Which Bible was the source of the info 200 years ago? Was it an English Bible, the Alexandrine/Sinaitic/Vatican manuscripts, supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and/or thousands of other finds discovered over the last 200 years, and all of which are not identical in content? What exactly was he using to study and draw his conclusions?<quoted text>
You seem logic impaired.
The bible is the source of the information used.
100% of the bible was written before 200 years ago.
Someone commenting on the bible 200 years ago (or less) would have 100% of the information someone today has.
Unless you can provide data that contradicts this.
As to research and beliefs about the bible, these have changed a lot. The fundamental movement (and all the cults it spawned from about 1850 to 1920) developed their own (unsupported) ideas about the bible (e.g. literalism, word of god,....). Historic research has been going the opposite direction and has shown that literalism was never intended and much of the bible is metaphor, traditions, and teaching stories. Fundamentalism insists (without data) that the professed authors of books are their actual authors (often without supporting evidence IN THE BOOK!). Actual research shows that most of the books of the bible were written well after the time of their alleged authors.
Religious books are often cited by other religious books and even secular writings. If you can date the newer work then you know the work being cited is older. There are no citations of the Pentateuch till over 500 years after Moses allegedly lived.
BTW, you don't accept supporting evidence IN THE BOOK, do you?