The Bible was not written in the English language, but instead in Hebrew (of the Old Testament) and in Greek (of the New Testament). [And if one wants to gets specific as to what exactly 'the Bible' is regarding inerrant autographic-faithful Received Text, be it known that in the sacred tradition of Erasmus, Elzevir, Stephens, Beza, etc. it is:

The up-to-now lettering of English words is frequently NOT phonetically represented by the pronunciation of the individual English letters of those words.

This makes it very difficult for persons born and brought up in non-English-language 'tongues' to correlate proper pronunciation of English words with how those words have been lettered. And none of us have two or more tongues in our mouths at once.

Revealing the Latin or Greek or other-foreign-language basis of English words has had and continues to have value for certain purposes, and to maintain a traditional standard for spelling contests and various correctable-spelling literary scholasticism.

However, in learning to print English words as most people currently say them, phonetically re-spelling those English words with congruent English lettering has much benefit.

In re-spelling English words, it is appropriate to re-spell them so that the new lettering arrangement does not conflict with the sight of word letterings associated with other words not related to the words re-spelled, nor portray any peculiar dialectic brogue nontypical of the normal pronunciation.

Thus, let us begin the task of re-spelling certain English words to adequately reflect their common-usage phonetic pronunciation typically spoken by most English-speaking people now in the second millennium after the birth of Christ, we can begin with pronunciation of numbers:

In transliterating the Greek New Testament from Greek lettering to English lettering, it is imperative that the English letters (or group of them) equated with the corresponding Greek letter are as related to the sight of the Greek letters as possible. For example, an English-letter e should represent BOTH the Greek letters epsilon AND eta for the sake of convenient sight recognition, but neither epsilon nor eta should be represented by some odd English letter like j or w or q or whatever [which artificial oddity would be difficult to memorize, like the random assortment of dots and dashes of the Morse Code].

Now, to differentiate how the same e can be transliterationally equivalent to both epsilon and eta requires a dissimilar representation of the English letter e for the two different Greek letters.

How should that best be done?

Old-fashioned typewriters cannot print EITHER bold nor italic. Therefore, that would not be adequate to differentiate the two different Greek letters with the same English letter e.

Using an accent mark (that is, an: -) either over-scoring the English letter e [which is impossible for old-fashioned typewriters]....or under-scoring the English letter e is confusing, in that the print observer would understandably take that to mean a syllabic ACCENT, which is not the intention.

Printing the e in different colors is not in accord with the black-ribbon-only capacities of old-fashioned typewriters, and many inkjet and laser printers print only in black ink.

The only other recourse this web author can imagine is to enclose the English letter e in parenthesis, thus printing e for epsilon and printing (e) for eta. That is realistically RECOGNIZABLE and CONVENIENT for ALL typewriters and printers, and that principle would also apply to differentiating the Greek letters omicron in contrast to omega.

As alluded to before, the Greek letters theta, phi, psi, chi, and so on should be PHONETICALLY transliterated into English letters phonetically representing the spoken sounds, instead of being [mis]represented by strange and non-related English letters.

Obviously, there is much work ahead for everyone in accord with these premises.