kawaii is quite right. You need to update your notion of Biblical scholarship in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They show that the LXX is a translation of Hebrew Scriptures from before Our Lord's Incarnation, which are at variance with the Masorete.
Actually, except for some points where Matthew relies on a Hebrew text--in particular pointing a word which without vowels could abiguously mean Nazarite or Nazarene to meand the latter--essentially all New Testament quotations from the Old Covenant Scriptures are from the LXX.
You might also consider that the earliest manuscript we have for the Masorete dates to c 1000 AD (!), while the earliest extant LXX manuscript dates to dates to the 4th century AD. The facts that the LXX text is largely confirmed by the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls in both Greek and Hebrew, and that you, as a Christian, are trusting anti-Christian rabbis to have maintained the text faithfully when reading the Masorete (based, not on the Palestinian texts used in the Temple at the time of Our Lord's Incarnation, but on a Babylonian text adopted by the anti-Christian rabbis at Jamnia), should give you considerable pause in prefering the Masorete to the LXX.
excellent summary!
Well then show me the evidence so I can present it to all those Biblical scholars who are hiding it from us.
Does those DSS have a full copy of the Book of Isaiah in Greek to compare to the Book of Isaiah in Hebrew discovered in the DSS??? How well does your Septuagint match that Isaiah manuscript????
I guess that vaunted Septuagint that was all over the Christian world just disappeared in Origen's day, right??? It was so fixed and common that he couldn't find it, but had to undertake an expensive venture in order to write one for a generation of Sola Septuaginters to come.