HelloI cannot read Hebrew and want to choose a good transliteration format that I can use to copy into papers I write. I would like the format to be something that can be easily stated in a sermon or paper.
But I'd assume the anwer would likely be relative to your audience ... your sermons or readers of your papers. If it's like most congregations, etc, the format used by Strongs is going to confuse people the least. The more technical formats are going to quickly be an issue for those not familiar with hebrew.
This is illustrates my problem. What are the differences between the formats? Which one is the more technical? Which one has an output like Strongs? I tried to research this on Logos and even outside, but my googlefu must be weak because I could find no information.
My impression through the years, is that it's a resource-specific issue. I included a group below to illustrate. The more technical lexicons (e.g. HALOT don't transliterate or not predictably) and so I didn't include below.
For non-Hebrew readers and illustrations in a sermon (again a congregation not familiar), I'd use the Strongs, and the version relative to pronouncing (e.g. eloheem). Now, a more normal answer would be 'elohim' (typical for those already having some hebrew), which for non-Hebrew-ists will quickly be pronounced wrong. The contra to my preference, is that anyone seeing 'eloheem' and wanting to 'look it up' quickly won't find it (typically Strongs). They'd want 'Elohim'.
And then if you look at Swanson, TWOT, and TLOT, they use a transliteration approach more technical, but demanding specialized fonts. Finally, if you move into specific volumes that involve hebrew, the transliteration can get pretty detailed which often is relative to manuscript differences for non-hebrew-ist readers.
Personally, if you don't know Hebrew, I'd go with SBL General with Glottal Stops or Simplified. Otherwise, you've got to know the difference in pronunciation between a, ǎ and ā to make it worthwhile.
3a8082e126