It is a transliteration option since it is YHWH that is completely Gods name without vowels in written Ancient hebrew and a tranliterated name into another language (in this case English) that gets established using these letters can hardly be called a mistake. You would have to prove there is a correct choice which is impossible since Only Ancient hebrews knew which sounds went with which consonants. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how any name was pronounced in ancient hebrew since all sounds were lost. The addition of pointers for vowels 500 years later were best guesses by the then hebrew people amd incorrect by your standards. It was these pointers they removed due to superstition over God's name which is weird since they were not correct and only best guesses themselves.
I let it go your saying a monk is the source but the current thoughts are that he got his lettering from semitic jews using this from 1000 years earlier obviously without the english "J"
Jehovah is the established English version of YHWH and uses all of what is the hebrew written name of YHWH completely. While other options like YAHWEH exist they too are only guesses and not correct or a mistakes. You are making impossible demands. You reasoning would have us not use any name because none of them could possibly be correct by virtue of not being in their original languages. We would just have blanks were names are in the bible.
do any of the following apply to you?
It is not Ancient hebrew therefore it is not correct.
Yahweh is guessed by a scholar I respect therefore it is correct.
We shouldn't use transliterated names into different languages but it's okay to use a translated bible in a whole other language.
Do you think yahweh is more "Correct" by virtue of being a more modern guess?
since Jesus like myself thought Jehovah was his father only. I prefer to agree with him.
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
your whole point rests on the issue that the word "lord" and not "Jehovah" is correct. Once you see it is meant to be jehovah the confusion is cleared up. The name is Jehovah. Lord is not a name. If you then saying "lord" here is meant to be Jesus, then why didn't he say "Jesus" rather than lord? aka "call on the name of Jesus" he says you must call on a name yet deliberately doesn't say the name replacing it with the word "Lord" that doesn't make sense. When the scripture he is quoting did say Jehovah "call on the name of (whose) Jehovah" making perfect sense.
The whole gramatical make up of the sentence "call on the name of" indicates the name is forthcoming as in joel " call on the name of Jehovah" .
This scripture more than any other proves like I said above that later copyist meddled with "lord" for the greek like they did for the hebrew.