"According to some scholars letter "J" is not in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet"

Who cares? It's a completely pedantic distinction. It's like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

In Spanish, William is Guillermo, Charles is Carlos, John is Juan, George is Jorge. Someone should tell those Spaniards they have it ass-backwards.

What version should all the people who don't speak English be reading then?

Well, in English the letter "J" is a comparatively recent addition to the English alphabet.

a reply to: ketsuko

Anyone TRANSLATED from the Authorized version would be a good Bible for non English. But 82% of the people outside the US and England know English as second language, and they know it good enough to comprehend reading it.

the most complaints I get about the AV is the thees, Thous, and the Ye. this is a good rule of thumb. when the thee or thou is used it is speaking to an individual, ye and you are speaking to a group. The new versions change thous and thee to you which leaves it in a relative state to the reader to decide and if they dn't study or know English Grammar they will end up with the wrong idea of what was meant. i.e. false teachings.

a reply to: paraphi

Yeah in 1611 it was added. so recent as the English language is recent.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Pedro for Peter, Joaquin for Jack etc etc etc only people who like to argue would use such a derailment.

But then again we are not talking about Spanish or French, Swahili, of Chinese, we are talking about English "J". Not all J's in any language are silent again there is a rule to its pronunciation in ENGLISH as there are in other languages. That is why it is incorrect to impose Hebrew pronunciations onto an English Text.

a reply to: schuyler

A believer should care for a false teaching is being perpetrated against the church (the people not the Organization). We saw in another post where a woman was supposedly rebuked for pronouncing Jesus name in English rather than the Hebrew Transliteration pronunciation. God doesn't care which pronounciation you use it is the heart that matters.

And as I said earlier in the thread, Christians are not to be arguing over this and forcing that word pronunciation on others for the sake of gathering followers of their group.

1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
2Ti 2:14 ¶ Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.

a reply to: KansasGirl

You have gotten that absolutely correct. He was involved that is what men don't like. But God was not involved in every other version because he only has to do it once. without maps and study guides and cross-references added to the AV no one can make money off of it. All the other translations are copyrighted and you can't use them in a book or a study program or teaching without paying a fee. You see all the other translations are there only for men to collect those Benjamins. the love of money is the root of ALL evil.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You derailed your own thread, by making a case for using Hebrew pronunciations for Hebrew names. Don't forget the King Jaime Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek text. I guess God came to the translators in a vision and said, "Ye better speak thine J's righteously, lest confusion and desolation befall you."

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I didn't derail anything, you were the one wanting to talk about Spanish pronunciations and I took it right back to the English.

Don't forget the AV was inspired and preserved by God. Which means all those non "original" documents they had that were incorrect God made sure they got it right through INSPIRATION.

BTW, the only mention I made about Hebrew pronunciations was to say it was incorrect for anyone to impose the Hebrew on the English Text.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: ketsuko

Anyone TRANSLATED from the Authorized version would be a good Bible for non English. But 82% of the people outside the US and England know English as second language, and they know it good enough to comprehend reading it.

the most complaints I get about the AV is the thees, Thous, and the Ye. this is a good rule of thumb. when the thee or thou is used it is speaking to an individual, ye and you are speaking to a group. The new versions change thous and thee to you which leaves it in a relative state to the reader to decide and if they dn't study or know English Grammar they will end up with the wrong idea of what was meant. i.e. false teachings.

But any language translated from English, even the Authorized verion, will have the problems that those who produced the Authorized version did in producing it from the original texts the Authorized version was cobbled together from.

Try writing an essay in English and then translating it word for word into any language, and you will run up against a whole host of problems because none of those languages translated directly word for word. If your contention is that those older texts are no good (i.e. the Hebrew roots movement which seeks to go back to them for guidance) for that reason, then anyone reading even a translation of the Authorized version will also have that problem -- their translations will not be Divinely guided ... unless, of course, you are contending that the scholars who produced those translations were all uniquely guided by God to produce His own Authorized translations of His own Authorized version?

Because I recall the spat we had over scholars and scholarship and linguinstics.

Yah, I know what you mean.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Wow what a mess
You have confused so many covenants together and made up your on religion

Jesus died, brought a new covenant to humanity, all mankind if they choose

Prior to Jesus there was a Judaic covenant and a Jewish law, they are now finished for those in Christ
You seem confused

Also not all Christians believe the KJV is perfect, many think it has errors, only certain fundamentalists need the bible to prove Jesus, othere don't need the bible to prove Jesus, we have the Holy Spirit

How did I confuse covenants? My point, my only point, was about Hell. I think you have sidestepped, but I am sensitive to that particular debate trick.

Oops my apologies, right you are
I misread the context and unfortunately cant take it back
Again sincerely, sorry

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

In the Hebrew alphabet there is no “Y” or “W”. So it is also incorrect to pronounce the name Jehovah as Yahweh.

Every Bible I am aware of in the English language and in Spanish and many other languages spells numerous Hebrew names with the letter J, including Jews, Jerusalem, JEHOiakim, JEHiah, JEHOshaphat, JEHOhanan, JEHOiachin, JEHOiada, JEHOram and JEHOshua.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible and World English Bible use Yahweh instead of Jehovah. Of course, then they inconsistently use a "J" for other names, showing that they just don't like Jehovah.

There's also the Hebrew Names Version (HNV) of the World English Bible where they render the Hebrew names in some preferred transliteration to our modern alphabet. They render "Job" for example as "Iyov". Just being weird. Easier to keep people in the dark as to what's really going on here that way:

Jeremiah 23:27,28 (ASV)

27 that think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers forgat my name for Baal.
28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the straw to the wheat? saith Jehovah.

KJV

a reply to: neo96
Yeah, here's everything that was left out of the OP and why an "I" was used in Latin and Greek:

Defending the Divine Name

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Not only were the originals (none existing today) were inspired, so God in preserving his word as spoken of in Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.. The Scholars what you to believe that God did not keep his word in preserving his words to every generation forever. They teach and deny God can RE-INSPIRE his words all the while denying scriptures that show not only how God RE-INSPIRED not only the original but adding to them even more words.

Jer 36:20 -23And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king. So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

So what you just read is how the King destroyed the original inspired word in Hebrew.

Now pay close attention to this

Jer 36:27-28, 32 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. . . . Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

Not only did God re-inspired the original but he also added words to the original.

You see the false teaching in "Christian Seminaries and Universities" that God only inspired the originals, in other languages but that he did not in English is false. The Latin Vulgate was a Version and so was the Old Latin to which the Vulgate replaced. Which one was inspired? The Old Latin was it was around for 250 years before the Vulgate was created.

These universities are the ones behind the 350Plus English versions out there today. They are making money off Bibles and you can't use their versions without paying them for it. The Universities want you to believe that God doesn't inspire a version. Did you know that all except the Geneva, of the 350 Bible did not come out until after 1880? The Authorized Version of the King James Bible is the preserved words of God by God providence and power to preserve it in English, done so in 1611 at which they tried to use the Hebrew Transliteration of the J words. But finding many were confused they created a New English Letter to clarify the scriptures for the common folk, they created the J.

So God re-inspires his inspired scripture. Perhaps you could also invent de-inspiring, too?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The letter "J" did not exist, but the sound did.

the sound obviously existed, but it wasn't used in Hebrew... even today...

just as there are some languages that use clicks and pops when speaking... the sound exists... doesn't mean the language uses it though

It’s not like when the letter “J” was invented, then people suddenly began to say words like Jesus, Jehovah, just, joy, judgment, Jacob, Jeremiah, Jerusalem, Jew, judges and justification, whereas before they pronounced all these words with an “I” instead.

No... but the words with a J had the sound "Yeh"... or Yah.... Like Yehovah.. Yeshua…

Jeremiah would be pronounced … Yeh-ruh-mAY-uh

And its pretty hard to mush English into this issue... for instance "joy" is gaudium in Latin... and obviously every language changes over time.

The letter “I” represented at least 2 different sounds. When followed by a consonant “I” was pronounced Israel. When followed by a vowel it was pronounced Jezebel or Jezreel.

It is not correct to claim that “J” has to be pronounced “ya” or “ye”.

This would depend on the language you're working with... in Latin the J would sound like EE...

So Jesus would be EE-ae-sus...

But IF you're not speaking latin theres no reason to pronounce it that way... Just as IF you're not speaking Hebrew theres no reason to pronounce it as Yeshua... Even though that was his name

Just as the name Jacob is pronounced Yahcob in Hebrew.... but most people with that name probably wouldn't appreciate their name being used in that form

Point being... Use the name according to the language... no need to get technical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ChesterJohn

This would depend on the language you're working with... in Latin the J would sound like EE...

Wikipedia mentions the following about the letter J:

In Latin, the letter J is a modern typographical convention for the consonant form of I. The letter I in ancient times represented either a vowel or a consonant...

So no, in modern Latin the J still doesn't sound like a vowel (your "EE"), and in ancient Latin (in Jesus' time) they used an I. On the wikipedia page for the "Latin alphabet" you can see the Old italic alphabet, the Archaic Latin alphabet, the Old Latin alphabet and the Classical Latin alphabet, none of these alphabets have a J.

It's pronounced h not j

He's us

or as you say in the op.. is us