The intricacy involved works against that. People who have studied the Bible for years still come across "new" connections to the Old Testament that aren't obvious at a first reading. I'll give one example. In the book of Ruth it is noted that for one guy to marry her he had to get the "o.k." from someone that had a greater right to that honor. The symbolism used in that culture to transfer that right was unlacing your shoe and giving it over. Very obscure verse, it isn't highlighted at all. When John the Baptist was stressing that he wasn't the light, he was merely pointing to it/heralding it, he said behold this one (Jesus) whose "sandal I am not worthy to unlace" - pointing to the idea that Jesus was the one who had the right/honor of being the "husband" to the church/God's people and that John could not even conceive of taking that honor from him. You'd have to study the Bible for years to catch that. It's very intricate and detailed. To work backwards to make all that "fit" would have taken a team of geniuses generations. It's not like the O.T. is filled with clear verses that the Messiah would be 8 feet tall and the N.T. is filled with clear verses that state "O, and hey everybody, he was 8 feet tall" - trust me, it doesn't work like that. Look into the 70 weeks of Daniel.