Abbr. ExRRB  

“Welcome, dear friend, to exegeses – a blessed new experience in Scripture understanding.”

“In the year 1975, when I trusted my whole being to Adonay, He instructed me to give up my profession and to hearken to His leading.”

“Adonay then led me directly to His Word, the Scripture. Even though I had thought of myself as a theologian, I was soon aware of much I did not know.”[1]

With these words, the late Herb Jahn introduces The Exegeses Ready Research Bible – perhaps the most unique sacred name bible. The second edition of ExRRB, the edition under consideration here, was published in 1993 by World Bible Publishers of Iowa Falls, Iowa. The first edition was published in 1992. Herb Jahn is listed as “exegete” and the copyright holder. The King James Version of the Bible is used as the basis for this work. One admirer says the author of ExRRB “was a diligent student of God’s word in the original languages for over 40 years.” He reportedly sent seventeen years researching and putting ExRRB into print.[2]

As Jahn introduces his bible, to some extent he also introduces himself. The phrase “in Scripture understanding,” reveals the lack of a solid foundation in the fundamentals of English grammar. This prepositional phrase has “understanding” as the object of the preposition. Understanding is a noun. As the sentence is written, “Scripture” is also a noun – a proper noun. But it is modifying the object of the preposition. Nouns do not modify nouns. The adjectival form of the word should have been used in this situation and the capital letter changed to lower case. The phrase should be “in scriptural understanding.” Another possibility could have been “in understanding the Scripture.” “In Scripture understanding” is poor grammar and should get red marks in a tenth grade English paper.  

Furthermore, the infinitive “to hearken” displays an unnecessary fondness for old and little used words. This archaic verb is the first of many such words. It predicts that readers of ExRRB will need to keep a dictionary nearby – a large dictionary.

ExRRB’s introduction offers the criticism that in the King James Version “some expressions need a more accurate clarification and correction…”[3] The avowed purpose, then, for publishing ExRRB was to remedy these shortcomings. Yet the work is introduced with a seldom used word in need of clarification for most readers and grammar in need of correction.

 Jahn claims the mantel of a theologian and of an expert in exegeses of scriptural words and phrases. Research has uncovered no additional information regarding the basis for these claims. But, as ExRRB is read and considered, serious doubts arise that he was a theologian in the sense of a trained specialist in biblical studies. Perhaps he simply thought of himself as a student of the Bible. When he published ExRRB, he put his expertise in scriptural exegeses on display for public examination.

While every sacred name bible is a novelty in its own right, ExRRB is exceptional in areas different than its predecessors. This book attempts to add a Hebrew flavor to the New Testament by including English renderings of numerous Hebrew words. ExRRB’s refusal to use the word Christ, but always Messiah, is a noticeable example. Putting Adonay for Lord is also obvious. There can be little doubt the book was put into print for the sacred name movement, the Hebrew roots movement, and the messianic movement.

ExRRB appears to be a failed attempt at creating a work like The Amplified Bible. A quotation from the Introduction explains the format. “The portion of the Authorized King James Version under exegeses is in oblique, while the exegeses are inserted at the point of occurrence in bold.”[4]  

The book has a rather unusual printing layout. Two columns per page are not unusual, but the text is centered in the columns. Some lines of text are long, others only a word or two. This arrangement leaves irregular margins on both sides of the column. The result is chaotic to the eye of the reader and hard to follow. Add to this the small font size, and the book is difficult to read. No explanation is offered for this odd format. Perhaps it was a misguided effort to make easier reading. It may have been done in order to emphasize portions of the text. Whatever the logic, ExRRB is a book few people can enjoy reading.

The purpose of a sacred name bible is two fold. One: to get one rendering or another of the Tetragrammaton into both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Two: to divest the New Testament of the dreaded “J-word”[5] – Jesus.  ExRRB shows itself to be no exception regarding these purposes. It simply imitates all previous sacred name bibles. Regarding this, there is a bit of sacred name movement propaganda on the ExRRB web site. “Would you believe? There is a conspiracy to withhold the Name of the Creator and the name of the Saviour from you.”[6] Having uncovered this imagined conspiracy, the author of ExRRB has also uncovered the original and true names. He has further done his readers the dubious favor of putting the names into his bible.

First, ExRRB found a distinctive way to handle the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton – Yah Veh. Not only is the spelling new to the realm of sacred name bibles, the two word representation is extraordinary. Second, the spelling of the so-called original name for Jesus is not new. But, the ExRRB touch has this name also made two words – Yah Shua. ExRRB assumes no obligation to explain to its readers the reasons for having made two words of these names. Neither is there any reason given for transliterating the Hebrew letter  w [WAW] as “V” in the name Yah Veh.

ExRRB’s creator, like most sacred name bible makers, believed the name Jesus was fabricated from the name of the pagan god Zeus. Regarding this he said, "Jesus is an English translation from the Hellenic Iesous. As the Hellenes had no Y, they substituted it with Ie, and suffixed it with the name of the Hellenist deity, Zeus."[7]

In these two sentences the facts are categorically misrepresented. First, the name Jesus is not a translation, but a transliteration of the Greek IesouV. Second, “…s u s” at the end of the name of Jesus is not the name Zeus. Any connection it has with the name Zeus exists only as an assumption in the minds of some sacred name preachers. As a matter of fact, evidence to the contrary is abundant and the matter has been settled once and for all. [Read the essay Does Jesus Equal Zeus?] Some preachers in these religious movements acknowledge that there is no connection between the names Jesus and Zeus. Others continue to propagate this ridiculous myth. Many converts adopt this absurdity as though it were a revelation of the truth. Simply and plainly put, it is a lie.

There are more than forty[8] transliterations of the Tetragrammaton reportedly in use within the sacred name, Hebrew roots, and messianic movements. With such a wide range of possibilities at hand, why did ExRRB choose the exclusive adaptation Yah Veh? This English rendering is one of the least known of these “correct,” “true,” and “original” names. Courtesy to its readers should have prompted ExRRB to give at least some of the reasons for using Yah Veh as the best possible literal transliteration of this name. The Introduction supplies only what is already obvious. “The exegeses presents his name vowel pointed as Yah Veh.”[9] Failing to offer such information is pervasive in the movement. Only rarely does a sacred name teacher think it is needful to validate his or her particular spelling or pronunciation of these names. It seems to be generally assumed that non-converts will simply accept whatever they are told concerning this matter. Is a name to be accredited simply because someone, anyone, declares it to be Hebrew?    

The definitive identification mark of a sacred name bible is the inclusion of one of the transliterations of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. On this point, ExRRB qualifies as a sacred name bible. An introductory remark informs readers, “In most Versions, the name Yah Veh is also mistranslated with the title Lord throughout the New Covenant.”[10]

Again the facts are grossly misrepresented. Lord, in the New Testament, is in most instances a translation of the Greek word kurioV - kurios. It is most certainly not a mistranslation of the fabricated name Yah Veh. Sacred name bibles notwithstanding, neither Yah Veh nor any other possible version of this name were ever in the New Testament. And there is no scriptural authority for putting it there at this late date.

However, ExRRB is not attempting to publish the truth. Putting Yah Veh in the New Testament is not exegeses. Superimposing Yah Veh on the New Testament text is just adhering to the sacred name movement party line. This book is simply lying. The introductory remark is an unmistakably effort to prepare ExRRB readers for the numerous insertions of the word Yah Veh in the New Testament where the manuscript evidence is for kurioV – Lord. A set of criteria is even established in an attempt to justify these insertions.

As frequently as sacred name bible creators set rules upon themselves for putting the Tetragrammaton into the New Testament, they just as frequently break them. ExRRB’s conditions for substituting Yah Veh in place of the original kurioV are simple enough. “In almost every instance where the name LORD Yah Veh is meant, the article [the] or pronouns [me or my] are absent. Also, the context may indicate whether Lord Adonay or LORD Yah Veh is meant.”[11] The first rule is imaginary. The phrase “In almost every instance…” demonstrates its uncertainty. The last rule leaves room for the insertion of Yah Veh anywhere and everywhere in the text.

Readers are assured these standards can be confirmed “by reading the margins of the Scofield Reference Edition of 1917.”[12] The book indicated, The Scofield Reference Bible, was published first in 1909 and subsequently issued in a number of editions. This study Bible has subject chain references and commentary. It bears the name of its editor, C. I. Scofield and was published by Oxford University Press. However, this well known work is no help to ExRRB and does not suggest a single instance when the Tetragrammaton should be inserted into the New Testament text. The pseudo-scholars of the sacred name movement are able to call Scofield’s references to their aid, as long as no one looks up the references. But, they are not able to make any direct quotation from Scofield in support of what they are claiming.

Sacred name advocates thunder often and repeatedly against evil scribes who substituted Lord where the manuscripts have Yahweh in the Old Testament. But upon coming to the New Testament, they themselves replace the inspired word KurioV with Yah Veh or some other version of the Tetragrammaton. Those who teach others not to steal should not themselves steal.

The stated reason for the existence of ExRRB is to be “a literal translation and literal transliteration of Scripture.”[13] ExRRB’s web site gives the following information. “Exegeses Bible Publishers has one sole purpose in Ministry - to Bring Literal Translations of Scripture to the whole wide world.” The web site then boasts of the accomplishment of this purpose. “And to this day, Exegeses Bible Publishments are the only Literal Translations AND Literal Transliterations of Scripture in the English Language.”[14]

If ExRRB has indeed accomplished its purpose, then why are Yah Veh and even Adonay inserted into the New Testament where the manuscripts have KurioV?  ExRRB has violated its word and betrayed its readers. It has invalidated the “one sole purpose” for its existence. Putting these words into the New Testament is simply and plainly interpolation. This tactic is used for one sole purpose – to cause readers to believe these words were in the original. Therefore, it equals dishonesty. Inserting words into the Scriptures which were never there and were never meant to be there is to sin against the Scriptures. Readers have learned that ExRRB cannot be trusted. Each so-called exegesis in this book now comes under suspicion.

Again, ExRRB attempts to deceive its readers by inserting Yah Shua into the New Testament. Yahshua is the most popular name for Jesus used by sacred name advocates. It is noteworthy that this popularity is being steadily eroded by a growing acceptance of the pronunciation Yahushua.

Innocent people in the messianic movement, the Hebrew roots movement, and the sacred name movement imagine the name Yahshua is of Hebrew origin. It is not. Yahshua is the invention of early sacred name preachers and teachers. This pronunciation of the Hebrew rendering of Joshua’s name has no basis in biblical linguistics. It was patched together because of a doctrinal position rather than through understanding the Hebrew language. Besides this, there is no research showing Jesus spelled his name the same as Joshua. In fact, the name Joshua is spelled three (3) different ways in the Hebrew Old Testament.

As a substitute for the name of Jesus, sacred name advocates usually prefer a name having Yah as the first syllable. This preference results from misunderstanding and misapplying John 5:43. It is taught that if Jesus came in his Father’s name, he must be called by some version of Yah Veh. But, David came against Goliath of Gath “in the name of the LORD”[15] and there is not even one sacred name advocate who thinks David’s true and original name should have Yah as its first syllable.  

Biblical language scholars differ regarding an original pronunciation of Jesus’ name. Most Hebrew scholars prefer Yeshua. But, it is far from evident that Modern Hebrew is pronounced the same as Hebrew was pronounced during the first century. Given the evolution of that language, with its dialects, divisions, and off shoots – Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and others including Yiddish – such an eventuality is altogether unlikely. In addition, how would the name have been pronounced in Paleo-Hebrew – the original language of the Old Testament? There is no accounting for how much the pronunciation of this name evolved during approximately fifteen centuries from Joshua to Jesus.  

On the other hand, the discussion relating to how Jesus’ name would have been originally pronounced in Hebrew is beside the point because the common language spoken by the inhabitants of first century Israel was Aramaic.[16] It needs to be said that Aramaic is not Hebrew. Aramaic was the native tongue of Dr. George Lamsa, an Aramaic scholar of some notoriety during the early and mid twentieth century. He promoted the theory that most of the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. Based on his first hand knowledge of the language, he believed the Savior’s name was originally pronounced as Eshoo.[17] 

When considering the language of Israel during the first century, one is compelled to consider languages, plural.[18] No single language can be put into the mouths of the diverse population in that area. Aramaic was the dominate language, with Latin the official language of the Roman government. Hebrew was the language of the Temple and its scholars. There can be no escaping the existence of a large Greek speaking population, especially in the area where Jesus grew up. His home town was in the area called Galilee of the Gentiles and had been dominated by the Greeks for about 300 years prior to his birth. Ten Greek cities [Decapolis] were around the Lake of Galilee. Sacred name teachers arrogantly refuse to accept this Greek area as historical fact.

Because there is no surviving evidence of the Savior’s name written in Hebrew no one knows how the name was spelled in Hebrew during the first century. Much less do they know how it was pronounced. There are more than fifty[19] different pronunciations and/or spellings for the “original” name of Jesus reportedly in use today among advocates of the sacred names. Each is apparently supposed by someone to be the “true Hebrew” name. But in spite of the great zeal these earnest folks have for an original pronunciation, they have yet to settle the matter among themselves.

However, not a single one of those fifty plus names is a literal translation or a literal transliteration of the Savior’s name found in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Readers of ExRRB are not offered a valid transliterated rendering of his name, because the book’s creator does not show any evidence of what name he is transliterating. He simply supplies the same unimaginable name Yahshua, albeit served up in two parts. Dividing this name does not accomplish a transliteration. It takes a great deal of audacity to refer to this exercise as exegesis.

ExRRB, of course, is not attempting a literal translation or literal transliteration by using Yah Shua. It is pandering to its chosen audience – the religious movements that dote on using a “Hebrew” name for Jesus. Making no attempt to stand by its stated purpose, ExRRB forces the names Yah Veh and Yah Shua into the New Testament. This is an abandonment of anything that can remotely be called scholarship. It is an affront to the God of creation. It shows a blatant disregard for what the Bible actually says. It is adding to the word of God. On the other hand, it is the exact procedure which must be followed in order to create a sacred name bible.

ExRRB’s readers expect a work of broad and inclusive proportion because the introduction indicates researching “…every Hebrew, Aramaic, and Hellenic word of Scripture…”[20] Of course, constraints of time, space, desire, as well as costs of publication have conspired to prevent an exegesis of each individual word of the text. Readers are actually presented with a few translations, some transliterations, or numerous substitutions for selected words. The talk about an exegesis of each word in the Bible is just smoke and mirrors.

The resulting work is narrowly exclusive, and conspicuously shallow. An example of the former is at Genesis 1:2. The KJV says, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” ExRRB transliterates the Hebrew word for God – Elohim – but does nothing for “moved.” A good translation would have been “was moving.” This, at least, would have shown the reader the tense of the Hebrew verb. If an exact literal translation were ExRRB’s aim, perhaps “was brooding”[21] or “hovering”[22] would have served. ExRRB gives its readers no exegesis on this point. An example of the latter is at Psalms 6:11. The KJV says, “… every one that swareth by him…” Some ExRRB readers may be enlightened, but others are no doubt delighted by the tongue twisting double "th" sound in,  “…every one that oatheth by him…”  

Furthermore, at verses six and seven of Genesis chapter one, ExRRB copies the New International Version and the New American Standard Version. In place of “divided” it gives “separated.” Here is an indication of the true nature of this sacred name bible. ExRRB is not doing exegeses of the words of the Bible. Separated is nothing more than a synonym of divided.[23] This offers no new thought, no greater illumination of the original meaning, and no deeper understanding of the text. ExRRB is not an exegeses bible. It is a synonym bible.

Examples of traded synonyms are abundant. At Genesis 1:9 ExRRB offers “congregate” for the KJV’s “gathered together.” At Genesis 1:15 “light up” is put for “give light upon.” Genesis 1:18 has “reign” for “rule.” There is no consideration that will allow anyone to say these word substitutions are original translations.  

It is difficult to see the need for a book which on the one hand violates the purpose of its existence, and on the other hand presents word substitutions as exegeses. If its author spent seventeen years of his life researching and publishing this book no disrespect is intended him, but it looks like he wasted seventeen years.

Not much is “said” in ExRRB. Most spoken information is “worded.” An example is from John chapter four. While traveling, Jesus and his disciples came to Jacob’s well, located in one of the cities of Samaria. The city is not “called Sychar.” It is “worded Sychar.” As Jesus rested there by the well, a woman came to draw water and he “wordeth” to her, “Give me to drink.” Throughout John’s narrative, Jesus wordeth to the Samaritan woman and she wordeth back to him. Word replacement like this does not enhance anyone’s understanding of the text. This unnatural way of having the Scriptures read is nothing more than superficial word trading, and it does nothing to reinforce, clarify, or otherwise add significance to the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. On the contrary, the narrative is trivialized by such affectation. One thing can be worded on this point. Here is an instance of ExRRB putting a different word in the text just for the sake of having a different word in the text.

An interesting synonym switch is found in Matthew 24:29 and Acts 16:33. In Matthew the KJV has “immediately” and ExRRB changes it to the little used but more literary word, “straightway.” However, in Acts the KJV uses “straightway” and ExRRB, always the contrarian, changes it to the more conventional “immediately.” This also is word change just for the sake of word change.

Open this sacred name bible to any book to see more and more synonyms. A brief look at Luke chapter fourteen, verse one, will show “came” replacing “went” and “observed” standing in for “watched.” Through the chapter, “said” is put for “spake,” “cure” for “heal,” “released” for “let go,” “marriage” for “wedding,” “repose” for “sit down,” and “ascend” for “go up.” “humbled” substitutes for “abased,” “kin” for “kinsmen,” “mega” for “great,” “beg off” for “make excuse,” “field” for “piece of ground,” “ask” for “pray,” “wroth“ for “angry,” “ordered” for “commanded,” “enter” for “come in,” “vast” for “great,” “computeth” for “counteth,” “expense” for “cost,” “counseleth” for “consulteth,” and “manure” for “dunghill.” It is not out of the ordinary for ExRRB to have this many word substitutions and more in one chapter.  

One of the most extraordinary word substitutions in ExRRB is at Luke chapter fourteen, verse thirty-three. ExRRB readers receive special clarification of what is going on in the sequence of events when “forsaketh not” is changed to “biddeth not bye bye.” Every person who is concerned about the dignity of the Scriptures and has a modicum of respect for the English language will cringe to read this. Such an exhibition of sacred name movement scholarship is unworthy of one who sets about to correct and clarify the KJV. These attempts at correction and clarification are pitiful.

In addition to commonly known synonyms, many little known words are used as replacement synonyms. ExRRB filled its pepper shaker with archaic and rare words and sprinkled them throughout. At Jeremiah 8:19, Israel provoked God to anger with their “graven images.” But in ExRRB they vexed him with their “sculptiles.” What are sculptiles? Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary[24] does not know. To locate this word one must look into The Oxford English Dictionary (ten volume edition). Sculptile means graven image, and graven image is the only definition given. Why does ExRRB have a pointless compulsion to put little known words into the text of Scripture? How does this shed light on anything? Unless one uses a large dictionary, this only clouds the meaning. Are these seldom used words supposed to add a scholarly touch to the book? Sculptile is nothing more than a very old and obscure synonym for graven image. One is caused to wonder how long it took ExRRB’s author to find the word.

Another example of ExRRB rescuing a wacky synonym from the scrap heap of obscurity is the replacement word for midwife. In both singular and plural forms, midwife is found nine times in the King James Version – all in Genesis and Exodus. Most adults who speak and read English know what a midwife is. It is a common English word. But ExRRB thinks the KJV translators made an unfortunate choice by using it. Apparently the meaning of midwife is not clear or the word needs to be distinguished by what ExRRB calls exegesis. Reading the foreign word – accoucheuse – in its place, ExRRB readers are exposed to a higher echelon of society. Accoucheuse is just the French equivalent of midwife. It was popularized in England during the nineteenth century by people who wanted to avoid using the common English word.[25] If poor folks had a midwife attend the birth of their children, society snobs couldn’t have one. They had to have an accoucheuse. The use of accoucheuse in English was a passing fad. To ExRRB this kind of word replacement is exegesis. An unbiased reader will see it as being a bit silly. 

Jahn gleaned these words from a large dictionary, and put them in his bible. His readers will also need a large dictionary to discover the meaning of many words he has used and see that they are not translations at all, but nothing more than synonyms. Then they will see that ExRRB is just a synonym bible.  

The word replacement continues throughout ExRRB in both the Old and New Testaments. It is more juvenile than scholarly and reaches the point of tedium at Jeremiah 3:4 and Matthew 10:21. The KJV has “put to death.” In its place ExRRB likes the astonishing word “deathify.” This made-up verb is based on the noun form. In an attempt to use big words and appear educated, some people make up words and use words other people have made up. The ten-volume edition of The Oxford English Dictionary has deathify as an entry. Everyone who looks the word up will see how ExRRB’s author should have taken closer note of the word in the OED. It is quite understandable how one could overlook the stipulation placed on this entry – “nonsc wd.” Deathify is a “nonsense word.” It is interesting to see nonsense like this passed off as biblical exegesis and sacred name movement scholarship.

Another example of a fabricated word is at Leviticus 20:10. The man in question does not commit adultery, he “adulterizeth.” Reading further will show that if he indeed “adulterizeth” with his “friend’s woman,” then they both shall be “deathified.”

ExRRB uses words made up by other people, but is not above fabricating its own as the need arises. An example of this is seen at Genesis 12:15. Pharaoh’s men saw Sari and “commended” (KJV) her before Pharaoh. ExRRB replaces commended with “halaled.” In the attempt to transliterate the Hebrew word llh (HLL), ExRRB needed to add the past tense suffix. This creates an interesting hybrid word – part transliteration of Hebrew, part English. In spite of this posturing, the word still means commended.

Another interesting fabrication is the substitution for temple. “Manse” is most often used in the Old Testament. But, for the New Testament, ExRRB sought a more distinctive term. Instead of temple, readers see the extraordinary phrase “priestal precincts.” Yes, priestal precincts! For everyone who has ever had a problem understanding what the word temple means, priestal precincts has cleared the matter up forever. By using this phrase, ExRRB puts readers on notice of participating in a word boycott. In an attempt to have "a pure religious vocabulary" many sacred name churches have lists of banned words – words converts are not allowed to speak. Holy, church, temple, Jesus, Lord, God, and Christ are a few such words. It is reported that as many as twelve-hundred words are on one of these lists.

These obscure, rare, and made up synonyms are filler. They do nothing to improve ones understanding of the Scriptures. The made up words, the anglicized transliterations, the archaic forms, and the silly substitutions point up the reasons ExRRB is out of print. Its popularity among sacred name, Hebrew roots, and messianic people sprang up suddenly and died just as suddenly. What ExRRB calls exegesis is a dimension beneath shallow. Few if any of these attempts are worthy to be put in the same sentence with the word exegesis.

Over the course of research and investigation, it became obvious the creator of ExRRB was without a clear understanding of Hebrew, of Aramaic, of Greek[26] or for that matter of English. The use of obscure words does not equal scholarship. Putting “soverigndom” for “kingdom” is never going to help readers gain “a blessed new experience in Scripture understanding.” The scholarship of ExRRB is conspicuous by its absence. It has failed in the attempt to create a deeper understanding of the Scripture. This book has not lived up to either its promises, its purposes, or its intentions. It has given its readers precisely what has come to be expected of this kind of bible. The Exegeses Ready Research Bible is a waste. That gives it a well earned place among that group of sectarian publications called sacred name bibles.




[1] Introduction pg. ix,; Exegeses Ready Research Bible, 1993, World Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls, IA.

[2] Victor Storkel,  

[3] Introduction pg. ix

[4] Introduction pg. x

[5] This is a derisive way some sacred name people refer to the name of Jesus.

[6]  Accessed on May 2, 2006 .

[7]    Accessed on May 2, 2006.

[8]   Accessed on May 2, 2006.

[9] Introduction pg. x

[10] Introduction pg. x

[11] Introduction pg. xi

[12] Introduction pg. xi

[13] Title page

[14]   Accessed on May 6, 2006

[15] I Samuel 17:45

[16] Aceldama is an Aramaic word. “And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama , that is to say, The field of blood.”   Acts 1:19  

[17] Pg. xix, Holy Bible [From the ancient Eastern Text], translation by George Lamsa, Harper & Row, San Francisco.

[18] John 19:20 “This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.”

[19]   Accessed on May 2, 2006.

[20] Introduction pg. ix

[21] The Emphasized Bible, tr. Joseph B. Rotherham, The Standard Publishing Company, USA, 1899.

[22] Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, ed. John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987.

[23] Separate appears as the first synonym of divide. Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms, G. & C. Merriam Co, Springfield, Mass. 1951

[24] Sculptile is not an entry in this dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1977

[25] The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, London, England, 1979. See entry Accouche: “… used [by English speakers] to avoid vernacular words”- i.e. midwife.

[26] A promoter of sacred name and Hebrew roots movements who says Jahn hired him to do translation work on one of the Exegeses Bible projects claims that Jahn “knew no Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.”