Masoretic text
I like criticising but here are some points about the "Original" bible website:
http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
1. Using the Dead Sea scrolls is fine, but only if you know what they say! For example the claim Martyr made that the text was changed is problematic! The Isaiah scroll is available on line and you can see it says עלמהand not בתולה. As can seen, the mesoretic text is very close to the Dead Sea scrolls. By the way as far as I know scholars who have worked on the scrolls point this out.
2. The Ethiopian Jewish Bible is a Christian Bible which was passed on to them in an old Semitic -Ethiopian langue known as Ge'ez!!!! So the fact that they had extra parts does not mean it was part of their original bible. Another point is that the Ethiopians see them self's as the tribe of Dan, so the bible was probably passed on to them via the churches due to the fact that the bible was not written as a whole at the same time and parts of it are from the second temple. This means that they probably had a Torah and parts of the bible but not everything.
3. The vowel points are of no concern to the topic, at the time of the second or even first Temple they were not used by Jewish groups until they were adopted by Jewish scribes in the fifth century and were placed based on a reading tradition, so I fail to understand the relevance of the argument. If you ever look at a Torah scroll for example you will see that there are NO vowel points. Another point is that the Samaritans also have a vowel point system which they added and no one claims they changed the text based on this argument and obviously they had nothing to do with the Masoretes.
4. Many of the books rejected by the Jews were sectarian, and being of such nature were not relevant to the majority of the people.
5. The Alphabet change is also attested in the Dead Sea scrolls and has no relevance to the discussion!
6. Where did the Masorites admit they received corrupted text? The quote posted here is about Tikkun Sofrim and was misunderstood by the writer, it was a rabbi who said this not the scribes! A Tikkun Sofrim is not a change in the text per-say but markings done in the text. Many scholars rejected the idea that any changes were made at all (S. Lieberman Greeks and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine p.170-178).
7. The "missing" verse from psalm 145 was well known by the Talmudic sages and they pointed out the problem. This was known centuries before the Aleppo was even written (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 4b). Professor David Flusser pointed out that the verse added as verse 13a cannot be original because it uses the name אלהים instead of God's actual name like the rest of the verses, showing that this was added by someone else and not the original writer. Even if we don't take Flusser's opinion we still need to be aware of the fact that there are several other psalms that omit verses from psalms of this kind, such as 9/10 (they are really one psalm) where we have the Alphabet but not in order but it has a pattern. Psalm 25 is missing ו and ק , psalm 34 has no ו (Amos Chakham on the book of Psalms). I will also point out that the extra verse is NOT attested in all versions of the Septuagint (I actually checked).
Another point is the formula of the verse 13a is that it actually fits forms which belonged to sectarian psalms found in the Dead Sea scrolls.
In closing don't trust websites that spread hatred, only trust people whose point is to spread knowledge in a peaceful way. A true scholar admits he does not know everything, this web site think it knows but they truly know only what they want to know!!!
