If this happens often, there might be a problem. Generally speaking, the range of translations available in English, taken in tandem, surely indicate the meaning of the text. Not saying that any translation is perfect, but if my personal translation is novel and stands opposed to all other translations, I am probably mistaken in my understanding of the text and should look at it again.
Your point is logical, if one person stands against all others, this person is probably wrong—but not always—just think of Galileo Galilei.
In the first part of the 19th century, the view among scholars was that Hebrew perfect represented past tense or completed action. As the study of the Hebrew text progressed, more and more perfects with future reference were discovered. To save the theory, it was postulated that, yes, the prophets used past tense (Hebrew perfect) because they were certain that their prophecies would be fulfilled. In other words, the prophecies were fulfilled in the minds of the prophets. All Bible translations that I am aware of use the theory of prophetic perfect. If this theory is wrong, it is the one who does not use it who is correct, and all others are wrong.
One area of the Hebrew language that is neglected by most grammars is word order and rare word combinations as a tools for emphasis and stress and other nuacnes. The grammars teach that if a infinitive construct of the same root of the verb stands before the verb, this signals emphasis. Also, when an imperfect is sentence initial without prefixed waw
, it probably has a jussive force. But other strange constructions are almost never treated in the grammars.
(see Shimasaki, K. Focus Structure in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Word Order and Information Structure with Special Reference to Deuteronomy. Ph.D. dissertation, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, 1999.— http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/3323/1/284755_Redacted.pdf
For example: The verb in most cases stand before the subject. But when the reverse is the case, the subject is stressed. Think of the functions of theme (topic) and rheme (focus) in discourse analysis. When perfects are sentence initial, they usually have a prefixed waw
. When the waw
is lacking, there is emphasis.
The conjugations represent another example. There are clear semantic differences between imperfect and perfect. But these differences are rarely marked in modern translations—perfects and imperfects are translated similarly. My book has a translation of Psalm 68, where I compare NIV and NRSV with my own translation. I found that the two translations did not mark 39 nuances in the text—no difference between the conjugations, 19 times; no marking of emphasis, 16 times; and treating hifil wrongly, 4 times. These are many deviations in 31 verses.
The only translation that mark the nuances and subtleties in the Hebrew text of which I am aware, is the NWT1984. But this translation, like all others, uses the principle of prophetic perfect.
In my translation, I have exercised the utmost care to render the nuances of the Hebrew text, including stress and emphasis (I have not looked at the NWT84, but I have made my own translations.
If it is correct that word order and rare constructions in Hebrew signals emphasis and stress and other nuances, I am correct when I mark these, and all the other translations that do not mark them are wrong.
You will se examples in my translations from Nahum that I sent to the list.