Postmodernism and liberalism

i find it amazing how people assume postmoderns automatically gravitates towards “liberal” scholars. recently i started discussing the issue of which texts and which translations of those texts should be considered authoritative for contemporary Christians.
My main point of contention was that, until Luther and the Reformation, what is known now as the “Apocrypha” were considered part of the canon. So, i argued that which group should one trust: Augustine and the early Church councils or Luther and the Protestant Reformation? After all, if the canon really is a “closed set of authoritative religious texts from which one cannot add or subtract”, shouldn’t we (Protestants) be using those Apocryphal books as well (like the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox groups have been)? And, beyond that, what should we do with the other books that have remained outside of the official canon(s) yet were quoted by NT authors (such as Jude’s use of the Book of Enoch)? One of these psuedigrapha crept into the canon(s) early on: Daniel. Scholars agree that Daniel was written around the Maccabean revolt (160s BCE) and refer to a period of time (Babylonian Exile, circa 560s BCE) under the (false) guise of a (real) person.

Secondly, i brought up the issue of translations. Many of the NT quotations of the OT come from the Septuagint (LXX: Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, including the Apocrypha), yet by and large, the LXX is more of a paraphrase (or at least a translation including extra-textual interpretation), which is something many “conservative” Christians criticize modern translators for doing. So then, should we use a “secondary” source (i.e. the LXX) in translating the “primary” sorces (original Hebrew texts, such as the Masoretic text)? One interesting thing to note is that the Hebrew verse in Isaiah (which is quoted by Matthew and Luke) concerning the birth of Christ from a “virgin” actually refers to the Hebrew word almah (meaning “young girl of marriageable age”) and not betulah (meaning “virgin”), yet the LXX translation uses the Greek parthenos (meaning “virgin”). This can become problematic because the earlier original text does not use that word, so shouldn’t the translation (at least from the literal-equivalent/word-for-word proponents) remain faithful to the original text and not introduce any kind of “thought-for-thought” (i.e. dynamic equivalence) interpretation? After all, that’s what the word-for-word proponents want, isn’t it? So, it appears that the “virgin” birth prophecy may not be as iron-clad as we are generally taught, although the “original” prophecy is still fulfilled, just not as miraculuous (i.e. we have a young woman getting pregnant and not a virgin getting pregnant while remain a virgin).

The people i quote to defend my position include C.H. Dodd and D.A. Carson (both considered fairly “conservative”), yet i am accused of using “liberal” scholars (such as John Shelby Sponge and Marcus Borg). i still find it quite amazing how people jump to conclusions.