Talk:Sacred Name Bible

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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? ( S N M ove ment ) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

From previous version, sources

 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)