Very interesting! I appreciate exploring other translations, the good, the bad, and the ugly... even though hardly familiar to me. But, I can get there pretty quickly using sites like biblehub, as I've tried to demonstrate, zeroing in on pivotal, rather than superfluous, verses. Furthermore, I consider fluency in the OT as paramount to NT accuracy brought forth in Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV. The problem appears most NT translations seem to perpetuate Jewish fables (Catholic, particularly), considering Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12, that Jesus brought to the table in Matthew 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, delineating a multitude believer from a disciple. I proffer Jewish fables include a harlot in Jesus' ancestry (David's ancestry for the Jews), contrary to Leviticus 21:1, 14, along with Ruth being a blood Moabite, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. God 'wrote' the Law, and only God can change it... and He did being Judah's widowed daughter-in-law Tamar is found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3 KJV), even though Judah's relationship with Tamar, who played the harlot, is contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:15 KJV...
So, I trust you can imagine why I hold the opinion that OT fluency is paramount to more accurate NT translation, regardless of the language it is translated into or from. I would venture to imagine the 1588 Welsh Bible translated by William Morgan that you bring forth maintained the RaChab v. RaHab distinction. Do you have any comment on this?
kayaker