Is there any scholar who has published a literal or secular interpretation

>>2867225
the NASB is a pretty good secular translation, IMO. Not sure exactly what you mean by literal though.

Also, don't forget, the OT as we know it was likely composed of books written through the 7th-5th centuries B.C., and compiled together towards the end of that period, with occasional additions. By the time of that compiling, Jews were pretty hardcore henotheist and tending towards "modern" monotheism. If you want a literal, pure to the text rendition, you're going to get monotheism in there; the polytheist stuff is mostly archeological and reading stuff into passages from word choice and inconsistent ways which God acts implying they were originally multiple gods doing different things. You won't find it in a literal text.

>>2867225
Rotherham's Emphasised Bible and the Mechanical Translation

https://archive.org/details/emphasisedbiblen01roth
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html

The oldest Hebrew texts are from the 9th and 10th centuries AD and differ in some places from Greek, Latin, and Samaritan readings which might indicate that those represent older variant readings. But with all translations the potential for error is still present.

>>2867259
>I'll just ignore the Qumran texts because it goes against my biases.

Even the New Testament has these problems like the established tradition of translating ecclesia as church and many more. Looking into dictionaries and lexicons probably helps clear up ambiguities.

>>2867262
Go look at the Qumran texts. There's hardly anything tangible there since it's all fragmented except for the Isaiah scroll and maybe a few chapters from the Torah and get this, they also agree with older translations which I forgot to mention. Of course they might be more syntactically and morphologically similar to the standard Hebrew text being the same language and all.

>>2867276
>hey also agree with older translations which I forgot to mention
Except in large part they don't. Especially the Isaiah scroll, which is far closer to those 9th-10th century Masoretic texts than it is to the Septuagint.

>>2867278
citation needed.
And not just in sentence structure either. And don't ignore the Samaritan tradition also.

>>2867278
For what it's worth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Dead_Sea_Scrolls

>>2867276
This is interesting. I'm not familiar at all with these texts.

I'm not sure if there's any reference in Isaiah to Sheol, but that could be really neat for a research project I'm doing.

>>2867225
Young's Literal Translation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_Literal_Translation
http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm

>>2867292
Yep. All the occurrences here.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/sheol_7585.htm

>>2867298
I used to like Young's but I found it to be more innovative on his behalf which could at times possibly be inaccurate. It is based on received text readings in the NT, Masoretic in the OT.

>>2867225

The Beginning of Wisdom is a secular deconstruction of Genesis. Pretty good btw.