Origen had available to him several different versions of the Septaugint, while having a pre-Massoretic Hebrew text to allow the reader of the Hexapla to see the variants of the Greek versions.
Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Hexapla":
"The principles which guided Origen in his work as textual critic are partly explained by Origen himself. He began by assuming the correctness of the current Hebrew textus receptus, and considered the Septuagint as more or less pure according to the degree in which it approximated to the Hebrew. He frequently changed the spelling of proper names to conform with the Hebrew. The symbols were intended not only to indicate a difference between the two texts, but to mark a departure from the Hebrew verity or genuine text. These principles are rightly discredited by modern scholars, who recognize that the Septuagint often bears plain witness to a Hebrew original different from the textus receptus and older than it in some parts. Moreover, of two readings, one a free, the other a literal, translation of the Hebrew, the free is more likely to be the original rendering of the Septuagint translator, while the literal is more apt to represent the effort of correctors, who very frequently endeavoured to bring the Greek into greater conformity with the Hebrew. Origen's critical principles were at fault, then, but his use of symbols ought to have guarded others from being led by his work into error. Unfortunately, the symbols were not reproduced in many copies which were taken of the fifth column — the Septuagint together with the readings from Theodotion and Aquila."
According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, it appears that the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls are more in common than the Masoretic text which came much later. Considering that the Septaugint is a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, we can suppose that the copyists writing 200-300 years before Christ would have been fairly accurate - however, with the growth of various versions, some variances had crept into the Scriptures - as it has in the many different translations we have even today.
Here is a site that compares, verse for verse, the Masoretic against the Septuagint.
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/
Here are an example of a few contradictions posed by the Masoretic text, none of which exist when the Greek Septuagint is used:
1. II Samuel 6:23 vs. II Samuel 21:8
2. Matthew 15:8-9 vs. Isaiah 29:13
3. Romans 3:11-18 vs. Psalms 14:2-3
4. II Kings 24:8 vs. II Chronicles 36:9
Regards
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm
Regards
Here are an example of a few contradictions posed by the Masoretic text, none of which exist when the Greek Septuagint is used:
1. II Samuel 6:23 vs. II Samuel 21:8
2. Matthew 15:8-9 vs. Isaiah 29:13
3. Romans 3:11-18 vs. Psalms 14:2-3
4. II Kings 24:8 vs. II Chronicles 36:9
= = =
GOODNESS! I found NO essential contradictions in any of the above. The essence of the meaning was consistent.
Language is rarely precise. Paraphrasing with personal emphases or tendencies lessens the already weak precision. It's human and linguistic NORMAL.
Interesting that anyone would construe the above pairs of Scriptures contradictory at all.
Mystifying.