The modern Bible correctly records the words of God

Thank you for your kind words! That made my day! I don't know that the confusion is your fault. People from different belief systems and from different countries often just have different ways of reasoning and thinking about things. It may just be that I haven't quite figured out what yours is yet. So I hope you don't mind if I still ask for clarification for some things. Your general thought on this matter seems to boil down to, " I believe the "Tetragrammaton " should be left in place of generic titles of authority and that the transliteration be left to the reader." Meaning that you believe the KJV translators should have written "YHWH" instead of "LORD", is that correct? I don't think this is an unreasonable wish in the least bit. But here is my understanding on why "LORD" is probably better. First, the word "LORD" actually doesn't seem to me to be just a generic title of authority. There is a very particular reason, at least as far as I can tell, that "LORD" was selected as the best translation instead of "King" or "Emperor" or "Leader". The word "lord" refers specifically to the quality of having authority. Just for clarity, Dictionary.com defines "lord" as "someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler." (I just mention this definition for clarity of argument.) Merriam-Webster defines "lord" as ": one having power and authority over others:" So the word "lord" really refers specifically to the state of having authority. Not so with most other titles of authority, which often emphasis the state of having a title instead of just the state of having authority. King, for instance, refers more to a hierarchal and social position within a society. (A King does not necessarily have much authority, example being a modern day King of England, who is more ceremonial.) An Emperor has authority, but the word does not necessarily concern specifically the state of his having authority as much as the state of him being the leader of an empire. It's an extremely subtle difference, but it is an important one. And I could go on, but won't bore you. To be fair, there are some other titles that might have worked. "Sovereign" might not have been a bad translation, but it kind of misses the element of God's intrinsic characteristic of authority. "Ruler" is almost a synonym for "lord", but even that I think is less concerned with one's authority itself than one's ability to command. (And, frankly, it doesn't have quite the same awe-inspiring connotations as "lord".) Though it probably wouldn't have been the end of the world if they went with those two, they just don't seem as good. So to me, "LORD" is actually the best title of authority, because if we look at the nuance between the different titles of authority we have, "LORD" seems to best capture what I think the word "Yahweh" means. (The meaning being, I think, the inherent sovereignty and authority of God. "I AM THAT I AM.") Secondly, it's kind of late to ask, but would you agree that God's name, the Tetragammaton of which is "YHWH", has a meaning in Hebrew besides just being a proper name? It seems to me that God's name means "I AM THAT I AM", or "LORD" or something of that nature. As such, if we were to leave God's name at "YHWH", would you agree that the meaning of the name would be lost on an English reading audience? So, here's a bit of a summary of what I'm at least trying to convey about why "Yahweh" is replaced with "LORD". Yahweh is a transliteration, not actually a translation. The translated word is, "LORD". We get the name "Yahweh" through transliteration. But here's my contention with that; let's look at the (very roughly) transliterated version of Exodus 3:15: "elohe abotekem elohe Yahweh yisrael bane el- tomar koh- moseh el- elohim owd wayomer zikri wazeh laolam, sami zeh- alekem, salahani yaaqob welohe yishaq elohe abraham dor lador." Now, this is the translated version: "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." The purpose of translation is to capture the meaning of words in one language (Hebrew) and put them into words with the same meaning in another language (English.) As we can see with this one verse, the meaning of the Hebrew words (roughly transliterated above) were taken and put into English words with the same meaning. So it seems totally reasonable that the meaning of the Hebrew word transliterated roughly "Yahweh" was taken and translated into the English word "LORD" which seems to have similar meaning. Of course, you're advocating for it being left at YHWH, which is a very interesting idea. It's not quite a translation though, and I'm not sure what the point of it would be if it does not convey any meaning, and it is up to the reader to decipher how to read it. It seems that one might as well leave it in Hebrew, if we're going to leave it in that form. But truthfully I'm not altogether opposed to the idea, I just don't think the translators of the KJV were wrong for translating the word "LORD" instead of converting it to the Tetragammaton. I'll just put it out there that my personal preferance actually would have been that the translators transliterated the word "Yahweh", and added a footnote every time the word came up to clarify that the word means "LORD, or I AM THAT I AM". That would be my personal preference. But I do not think it is correct to say that the translators were wrong for translating the meaning of the Hebrew Name instead of transliterating the Hebrew Name. But that really seems more like a matter of personal preference, and if it had to be one or the other, I think the rational is much better for translating the word "LORD". This translation seems totally reasonable, and in any event does not really call into question whether the words of God were recorded correctly in the Bible. Final questions, "My point of Me'ah is not so much about how Jonah conveyed the thought but rather how Messiah did. I believe that an intent has been purposely muddled by the beast and that messiah was indeed speaking about the beast when referencing "heart of the earth"." What led you to believe this? The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament seem to confirm the modern understanding of this reference, so what evidence led you to believe it has been lost? "With the "New Testament" having gone through so many hands and loosing much of its salt I'm forced to stay away. I believe we need stick to a more ancient path and that the twisted serpent has twisted "the Bible" to represent its image." This might require another discussion, but what led you to believe the Bible has been twisted? Is it all contingent on whether the Hebrew name for God should have been transliterated or translated? (Because honestly, I'm not sure that's entirely sufficient grounds to "stay away" from the Bible.) Or are there other factors you are looking at? I felt like I was ranting a little bit this round. So sorry. It has been a pleasure debating you! It's fun to discuss these matters with people who can talk about the Hebrew for the words, and I do appreciate your cordiality quite a bit as well! I wish you well in your studies and in life!