So, finally you agree that there is nothing older then some 2nd century fragments of the Torah.
The minor prophets are not BC (nice try).
Besides, there are no OT fragments of any kind older than 500 BC. Does that mean ther was no OT before that? If we are to follow marginal Prostestant biblical thinkers, such as Paul Kahle, there wasn't!
No, because there is other historical evidence of a Hebrew Bible, as it being quoted by Christ and the Apostles.
The careful copying of Jewish scribes is proven by how close the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD) matches that of the MT (10th century)
There were probably individual Greek translations of some of the Hebrew Books, but there was no single translation that we know today as the Septuagint.
As for Kahe being a 'marginal Protestant', nice attempt at 'poisoning the well'
Is being a 'marginal Protestant' anything like being a 'marginal Christian' like the Orthodox are?
lol. Verily verily, I say unto you, you must be born again, not inherit religion ftom your parents.
No that's what was found so far. But the very existence of Greek language Old Testament dating before Christ (actually the oldest are 3rd century BC) is something you cannot answered fully with your denials.
I am asking you agian, why would there be any, any, any translations of the Hebrew scriptures in Greek three centures before Christ?
Besides, DSS show Hebrew-language Septuagint verses as well. Obviously, the Palestinian version of the OT was not the only Hebrew version.
No, because there is other historical evidence of a Hebrew Bible, as it being quoted by Christ and the Apostles
Well, the Apostles make OT references that don't agree with the Hebrew bible. I suppose they must have been referring to some other scriptures.
The careful copying of Jewish scribes is proven by how close the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD) matches that of the MT (10th century)
The copying may have been meticulous, but the Mishanh and Talmud interpretations and corrections of the Septuagint are a different story. The DSS evidence did not come with vowells, which were added later and which can change the whole meaning of the words.
There was no translation involved, so naturally, there would be less variation. There was also no satanic insertions of false Hebrew versions of the OT such as was the case with the Greek translations made by Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Even some Church Fathers (Jerome) fell for them.
Is being a 'marginal Protestant' anything like being a 'marginal Christian' like the Orthodox are?
Kahle's baseless claims have been proven wrong with the DSS discovery. There is nothing marginal about the Orthodox, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
They are not a 16th century man-made innovation. That's for sure.
Sometimes facts do poinson the well, I suppose. Too bad. Kahle has been pushed to margins by facts, not opinions. He is a 19th century relic without credibility.