Therefore, we will not rely upon the KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, or any other popular Scriptural rendition. All English translations vary from poor to horrible. There isn't any worth recommending.

The reason they are all errant and inadequate is that they all come from the same polluted well and familiarity sells. The Textus Receptus serves as the foundation of all English translations of the Renewed Covenant and yet it was an intellectual fraud and financial hoax. In October of 1515 CE a Dutch secular humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, and Johann Froben, a publisher of low repute, took five months to mark up, adding and taking away from, a highly flawed 12th century Medieval Greek manuscript and set type directly from those arbitrary scribbles. Then in the places where they didn't have possession of a Greek text, they filled in the blanks by translating the Latin Vulgate. Worse, when Roman Catholics protested that some of their pet passages weren't included, Erasmus and Froben added them without any Scriptural basis to quiet their critics.

In the absence of a viable competitor, the highly errant rendering was said to be "a text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted." Rubbish was thus rendered "the Textus Receptus." And from this trash, the King James was printed in 1609 CE for purely political reasons. The KJV in turn became so popular, no English translation has yet been offered which dares to correct its familiar phrasing.

It wasn't until 1707 that the Textus Receptus was challenged - effectively undermining the basis of the Reformation and Protestantism. John Mill, a fellow of Queens College in Oxford, invested 30 years comparing the Textus Receptus to some one hundred Greek manuscripts in his possession. In so doing, he discovered and documented 30,000 variations between them. And even this was just the tip of the iceberg. Known variations between the oldest manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant, and that which serves as the basis for every English translation, exceed 300,000. While Christian pastors hold up their favorite English translation of the Bible and proclaim that it is "the inerrant word of God," factually, the book they are touting isn't even remotely consistent with the earliest witnesses.

So the idea is that the placeholders were used because "Yahushua" and "MessiYah" couldn't be transliterated effectively in Greek? What about words like "Father" and "Mother?" The wikipedia article says those used placeholders too. Who's to say that the placeholders weren't used for commonly occurring words?

I pray that we will both end up finding out the truth with certainty, whatever that may be.