Talk:Sacred Name Bible

Names of God Bible was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 2 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Sacred Name Bible. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Neutral point of view

This article is to inform readers about all of the sacred name Bibles, not just one. This is not the place to argue for the superiority of one translation over another. Those who do so should examine the other translations before claiming that one translation is the only one to follow a certain practice. Some of the material that has recently been inserted would fit better in the Wikipedia article Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition, especially since that article badly needs to be expanded. We all have topics about which we have very strong convictions, but Wikipedia is a place for facts, for information more than persuasion. In its present form, the article has a noticeable number of claims and convictions where policy prefers documentable facts. Wikipedia is to be community effort. In that spirit, Pete unseth (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the table in the article which you included, should really include the ASV, the Jerusalem Bible and other more popular Bibles also; I am still concerned that there is no mention of them. I believe the claim that the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition is the most popular Bible in this group is that it has sold the most copies and had the most editions. In Citer (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I reread the article, I see material about the practices of specific groups and the claims of specific ones. The point of the article is to inform readers about these Bible translations, not to exlain all about their proponents. Much of this material belongs in articles about the speicific groups or the Sacred Name Movement. Based on this I am deleting material from the article. Not trying to squelch the material, just to remove it from this article that should be more about Bibles.

A major edit has just been done by Jeffro, many related to POV issues. Many things are improvements, but with so many changes done at once, it is very hard to properly compare the present version with the previous. Pete unseth (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. But the previous version had many problems. I believe there should also be more under the section about publishers. I also agree with the comment above by In Citer, and did nearly include similar changes, but wasn't sure about changing the criteria given at the beginning of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been flagged for POV. I don't remember who inserted it or when. Can it be removed now? If somebody thinks it should remain, please state some specific steps that could be taken so that it can be legitimately removed. Pete unseth (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

This article reads like an advertisement for the "Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition". Furthermore, the information is already covered (and with far more accuracy) in the Yahweh and Jehovah articles. AndrewNJ (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to focus the article much more on all Sacred Name translations, not specific organizations or translations (they have their own Wikipedia articles). Felt it enough to justify removing the advert banner. Doubt I pleased everyone. Still room to focus. Removed some incorrect references/footnotes. Inserted section on history of these English translations. Hope helpful. Pete unseth (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important aspect of Sacred Name Bibles is the use of the "sacred name". Therefore, I feel it is important to have a history and definition of these Sacred Name Bibles which is mentioned in the current article. I have undone AndrewNJ version as it doesn't help to organize or elucidate the article. In Citer (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacred Name Bible is not "the only Bible to restore the names in Old and New Testament". Basically - all sacred name translations does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmeyer777 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a quote

The article contains the following quotation as evidence for the need to produce sacred name Bibles, "The Biblical text cannot remain locked in an unintelligible foreign language if communication between heaven and earth is to be viable, but must be comprehended in the tongue of each person seeking to do the will of the most high."

I read the above quote and do not see how it addressess the need for specifically sacred name Bibles. It calls for Bible translations, but I'm not sure how it touches the topic of sacred name transaltions as compared to any other Bible translation. Is this quote relevant in the section in which it stands?Pete unseth (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Obviously, every "Sacred Name" Bible must render the Tetragrammaton as a personal name.
It seems that personal Name could be any respectful translation or transliteration.
Other than that, it seems translations are included or excluded on whims. Criteria for inclusion must be explicitly enumerated.

1. Must every Sacred Name Bible use the Name in both "Old" and "New" Testaments? I think both.
2. Must every Sacred Name Bible use a Hebraic/Semitic form of the Tetragrammaton? No, I think Jehovah is ok.
3. Must every Sacred Name Bible render the name Jesus in a Hebraic/Semitic form? No, I think Jesus and Joshua are acceptable.

If you feel differently and strongly, please explain.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with point number 1 except for one thing. If the Bible is only a New Testament Bible, then it should still qualify as a Sacred Name New Testament Bible if it uses the Divine Name in a Hebraic/Semitic form in the New Testament. If it uses the Divine Name in the spelling "Jehovah" in the New Testament then it is not a Sacred Name New Testament/Bible for the reasons given in the following paragraph, though it would qualify as a Divine Name New Testament/Bible.

I disagree with point number 2 due to how leaders of the Sacred Name movement define what qualifies as a Sacred Name Bible. The denomination which produced the New World Translation don't refer to their Bible as a Sacred Name Bible nor do they refer to themselves as a part of the Sacred Name Movement, nor do their leaders refer to the New World Translation as a Sacred Name Bible. That Bible with its use of the name "Jehovah" should thus not be included in the list of Sacred Name Bibles, but it could be called a Divine Name New Testament/Bible.

I especially disagree with point number 3 because those New Testament/Covenant Bibles and those complete Bibles which call themselves Sacred Name Bibles (and/or emphasize using the proper spellings of the names of the Father and Son), are never Bibles which use the spellings of "Jesus" or "Joshua" for the name of the Son of God. Every common (mainstream) Bible in English includes the name Jesus in the New Testament/Covenant even though most them do not use God the Father's Name in the Old Testament/Covenant. 67.150.171.224 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the matter of criteria and definition is important. Some have tried to include other translations by using less rigid criteria. Sacred Name Bibles are those that consistently use only Semitic forms for sacred names in both the Old and New Testaments.Pete unseth (talk)

A Sacred Name Bible is a Bible that uses the Sacred Name. Whether that be in the Old, New or both Testaments is completely irrelevant to the term “Sacred Name Bible”. User:Pete unseth seems to be confusing a Sacred Name Movement (SNM) Bible with a Sacred Name Bible. It’s a major problem here on Wikipedia as I notice, even the term Sacred Name redirects to the Sacred Name Movement, which is flawed. Again, a Sacred Name Bible is essentially, a Bible which contains the Name (rendered Tetragrammaton) any number of times. I would request User:Pete unseth to undo his edits he made to the article yesterday, or else I will be obliged to do so for him. This subject was briefly addressed by Jeffro who said in November, 2009 below: “Unless a reliable third-party source is provided that explicitly states the exclusive definition for which you are seeking to limit the scope of the article, then the article should include Bibles that use other forms of 'sacred' names, including both Yahweh and Jehovah”. I note that Pete created the table for the Bible’s and I appreciate that, but based on your comment yesterday for undoing edits, about half of those Bibles would not appear. Your edit summary said: “Undid revision 428765672 by Oggy15 (talk) undid drastic edits that changed major points”, but your only explanation about those “major points” have been to insert your own definition: “Sacred Name Bibles are those that consistently use only Semitic forms for sacred names in both the Old and New Testaments”, which isn’t correct. Another good point for the previous revision is we can separate/remove these Bibles from the more Christian approved Bibles on other Bible translation lists which is one reason why this page exists. I hope that helps clarify. Oggy15 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Oggy15, that my reverts are such a problem. I see you have done your reversions. That's fine. Let me gently state a couple gentle points. First of all, I am not trying to include any organization or movement as part of the definition of a Sacred Name Bible. I am not sure which translations of Scripture you want to include that would be excluded by my definition; please be specific and list the "about half of those Bibles" on the list. That would help me understand your position more fully. I would plead that you not use the category of partial name Bibles. By the defition of SNB, the very label indicates that they do not belong in this article.

You quoted Jeffro: "the article should include Bibles that use other forms of 'sacred' names, including both Yahweh and Jehovah”. My definition of Sacred Name Bibles does not rule out any that use "Jehovah", but there are none that use it consistently throughout the New Testament, so this point is moot.

As to finding "a reliable third-party source that explicitly states the exclusive definition for which you are seeking to limit the scope of the article", this gets interesting. Wikipedia policies give priority to edited, published scholarship over unpublished original research and personal opinions. An article in the journal The Bible Translator, published by the United Bible Societies will come out this summer with an article about Sacred Name Bibles. It describes them as those that use "Hebrew-based forms for divine names in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament". Will that serve as an authority to decide the definition for Wikipedia? Pete unseth (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oggy 15, please clarify the criteria for putting Bibles into the "Other" category. I'm not sure why the "Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible" is removed to this category. Also, I do not understand why "The Besorah" would be listed in this category, rather than with the Tetragramamton Bibles. Please clarify your criteria. Peaceably.Pete unseth (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can do some edits on this, but I do agree Oggy's edits are an improvement. If the Bible Translator attempts to define Sacred Name Bibles as Bibles which only use "Hebrew-based forms for divine names in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament", I don't think it will go down too well on our end. In the SNM, we understand that a SNB is as Oggy defined. A SNM SNB is as the Bible Translator has defined. Thankfully, the SNM isn't the only SNB producERS. If you did take the definition from the book, it simply would mean Sacred Name Bible would become a sub category (another heading) and this page would be called something else. This page is to group all Bibles that use a variant of the Name. The most concerning about this page is the KJV, which I don't think is a Sacred Name Bible - does it at all mention Yahweh or Jehovah? The Jews and the RCC have banned the Name so this page would suit those who adhere to those faiths, and I like the idea of lumping all Jehovah and Yahweh Bible's on one page regardless if mentioned in Old or New Testament. If Bibles come out in the future which follow the footsteps of the ASV and the JB, they will again need a category which only this page would suit. Sacred Name Movmement (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNM, I was not quite sure what definiton of Sacred Name Bible you follow. It seems that your statements may be contradictory, or did I misunderstand you: "In the SNM, we understand that a SNB is as Oggy defined. A SNM SNB is as the Bible Translator has defined." I thought Oggy15 disagreed with the definition from "The Bible Translator".

You, Oggy15, and In ictu oculi are all new to this article (your user name even brand new to Wikipedia), but you three have made numerous edits to this in the past week. For well over a year, there has been general consensus on what sort of Bibles should be included in the category "Sacred Name Bibles". All that has been dramatically changed in the last week. What was a very clear, specific category has now been widened so much that it is is a much less useful reference for readers. It was intended as a research tool, not a place for discussing the claims of movements. Seeking harmony. Pete unseth (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oggy, you said "Another good point for the previous revision is we can separate/remove these Bibles from the more Christian approved Bibles on other Bible translation lists which is one reason why this page exists. I hope that helps clarify. Oggy15". I don't mind this and am willing to help, but you're not thinking of removing the Bibles from all listings on wikipedia are you? I don't think that would be fair as this page is just one page. Sacred Name Movmement (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

To whoever removed the stuff about JWs etc... Unless a reliable third-party source is provided that explicitly states the exclusive definition for which you are seeking to limit the scope of the article, then the article should include Bibles that use other forms of 'sacred' names, including both Yahweh and Jehovah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me agree that "Sacred Name Bibles" are defined by their consistent use of Hebrew-based divine names in both the Old and New Testaments. This includes "Yahweh", "Jehovah", "YHWH", and innovative spellings. Also, the category includes translations that use with Hebrew script for this purpose.

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible does use Yahweh's Name in the New Testament

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible does use Yahweh's Name in the New Testament, it thus is incorrect to claim it does so in both Testaments. I own a copy of Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (an edition reprinted by Kregel) and I don't see it using any form of the Divine Name (Yahweh/Jehovah) in the scripture text of the New Covenant. If it there somewhere, cite at least one verse where it is in the New Testament of Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, otherwise remove it from the list of those Bibles which use it in New Testament. If it was in earlier editions but not in later editions, specify which editions contain it and which ones don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.171.224 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I highly value the Rotherham's Emphasized Bible including its use of Yahweh's name in the Old Testament/Covenant, I would love to see mention of specific verses where it uses Yahweh's name in the New Testament/Covenant, if such proof exists. I have looked for such proof but I have not found it. For example in my copy (Kregel Publication Reprint of 1984, ISBN 0-8254-3601-X with hardcover and dust jacket) the latter part of Matthew 4:7 says "Thou shalt not put to the test |the Lord thy God|." If Rotherham's Emphasized Bible had used Yahweh's Name consistently in the New Testament/Covenant it certainly would have done so in Matthre 4:7 since that verse is a quote from a verse in the Old Covenant where the Yahweh's Name appears. 67.150.171.224 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major edits obscured many points

May 12, editor Oggy made a number of edits which I believe made the article less clear and harder to follow. I am assuming that these edits were made in good faith. However, I ask for smaller, more incremental changes. I will try to revert them, but don't know if I can revert three in a row. I welcome Oggy to participate in making the article easier to read for all. Pete unseth (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oggy15, in the major editing, something got bent. In the section about Traina's works, you have both labeled as New Testaments, but the second was the full Bible. Then the following sentence may need some fixing: it sounds like "systematically use a Hebrew form for sacred names throughout the New Testament" applies also to the following work you mention, the Jerusalem Bible. But it does not use any Semitic forms for sacred names in the New Testament. I would have fixed it, but I was not exactly sure what you meant it to say. Pete unseth (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see if I can fix this this week. The Besorah uses "Yahuah", the (RO)SNB uses Yahvah, and a very abstract verification of Jesus name which I cannot even remember how to write. Sacred Name Movmement (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but all the "Other" Bibles have citation tags on them. I read earlier that Pete included that table with all the info about these "Other" Bibles, is it OK if I just refer back to that? (SN_Movement) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi. First problem with this article is the POV. If the article is describing the views of the SN Movement and those who publish SN Bibles, fine, but it should be written from a 3rd party perspective. Secondly there is unfortunately a bit of laziness in this article. There are presumably enough Sacred Name publications out there to source the views of the SN Movement rather than state them. Wikipedia isn't a blog. Even the terms used in subheadings "Partial Name Bible", where does that come from? Is there a source that says such a term exists? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The partial name Bibles categories are probably just ways to categorise the different Bible types. They were edits already done. I don't think the SNM should have a section on its own on this article. It's WP:UNDUE as Sacred Name Bibles have been produced by Jehovah Witnesses, the RCC, the SNM, the AOY and others. (SN_Movement) 12:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MovMement, the thing is Wikipedia cannot just invent categories, if "Partial Name Bibles" (in caps) doesn't exist, as it appears it doesn't then it needs to be written out in full -- "Bibles with Yahweh in the Old Testament only", or require a source.

Not quite sure which section you refer to in the second comment, but no, should not be undue, except JW/RCC Bibles are not SN Bibles by the Melton Encyclopedia definition. Is there an alternative definition or source? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but will have to revert This edit. Why? Because once a ^{[citation needed]} tag is on something it stays on until a citation is provided, in this case you've just said above that these were "probably just ways to categorise the different Bible types.", well yes they might well have been, but that's why they caught a ^{[citation needed]} tag. Also some of the other content you have restored/added in that edit is either unsourced, or factually incorrect, or contradicts material in the body of the article. Sorry, everything requires refs.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MovMement, sorry in just making some big fixes, like removing some of these invented terms, "Partial Name Bibles", I may have trod on your toes on the fixes you just made. Apologies, please feel free to redo them, but be sure to leave ^{[citation needed]} tags, and referenced content. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (SN_Movement) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Bit concerned about the use of citations needed tags. A lot of the things on here are known to be facts, like that about the Hexapla for example. I think someone went overboard! (SN_Movement) 15:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MovMement, I'm sorry but this edit presents a number of problems

You've restored sentences that may not be factually correct and lack sources.

1. The lede states that the Bibles like the Jerusalem Bible are "Sacred Name Bibles". What is the source for this?
Some (including in the SNM) believe that proper Sacred Name Bibles are only those defined as the former. ---what's the source for this?
The least popular of these Bibles use variants other than Yahweh or Jehovah, perhaps due to their grammatically incorrect and improbable constructions.--- what's the source for this?

2. The line "Most English Bibles follow the approach of the Greek New Testament in rendering Hebrew "YHWH" as "Lord" in the Old Testament." was deleted. ------ Why? That's useful context seeing as 95% of Bibles follow this track.
3. A Bible using "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah") in the Old Testament only - such as the Jerusalem Bible. Ron Rhodes The Complete Guide to Bible Translations p206 2009 "Unlike most other translations today, the New Jerusalem Bible renders the Old Testament name for God, YHWH, as “Yahweh,” just as the Jerusalem Bible did. In place of “Lord of hosts” is “Yahweh Sabaoth.” - where is this text/ref?
4. A Bible using "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah") in the Old Testament and quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament - such as the New World Translation Rhodes 2009 ---- Why was this deleted?
5. A Bible using "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah") in the Old Testament and all mentions of "Lord" referring to God in the New Testament - such as Traina's Sacred Name New Testament (1950)Melton 2003 --- why was this deleted?

In my view there aren't too many ^{[citation needed]}, there probably should be more. But the Hexapla sentence doesn't have a ^{[citation needed]}. The next line does: "Both endorse the importance of the sacred name and state that the most reliable manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters.^{[citation needed]}" This requires sources for both Eusebius and Jerome. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Sacred Name Bible is a Bible that contains the Sacred Name, everyone in the SNM knows that. It really, really is simple. I know that the term isn't used much apart from by the SNM to describe Complete SNB's, but you shouldn't allow that to confuse you. They are some people within the SNM that use the Jerusalem Bible too. In the SNM, yes, there is a view that so called "limited" SNB's are inferior. I could find a source I guess. That won't be too difficult. And the least popular Bibles are clearly those Bibles that use variants other than Yahweh and Jehovah. Many of them are extremely non-notable because they are so far-fetched. Some names like Yahushuwah are absolutely ridiculous. Sorry, in your #2 point, I can restore that line deleted there. I don't have a ref for #4. I didn't think #5 was relevant. We're trying to streamline the article a bit so it isn't too sloppy. We just don't need some of the above. This page is supposed to give a brief history, definition and list of Sacred Name Bibles(SN_Movement) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Great, if that is so then please provide published SNM sources that everyone in SNM considers the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and Jehovah's Witness NWT to be "Sacred Name Bibles". Though as it stands there is no source beyond Melton's encyclopedia citing Traina's 1950 version - which suggests that the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and Jehovah's Witness NWT are not "Sacred Name Bibles" by non-SNM definition. But either way, sources are needed.

There was a ref for 4, it was Rhodes 2009, it shouldn't have been deleted. In fact there were refs for 3.and 4.5.

The other thing I wanted to mention was that this page has been quite stagnant for a few months now. Here is the version of the page last month and my own opinion is, they are many more unsourced things which deserved ^{[citation needed]} tags then than now. I also strongly believe the page has been improved in readability, in precision and in clarity. (SN_Movement) 18:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd agree with your observation. At that time the page would have warranted a full banner - Add References, now it's possible to zero in on individual lines with ^{[citation needed]}.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the editing that has been undertaken by Sacred Name Movement and I has helped to improve the content of this article, especially as the definition is now correct: a Sacred Name Bible is just a Bible that uses the Sacred Name any amount of times. Oggy15 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oggy15, the whole question of "correct definiton" gets touchy. It raises the matter of POV. The article has followed one general definition (with some minor variants) until you changed it. With your very broad definition, I think the article is now a more broad, less significant list, not a sharply defined class of Bibles. Will you accept a schoalrly, published definition as authoritative for Wikipedia, or do you have some other standard we can agree on? Are there other published definitions? Gently,Pete unseth (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete Unseth, comparing your creation of article with current state it's a shame that the fairly concise simple way you started the article was never going to remain like that on Wikipedia. You commented on my recent arrival and edits. It's fair to say I'm not particularly interested in the subject. But I was drawn here by seeing a controversial change to Tetragrammaton which again isn't a subject I'm particularly interested in either, but have edited on before, and then correcting some misrepresentative statements in Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. Here, this article, my main concern would be that any terminology used "Sacred Name Bibles" "xxx Bibles" should be sourceable to either mainstream tertiary sources like Melton, or if we're saying "SNM use this to refer to this" should be sourceable to printed SNM sources with ISBN numbers and pages, not just webpages. To avoid OR/POV. I think you share those concerns by the look of your comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From previous version, sources

{{ |- ! Abbrev || Name || Date || YHWH/יַהְוֶה‎
as || Jesus/Ἰησοῦς
as |- | REB || Rotherham's Emphasized Bible [1] || 1902 || Yahweh || Jesus |- | SNNT || The New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yahshua || 1950 || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | NWT || New World Translation [2] || 1961 || Jehovah || Jesus |- | HNB|| Holy Name Bible [3] || 1963 || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | SNB || Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible [4] || 1970|| YAHVAH || Yahshua (YAHVAHSHUA) |- | SSBE || The Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition [5] || 1981 || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | BOY || The Book of Yahweh: The Holy Scriptures || 1987|| Yahweh || Yahshua |- | EG || ExeGeses Ready Research Bible ||1992 || YAH VEH || Yah Shua |- | TS || The Scriptures '98 Version [6] || 1998 || יַהְוֶה‎ || יֵשׁוּעַ |- | SSFOY || Sacred Scriptures, Family of Yah Edition [7] || 2000 || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | HRVNT || Hebraic-Roots Version "New Testament" [8] || 2001 || YHWH || Yeshua |- | TWOY || The Word of Yahweh [9]|| 2003 || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | HRV || Hebraic-Roots Version [10] || 2004 || YHWH || Yeshua |- | SSFOY-04 || Zikarown Say'fer Memorial Scroll [11] || 2004 || Paleo יַהְוֶה‎ || Paleo יֵשׁוּעַ |- | RSTNE || Restoration Scriptures: True Name Edition [12] || 2004 || יַהְוֶה‎ || יֵשׁוּעַ |- | SN-KJ || Sacred Name King James Bible [13] || 2005 || YHVH || YAHSHUA |- | SMV || The Seventh Millennium Version || 2007 || Paleo יַהְוֶה‎ || Yeshua |- | TB || The Besorah^[1][14]|| 2008 || Yahuah || Yahusha |- | AENT || The Aramaic English New Testament [15] || 2008 || Master YHWH || Y'shua |- | HRB || Hebraic Roots Bible [16] || 2009 || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | AFNS || Abrahamic Faith Nazarene Hebraic Study Scriptures [17] || 2010 || יַהְוֶה‎ (YHWH) || יֵשׁוּעַ (Yahushua) |- | TBE || Transparent English Bible || In progress || YHVH || In progress |- | HNT || His Name Tanakh [18] || In progress || יהוה‎ || יהוה |- | HIM || The Human Instruction Manual [19] || In progress || יַהְוֶה‎ || יֵשׁוּעַ |- | HS || Halleluyah Scriptures: Free Restored Name Scriptures [20] || 2011 || Paleo יַהְוֶה‎ || Paleo יֵשׁוּעַ |- | RSB || The Restoration Study Bible [21] || In progress || Yahweh || Yahshua |- | MATARA || Masoretic Targumic Amplified Edition Tanakh || In progress || YHWH || N/A |-

Thanks, (SN_Movement) 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) }}[reply]

Interesting

Some of these refs seem to have dropped off.

Would be good to have "___ Publishing, Place_____, ISBN _______ , Year" after each one.

In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ A check of several passages shows no differences between The Besorah and the The Scriptures produced 10 years earlier by a different publisher (except Besoarah's occasional use of bold text and a different Hebrew script). It is not clear if the identical text is authorized or plagiarism.

Narrow and broad definitions

As an attempt at keeping peace and also keeping a narrow definition of SNB's, I have introduced the concept of a narrow definition and a broad definition. Before I edit further, I await others' responses. I trust this edit is seen as an amicable step forward. Pete unseth (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "introduced the concept" sounds like OR, no matter how helpful it might be, Wikipedia is not supposed to be introducing concepts that cannot be sourced. Do you have a source? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's your own article. Is this the same magazine as www.ubs-translations.org/bt/ , in which case it should be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was published in the journal you referred to. Since I edit under my own name, all can see that am indeed citing myself. But since it is a long-established, peer-reviewed journal, I don't feel awkward about it.

As to the matter of "introducing" a concept" sounding like OR, you are right. Instead, I could claim that mine is now THE established definition and simply remove the statements using the broader definition. But for now, I prefer to leave room for other points of view.Pete unseth (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't object, if something is both instinctively helpful AND sourced, then all good. I also don't object that it's your own article, since UBS is more than credible, if someone gets rule-bent about "conflict of interest" I'd be quite happy to insert your UBS article as a ref for you. It makes sense to mention mainstream versions like the Jerusalem Bible here, it also makes sense to gradate off why the NWT or SNB versions have their own policies. Then maybe mention even more distinctive versions like Stern's NT which peppers bits of Hebrew all through the English. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation

Hello. The allegation in this edit is unsourced and does not comply with WP:NPOV. It must be removed immediately. Please stop the edit-war. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divinenamepublishers

User:Divinenamepublishers edits reverted due to lack of source and possible WP:COI. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence

Just want to say that Pete has done a good job on the article, but I think the opening sentence is incorrect. It says

"Sacred Name Bibles or sacred-name versions[1] are editions of the Bible that are usually connected with the Sacred Name Movement."

Actually, if you note all the Sacred Name Bibles you'll find relatively few have been produced by adherents of the Sacred Name Movement and the reference used to substantiate this sentence doesn't really prove this. I'm thinking of changing this sentence, but I'd rather have some input before I do. In Citer (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the change to the opening sentence is fine. The confusion about "Sacred Name Movement" is whether this is a broad movement, or a specific set of groups. In my use, it was the broad use.Pete unseth (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Bibles not classed as Sacred Name Bibles?

Hi Pete. In the article in the Lead it states that "The term [(sacred name Bibles)] is not used for mainstream Bible editions, such as the Jerusalem Bible, which employs the name Yahweh in the English text of only the Old Testament, where traditional English versions have LORD." The reference you used doesn't really back that up. I thought it was agreed that these are *limited* sacred name bibles. Just because a Bible is popular, or mainstream, doesn't mean it cannot be a sacred name bible. In Citer (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with formatting

Somehow, the references cited in the text now appear twice at the bottom of the text. I am far from being an expert at formatting and I have not found a way to restore them. If anybody can fix this, I will be very grateful. Pete unseth (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too much space for one translation

The recent addition of so much text to the Divine Name King James Bible is inappropriate. That translation does not yet seem adequately noteworthy for its own article. But it certainly needs to be reduced here. I will let the BigBrownOcelot reduce he amount of text in this article. If not, I will reduce it. Trying to play nice. Pete unseth (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Name King James Bible Miscategorized

Divine Name King James Bible contains the name, Jehovah, in the NT. Is there a valid reason for categorizing it under, "The following versions use either "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" only in the Old Testament" I ask, to avoid conflict with any previous consensus.

I also wonder why this category doesn't have a header. Downstrike (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information about 1611 King James Version, aka "original King James Version" Suggestion

Contrary to statements in the article, the "original King James Version", published in 1611, uses the spelling, "IEHOVAH", rather than "JEHOVAH". The latter spelling was introduced in the 1769 edition of the King James Version and the 1750 edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Almost all the spellings of proper nouns in the Bible containing the letter "J" were also introduced at that time, including "Jesus".-Mark 1:1 (OldeBible)

The spellings, "IEHOVAH" and "JEHOVAH" in the King James Version, are documented at Exodus 6:3 (OldeBible), along with other English language old Bible versions.

I don't know exactly how it should be done, but it seems to me that this information should be corrected.- Downstrike (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Sacred Name Bible

Thinking about changing the Lead, but I'd like to get other Wikipedians input. Basically, I want to say that technically, nearly every Bible that has produced is a Sacred Name Bible since they contain the word HalleluYah, which means 'Praise Yah' or 'Praise Yahweh'. The KJV also contains the contraction of the Name Yahweh as Jah in (from the top of my head) I think Psalm 68:4. This needs to be stated, as otherwise, Sacred Name Bible's will be viewed as something which is completely foreign to what the Word actually says. Also, there is no mention how the Jews did use the Name Yahweh however, they stopped doing so, around I think the 3rd century BCE. Therefore, they read the Name Yahweh and used it in their worship services before this time. In Citer (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "Sacred Name Bibles" is that they consistently transliterated. That is different than what you are proposing. Simply including "Hallelujah" is drastically different from consistently transliterating the tetragrammaton. Keeping this category distinct is useful and important. Pete unseth (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] A check of several passages shows no differences between The Besorah and the The Scriptures produced 10 years earlier by a different publisher (except Besoarah's occasional use of bold text and a different Hebrew script). It is not clear if the identical text is authorized or plagiarism.

[1]