That’s not how language works – first you have to know what kind of literature they intended to write.
Don’t talk in a field you know nothing about. There are things in the Hebrew scriptures that cannot translate into English, period; it needs substantial explanation. Genesis 1:1-2 is just the first example of many.
Good grief – that has nothing to do with translation. You really have no clue what you’re talking about!
Besides which, the TR is a medieval construct, put together in the same century as the printing press became a thing in Europe. Texts that get printed tend to have accurate transmission.
The find of the silver scrolls establishes nothing about the existence of a greater text.
No book of the Hebrew scriptures claims Mosaic authorship. In fact even the Jews didn’t claim Mosaic authorship until the third century CE.
That’s something every biblical scholar I’ve met, listened to, or read stuff from would agree with. We can get close by figuring out what the worldview was at the time of writing, including the literary genre, and that’s a lot closer than what it was when I was in grad school, but for all that Heiser and Walton talk about seeing the scriptures through ancient eyes we still suffer from two problems: we have nothing from the general population – which means our understanding is necessarily skewed – and we do not take to that ancient worldview naturally; we have to use crutches such as reviewing what is know regularly and/or checklists and descriptions of literary types.
Yeah – I spent a year immersed in Cuban culture in Miami for a year and my understanding advanced just enough to not make big stupid mistakes, and speak Spanish with a Cuban accent.
True – it’s a standard principle of language change, applied to a particular case.
And dates; it’s “the 1990s” – “1990’s” would indicate something pertaining to that decade, e.g. “the 1990’s big movies”.