Talk:Jehovah

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)

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 ( /dʒɨˈhoʊvə/) 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)