Aramaic Old Testament verses KJV/Hebrew O.T.

[distazo]

Greetings and salutations to all.

I would like a some to give me a clearer perspective on the Aramaic Old Testament as it relates or is compared to my KJV Old Testament (translated from Hebrew). My present understanding is that for most of the the Aramaic Primacy view also believe (from what I have read on this site) that the most ancient manuscripts/copies of our current Old Testament are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic and thus, you all believe that most reliable translations of the Old Testament are from Aramaic sources. Hence, I premise that you believe that our/my KJV Old Testament is corrupt (to some degree).

snip...

Dear Mike,

I did not now 'we' believed this? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Do you have references where aramaic primacists say this?

To my best knowledge, the OT just was written in Hebrew. Some parts in Aramaic, which is a well known fact.

However, there are three witnesses from the -original- hebrew. Citations from the NT to the OT, also show, that in Jeshua's time, there were more 'bible-standards' (except the septuagint/MT)

The Hebrew (MT) itself (which is not a translation, but endured thousands of years of copying)
Septuagint (translation)
Peshitta OT (translation).

It looks like the septuagint often agree where the Hebrew disagrees.
However, I've not seen an Aramaic primacist say: "THe POT is the best!"
all three of them are OK

In some situations, just like when the dead see scrolls were found, by going back to 1 of the 3 sources, todays scribes, could 'fix' or explain scribal errors.

I would like to see a new OT bible translation, where 3 sources are used and the 'best' (if that is possible?) choice will be made if a line seems corrupt or spurious.