The Masoretic Text Is Older Than You Think. 

It is true what you are saying in regards to the Samaritan Bible and the LXX. That said, most scholars that I have spoken to would say that the Septuagint was an attempt to polish out whatever discrepancies that existed in the proto Masoretic texts, or if you prefer, one of the proto Hebrew version of the LXX, and not the other way around. The Dead Sea scrolls for example, as different as they are from the MT, are still closer to the MT than the LXX.

I'm working on fixing the KJV by weeding out all the corrupt HM texts

Technically, the entire New Testament is a forgery realistically, the beginning, middle, and end is already in the Septuagint.

The masoretic text is the only text of the Torah with national attestation and secure transmission. No other Torah manuscript has any system or institution of transmission that has safeguarded it for generations.

@@Ben-jq3ov It is corrupt, Exodus 12:40, Genesis 11 etc, all corrupted.

@@HighCarbDiabeticV The 400 years are calculated from the time Avraham’s descendants became strangers and experienced various problems either within the land of Canaan or outside of it. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 15,13: “they will serve them or even oppress them for 400 years.” The 430 years are calculated since the birth of Issac. The 210 years refer to the length of the Jews’ stay in Egypt.

@@Ben-jq3ov No, it's corrupt. The Greek Septuagint, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew Bible available during the time of Josephus all show that they Israelites were in both Canaan and Egypt for 430 years. The internal chronology in the Bible shows they were in Egypt for 215 years and slaves for no more than 144 years. The 400 years mention in Canaan isn't unique to slavery, but mistreatment, which first happened when Isaac was weaned when he was 5.

Only Protestants say this. Not orthodox and Catholics.

I would agree with you 100% were my assertation based solely on the archaeological record. However, there is a vast literary record in rabbinic literature: midrashim, Mishnah, and Talmudic that preserve the practices and texts of proto MT. Some of these texts are contemporary to the archaeological findings in the Judean desert. The Jerusalem Talmud was sealed circa 400. The Babylonian Talmud (which was sealed circa 500), had some overlap with the Masorites, who began their work in the 5th century. Check out the article pinned in the comments for more info and sources for this line of reasoning. Thank you for your comments.

@@JoeBack 1.) This route you propose cannot provide a complete Tanakh. 2.) The Talmud/Mishnah declares that the texts ultimately became corrupted through multiple competing rabbis, conflicting texts, and contradictions ultimately providing a corrupted Masoretic "text". 3.) The Paleo Hebrew and Square Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls come from much older texts (as these languages preceded the Vowelled Masoretic) and in a boatload of instances are against the MT individually as well as collectively.

@@raymack8767 regarding your first point, How do you explain the MT? It didn't just appear! There was a tradition that can be traced back academically to the 1st century (Tov articles pinned in comments). The Masorites didn't spring up from nowhere. The Talmud doesn't say what you are saying it says. It does mention that there were variances in texts from scribal errors and proposed a way of correction (following a majority of texts, ibid). Further, there were actually scribes funded by the public to check and correct errors in text (Talmud Bavli Ketuvot 106a and other places). The third argument is a red herring, in that proto MT texts have been found that date to the same time as the Dead Sea scrolls. A majority of surviving texts doesn't invalidate a contemporary minority text. In fact most everything found outside of Qumran in the Judean desert has been proto MT.

@@JoeBack It does say that and there were more than mere variances. Secondly, what was posited isn't a Red Herring but your Straw Man nonetheless doesn't suffice as Paleo Hebrew (used after Moses' time) was used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT) and gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), thus the DSS are derived from more ancient sources and are largely against the MT and also in key areas. So we go with the Paleo and Square Hebrew in the DSS and drop the MT like a bad habit as the DSS has exposed the MT.

You will need to back up your opinion of wildly varient proto MT texts with sources. I don't dismiss the possibility, but all found (thus far), have been very similar to later MT. There's is much evidence of varience in all Biblical text prior to the 1st century. I really don't understand your argument about the Paleo Hebrew text proving the superiority and age of the DSS to Proto MT. The Rabbis of the Talmud had no issue with text being written in Paleo Hebrew. In fact, some argued that this was the original text of their Torah. According to that same page (Sanhedrin 20 b, I believe), it was from the time of Ezra that Rabbis only used block letters. Meaning that anything before that would have been written in the Paleo text. Whether you take this text at face value is entirely up to you of course. Further, many of the DSS also have block letters. Again, the two texts are contemporary. They were copied from an earlier text of the Bible. Saying anything beyond that is conjecture. I believe we have beat the horse to death on this matter.

Thanks Dave!

Thanks Mark, if you are referring to the newest finds on Mt. Ebal, I plan on doing a video in the future.

I'll give you that.

what do you mean?

You need to make videos on this. Very interesting

True, the topic deserves a much more thorough handling. Maybe one day. Thanks for watching.