Professor Hannes Redelinghuys Admits the Hebrew Error on the “Yahvah” Bible

SOLA VERITAS · EPISODE 0002

His Deleted Afrikaans Response Examined

In my previous investigation, I examined the Hebrew lettering printed on the cover of the Restoration of the Original Sacred Name Bible, republished and distributed in South Africa in association with Professor Hannes Redelinghuys and the First Assembly of Yahvahshua.

The cover claimed to present:

“The Ancient Original Hebrew Sacred Name of Yahvah”

However, the Hebrew lettering printed beneath that statement did not correspond with the name claimed above it.

This was not merely a disagreement about how the divine Name should be pronounced. It involved the actual Hebrew consonants printed on the cover.

Two Tav letters had been used where two He letters were intended. Two additional Aleph letters had also been inserted into the sequence.

After my original video was brought to his attention, Professor Hannes recorded an Afrikaans response acknowledging that the Tav letters were a mistake.

That response is important because it confirms the central factual conclusion of my original investigation.

The Original Hebrew Error

The Tetragrammaton—the four-letter Hebrew representation of the divine Name—is written:

יהוה

Reading from right to left, the letters are:

Yod — He — Vav — He

The Hebrew letter He is:

The Hebrew letter Tav is:

These are not alternative versions of the same character. They are two separate letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

He is the fifth letter and is normally transliterated with an H sound. Tav is the twenty-second letter and is normally transliterated with a T sound.

The cover under investigation used Tav letters in positions where He letters were intended.

Therefore, the issue was never simply whether the Name should be pronounced Yahweh, Yehovah, Yahvah or something else.

The consonants themselves were incorrect.

Read the original investigation:
SolaVeritas0001: The “Yahvah” Bible Hebrew Spelling Error
https://arend.co.za/spelling-error-yahvah-bible/

Professor Hannes Responds

In his response, Professor Hannes provides an extended explanation of how the publication was produced.

He discusses obtaining printing and distribution rights, difficulties preparing the original files, problems with the printing margins and his eventual decision to have the Bible printed in China.

He also explains that he did not want to reuse one of the earlier cover designs and therefore designed a new cover himself.

According to his explanation, the Hebrew spelling error occurred while he was designing that new cover.

He acknowledges that the intended He letters were replaced with Tav letters.

This is the central admission.

He Acknowledges That I Was Correct

Professor Hannes says that the video was forwarded to him by a man named Rudy.

After examining the lettering, he concluded that my criticism was correct.

In substance, he acknowledges:

• The wrong Hebrew letters were printed.
• Two Tav letters appeared where He letters were intended.
• The error originated during the cover-design process.
• I correctly identified the problem.
• The mistake needed to be corrected.

He also thanks me for identifying it.

I welcome that acknowledgement.

Public theological discussion often becomes unnecessarily hostile because admitting a mistake is treated as total defeat. It should not be.

Every writer, teacher, researcher and publisher is capable of making an error. The responsible response is to examine the evidence, acknowledge the problem and correct it transparently.

On the narrow question examined in my original article, the factual dispute is now over:

“The Hebrew letters on the cover were incorrect.”

Was It One Incorrect Letter or Two?

During parts of the response, Professor Hannes refers to the issue as though it were one letter or one spelling mistake.

However, his own fuller explanation acknowledges that two Tav letters were used in positions where two He letters were intended.

He also demonstrates how both affected characters can be physically modified.

This matters because the problem should not be described as one isolated character appearing incorrectly once.

The same letter substitution appeared twice in the Hebrew sequence.

Furthermore, his response does not resolve the presence of the two additional Aleph letters.

Those Alephs formed part of my original criticism. They do not belong to the four-letter Tetragrammaton, but Professor Hannes continues to include them as part of his proposed representation of “Yahvah.”

Therefore, although he acknowledges the Tav-and-He error, the broader Hebrew construction remains disputed.

More Than 1,000 Copies

Professor Hannes says that more than 1,000 copies were distributed over approximately three years without the error being identified or properly corrected.

He presents this as evidence that the mistake was easy to overlook.

It may indeed have been overlooked by ordinary readers who do not know Hebrew. That, however, does not remove the need for proper editorial review.

The cover was not making an ordinary decorative claim.

It claimed to present the ancient original Hebrew Sacred Name.

The Hebrew lettering was therefore central to the message and purpose of the cover.

That question is not a personal attack.

It is a reasonable quality-control question that could be asked of any publisher presenting specialised claims about an ancient language.

The stronger the claim, the greater the responsibility to verify it.

“Human Error” Versus “Academic Error”

Professor Hannes repeatedly describes the mistake as a human error, not an academic error.

That distinction does not really resolve the problem.

Academic publications are created by human beings. A typesetting error, transcription mistake or design oversight may certainly be accidental, but it still produces an incorrect academic or linguistic claim when it appears in the final publication.

I have never argued that Professor Hannes intentionally printed the wrong letters.

The question is not whether he intended to make a mistake.

The relevant questions are:

• Was the Hebrew correct?
• Was the cover checked before printing?
• Did the finished product accurately represent the claim being made?
• Was the error corrected transparently after it became known?

The answer to the first question is now agreed upon:

No. The Hebrew lettering was not correct.

Calling it a human error explains that it was accidental. It does not make the printed letters accurate.

The Proposed Physical Correction

Professor Hannes explains that he used a sharp instrument to remove part of the printed Tav characters, making them resemble He characters.

He tells owners of existing copies that they can perform a similar alteration themselves.

As a practical temporary measure, this may change the appearance of an individual cover.

However, physically scratching or cutting printed characters is not the same as issuing a properly corrected edition.

A transparent publishing correction would normally include:

1. A public correction identifying the exact mistake.
2. Corrected artwork for every future printing.
3. Written notification to owners and distributors.
4. A corrected digital master file.
5. Clear identification of the corrected edition.
6. Replacement or professionally produced correction labels where appropriate.

A hand-altered cover may hide the visible Tav lines, but it does not replace a documented editorial correction.

Future copies should simply be printed correctly.

What His Response Confirms

Professor Hannes’s response confirms the following:

First, the Tav letters identified in my original investigation were incorrect.

Second, the error occurred during the design of the replacement cover.

Third, the mistake was not identified during the initial printing and distribution process.

Fourth, more than 1,000 copies were reportedly distributed before the issue was properly addressed.

Fifth, my original criticism concerning the Tav-and-He substitution was correct.

Sixth, existing covers have been—or can be—physically altered to change the appearance of the printed letters.

On these points, there is no longer a substantial factual disagreement.

What His Response Does Not Prove

His acknowledgement does not automatically validate the wider teachings of the Sacred Name movement.

It does not establish that Yahvah was the original historical pronunciation of יהוה.

It does not explain why the additional Aleph letters should be inserted into the written form.

It does not prove that the familiar English forms God, Lord, Jesus or Christ are invalid or corrupt.

It does not prove that commonly used biblical names originated as deliberate Roman Catholic inventions.

It does not establish that correct worship or salvation depends upon using the particular pronunciation promoted by the First Assembly of Yahvahshua.

Those are separate historical, linguistic and theological claims.

Each claim requires its own evidence.

An admission concerning two incorrect letters should not be transformed into proof that every other Sacred Name claim is correct.

The Personal Remarks

Professor Hannes also criticises my broader work.

He argues that I spend my time criticising other teachers and claims that he has rarely heard me preach the Gospel or explain the names of God.

He then challenges me to identify the name of my God and expresses the hope that I will eventually accept his understanding of the Sacred Names.

Those remarks do not change the Hebrew characters printed on the cover.

Whether someone approves of my personality, presentation style or theological work is irrelevant to the linguistic question.

The letters were either correct or incorrect.

Professor Hannes has acknowledged that they were incorrect.

Sola Veritas exists because religious claims should be tested rather than accepted solely because they are delivered confidently, spiritually or by someone carrying an impressive title.

Examining a public religious claim is not an attack on Christianity.

Truthful correction serves the Church.

The Bereans were commended for examining teachings carefully. Christians are instructed to test everything and hold fast to what is good. Spiritual claims are not exempt from investigation merely because the person making them invokes the Holy Spirit.

Why I Am Preserving His Response

Professor Hannes originally published this response publicly.

It was directed at me and addressed my original investigation. During the recording, he specifically asked me to place his response on my platforms so that other people could hear his explanation.

The video was later no longer available at its previous public location.

I do not claim to know why it was removed.

I will not invent a motive without evidence.

However, because it was a direct public response to my investigation—and because Professor Hannes expressly asked me to distribute it—I am preserving it as part of the documented history of this discussion.

The purpose is not to humiliate him.

The purpose is to allow viewers to hear his explanation in his own words and to preserve the evidence surrounding a public theological controversy.

Watch the Complete Response

The original response is in Afrikaans. English subtitles are available on the video, while this article provides an English summary and analysis.

A Correction Worth Acknowledging

Although I disagree with many of Professor Hannes’s conclusions, fairness requires acknowledging something positive.

He admitted that the Tav letters were wrong.

He did not continue insisting that the printed letters were correct after examining the evidence.

That is better than refusing to acknowledge any mistake whatsoever.

I welcome the admission.

At the same time, acknowledgement should be followed by a complete and transparent correction.

Correcting two printed Tav letters does not answer the question concerning the added Alephs. It does not prove the proposed pronunciation “Yahvah.” It does not validate the wider Sacred Name theology attached to the publication.

Those questions remain open for examination.

Conclusion

Professor Hannes Redelinghuys was wrong about the Hebrew lettering printed on the cover.

He has now acknowledged that error.

I was correct to identify it.

Both statements can be made without mockery, hatred or personal harassment.

The best next step would be to correct all future printings, issue a clear notice to existing owners and explain precisely which Hebrew characters appeared incorrectly.

Readers should also understand that repairing the Tav-and-He error does not automatically validate every other claim printed on the cover or taught by the Sacred Name movement.

Those claims must still be tested through Scripture, history, manuscripts and responsible linguistic scholarship.

“The stronger the claim, the greater the responsibility to check the evidence.”

A Bible claiming to restore the ancient original Hebrew Sacred Name should be held to a high standard of Hebrew accuracy.

Professor Hannes’s response confirms that the original cover did not meet that standard.

The error has now been admitted.

The remaining claims still need to be tested.

Previous Episode

About Sola Veritas

Sola Veritas — Truth Alone

Sola Veritas examines theological teachings, religious movements, Bible translations and historical controversies through Scripture, primary sources and verifiable evidence.

Discussion Policy

Readers may disagree strongly with the conclusions presented here. However, personal harassment, threats, mockery and abusive remarks directed at Professor Hannes Redelinghuys, his congregation or any other person will not be permitted.

---

‘The Restoration of the original sacred name‘ Bible is printed and distributed locally by Professor Hannes Redelinghuys (B.Div.) (M.Div.) (Ph.D.)(Eskat.) (Calvary Univ.), from the First Assembly of Yahvahshua South Africa. If you’d like to get in contact with Professor Hannes, please visit his websites: yahvah.co.za and yahvahshua.co.za.