[one correction – 5/01/2017. Text and pictures still as published on April 27, 2016 .]
With regard to those details from folio 93v which I recently brought to notice here for the script they carry, Nick Pelling again deserves credit for having mentioned, and linked to, an opinion he did not share, namely that of a person who said to him in 2009 that (to quote Pelling), the Voynich Manuscript is a transliterated Arabic document written down “using a kind of [old-fashioned] Jewish script” ‘. 
I should be inclined to posit a Yemeni script, once available equally to Jews, Radhanites and Muslims… but I won’t. That’s for palaeographers, epigraphers and linguists to say.
More to the point, that same researcher, who was anonymous by choice in 2009, had something else in common with an unknown number of Voynich researchers: he had apparently crossed the line between his professional work in one of the pragmatic sciences, to the more difficult and demanding style of the critical sciences, the better to study this manuscript.
His qualifications were as a computer systems analyst and I know of two(?) others from that profession who have later begun delving into the study of history, iconography, codicology or palaeography. One, of course, is Rene Zandbergen as everyone will know, but an interesting third(?) is Joachim Dathe, who arrived in 2012. One wonders how many more computer systems analysts may be Voynicheros, and just what makes manuscript studies a subject of such interest to them. In any case, in 2012 Joachim said he believed that the Voynich plain text was ‘a funny sort of Arabic’ and wrote a little exe. program for its translation.
As was his custom in those days Pelling brought this new researcher to others’ notice too, writing a post entitled ‘2012 Voynich Arabic Theory‘ ( March 2012).
Like Dathe, Hoffmann, and any number of others (including Artur Sixto), those not conforming to a dominant theory tend to be flamed-and-frozen out, denied recognition, denied the opportunity to explore and refine their work by conversation with others sufficiently qualified and experienced enough to refine, without trying to re-define, a proposal related to linguistics, history, art or any other relevant subject.
I certainly wish Voynich.ninja every good thing, and hope it will not succumb to “theory-team disease”.
Could it be that the text is, in fact, a ‘funny sort of Arabic’ in an ‘ancient Hebrew script’? I don’t know – nobody bothered to explore the possibility, so far as I know, after 2009, and there has been absolutely no response from Voynicheros to my having brought those inscriptions in folio 93v to their attention …. Why not?