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

Pro claims that "Rabbinic sources sources show that scribal changes were made", based on Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7.Here is the original text -http://he.wikisource.org...Which is translated as: Rabbi Simon said: "This is an emendation of the Soferim, for the Shechinah was actually waiting for Abraham." https://archive.org... , http://www.studylight.org...The verse being discussed here is the 2nd half of Genesis 18:22. According to the Hebrew masoretic text, the verse would be translated as 'Abraham still stood before the LORD' / 'Abraham remained standing before the LORD.'. As opposed something like 'the LORD remained with Abraham'.There are 2 important points to be made here:1) LXX actually agrees with the M.T. text in this case:"and Abram was still standing before the Lord." - http://www.ellopos.net... , http://biblehub.com... , http://www.ccel.org...The Aramaic Targums also confirm this reading.So has the text indeed been altered (in all extant editions)? This brings me to the next point:2) Tikkune Soferim - תיקון סופרים does not mean that the text was changed.(One explanation is that it mean that the original author acted like one who corrects a text for reasons of honoring God.)William Emery Barnes (Professor of Divinity at University of Cambridge, and author for Encyclopedia Britannica) concludes a lengthy essay on the subject of Tikkun Soferim by stating:"I have already drawn tentatively (p.402) the conclusion that the tikkun tradition is not Masoretic (i. e. textual), but Midrashic (i. e. exegetical or, more accurately, homiletic)..." - Barnes, William Emery. "Ancient corrections in the text of the old testament (Tikkun Soferim)." The Journal of Theological studies Vol. I p. 387-414 - https://archive.org... , http://books.google.com...(For further reading, see - http://hakirah.org...)Pro quotes Adam Clarke as making the extraordinary claim that the system of punctuation "give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear... there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence."But Clarke fails to provide a single example to back up his claim, neither here nor anywhere in his commentaries.(V.S. Herrell writes: "Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text " namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter."Bigotry and inaccuracy aside, he is right about one thing -) Clark is one of the only commentators who notes that the masoretic text 'changed' the meaning. And there is good reason for that - it's unsupported nonsense.It may be relevant to note that Clarke himself was an anti-Semite. On Colossians 2:8 he writes "the Jews have ever been the most puerile, absurd, and ridiculous reasoners in the world." Perhaps this contributed to his opinion.Finally, if you look in any traditional kosher/authentic Torah scroll, you will notice that they don't contain punctuation marks. In fact, including such marks invalidates it.Pro quotes from Justin Martyr's "investigation of the Jewish scriptures".Problem is - there was no "investigation of the Jewish scriptures" by Matyr.The quote comes from his "Dialogue with Trypho", where he provides no evidence for the claim.(It"s interesting to note that he also claimed many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), were somehow Christians, but they just didn't"t know it.)Pro quotes from the IBSS (a site with opinions from; 'the Bible alludes to evolution', to creationism) & Harper's Bible dictionary These quotes do not support the resolution. They merely state that prior to the DSS discovery, LXX was considered an inferior translation of the M.T., but the DSS brought up the possibility that LXX is not simply a bad translation of the Hebrew Bible, but rather perhaps based on a slightly different version that no longer exists. IBSS does write that "Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT", but that doesn't mean that it is superior overall (but rather in specific places). (IBSS article provides no sources or even the name of the Author)In fact, the opposite is true:DSS are divided into five broad variation categories;1) Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category.2) Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls.3) The Qumran "Living Bible": Manuscripts which, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice" which contain frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. Such scrolls comprise about 20% of the Biblical corpus.4) Pre-Samaritan: These are DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form found in the Samaritan Pentateuch"comprise about 5% of the Biblical scrolls.5) Non-Aligned: This is a category which shows no consistent alignment with any of the other four text-types. These number approximately 10% of the Biblical scrolls. - Laurence Shiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 172So, we see that if you look at all of the DSS as a whole, overall, they support M.T. over LXX.On the topic of DSS, I'd like to point out a very important example where the DSS supports M.T. over LXX.One of the main differences of significance between the 2 texts is Isaiah 7:14, where M.T. uses the Hebrew word for young girl, while LXX uses the Greek word for virgin. LXX supporters claim that this is a clear prophesy of the virgin birth, and that the Rabbis changed it for that reason. Aside from there being no evidence for this claim, the DSS show the opposite to be true. The DSS support the text of M.T. , thus indicating that it is the LXX that was corrupted to include christological references, rather than the other way around. (DSS were written prior to Christianity, thus presumably there would be no reason for them to change it.) - http://www.arkcode.com...Note, Pro has failed to provide us with even one instance where the LXX has been shown to be superior to M.T.Pro writes: "John Allegro examined the Septuagint and compared it with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text and wrote..."If pro reads his source carefully, he'd see that Allegro wasn't talking about his own experiences, but rather those of a Frank Cross. Why not quote either one of them saying that based on his own experience, LXX is superior, could it be because they didn't? Furthermore, both of these men only worked in cave 4, thus they did not have a full view of all the text.Pro quotes some experts who he claims support his position (I have shown that they in-fact do not) so I'll provide some quotes of my own:Dr. Gerhard Hasel PhD writes:"around 400 AD Jerome ventured the opinion that the Septuagint "differs widely from the original [Hebrew], and is rightly rejected.""New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls - Spring 2011 issue of Bible and Spadehttp://www.biblearchaeology.org...http://archive-org.com..."The oldest extensive manuscripts of the Septuagint that are extant are dated in the fourth century, at least a century after Origen, so we cannot always be certain that our Septuagint text corresponds to that of his day (either in its pre-Origenic or post-Origenic form). . . We do not, and Origen did not, have extant for any book what anyone would consider the original form of that translation. All manuscripts display a considerable amount of textual development-certainly unintentional changes, such as the well-known panoply of errors, but also intentional changes, such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and harmizations" - (Eugine Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible).'As to the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament in our day, Bishop Kennicott did a study of 581 manuscripts involving 280,000,000 letters... The result was one variant in 316 letters which is less than 1/3 of 1%. Of those 900,000 variants, 750,000 pertain to spelling - whether the letter should be an "i" or "u". Thus we are left with only .0006 (six ten thousandths). Indeed, most of those variants are found in only a few manuscripts; in fact, mostly in just one corrupted copy. The DSS of Isaiah agree with the Hebrew M.T....Actually, the Masoretic Text is the true text, not the Dead Sea Scrolls, as the DSS were written by a small group of outcasts known as the Essenes...' - Chronology of the Old Testament - Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones - http://books.google.com...Finally, I'd like to point out that LXX - being a translation, is inherently less reliable due to the rule of 'omnis traductor traditor, every translator is a traitor. Meaning inevitably gets lost in translation due to numerous factors that I explained in our previous debate and intend to repeat next round.