To help readers of my questions and answers better understand how I approach the topics of discussion on the Hermeneutics StackExchange, I'll talk a little bit about my position and my mental framework.
I study the texts commonly called the "Hebrew Bible" or "Old Testament", with an aim to understand them on their own terms (as the original readers, the Ancient Israelites, would have understood them), without the fog of later translations, interpretations, and theologies.
I do not belong to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any similar religious orthodoxy based on these texts. I do respect and admire the great sages and theologians of these traditions and the works of literature that they produced. I think there is a lot that can be learned from these traditions, as they were formed by smart individuals who thought deeply about these subjects and accrued lots of helpful knowledge over time. However, they also accrued interlocking sets of dogmas that can be hard to untangle, so when I learn from these traditions I tread with care and pay close attention to implicit assumptions.
In my study I have also seen how deeply these later assumptions have also influenced translations of the texts, so to pursue my aim of understanding I try to get as close as I can to the original language. This includes avoiding complete reliance on and denying the absolute authority of English translations, English lexicons and dictionaries, as well as the Masoretic diacritics that were later added to the text.
These are all useful tools that can be conveniently consulted when necessary, and I'll often refer to them in my discussions with others as a common basis from which to begin the conversation. But in my own personal study and daily reading I refer to them as little as possible, and I am not afraid to come to positions that deviate from these orthodoxies.
I'll most commonly study the Masoretic Text (again, without the diacritics) because it's a complete copy of all the texts, but I recognize that it may contain scribal flaws as well, so I will also consult other Hebrew manuscripts at times. I avoid relying on the Septuagint (a Greek translation) for the same reason I avoid relying on English translations.
While it is apparent to me that the transmission of this text has introduced defects, I am open to the idea that the original texts were divinely inspired and inerrant, and I am not at all antagonistic toward this viewpoint. However, I do not hold it as a dogma myself. Mostly, I am just trying to understand what the texts say, and not make a judgment as to whether they are "true", whether in a historical sense or in a cosmological sense. When I read them, I suspend any disbelief so that I can understand what they are saying without bringing my own baggage into it.