[Its All Over Except ...]

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls contain not only Paleo and Square Hebrew scrolls but also Septuagint, we can compare the far more ancient Paleo with the MT, the far more ancient Square Hebrew with the MT, and both with the MT, and in a plethora of plethora of areas, many in key areas, they agree separately and together against the MT.

And given several are passages that deal with the Lord and Savior Jesus Crust and given the Masoretes had an anti-Christ agenda and were working with corrupted scrolls, we toss the MT now.

[MAAG]

I mostly use the New American Standard Bible 1995, along side of the NIV.

Followed by Strong's.

[Cronos]

And given several are passages that deal with the Lord and Savior Jesus Crust and given the Masoretes had an anti-Christ agenda and were working with corrupted scrolls, we toss the MT now.

For me it is strange that many non-Catholic groups take the Masoretic texts and reject the Septuagint, when the MT as you correctly point out was a post 70 AD explicitly anti-Jesus movement agenda

A Bible without the Apocrypha is like buying a book with an important section missing from it! Why would anyone in their right mind do that? The Apocryphal books are invaluable in my opinion and add important details to events in our Bibles.