I agree it is getting silly. I agree that Edward's stance is extremely logical. Your last paragraph alone gives me something to think about. I also agree with DAL about salvation. I have the UASV in all its forms from epub to logos to the hard copy. I spoke with Edward about the Jehovah issue. The one thing that everyone has seemed to ignore is that the UASV is an UPDATE to the ASV which used Jehovah. While I myself have preferred LORD, not because of scholarship but because I am used to it since my first bible in the 70s. I will still read my UASV. Hopefully a print copy with larger text will be available some day. I have a 1972 Logos International ASV study bible in amazing condition. I love reading it, Jehovah and all. What are we going to do with all the hundreds of praise/worship songs that use Jehovah by the way.

I prefer "Jehovah" and I am critical about changing it to "Yahweh". I am seminary trained under one of the translators of the NKJV and NIV. Again, another issue to divide the church. I am against CE and BCE because I am offended that our Lord should be taken out of the timeline to placate others. None of us voted on theses, nor "Yahweh". I refuse to use these and I will continue to honour Jehovah in this. To read and preach "Jehovah" is to be reminded of God's power from His being. "LORD" in the OT is misunderstood by the majority.

Yes, I was also a bit put off by his use of the designation "B.C.E." in the very first page of this translation, which you can click on in the preview above, which stands for "Before the Common Era," a designation meant to remove "Christ" from the designation "B.C." ("Before Christ"), and used by secularists who want to change English language conventions to remove Christ/God. (Secularists likewise also replaced "A.D." or "Anno Domini," "in the year of the Lord," with "C.E." or "Common Era.") Then there is "The First Book of Moses Genesis," "Author: Moses," "Place Written: Wilderness," "When Written: c. 1500 B.C.E." That implies that for something on the order of 2500 years of creation there were no written scriptural accounts of anything before the time of Moses. I can accept that Moses perhaps canonized already existing written scripture accounts into a book called "Genesis," but to attribute the work to him, categorically, as the "author," would be like unto attributing the canon of the Bible we have as being "authored" by the "Roman Catholic Church," "c. 382." And if Genesis was orally dictated by God to Moses, then we have the same scenario as the Mohammed and the Koran. So, this is definitely getting started off on the wrong foot with first impressions. Another thing is the use of first person plural pronouns regarding the authorship of the UASV translation. We can be sure of one author, for he attests to having devoted a good part of his life and career to this, but what of others? I would not be critical of it just on the basis of having only one author; otherwise, I would have to fairly criticize Wycliffe, Erasmus, Tyndale, Luther, etc. It's just that the use of what seems to be "the royal we" does not sit right with me. If this is a one-man show, then just come out with it and say so; there's no shame in that! The quality of the work will speak for itself. The other translation that anonymizes the translators is the NWT (New World Translation) of the Jehovah's Witnesses -- and for good reason, since they were incompetent and cult-agenda based, although for the UASB clearly we know the name of one of the translators, certainly the main translator and perhaps the only translator, but, again, that is not made clear. (Note: I am not insinuating any "guilt by association" or "Jehovah" name conspiracy by bringing up the subject of the NWT; I am just calling for transparency.) I had initially put myself on the "pre-buy" wait list, perhaps in retrospect just based on a whim and an impulse because I wanted to see "Jehovah" used in the Old Testament without the accompanying archaic English of the ASV, but then canceled, not just because of the "wrong foot" observations I mentioned above, but because I couldn't justify the value-added. I'll stick with the NASB'95 as my main, "go-to" English translation, the NASB edition prior to the 2021 revision that incorporates modern gender-neutrality ideology. (On the subject of "gender ideology," I noticed on the fourth preview page, in the footnotes in the second column, "One must ask themselves..." which is bad English grammar, since "one" is singular and "themselves" is plural.) Since I have the tools to delve into the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek text on all my computing devices, including the smartphone I carry in my pocket, any verification of "literal" text will use these tools and not take for granted any English translation. There are just too many English language syndromes, including English language translation traditions, for me to completely trust any English language translation as the final authoritative word on scripture. As for the use of "Jehovah," personally I verbally use "Yahweh" only because Jehovah's Witnesses have hijacked the name "Jehovah" to the extent that there can be some confusion in dialog with people on the street who have limited knowledge of the Bible, at times associating a person using the name "Jehovah" with "Jehovah's Witnesses." In the outcome, my comments should not be taken as disparaging the UASV. This man, as evidenced by his website, is obviously knowledgeable, genuine, and serious to the point that he has dedicated a significant portion of his life to producing a translation that he believes is superior, motivated by wanting to improve upon issues that he perceives are worth addressing. If you like it, buy it. In the end, it's just a translation. Anyone embarking on serious study of the scriptures needs to become familiar with and able to read the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek anyway, and not be satisfied with English translations, all of which cannot help but fall short of the original text.

RODERICK GRACIANO, I am sorry, but, since this product has not made it into production yet, we're not able to guarantee beforehand how the pricing would work. However, I can confirm that similar arrangements have been made for other PrePubs that "overlap" with existing products.

Language is meant to communicate. Sometimes nonsensical words and phrases clearly communicate what is desired. This is English, were a house burns down when it burns up.

Why four stars and not five? I wanna know if I should buy it