Which translation of AN 3.76 is correct?

I read the [following](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/53819/what-are-the-major-deviations-from-the-buddha-s-original-teachings-in-later-budd#comment88883_53821) on the internet: > `new scholarly Western fads particularly created by the Australian > Ajahn Brahm/Sujato sect and also embraced by American Bhikkhu Bodhi.` > There's no need to insult and smear the Sangha. Have some integrity, > your answers referenced the translation works by these reputable > scholars, yet at the same time you insinuate and display contempt at > them Below is two translations of AN 3.76 by Sujato. The 1st is how I recall the translation was for a number of years: Repeat of the above, otherwise click on the above to expand: The 2nd translation by Sujato below is what I surprisingly read for the first time, just now. My impression is Sujato recently changed his translation, including replacing the translation of "**re**birth" with "**re**generation". Next is Thanissaro: > Ananda, if there were no **kamma ripening** in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned? Thus **kamma** is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the > moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & > fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus > there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Next is Bhikkhu Bodhi: Which translation of AN 3.76 is correct and what are the implications of these translation variations?