The oldest complete bibles (with some books later discarded, i.e. Epistle of Barnabas, etc.) date to the 4th century. The oldest fragments (more like "shreds" containing a dozen verses) of various Gospels are copies of copies, the oldest one being John 1 dated c. 125 AD.
According to this logic (I agree with Bruce) copies of ciopies, removed hundreds ofyears from originals (if there were complete originals) is not enough to retro-engineer any piece of OT/NT without having the original.
Doing so, necessarily makes the Bible a human product. Also, the fact that some of the Hebrew language DSS agree with pre-Christian fragments of LXX shows that there was no single Jewish canon.
But we have already discussed this ad nauseum.
The New Testament documents are not claiming to be B.C. as is the LXX.
According to this logic (I agree with Bruce) copies of ciopies, removed hundreds ofyears from originals (if there were complete originals) is not enough to retro-engineer any piece of OT/NT without having the original.
We do not need the Originals to get the perfect copy of what they said.
If we had lost the original copy of the Constitution, we could still reproduce it accurately by the copies that were made of it and references made to it in various documents.
What you cannot do is use the A.D. LXX to change the MT which is B.C..
Doing so, necessarily makes the Bible a human product. Also, the fact that some of the Hebrew language DSS agree with pre-Christian fragments of LXX shows that there was no single Jewish canon.
No, the Bible is God's product in which He used human beings to produce and preserve.
As far as the different Hebrew text type, that has nothing to do with the Jewish Canon, no more than the differing text types in the Greek affect the Christian Canon.
It only means that like the Greek, a corrupt Hebrew text was produced, and that Origen used that Hebrew text to edit the LXX.
Thus, todays LXX stands as a 3rd century A.D. witness to a particular translation it doesn't represent any B.C. translation.
But we have already discussed this ad nauseum.
Well, some 'lurkers' might want to know that these are facts and not just the opinion of a 'extremist Lutheran scholar'