This is the same kind of "mischief" when one causes harm to another. Remember this name was given to Moses just before the 10 plagues on Egypt. This does not mean YEHOVAH is an evil God but rather he disciplines and punishes wrong doing. The King James Bible says YEHOVAH's name "is great and terrible" but the New World Translation says His name "is great and fear inspiring". YEHOVAH God is like a Father who diciplines His children. The name YEHOVAH truly means; "He spanks Kids". That is the truth about why His name is Great and Fear inspiring. Many Jews hid his name because they know it is fear inspiring and they fear His discipline or they want to deny the reality of His discipline so they can do as they please without fear or recource for their actions. The form Yahweh was what the Samaritans called YEHOVAH and is not the truth. YAH is short for YEHOVAH removing the middle letters. In Israel the name was pronounced with a V sound but down into Ethiopia it was pronounced with a W sound as in YEHOWAH. Now you know the truth about God's name. It has never been lost due to Jewish superstition and Jews encouraged the use of Yahweh among Christians to discourge the use of the real pronunciation YEHOVAH. The Y is not a vowel sound and is pronounced the same as the Y in YELLOW and YES. YEHOVAH - The fact that the name has never been lost is in line with YEHOVAH God's will at Psalms 83:18 "That people may know that you who's name is YEHOVAH you alone are the most high over all the Earth. Obviously from this scripture we see that it is YEHOVAH God's will that His name be known and used. More proof that the vowel sounds in YEHOVAH have not been lost is that Joshua is the real name of Jesus and the real Hebrew for these are YESHUWA. There is one place in the Holy Scriptures where the full name of YESHUWA appears and it is YEHOSHUWA. There is no H on the end here but in Hebrew grammar it can be placed there as in YEHOSHUWAH. Notice that in the long form of YESHUWA which is YEHOSHUWAH the only difference in the name of the Son of God and the name of the Father YEHOVAH is the inset letters SHU. Here is proof that the name YEHOVAH is NOT and "ineffable name". Far from it. Arguments that YHVH has no vowels so therefore can not be pronounced are futile attempts to hide the way to utter the Holy Name of the Almighty Father YEHOVAH God because just because there are no written vowels in original Hebrew that does not mean the name can not be pronounced just as it is rediculous that any other word in the Hebrew language could not be pronounced because the vowels have been passed down due to trandition. The very vowels in God's Son's name YESHUWA minus the inset SHU are the vowels of the Holy Name of YEHOVAH God. Remember the Holy Scriptures says YEHOVAH God disciplines all those he loves and that the one hating discipline is hating life. YEHOVAH is a God of great love and it is love to recieve discipline from our Creator YEHOVAH God. In fact the Holy Scriptures says that YEHOVAH God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotton Son YESHUWA HAMASHEA so that all those believing in him might not die but recieve everlasting life. 99.32.61.111 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Got a source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Strong's the base word for Yhovah (Strongs 3068, "Jehovah") is actually hava' (Strongs 1933, "to be") via hayah (Strongs 1961, "to be completed"), not havvah (Strongs 1942, "mischief"). 3068 and 1942 are both derived from 1933, but Strongs doesn't give 3068 and 1942 the same meaning as each other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See: (hovah Strong's 1943 "ruin mischief")

Strong's is wrong by syaing "hava" is the root word. But Hovah the real root word is listed in Stong's in plane site. I posted this information based on the information a Jewish woman gave me who converted to Christianity and she grew up in Israel but now lives in the USA. Her name was Joy and she was taught these things by a Rabbi in Israel who became Christian. Remember goats are the ones who need discipline because they are rebelious. Sheep listen to their master and do their will. YESHUWA said he was seperating the Sheep from the goats. Sheep go to heaven and experience bliss. YEHOVAH doesn't invite rebellion in his presence but he still loves the "kids" (Goats) and will discipline them. The name YEHOVAH is listed in Strong's with a Y not a J compleate as "YEHOVAH". 99.32.61.111 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So your source is 'some woman with a probable Christian bias'. Not good enough.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that this Jewish woman who gave me this information obtained this information from a Rabbi who converted to Christianity. This Rabbi is the reason she converted. 99.32.61.111 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so your source is actually hearsay from 'this Jewish woman' about 'some Rabbi'. Much better. Sigh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All History is Hearsay just written and rewritten. Get over it. The history channel is recently presenting "oral prophesy" of the Hopi Indians that was never written down. This Jewish Christian woman who gave me this info was named Joy and she was a true Christian who see the evil in the world and has suffered Tribulation in line with the book of Thessalonians. My own testimony is that I prayed to YEHOVAH for the true pronunciation and the truth of his name often crying about it for months and YEHOVAH God answered my prayer by sending that woman to me a few years ago. She stressed how important that it was that this information about God's name be known. 99.32.61.111 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a reliable source for your claims. End of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Still no source. And the paltry attempt at a connection between "kids" (human children) and "kids" (the young of goats) is pathetic, as there is no common Hebrew derivation. Hasty generalisations and non-sequiturs are the entire basis for your theory (which you've apparently borrowed from the 'eminent' 'Joy and a former Rabbi'). Either provide a reliable source, or give up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that YESHUWA HAMASHEA said he would put the goats on his left hand and the sheep on his right hand. The goats would go off into Olethros and the sheep into eternal bliss. The Almighty Father YEHOVAH God is not just a God of Hebrews but also Christians. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That allegorical reference to 'goats' is irrelevant to the attempted syllogism for the purposes of an alleged Hebrew etymology employed by the anonymous editor (who is probably also User:Dr CareBear).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not actually. Look at Olethros and look up the scriptures that Olethros is in store for goats. Dr CareBear (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in your theological opinions regarding folktales about goats, and it has nothing to do with this article. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What a hypocritical award you have. I noticed that you have a "barn star in Christianity" on your user page but you called the Holy Scriptures "folktale" rather then the inspired word of God it is. Oh the shame. Dr CareBear (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was awarded the barnstar by another editor. As an atheist, I did note the irony at the time. Whether it is hypocritical is debatable at best, and may be seen as either a personal attack on me or the editor who awarded it to me. Of course, you have no evidence of the claim of 'inspiration' (by whatever illusory method it is alleged to occur), and the suggestion is irrelevant anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah article needs to be more objective.

Much attention has been given to the vocalization of the tetragrammaton and since there is no way of knowing exactly which vowels were supplied in YHWH (JHVH), it is argued that no form of that Name should be uttered. Such a stance might be in agreement with tradition but it does not harmonize with its usage and frequency found in the Scriptures: YHWH (6,973) compared to God (2,605), Almighty (48), Lord (40), Maker (25), Creator (7), Father (7), Ancient of Days (3) and Grand Instructor (2).

Those who are in favor of using a vocalized version of the Divine Name will argue in favor of any pronunciation as long as it is common in one's language, the same way that the name Jesus varies in both spelling and pronunciation from language to language and does not demand the exact Hebrew phonetic reproduction from the original which may have been Ye·schú·a‛ o Yehoh·schú·a‛.

Many see the controversy surrounding the pronunciation of YHWH inconsistent with any other name mentioned in the Scriptures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonworld (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a summary of some guidelines you apparently aren't aware of:

• Always cite a source for any new information, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

Basically, if you want to add that, you need reliable sources that more or less says pretty much the same thing. Wikipedia maintains neutrality by sticking to reliable resources, which you have yet to present. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss

I have had to undo several changes in one paragraph. Please discuss the following, if you disagree with it. Speaking of writers of 1278 and 1303 as "Roman Catholic writers" as distinguished from "Protestant" is an anachronism: at that time there was no such distinction. The 1303 work was not by Ramón Martí: he was dead by then. The references to 1278 and 1303 require a citation; so the relevant citation should not have been removed. Removal of the citation, or rather deletion of the relevant part of the citation, distorted the meaning of the phrase "The Reformers preferred Jehovah": preferred it to what? To the form "Jova" (or "Yehova" or "Jehova" or "Johova"), as the context shows. Use of the term in just one or a very few verses of a limited number of versions of the Bible, while the previous custom of using "the Lord" continued even in those same versions of the Bible, cannot appropriately be described as "achieved wide use" – a strongly peacock and POV phrase. It is altogether illogical to talk of the change in 1901 from the general use of "the LORD" to represent the Tetragrammaton to the exclusive use of "Jehovah" as if that meant that "it (the form 'Jehovah') was still the regular English rendition of יהוה, in preference to 'the LORD'"! On the contrary, in that translation, "the LORD" ceased to be the regular English rendition. Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Non-usage in Bible translations"

Non-usage of what? This needs to be specified. What else is it about but Bible versions that do not use "Jehovah". Why should that not be specified?

I fear that the reason for opposing clarity in this matter may be a desire not to let it be known that the use of "Jehovah" seems to have lost favour with scholars. With the exception of Jehovah's Witnesses publications and an apparently private initiative like Green's Literal Translation, it seems that "Jehovah" has for most of a century not appeared in the text of new English versions of the Bible except in those that are direct revisions of the 1611 King James Version (with its extremely limited use of the term) or of the 1901 American Standard Version (with its systematic adoption of "Jehovah"). Esoglou (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

as I already stated in the edit comment, it's already understood in the context of the whole article what "Non-usage" of "what" is referring to...and this wording seems more encyclopedic IMO. To ask "non-usage of what" seems a bit silly, given the context of the whole article, as well as the context of the very previous section. It's not a major deal to me, this particular thing, but it seems (again given that your POV against the form "Jehovah" has been obvious for months, to be honest) that it's not really necessary to word it that way to give it that little hint and subtle anti-"Jehovah" tone in the sub-section. It seems to not be totally neutral sounding, in a way. "Non-usage in Bible translations" obviously is understood in what is meant, in overall context, and is very neutral sounding. ...Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you, but not necessarily to the new reader. In any case, there is surely nothing wrong in being specific. Encyclopedias are expected to be specific. There is surely nothing false in the specific statement, is there? Shall we agree to pause our own discussion here while we await interventions by other editors? Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

When there is a subsection about non-usage of something within a section of usage of something in article about something, it is blatantly obvious that the context is about the non-usage of the article's subject. The request for clarification of the section title is entirely unnecessary. The whole subsection verges on redundant, because it would really include all translations (hundreds of them) that don't use the name—in practice if it's included it only needs to include translations that are notable for excluding the name, such as versions based on an older version that included Jehovah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of citation-requested tag

As far as the NEB introduction matter, I already stated in my edit comment that there's no need (or warrant) to put that NEB intro in that specific section, as in this context is arguably POV-pushing, and is not consistent with what's mentioned in other Versions in the same section...Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just provide a reliable source for the statement in the text. You have not been asked to put the NEB statement in, only some citation of a reliable source. Obviously the NEB's own statement would seem to be the most reliable source for its own content, but any reliable source may be sufficient. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

but why single that one out? Is it because you personally like that particular NEB intro where it says "incorrect", because you personally have issues against the form "Jehovah"? My point, as I said, is that it's not really warranted in that section context, nor is it consistent, since really no other Bible version in that specific section has "intros" from the Bible translations. So doing it only for the NEB, because, even tough it uses the form "Jehovah" a few times, it says in the intro the word "incorrect" tends to be obviously selective, inconsistent, and POV-pushing. Why there, not any other place, to have an intro remark for? Or now to have a "citation needed" tag? Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for singling this one out is that the list of verses you gave was inaccurate, or at least did not correspond to the list given by the NEB itself, and because it began with "e.g.", suggesting (quite falsely, it seems) that the NEB had many other verses in which it used the term. You may of course ask for verification about any other statement in the article that seems inaccurate.

I have now restored the NEB's list of verses, with a citation of the source. Only by going to the trouble of looking up the source, the NEB itself, will a reader learn what is the NEB judgement on the correctness of the term "Jehovah", which it uses in those few verses because of what it considered to be customary in the years leading up to its publication in 1970. That judgement is not quoted in the Wikipedia article, and surely that is enough for you - and more than enough for others. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You said the list of verses that I gave? I'm not sure where you got that notion from, but it's not true. I was not the one who put the NEB in the list there to begin with. That seems to have been done way back, before I even started contributing my edits to this article. And if the line of verses was inaccurate, then all that needed to be done was simply to correct that. Not to add words from the preface or intro of the NEB, about whether or not they think the form is all that correct. Anyway, as I said, it was not I who put the NEB on that section. That was some other editor in the past. So I never put the list of verses there either. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Italics

I have restored the italicised forms of the name in the Use in English Bible Translations section. The usage discussed is not really a quote, because it refers to usage throughout a given publication rather than any one specific instance. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, words used as words should be italicised. When this formatting is applied consistently, it seems unlikely that readers would assume that all instances are actually italicised in all the original publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That's true. I thought of that too. That it's not likely it'll be viewed that way if it's done in all instances. But if a reader is just seeing one or two of the instances (instead of necessarily all of them in one reading), the incorrect impression might be there. But it was also too a matter of taste. Meaning that it arguably just doesn't look quite as good (in this specific situation) as simple normal font, but just in quotation marks. Which is also allowed per WP policy. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Paultraf, 12 September 2011

Update link From: http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/gatt/criticism/catalog.asp?CN=74 To: http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/gatt/catalog.php?num=74

Paultraf (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah in Hebrew

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E2C5IREE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.219.186 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be an authoritative source, and you don't seem to be suggesting a change to the article. What is your point?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know how to read perfect Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.180.138 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So then, what are you asking for? ?מה אתה רוצה Esoglou (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, nothing. I just think that my Hebrew is nothing to be matched, because I have studied it 3 years. I just know how to READ it perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.180.138 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Three years is only a base for studying a language. Your Hebrew is certainly outclassed by native speakers who have studied the history of the language, and the historical study of the language, who work with English speakers that have studied the language for decades; which is the sort of stuff that happens in academic circles. Please review our article on the Kruger-Dunning effect, which is one of the many reasons why we stick to reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What's a Jehovah?

I don't get it, what's a Jehovah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chestscalejimbo (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee, if only there was an article, perhaps starting with a summary of the whole work, that explained what the word Jehovah referred to, perhaps while linking to terms which may be unfamiliar to a layperson... Oh, wait, there is. "Jehovah /dʒɪˈhoʊvə/ is an anglicized representation of Hebrew יְהֹוָה‎, a vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible." Jehovah is the English version of the name of the God of Israel. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I did read that, and I think I mentioned I don't get it. That sentence is too long to make any sense.

A is a representation of B, a vocalization of the C, the proper name of the D in the E.

Your summary makes it a lot easier to understand. I wonder why people at Wikipedia write such long sentences when simple ones would be easier to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chestscalejimbo (talk • contribs) 08:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Error in the begining of the article

It starts out saying "This article is about the word Jehovah." The problem is that it calls Jehovah a word. "Jehovah" Is a name, not a word. Its no more a word the the names Erin, David, James, or Sarah, all names not words. It seems very strange that its called a word instead of a name. Can anyone explain that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironious (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Though not all words are names, it seems to me that all names are words - single words or made up of more than one word. Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor apparently does not understand that all parts of speech, including proper nouns, are words.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

Please update link related to NOTE 25 where "(Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah)" is suppose to take you to the following link: http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/g/u/i/guideme.htm

198.103.145.50 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Pol430 talk to me 20:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

failure to distinguish title from description

This edit[1] is problematic. In Yahweh, the proper name of the god of Israel, 'the god of Israel' is clearly a descriptive phrase, not a title, and thus should not be capitalized. Capitalizing it would be like saying "Yahweh, the proper name of Elohim". The link to a dab is also inappropriate. Yes, caps are common for this phrase, because it is very commonly used as a title, but here it is not.

In the Egyptian name of the supreme God, again, we are not using a title, but another descriptive phrase. (The source has Supreme God.) Since it mentions Egypt and is a ref to an external discussion, it's also not immediately obvious which supreme god this is; we should clarify that it is indeed the Judeo-Christian deity. I said the Gnostic supreme god; perhaps another phrasing would be better. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yahweh vs Yehovah

Original text: It was not the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE), at which time the most likely vocalization was Yahweh.

Changed text: The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement.

You cannot assert something that no one has heard or conclusively proven. I have changed the text to reflect what it truly is: a consensus among scholars, that there is strong evidence against. I have read convincing arguments that it is Yehovah. For example, in order for rhyming poetry to make sense, it has to end with -ah. There is a citation here in the lead that asserts it is definitely Yehovah based on much evidence. Obviously there is and will continue to be a lot of debate until someone finds conclusive evidence, or a time machine is invented. So we should reflect this disagreement.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yehovah derived from Chinese god Yeng-Wang-Yeh?

I have a proof that Jewish Yehovah name and god actually derived from Yeng-Wang-Yeh. I will publish an article about this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.132.189 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

POV/fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

je-hovah translation

je-hovah is not god almighty's name.

the word translates as god of wickedness, perversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.100.158 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

POV/fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I REALLY NEED HELP WITH JEHOVA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.23.96 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013 - What does the name Jehovah mean?

God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh·yeh′. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah′, from which the word ʼEh·yeh′ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.

That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha·wah′, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.

Sources: Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

67.140.169.42 (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your requested text is a copyright violation, and is not a mainstream view. It would be appropriate to add a brief summary of your suggested text at I_am_that_I_am#Other_views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

the name jehovah is in psalms:83-17 and isaiah:12-2

171.76.184.30 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change. The article already says:-
The Authorized King James Version (1611) renders Jehovah in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4, and three times in compound place names at Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15 and Judges 6:24
- Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

the dead sea scrolls are in greek not latin 71.193.53.144 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see anywhere in the article where it's asserted they are in Latin. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Misleading argumentation regarding 'Yehowah'

I have reordered a paragraph in the lead to place the mainstream view first, and reworded reference to the earlier written form transliterated as Yehowah which was incorrectly cited as 'evidence' for a claim that the form Jehovah was in earlier usage to that broadly agreed by scholars.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You guys need to stop edit warring over this. I restored the last stable version. "Yehowah" had been mentioned in the lead but not in the body for a pretty long while. I just moved mention of it into the body and removed it from the lead for now. Please work out what content you want in the body here on the article Talk page, and only after that gets worked out, add it to the body. Then you can discuss adding to the lead. This is just an alternate spelling of "Jehovah" with alternative German/English consonants. It is not a huge deal. Stop destabilzing the article over it. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is quite misleading to state in isolation that Yehowah is 'the pronunciation' of the tetragrammaton. Instead, if Yehowah is to be stated as a viable pronunciation it must first be explained that that form is based on the vowel points taken from Adonai, and not at all some 'original', 'actual' or 'more accurate' pronunciation. It is also misleading to state that the vowel-pointed form transliterated as Yehowah constitutes use of Jehovah prior to the 11th century.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I do appreciate your concern, but what you wrote on my talk page was not really necessary, as Jeffro77 and I DID actually come to collaboration, and I came to agree with his last edits on this. The "edit warring" DID stop. I accepted his final edits and modifications on this matter. As I generally do overall with Jeffro77's edits. It's ok. Also, your removing the wording in the lede was unwarranted as it was the "stable version". So I'm restoring. But you should not be saying the things you said on my page. I did not break "3RR" and frankly, you're a bit out of line. Jeffor77 and I did come to working and final collaboration on this, if you carefully analyze all of the edit history and comments etc. Regards. `Gabby Merger (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If you edit and change anything related to "Yehowah" before consensus is reached on that, I will open a 3RR case and I am 90% sure you will be blocked. Stop editing, and reach agreement here. There is WP:NODEADLINE and rather than edit warring over content in the lead that is not even in the body, just come to agreement here on the content. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That lede wording was never a matter of dispute, as Jeffro77 in the edits last night did not even contend with that or remove that, like you did. Not sure why you are. Your removing the wording from the lede was unwarranted, and the wording in the lede was NOT even in contention by Jeffro77 or anyone. That WAS the "stable" lede for a long time. YOU are violating Wikipedia policy in assuming BAD faith. And your lack of civility. WP:Civil and WP:Goodfaith are not being kept by you at all here with me. Which is a bit weird, given that this was a settled agreed-upon matter already last night, and I accepted Jeffro77's final edits and good modifications, no problem. So why do YOU have such a big problem suddenly today, like out of nowhere? You're not keeping WP:Civil with me and I'm not gonna put up with it. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. But you are in what you're doing and saying now. This "one inch from getting blocked" nonsense is out of line and an over-reaction and uncalled for. Jeffro77 and I DID come to final agreement and collaboration over this. But YOU decided to butt in and chime this for some reason. Not cool and not necessary. You're assuming bad faith, and how is that respectful? But again, you're not seeing that the lede wording was that way for a long time, and never argued against, or removed by anyone. The wording is clearly sourced and valid. Why did you chime in like this make problems when Jeffro77 and I already came to final collaboration on this overall matter, and I accepted his final edits, and was NOT gonna change anything after what he contributed and modified. It was ok. So what exactly is the issue with you? The lede wording is A) sourced, and B) "stable" or a long time without dispute by anyone as far as edits are concerned. There was not really any warrant or valid rationale to delete the referenced statement from the lede because of "I don't like" reasons, or becuase you wrongly assumed stuff about me (and to some extent about Jeffro77) on this matter. We came to final collaboration on this and it was a finished matter overall. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am about to click save on an EWN report. You can self revert, or I can click save. You are way over 3RR. What will it be? Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this article, i have worked on this article a lot in the past. I watched your edit warring with dismay. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm NOT "way over 3RR" in this particular edit...as the stuff I reverted from you was NOT the stuff that was in contention last night. No one removed the wording from the lede like you did. And I already explained that the wording is A) sourced, and B) was the stable lede for a long time, and C) was NOT in dispute by Jeffro77 or anyone. I'm reverting YOUR unwarranted nonsense, that's all. [WP:Civil]] and WP:Goodfaith are not being kept by you at all here with me. Which is a bit weird, given that this was a settled agreed-upon matter already last night, and I accepted Jeffro77's final edits and good modifications, no problem. So why do YOU have such a big problem suddenly today, like out of nowhere? You're not keeping WP:Civil with me and I'm not gonna put up with it. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. But you are in what you're doing and saying now. This "one inch from getting blocked" nonsense is out of line and an over-reaction and uncalled for.

Jeffro77 and I DID come to final agreement and collaboration over this. But YOU decided to chime this for some reason. Not cool and not necessary. You're assuming bad faith, and how is that respectful? But again, you're not seeing that the lede wording was that way for a long time, and never argued against, or removed by anyone. Jytdog, I would appreciate if you didn't write on my page anymore. Seriously. This was a settled matter already last night, and Jeffro77 and I did come to collaboration and final agreement on this. Why did you even chime in like this when it was not necessary, and everything was already cool?? Gabby Merger (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, is was seeming that Gabby Merger and I had come to some agreement, assuming Gabby Merger refers to my edit latest edit to the article wherein I stated the mainstream view first as indicated by my statement at the beginning of this thread (that assumption was apparently incorrect). You (Jytdog) then restored a version that maintains the misleading statement about Yehowah in the absence of reference to the vowel points from Adonai.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the version Gabby Merger restored is not the version to which I had agreed. I had to go out not long after my final edit to the article last night (UTC+10), and did not see the subsequent edits until now. This diff compares my version with that restored by Gabby Merger.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am all confused. Are you OK with the current content on this word or not? If not, what do you propose? thx Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gabby Merger had said above that she left the wording as my version, to quote her: "I accepted his final edits and modifications on this matter. As I generally do overall with Jeffro77's edits". But then I actually checked what was restored, and it was not my version. My wording is indicated in the old version of the diff I supplied above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That said, it does appear that Gabby Merger had accepted my changes until your intervention. The only change she made before your intervention but after my last edit was a minor correction of punctuation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this belong in the lead

The edit warring discussed above led me to realize that this term was discussed only in the lead and per WP:LEAD, the lead is just a summary of the body. I moved content about this word from the lead to the body. In my view, it doesn't rise to the importance of needing to be mentioned in the lead. I am open to hearing others reasoning on that. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

For now, and for a while, seeing how things go on here, and what is said and discussed, etc, I won't be dealing with that transliteration matter on this article. Just maybe with general edits, that were never in disagreement, and other things, etc. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Yehowah probably doesn't need to be in the lead at all, and certainly does not belong in the lead without the explanation of how that transliteration uses the vowels from Adonai and does not reflect an 'actual' or 'original' pronunciation. See also my first responst to Jytdog at the beginning of the thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's keep it out of the lead then. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the text that was agreed upon last night. This removes the misleading implication altogether that 'Jehovah' was in prior to the 11th century while properly explaining the etymology. I have also included reference to Yehowah in the relevant Development section. I have also moved some other details about the tetragrammaton from the lead to the body as they relate to the development of the form Jehovah, not that specific form itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Buchanan source

This source )ref name="Buchanan1") George Wesley Buchanan, "The Tower of Siloam", The Expository Times 2003; 115: 37; pp. 40, 41. Quote from Note 19: "This [Yehowah] is the correct pronunciation of the tetragramaton, as is clear from the pronunciation of proper names in the First Testament (FT), poetry, fifth-century Aramaic documents, Greek translations of the name in the Dead Sea Scrolls and church fathers."(/ref) is of poor quality and we should not be using it. I have moved it here for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure why you consider that Buchanan source "of poor quality". What exactly is wrong with it? Gabby Merger (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably a few reasons: 1) it is not clear whether the text of the footnote was part of the original article or added by the authors of the poor-quality website; 2) the link to the original article at the top of the page is a parked domain; 3) it does not establish that the transliteration Yehowah and its pronunciation were used any earlier than the 12th century, as the tetragrammaton interspersed with letters from Adonai or Elohim was not intended that way at all, but was instead recognised by Jews at the time of writing that a different word was to be read instead of the tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

yet more unsourced content in lead not found in body

"In the 16th century, the form Jehovah was derived from Yehowah when the English letters J and V became distinguished from Y and W, respectively." Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The subsection Introduction into English specifically indicates a number of translations from the 16th century that used "Jehovah". The article for J specifically states that it only began to be used in that century, so it is self-evident that its appearance in 16th century translations could only follow its existence as a letter. The summarised statement I added to the lead is therefore both accurate, and supported by the body content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why Jytdog considers that Buchanan source that he removed "of poor quality". What exactly is wrong with it? Gabby Merger (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This subheaded section is about the introduction of J to the English alphabet in the 16th century and the obvious adoption of J in Jehovah only after the letter J existed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015

Please change the following entry from,"The Modern Reader's Bible (1914) by Richard Moulton uses Jehovah in Exodus 6:2–9, Exodus 22:14, Psalm 68:4, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4 and Jeremiah 16:20." To:"The Modern Reader's Bible (1914) by Richard Moulton uses Jehovah in in all cases where it appears in the English Revised Version which is the base text for this annotated reference study Bible with the author's commentary. This is Richard Green Moulton's edition of the Revised Version (R.V.) of the Holy Bible." Also we need to update this entry,"The Divine Name King James Bible (2011), the Bible translators replaced the capitalized GOD and LORD with the English translation “Jehovah” in 6,972 places." To:"The Divine Name King James Bible (2011), the Bible translators replaced the capitalized GOD and LORD with the English translation “Jehovah” in 6,973 places." An additional request is that the following entry needs to be changed from,"The Geneva Bible (1560) translates the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Jeremiah 16:21, and Jeremiah 32:18, and two other times as place-names, Genesis 22:15 and Exodus 17:15." To:The Geneva Bible (1560) translates the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, and two other times as place-names, Genesis 22:15 and Exodus 17:15.(I have NOT found the Divine Name, Jehovah, in the Jeremiah verses mentioned nor anywhere else in that bible version.)Also we need to change the following citation from,"Webster's Bible Translation (1833) by Noah Webster, a revision of the King James Bible, contains the form Jehovah in all cases where it appears in the original King James Version, as well as another seven times in Isaiah 51:21, Jeremiah 16:21; 23:6; 32:18; 33:16, Amos 5:8, and Micah 4:13." TO:Webster's Bible Translation (1833) by Noah Webster, a revision of the King James Bible, contains the form Jehovah in all cases where it appears in the original King James Version, as well as another seven times in Isaiah 51:22, Jeremiah 16:21; 23:6; 32:18; 33:16, Amos 5:8, and Micah 4:13.(It's Isaiah 51:22 NOT 51:21!)BigBrownOcelot (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC) BigBrownOcelot (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

Please, one of the following changes is desireable in the following dead link "http://faithsaves.net/history-controversy-inspiration-hebrew-vowel-points/" found in the reference note beginning with "Pugio Fidei, in which Martin ...":

1) Updating the external link to "http://faithsaves.net/history-hebrew-vowel-points/" or to its archived copy "http://web.archive.org/web/20151010210011/http://faithsaves.net/history-hebrew-vowel-points/".

2) Changing the external link to the pdf version "http://46bza31pal0t21oxbq212zea.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/VowelPointPaper.pdf" or to its archived copy "http://web.archive.org/web/20151010210236/http://46bza31pal0t21oxbq212zea.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/VowelPointPaper.pdf", since the note's text in parentheses refers to the page number only shown in the pdf file.

Thank you. WorkingWik (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jehovah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726213122/http://karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf to http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jehovah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://46bza31pal0t21oxbq212zea.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/VowelPointPaper.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/seminary/resources/Whitfield.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726213122/http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf to http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726213122/http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf to http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207004013/http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html to http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://faithsaves.net/history-hebrew-vowel-points/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong

The Strong's Concordance spells the name as it should be as YEHOVAH for there is no J sound in the Hebrew language. When they transliterated YHWH or YHVH to English from Hebrew there was no Y in the English alphabet at the time so they used a J. Later Y was added to the English alphabet so now there is no reason why it should not be spelled YEHOVAH. That aside the sacred name of the Lord Almighty God the Father's name is YAHUWAH. or YAH for short. The Hebrew root word of the name is listed in Strong's Concordance as Hovah or originally Huwah. The name means he returns evil for evil and punishes wrong doing and disciplines. The scriptures make it clear that vegenece belong's to YEHOVAH or YAHUWAH. This information should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.56.141 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You need WP:SECONDARY reliable sources making precisely this claim in order to include it into the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Divine Name YHVH is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew, or ""Jehovah" in English.

A variety of Bible translations, historical and modern, use the Divine Name Jehovah. Yahweh is considered an abbreviation of the Divine Name, containing just two syllables rather than three, and Bible characters usually did not abbreviate the Divine Name, except on occasion. Many Bible character names contain part of the Divine Name, such as Jeho-shaphat and Jeho-iakim, and this has aided the understanding of how to pronounce the Divine Name. In Hebrew, the "J" is pronounced as a "Y" for these names. In the tetragrammaton (יהוה)‎, the Hebrew letter used for the v in Jehovah is ו‎ ("vav"), and makes the "v" sound as in "vine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.96.104 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that you're recycling the same incorrect comments that you posted at the Jehovah's Witnesses Talk page. As at the other page, your claim that Yahweh is an 'abbreviation' of the 'divine name' is still just wrong. Yahweh is a transliteration of the tetragrammaton, and it is the form preferred by biblical scholars in English. The form Jehovah is also used in English, and if you prefer that term, that's just fine. Your implication that 'v' should dogmatically be used in English where vav appears in Hebrew would make for some atypical English pronunciations of names like Esau, Reuben and even your chosen example, Jehoshaphat (יְהוֹשָׁפָט).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah not in the King James Version

The King James Version is the most accurate English translation from original Hebrew patriarchs [2]] including the Torah, [3]or first five books of the bible, and the writings of the prophets, the Jewish Tanakh [4] that make up the old testament of the bible. [5] Under authority of King James the First, the original Hebrew patriarchs of the old testament, gospels, history and epistles were translated under forty seven scholars [6]. The Bishop's bible was the basis of the new testament but the Hebrew and Greek texts were studied and other English translations consulted and maintains first place throughout the world. For the new testament books the most ancient copies made from original manuscripts were consulted with the view of obtaining the best results and include three principal ones: 1. the codex sinaiticus 2. the codex alexandrinus and 3. the codex vaticanus. the Hebrew alphabet[7] does not contain and letter 'J' in it. The gospels of Jesus, history and epistles are derived in Latin and Greek [luke 23:38-43; john 19:20] but in Hebrew the name of Jesus is Yeshua [8] for example

Go to any King James Version or bible referencing website and search for Jehovah you will not find it in the King James Version. [9] Here is a link to the 1611 version of the King James Version at <http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/> go there and search Jehovah or YEHOVAH in the 1611 version and you will not find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenmahmood (talk • contribs)

Correction: The King James Version does contain the name Jehovah in Psalm 83:18. Additionally, the Divine Name King James Bible restores the Divine Name where it had been removed: http://www.dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm

Also, the King James Version translates the word for ox into "unicorn" in multiple places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.96.104 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ellenmahmood: I went to the website you mentioned. It's right there in Exodus 6:3, just as I mentioned, although in the archaic spelling of Iehovah. If you switch to standard spelling, it renders as Jehovah. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ellenmahmood: "Jehovah" (or the acceptable variation "Iehovah")appears 4 times in the 1611 version. Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. King James Version was very pretty and very good, but not the most accurate. Much older manuscripts are now available for comparison. Also, excluding the name of God from His own book belies accuracy. That name, regardless of how it's pronounced, is in the original texts more than 7000 times, more than any other word including "the" or "of". Michaelisabel (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The assertion that the King James Version is the "most accurate English translation" is false and irrelevant. And the IP editor's comments about the word unicorn is an attempt at poisoning the well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The spelling depends on the Language or Dialect. The Divine Name in: Aneityum: Ihova, Arawak: Jehovah, Awabakal: Yehóa, Bangi: Yawe, Batak (Toba): Jahowa, Benga: Jěhova, Bolia: Yawe, Bube: Yehovah, Bullom So: Jehovah, Chácobo: Jahué, Cherokee: Yihowa, Chin (Hakha): Zahova, Chippewa: Jehovah, Choctaw: Chihowa, Croatian: Jehova, Dakota: Jehowa, Dobu: Ieoba, Douala: Yehowa, Dutch: Jehovah, Efate (North): Yehova, Efik: Jehovah, English: Jehovah, Éwé: Yehowa, Fang: Jehovâ, Fijian: Jiova, French: IHVH, Ga: Iehowa, German: Jehovah; Jehova, Gibario (dialect of Kerewo): Iehova, Grebo: Jehova, Hawaiian: Iehova, Hebrew: יהוה, Hindustani: Yihováh, Hiri Motu: Iehova, Ho-Chunk (Winnebago): Jehowa, Ila: Yaave, Iliku (dialect of Lusengo): Yawe, Indonesian: YAHWEH, Kala Lagaw Ya: Iehovan, Kalanga: Yehova; Yahwe, Kalenjin: Jehovah, Kerewo: Iehova, Kiluba: Yehova, Kipsigis: Jehoba, Kiribati: Iehova, Kisonge: Yehowa, Korean: 여호와, Kosraean: Jeova, Kuanua: Ieova, Laotian: Yehowa, Lele: Jehova, Lewo: Yehova, Lingala: Yawe, Logo: Yehova, Lomongo: Yawe; Yova, Lonwolwol: Jehovah, Lugbara: Yehova, Luimbi: Yehova, Luna: Yeoba, Lunda: Yehova, Luo: Yawe, Luvale: Yehova, Malagasy: Jehovah; Iehôvah, Malo: Iova, Marquesan: Iehova, Marshallese: Jeova, Maskelynes: Iova, Mende: Yewoi, Mentawai: Jehoba, Meriam: Iehoua, Misima-Paneati: Iehova, Mizo: Jehovan; Jihova’n, Mohawk: Yehovah, Mortlockese: Jioua; Jiona, Motu: Iehova, Mpongwe (dialect of Myene): Jehova, Muskogee: Cehofv, Myene: Yeôva, Naga, Angami: Jihova, Naga, Konyak: Jihova, Naga, Lotha: Jihova, Naga, Mao: Jihova, Naga, Northern Rengma: Jihova, Naga, Sangtam: Jihova, Nandi: Jehova, Narrinyeri: Jehovah, Nauruan: Jehova, Navajo: Jîho’vah, Ndau: Jehova, Nembe: Jehovah, Nengone (or, Maré): Iehova, Ngando: Yawe, Ntomba: Yawe, Nukuoro: Jehova, Polish: Jehowa, Portuguese: Iáhve, Rarotongan: Jehova; Iehova, Rerep: Iova, Rotuman: Jihova, Sakao: Ihova; Iehova, Samoan: Ieova, Seneca: Ya’wĕn, Sengele: Yawe, Sesotho: Yehofa, Sie: Iehōva, Spanish: Jehová; Yahvé; YHWH; Yahweh, Sranantongo: Jehova, Sukuma: Yahuwa; Jakwe, Tahitian: Iehova, Teke-Eboo: Yawe, Temne: Yehṓfa; Yehofa, Thai: Yahowa, Toaripi: Jehova; Iehova, Tongan: Jehova; Jihova; Sihova, Tswana: Jehofa; Yehova; Yehofa, Umbundu: Yehova, Uripiv: Iova, Wampanoag: Jehovah, Xhosa: Yehova, Zande: Yekova, Zulu: Jehova; YAHWE, J and Y are somewhat interchangeable depending on the lanquage as is W and V, for instance J is pronounce more like a Y or H in Spanish, and W's are pronounced more like a V in Hawaiian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George P Pell (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You have copied this list from the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (pages 1742-1743), asserting their preferred pronunciation in various languages. A neutral source would be required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Hello,
my name is Bastian Lutz and I have an edit suggestion.

It relates to sentence 4 of the article:

"The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.[1] The derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."

The reference...

"Schaff, Philip -Yahweh The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Volume XII, Paper Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1950, page 480"

...to these important fact is not up to date with the recent scientific evidence about it.

So I would like to supply some newer sources:

1. "The name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah"; Gertoux, Gérard; University Press of America; Lanham, Md, 2002 (refer to page Tetragrammaton)
   

1. George Wesley Buchanan, "The Tower of Siloam", The Expository Times 2003; 115: 37; pp. 40, 41. Quote from Note 19: "This [Yehowah] is the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, as is clear from the pronunciation of proper names in the First Testament (FT), poetry, fifth-century Aramaic documents, Greek translations of the name in the Dead Sea Scrolls and church fathers." (refer to page Tetragrammaton)

These both sources are an example of the pluralistic contemplation within the science.

While considering these mentioned points I would suggest following reproduction/editing:

Sentence 4:

Current:

"The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah."

Suggestion (same content as at Tetragrammaton#Jehovah) :

"Most scholars believe that "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century). Other scholars believe that "Jehovah" is the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, which is pronounced as it is written."

Either way, Please noted, that the Masoretes don't give any note about these important point.
In this respect the current version of sentence 4 seems to be wrong.

Best regards.

Bastyoje (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Answer: The Hebrew letter "vav" is pronounced as a "v", rather than a "w", which is the letter used in the name "Levi" or "Levites". This is the same letter used in the Divine Name "Yehovah" ("Jehovah" in English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.97.123 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Does the host site matter or the book?

Recently the article was revert because of not the reference but the website host. Do we really need to know who the ISP is and the host credentials? It is silly to say and think this. Johanneum (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom.

Thank you for correcting that for me. Johanneum (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

99% of citations to academia.edu are self-published and non-reviewed papers, not an author uploading his own book, hence the reflexive revert. However, I'm having trouble verifying that the book is not self-published. The Campbell Publishing responsible for this book is in Newton Mearns. Searching for "Newton Mearns" "Campbell Publishing" only pulls up books by Mitchell. It appears to be a vanity press by and for him, which would make this a self-published source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears you are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of focusing on the information you question the media. Yes one might need to be cautiousbut the weight of evidence is not on what company published a publication or what website hosts it but on what it contains. David has many peer reviewed articles in leading Biblical journals. Thus why is a Bible scholar reverted? Because someone doesn't like the company that printed the publication? That is nonsense. Here are some of his writings: [10] Again, the emphasis should be on the argumentation not on whether the paper in it is blue or red or the cover of the book was printing in the USA or made with ink from Germany. What does that have to do with the words spoken by a Bible scholar?

As far as peer review, I would encourage you read the Foreword written by John Barton. Barton is famous and is an authority. Just because you might not like the quotation does not give you the right to delete it. Please provide a solid reason to change or delete it. Not based on the website, publisher, color of ink, font, thickness of paper or anything else that has nothing to do with the argumentation by a scholar. [11] And no I did not just create Barton's page so as to have peer review support. This whole thing is so silly my head is spinning. Johanneum (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You might also wish to read the back page with endorsements from Oxford. Johanneum (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The PDF source provided appears to be an extract comprising only the front matter and the relevant appendix. The word "hybrid" is not mentioned at all in the extract, and does not appear to directly support the statement that Mitchell disputes Jehovah being a "hybrid form" (and certainly not that he "disputes the [sic] Jehovah is a hybrid form"). Hence, if retained, the supported statement needs to be reworded. I'm also not entirely convinced that Barton's comments on Mitchell's study of the Psalms necessarily equates to acceptance of all of Mitchell's views about the name Jehovah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johanneum: A book's publisher is one of the standards used to determine the reliability of a source. Any monkey on a type-writer can self-publish, as Mitchell appears to have done, which is why we rarely use such sources. You are dishonestly sticking words in my mouth. The blurb is not an endorsement from Oxford but from two people who happen to work there. A foreward is not full peer-review. Mitchell's own website is self-published. The blue links in my posts are not decoration: they link to relevant site policies and guidelines that you should read and pay attention to. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jehovah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020705/http://www.divinename.no/sorfron.htm to http://www.divinename.no/sorfron.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313062915/http://andgodsaidlet.com/Books/A%20Dissertation%20on%20the%20Hebrew%20Vowel-Points.%20Shewing%20that%20they%20are%20an%20Original%20and%20Essential%20Part%20of%20the%20Language.%20P.%20Whitfield%201748%20PDF.pdf to http://andgodsaidlet.com/Books/A%20Dissertation%20on%20the%20Hebrew%20Vowel-Points.%20Shewing%20that%20they%20are%20an%20Original%20and%20Essential%20Part%20of%20the%20Language.%20P.%20Whitfield%201748%20PDF.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720141849/http://www.accordancebible.com/about/articles/dssb.php to http://www.accordancebible.com/about/articles/dssb.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202125134/http://handwritingfoundation.org/deadsea.htm to http://www.handwritingfoundation.org/deadsea.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128174557/http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis4.htm to http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Queen James Bible

Mentions added to multiple articles including this one and Jah. Is it notable enough for mention? The current sentence also appears to have no significance (this would only mean that they keep the 4 Jehovah mentions)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a bit of a 'gimmick translation'. The writeup on Amazon for this translation asserts logical fallacies like 'King James was bisexual' (pro hominem) and 'thousands of verses say nothing about homosexuality' (red herring).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes when I later investigated if an article could be written about it (the editor also promoted it elsewhere and WP:WTAF was in order), I found out that it was an exact copy of the King James translation with a few altered verses only. It appears non-notable, although one instance was left in a relevant enough list-class article. I forgot about this since, thanks for the followup. —PaleoNeonate – 09:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Name of God

The name of G-d is YaHoVaH. Scholarly and ancient sources can not be added to wiki. JStack (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@JStack: Please note that this is not a general discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) but to suggest specific improvements. The material must be a summary of reliable sources (WP:RS). Please suggest more specific changes and suggest specific sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

Change note 58: Gertoux, Gérard. "God's name: readable but unpronounceable, why?". Academia.edu. p. 4. Retrieved 22 January 2018. to: Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why, Jonathan David Publishers Inc., 1981, p.295. Areopage (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Why? — MRD2014 ^Talk 19:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Removed the editorializing linked to a self-published source. The text mentions Kolatch in passing, which is possibly why @Areopage: requested the change in source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Non usage

It seems to me that those using Yahweh or the tetragrammaton may not belong under this section? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: this was long addressed. —PaleoNeonate – 12:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource

@DivermanAU: but anyone can edit [12]? I question the reliability of replacing archived pages with that, then. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: did you compare the archived page with the Wikisource version? The archived page [13] is not formatted properly (footnotes not placed correctly, italics wrong, no use of Greek characters, e.g. it has "Kupcos" instead of "Κύριος" in the Wikisource version). The scanned pages are also available on Wikisource if you wish to see the original e.g. [14]. DivermanAU (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still perplexed: it shouldn't be the reader's responsibility to check if it matches the original and to patrol the wikisource page for changes. We also have the WP:USERGEN policy which generally discourages using Wikis for sources. There likely is a more centralized place where these concerns can be discussed, so will try to address them there when I can. I'll leave the change in place at this article for now. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERGEN talks about "user-generated" content whereas Wikisource texts are generated from public domain publications, e.g. encyclopedias, not users. Check out the Wikisource page What is Wikisource? where it states "Wikisource...began in November 2003, as a collection of supporting texts for articles in Wikipedia".

Wikisource is widely used as a source for Wikipedia. For example, there are currently approximately 17,911 articles in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference", 453 in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference‎" and 2,792 in "Category:Articles incorporating a citation from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia with Wikisource reference" etc. regards, DivermanAU (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the details. I was aware of Wikisource's existence and of a controversy in relation to BLPs but was otherwise not very familiar with it. Still, the link does not point to a permalink, and the archive is user editable. Hmm this is another concern: does [15] work for you? This triggers an XSS vulnerability warning then points to a "Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name" message (that URL is where source #38 points). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any issues with Wikisource and BLPs. The texts I use are public domain, published before 1923 so not much of a worry. Yes, the text of Wikisource is user-editable, by design. Multiple proof-readers exist to fix errors in the scans of the originals. There are some very good resources in Wikisource.

I fixed the issue with the Catholic Encyclopedia reference to "Jehovah (Yahweh)". The link did work for me, but it was redirected to the correct name "Jehovah". Whoever added that ref. used the longer name instead of the shorter actual article title. I used "|wstitle=Jehovah |display=Jehovah (Yahweh)" in the template to link to the correct article name, and show the name as display in the banner as "Jehovah (Yahweh)". I guess there's a separate argument that the Cath. Ency. article name in the URL should match the name in the banner, maybe contact whoever created or modified that article. DivermanAU (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The link indeed works now, many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@DivermanAU: In relation to BLPs I searched and couldn't find what I was looking for, I think that I was mistaken and that it was in relation to WikiQuote (this for instance). Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

The article states that Jehovah is one of the 7 names of God used by Hebrews. That is not correct. The "names" mentioned in your article are not names but instead titles. For example, El, Elohim, Eloah, Elohai, El Shaddai, and Tzevaot are not names but titles that identify Jehovah's Godship, power etc. God is not a name, it is a title and has been applied to many different individuals. The only one name used for God in the Hebrew Scriptures is the Tetragrammaton which appears in the Hebrew writings over 7,000 times.

That being the case, other parts that identity El, Elohim, Eloah, Elohai, El Shaddai, and Tzevaot as names of God is not correct. God has only one name, everything else would be considered a title. Editorking1914 (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Kennychen168 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Recovery Version of the Bible as among the translations using the name Jehovah.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 12:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yehovah

The Darby Bible 1905 has Jehovah, which is widely spread in the internet. This Bible has Jehovah: http://www.dnkjb.net Nehemia Gordon is a jewish scholar who expleins that Yehovah has been there for over 1000 years in Hebrew Masortic texts. Their documents can be found in the Vatican Library (inkl. Gospel of Luke), British Library, Russian Library, Israel Library. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaoyYdMHPjXkMJhiTLGbNzhe_taZLt7YK Also Yehovah is found 50 times in the Leningrad Codex: http://buchererpianos.ch/YEHOVAH_in_the_Codex_Leningradensis.html At the bottom of the page are samples of the different museums arround the world depicting יְהֹוָה Yehovah. What this article says about Jehovah is wrong. The first letter of the word is a hebrew "Yod" and not an english "J". You must create a wikipedia entry for Yehovah and not Jehovah. Jews are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Because you say, there is no english Bible with Yehovah, I can make a different entry: http://buchererpianos.ch/Bible.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.231.91 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal does not comply with WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Relevant here may be WP:COMMONNAME. —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and WP:RS (his/her own custom Bible is not a reliable source), WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. And WP:OR performed upon WP:PRIMARY religious sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

First Sentence - Latinization?

"Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה"

Latin has nothing to do with this pronunciation question, as English is a Germanic language with Latin influences. Nobody would say Jehovah is a Germanization of the Hebrew, nor should they say Latinization. The question here is whether Jehovah/Yehovah is an accurate pronunciation into English of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, or whether it was some Christian error creating a new word by misunderstanding the Hebrew standards around the word. While I believe the former, either way it is not a Latinization. I plan to change this after a wait to see if there is any response. The article should attempt to clearly lay out the two competing theories around the word Jehovah. Thanks! StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, do not make that change. Jehovah (and Yahweh) is a Latinised (aka Romanised) form of the Hebrew term. It means it uses the Latin alphabet rather than your apparently mistaken view that it implies a Latin word. This is orthographic latinisation (which on Wikipedia redirects to Romanization). I have replaced the old link with a link for the correct usage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

For all the criticism, (which I do understand, thank you) you seemed to de facto accept my critique, and changed the sentence to read:

Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/) is a traditional transliteration of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible[1] [Cf. the seven names of God in Judaism].

Which is excellent.

However, there is an interesting question about whether Jehovah should be considered a transcription or a transliteration. It is a transcription in the sense that the four letters and three vowels do correlate directly with the seven letters in Jehovah. On the other hand, the proponents (e.g. see the Facebook group The Creator's Name) would say that first and foremost it is a transcription, that Jehovah, or Yehovah, represents the actual speaking sound. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your 'critique' was incorrect and I didn't 'de facto accept it'. The change to the text that you indicated above was made by someone other than me (and has been reverted). The name is more properly a Latinization rather than a transliteration as the vowel points were derived separately from another word. I appreciate that your query tangentially drew attention to the incorrect link target though.

Facebook groups are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

'Jehovah' was NOT in the 1611 King Iames Version - The Letter J didn't appear until the 1629 1st Revision Cambridge KJV

There's a mistake in the opening where it states "'Jehovah' was in the 1611 King James Version". No, it wasn't. There was no letter J in that Bible, e.g. Iesus, Iames. 73.85.205.81 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The subheading, Introduction to English, makes the same mistake about other versions as well as 1611 King James, in these statements:

• The name Jehovah appeared in all early Protestant Bibles in English, except Coverdale's translation in 1535.[3]
• The Authorized King James Version, which used "Jehovah" in a few places, most frequently gave "the LORD" as the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. The name Jehovah appeared in John Rogers' Matthew Bible in 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, Bishop's Bible of 1568 and the King James Version of 1611.

The spellings actually used in Tyndale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishops', and 1611 King James may be seen at OldeBible.Downstrike (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added a clarification that it initially appeared as Iehouah, though it is already explained in the prior paragraph that I and J (and V and U) were not distinct at the time. The main point is the introduction of that general form in contrast to Yahweh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Whole article needs a general edit

A lot of work went into this article and I think it is a valuable source. However, I suggest it badly needs a general edit for simplifying the syntax. The first sentence is an example: "Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible[1] and one of the seven names of God in Judaism." At the very least, the sentence should be broken up. I propose eliminating the last clause. The article to which it links isolates YHWH as a name and the other six as titles. A positive point could be made out of the clause--the difference between the name of God and the titles of God. I also think Tetragrammaton could be moved to an article point. The opening sentence should be like a simple door into the article. I propose this first sentence: "Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/) is a Latinized pronunciation of the the proper name of God in the Hebrew Bible (יהוה in Hebrew; transliterated YHWH in English).[1] Tetragrammaton could be in another sentence somewhere. The seven names/titles (with link) could be expanded in the introductory section or later. Bookman1968 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

I wanted to edit the part talking about who Jehovah is to:He is the only and true God. Superboy00008888 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Superboy00008888: In a scholarly, encyclopedic context, other gods exist, so the encyclopedia cannot call him the only god. Likewise, "true God" is a subjective statement: it's fine for a statement of belief, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Other Usage addition

There is another religious group that insists on using the rendering Jehovah as the name of God: Empire of Jehovah. Their members call themselves Jehovahites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.9.253 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

They are apparently not notable enough for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparent from what? And why are you talking about an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.9.253 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Empire of Jehovah does not have an article. Thus, they are not notable enough to mention here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

'Empire of Jehovah' is an unremarkable minor sect based in the UK that appears to have branched from the Jehovah's Witnesses in 2015. The groups' website is registered in the UK.[16] The IP editor here is also in the UK and may be affiliated with the sect. It appears that KadGeb (talk · contribs) is also affiliated with the sect. It does not seem likely that the group would be referenced in any reliable sources at this time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton vocalization statistics

The article states "יְהֹוָה appears 6,518 times in the traditional Masoretic Text." This is a bit misleading. This form (with the 3 vowels sheva, holem, qamets) only occurs 46 times according to an Accordance Bible software search. The vast majority of the forms (where the Masoretic pointing is indicating that the pronunciation of YHWH should be Adonai) are actually missing the holem. E.g. the form ‏יְהוָה‎ occurs 5679 times. There are other variations as well - 13 in total. Below are the stats, again according to an Accordance Bible software search. I'm not sure how much detail is appropriate for this wikipedia article but the above statement isn't technically correct.

‏יְהוָה‎ 5679 Gen 2:4 adonai

‏יהוָה‎ 789 Gen 4:3 adonai

‏יְהוִה‎ 269 Deut 3:24 elohim

‏יְהוָֹה‎ 46 Gen 3:14 adonai

‏יְהוִֹה‎ 32 1Kgs 2:26 elohim

‏יהוָֹה‎ 6 Gen 18:17 adonai

‏יֱהוִה‎ 2 Gen 15:2 elohim

‏יְהוִהּ‎ 1 Hab 3:19 elohim

‏יְהוָהּ‎ 1 Zech 6:12 adonai

‏יֱהוִֹה 1 Judg 16:28 elohim

‏יֲהוָה‎ 1 Ps 144:15 adonai

‏יהוִה‎ 1 Ps 68:21 elohim

‏יְּהוָה‎ 1 Lev 23:38 adonai

24.157.240.2 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Letter J is Old English for Y sound

Letter J originally a Y sound Mkleberte (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it was originally another way of writing I in Latin (where V and U were the same letter, derived from the Semitic Waw). See the article on J for more info (which cites professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, which is what we stick to here). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Hebrew vowel points section should end in a period instead of a comma. 2001:1970:5A9F:C200:A1FE:DA8B:5EE6:8E99 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Title of Picture of 1611 KJV Exodus 6:3 (currently the first picture in the article)

As is correctly stated later in this same article, The 1611 KJV did not actually use the letter J. Additionally, it was printed in Gothic Font.

The picture is of some later printing of the KJV (I do not know what year), and the title of the picture should be changed to accurately reflect this, otherwise it is misleading to the non-scholar reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.25.184 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The letter J first appeared in the 1629 1st Revision Cambridge King James Bible. 2601:589:4801:5660:483E:B81B:28E5:8973 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement in article.

UPDATE: Apparently what we have here in the second sentence of the opening paragraph is not a statement about "Jehovah", but, rather about the Tetragrammaton. The antecedent to the pronoun "It" (the subject of the second sentence) is actually supposed to be the Tetragrammaton (following the linked article reveals this).

The opening paragraph of this article states that Jehovah: "…is considered one of the seven names of God in Judaism and one of the names of God in Christianity."

I am a Jewish lay leader, and I have studied Judaism as my faith for decades. In my Jewish studies, I have no experience in which I have encountered the word "Jehovah" as a representative name for God. I understand that it is a Gentile/Christian contrivance (or mistransliteration). Certainly the Christians claim the name as valid for their God, but to the best of my understanding, "Jehovah" has never been used by Jews in any sincere or reverent reference to God. It's not even a linguistic analog for any actual name for God found in Jewish scripture or Jewish epigraphical works, such as the Mishnah, Talmud, or Gemara. So, if the first part of the previously quoted statement is to stand, then it requires a citation (Best of luck finding one).Basilikon (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this Basilikon, and your edit to the main article. I would just like to caveat the above about Jehovah with "some Christians claim the name as valid for their God"; most now will either use Yahweh, or not bother using a specific name (the LORD usually suffices :) ). I am to understand some Karaite Jews may use Yehovah (y as opposed to j) as a representative name for God: is your comment concerning both Jehovah/Yehovah, or just specifically Jehovah? I believe I already know the answer, but would just like to clarifiy. Stephen Walch (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm Jewish. I'm a Mizrahi Jew, more specifically a Mashadi Persian Jew and with the obvious exception of the transliteration of Yud to J, this was essentially the pronunciation I've always been taught. I checked with an orthodox Ashkenazi friend, and he agrees. Frankly, I find the other pronunciation here—the one presented as the historians' consensus—perposterous. Are you just complaining about the transliteration of the first letter? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)