I was wondering which version of the name [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]/[name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] is more popular and which is the original spelling. I’ve always preferred the second spelling ([name_f]Rebekah[/name_f]) but was worried that it was considered a unique spelling of the Biblical name. So my question is:
Which spelling do you prefer?
&
Which spelling is the original?
[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] is definitely the more recognizable and popular spelling, but I absolutely adore [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f]. Something about it makes it pop out more to me. I’m not sure which is the original spelling. I’m not religious and don’t know much about the history of the name, but I believe both spellings are used in the bible.
I prefer the [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] spelling. [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] [name_f]Kaylene[/name_f] is my 16 year old nieces name. Her nicknames are Bekah, Beks, and her friends spell Beks- Bex. Lol. She has never gone by [name_f]Becky[/name_f].
As far as I know both are in the Bible, depending on what version. [name_f]My[/name_f] sister said that [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] is the lesser known spelling if I remember right. At least it was 16 years ago. Which one is the original? I do not know.
[name_f]My[/name_f] niece is the only [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] I have met, and I have known 3 [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]'s.
Though [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] is found in some versions of the Bible, my understanding is that [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] is the “original.”
I like the look of the two c’s in [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]. It looks pretty and soft to me spelled out. [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] looks a bit awkward and the k gives it a harshness that I am not fond of. [name_m]Just[/name_m] my two cents 
[name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] is the original from the Hebrew Ribkah/[name_f]Rivka[/name_f], its my middle and i love this spelling and the history behind it. from all ive researched, translating the original Hebrew never uses ‘c’ as seen in Ribka/[name_f]Rivka[/name_f] - never seen it Ribca/[name_f]Rivca[/name_f]
From the original Hebrew ‘Ribkah’, possible meanings are “bound with rope” “ensnarer”, “a noose”.
From the Arabic, rabqat, “a tie-rope for animals,” suggests that as a name it means the beauty by means men are snared or bound.
The root is found in Hebrew only in the noun meaning “stall” in the phrase “fatted calf” or “calf of the stall”. In view of the meaning of names like [name_f]Rachel[/name_f] and Eglah the name [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] might well mean a “tied-up calf or lamb” one peculiarly choice and fat, suggesting that as a name it refers to her being a prime choice as a wife, as the Biblical [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] was for [name_m]Issac[/name_m].
http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=rebekah
[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] is the more popular spelling but it doesnt have the same flow, visually or when written (the alternating ‘tall’ letters)
[name_m]Both[/name_m] spellings can be found in the Bible, depending on the translation. They’re both ancient spellings, but [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] just looks tryndee to me. I like [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] much better.
[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]. [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] seems harsh to me.
[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] over [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f]
I have known many, many [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]'s (one being my sister!), but only 1 [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f]. I like both spellings, but I think most people would see [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] as a trendy spelling, so if you don’t want that impression, stick to the classic [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f].
I prefer [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f].
I love both versions. [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] seems more elegant, while [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] seems friendly.
I prefer [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f], I’m not sure why though. Maybe because for me, [name_f]Becca[/name_f] is the instinctive nn for [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f], but I find [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] to be more of a [name_f]Becky[/name_f]?
I’m totally off [name_f]Becca[/name_f] as a nn though, the only ones I knew were horrible.
Yes, Rebecca is the older spelling. Before the Bible was translated into English, the “Latin Vulgate” Bible was used – from the 4th Century A.D. – and the name was spelled “[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f].” Later when the Bible was translated into English in the 1600s for the “[name_m]King[/name_m] [name_u]James[/name_u]” Bible, the translators of the Old Testament changed the spelling to [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f], but translators of the [name_m]New[/name_m] Testament left the spelling as [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] (see Romans 9:10). In [name_u]America[/name_u], the name - most often spelled “[name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]” – was fairly common among the Pilgrims from [name_f]England[/name_f] and their descendants in the 1600s and 1700s.
I happen to prefer the spelling “Rebecca” because (1) It is the older Biblical spelling, (2) It is more familiar and less prone to being misspelled, and (3) The /a/ ending looks and sounds softer. The /kah/ spelling suggests a “caw” sound, which would be harsher and more elongated than a simple /a/.
P.S. I should point out that the ultra-original Hebrew spelling of the name is unavailable in our language system. The Hebrews used a different alphabet with entirely different characters.
The “original” is like [name_f]Rivkah[/name_f], in Hebrew. רִבְקָה
Anyway, I consider [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]/[name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] both okay. [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] makes as much sense as a transliteration from the Hebrew as [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f], but is no more original/correct.
I think of [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] as the more classic, historic English spelling. You’ll find it in more literature and it’s the more familiar spelling. For whatever reason while I prefer the -h on Biblical names like [name_f]Leah[/name_f], [name_f]Susannah[/name_f], and [name_f]Hannah[/name_f], I don’t think [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] needs it.
StripedSocks - Thank you for posting the “original” Hebrew version. In my post (at end of the prior page of this thread), when I explained the history of “Rebecca” as the older spelling, I did not have access to this Hebrew version. Very cool.
P.S. I agree that the strong name Rebecca does not need the H, even though it does seem natural on names like [name_f]Leah[/name_f] and [name_f]Hannah[/name_f]. BTW, [name_f]Susanna[/name_f] - no H - is the Biblical spelling of that name ([name_m]Luke[/name_m] 8:3).
I’m with @stripedsocks and @everwaiteing - the original form is Hebrew, and thus uses Hebrew characters (and doesn’t even translate completely like [name_f]Eleni[/name_f] does from Ελένη–literally, the characters in Ελένη sound like “eh” “ll” “eh” “nn” “ee”, just like [name_f]Eleni[/name_f] does)–it sounds like [name_f]Rivkah[/name_f], as others have pointed out. [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]/[name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] are both the English translation, so neither is more correct. Despite that, I’ve always felt that [name_f]Rebekah[/name_f] has always looked harsher and more trendy (it almost looks like a phonetic spelling written out, rather than an actual name to me). I could be biased, though; I love the nn [name_f]Becca[/name_f] (and Bekah just looks funky to me), and my sister is [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f] nn [name_f]Becca[/name_f].
I definitely prefer [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]
You are right about the classical English spelling of [name_f]Susanna[/name_f]. There is, in my limited defense of [name_f]Susannah[/name_f] (which I like the look of and is probably influenced by my fondness for [name_f]Hannah[/name_f]), an h-ish letter on the end in Hebrew - but just to complicate things, the most common Hebrew transliteration is [name_f]Shoshana[/name_f], with no final h. And if I were doing without the h, I would just go with [name_f]Shoshana[/name_f].
But truly you are not wrong when you say [name_f]Susanna[/name_f] is the oldest English spelling. [name_f]Hope[/name_f] that makes sense. 
I much prefer [name_f]Rebecca[/name_f]. Honestly don’t know enough about the history of the name to say which is original.