The Septuagint is more accurate and closer than the Masoretic text to the originals

Sorry about last round, I typed my response, but apparently did not submit it, so here it is now: . 'Clarke's position for there being changes in the Masoretic text is supported by Louis Cappel, a Hebrew scholar in his article "Chappel Louis" written in Encyclopedia Britannica...' I checked Encyclopedia Britannica, there is no article “Chappel Louis". Furthermore, what pro quoted merely repeats what was said previously, but does not address my response at all. In the previous round I made 2 points regarding this matter; 1) “Clarke fails to provide a single example to back up his claim, neither here nor anywhere in his commentaries.” Still not a single example, according to what Clarke said (that the system of punctuation "give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning,) this shouldn’t be too hard. 2) “If you look in any traditional kosher Torah scroll, you will notice that they don't contain punctuation marks. In fact, including such marks invalidates it.” If the Rabbis intended to change the meanings of the verses, they would have made it part of the official text. Perhaps it will help if I explain what marks are, I don't have room to go into detail here, and it's not central to the debate, so I'll keep it very basic and leave a link (&/ use the comment section) for a more detailed explanation for those interested. There are 2 types of marks, vowels/nekudot and cantillation/trup. 1) Vowels/nekudot – These are marks like phonetic symbols, they tell you how to pronounce the words, not what they mean. 2) Cantillation/trup – these are like music notes for the Cantors (they must be memorized beforehand since there are no marks in the scroll). https://docs.google.com... "Menahem stated that “that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT"" This was also already discussed. Again, note that he did not say that the Septuagint is superior or more accurate than M.T., but simply that LXX was based on a different (not better) Hebrew text (,as opposed to what was thought previously (I.E. that LXX is based M.T., and full of errors). Additionally, in the previous round I quoted Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones saying that ‘the M.T. is superior to even the DSS, since DSS come from a small group of outcasts known as the Essenes, as opposed to M.T., which comes from the larger mainstream tradition. Indeed, later on in the article that Pro just quoted, the author writes of the DSS as follows: “The lack of an authorized MT at Qumran can also be proven from the correction-methods used by the scribes. Corrections and additions can be found in many of the scrolls and it is obvious that they are not based on a single ideal text which was letter-perfect. Rather, they are based on the scribe's personal taste and his discretion to choose between the variant readings. Often, the later hand in the manuscript did not mean to correct the original version, but to mark the existence of an alternative reading and to preserve it. In this fashion, many doublets were created.” It’s also worth repeating Lawrence Schiffman’s statistics that show that overall (I.e. when looked at as a whole rather than specific fragments or caves) the majority of the DSS are more similar to the M.T. than LXX. "According to Wikipedia, the Masoretes weren't working with the original Hebrew, but with corrupted texts and points to Bible Archaeology" First of all, while Wikipedia is a great source of information, it is not itself an authoritative source. Furthermore, the link provided doesn’t even reference Wikipedia, but rather a site called “bibicalarchaeology.org”, which is no more authoritative than Wikipedia. Furthermore, this isn’t even purported to be a scholarly article at all, but rather something like a book promotion, and it certainly doesn’t ‘point to Bible [sic] Archaeology’. More importantly – as far as this debate is concerned, is that what is written there still does not support the resolution, as it does not compare the M.T. to LXX, and does not claim or even indicate that LXX is superior in any way. "Con is right, the Septuagint isn't always better than the Masoretic text, but in the passages talking about the Messiah it is “According to Hershal Shanks "texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable””" Again, Shanks is just saying that prior to DSS, LXX was considered a really bad messed up translation of M.T., In the discovery of the dead sea scroll, they found some texts (like 4QSama) that fit the translation of the LXX relatively well, thus indicating that rather than being really bad corrupt translations of M.T., they were translations of a different version. ((If you’re not convinced - see the context from which this quote was cherry picked, it’s clear that this is all he was saying)). That does not mean it is superior!!! In fact as we noted before the majority of DSS align with M.T. more than LXX. If you notice in the quote pro just mentioned, Shanks says "texts like 4QSama…” it’s not all or even most. Pro provides an instance (Deut. 32:43) where M.T. differs from LXX and attempts to support LXX on the basis of DSS 4QDeutq which is more similar to LXX than M.T. This is a good attempt, but as I keep pointing out we have to look at the DSS as a whole not one fragment here or there that happens to fit our bias. If we look at the rest of the DSS, we find 33 scrolls from Deut., And of these 33, 4QDeutq is the only one with this additional text that matches LXX, the rest support M.T.(1). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 4QDeutq just so happens to be one of the DSS that was written in C.E. (I.E. after the death of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity), and also happens to be the only one the DSS with this addition (2). (Interestingly, this text is also found in Heb. 1:6) So once again this argument too backfires and contrary to pro’s claim, it actually provides us with another example of the M.T.’s superiority. Pro lists more differences beween LXX and M.T. However, he fails to even attempt to show that the LXX version is more accurate than the M.T.. I'm not sure what Pro is trying to accomplish with this. . . Isiah 7:14 'Cyrus Gordon says that Almah means virgin.' Here is my response: (1) His argument is based on the claim that the Ugaritic word "glmt" and the Hebrew word "Almah" are cognates, based on the English transliterations, this does not appear to necessarily be true. ;P) 2) "The Aramaic terms עלמהא and עולימא May be used of women who are not virgins; e.g. Targum of Jud. 19:5 an unfaithful concubine is so described and in a Palmyrene tariff document written about 137 CE prostitutes are termed this. The Ugaritic equivalent for עלמה is glmt and was generally thought to be an virgin. However, more recently questions have been raised concerning the Ugaritic text CTA 24:7 which reads hl glmt tld b[n ] and is translated similarly to Isa. 7:14...”(3) 3) Aside from being written in different languages, the Ugaritic text and the book of Isiah were also written many centuries apart. 4) The three second-century Greek translations, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, read neanis "young woman, girl...TheTargum of Jonathan on Isaiah reads "wlymt' "young woman, girl"..."(4) 5) Gordon states that the Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation. This is misleading; for a number of reason; a) Originally, only the Pentateuch (which does not include Isiah) was translated. The Septuagint we have today includes not only the rest of the Hebrew bible, but the N.T. as well, surely those parts cannot be "Pre-Cristian". Not much is known as to who or when the rest of the LXX was written. b) "With few and fragmentary exceptions, the Septuagint manuscripts now in existence were produced by Christians" (5) 6) "The Book of Isaiah shows "obvious signs of incompetence". As a translation, it is not only bad; it is the most inferior book within the LXX..."(6) I'll provide 2 (of several) arguments in support of the claim that עלמה means young girl in general (as opposed to a virgin specifically): 1) Everyone agrees that the masculine form of the word עלם means a young man, thus it follows that the feminine form עלמה means a young woman, not virgin. To specify virgin, the word בתולה (would be used. 2) Elsewhere in the Bible (I.E. the vast majority of the time), עלמה is translated as a young girl, maiden, etc. Curiously only here (and one other place) does it get translated as virgin. "The LXX rendering of Almah is consistent as in ancient cultures, a young lady would be living with her parents away from her fiance with a veil over her face, implying that she was a virgin (4)." 'Sir, That is entirely beside the point'. Even if most young ladies were virgins, it doesn't follow (from that), to say that the word for young lady means virgin. According to this logic the Hebrew word "נערה" also means virgin - a claim which no one makes. To give an analogy, it's like saying the word 'kid' means student since most kids are students, even if true (that most kids are students) that is not what the word 'kid' means. So too, with the word "נערה", even if it so happens to be that most are virgins, that's still not what the word "נערה" means! (Furthermore, although it may looks like Pro is bringing this from a source,) '(4)' is not a source, but a footnote - that supports my position and runs counter to his. . (1) "Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament", edited by Stanley E. Porter, p. 47 (2) Gert J. Steyn "A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews", p.63 (see also fn 31) (3) Paul D. Wegner, "An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1-35". p. 111-112 (4) Eugen J. Pentiuc, "Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible". p. 135 (5) F.F. Bruce, "The Cannon of Scripture" p. 43-45 (6) ibid. "The Septuagint: A critical Analysis" p. 9