Does the New Testament misquote the Old Testament? 

The original septuigent was the 5 books of Moses only.

If the store clerk was talking about talking donkeys and talking snakes, we'd not give that clerk a time of day. I'd imagine you'd stay clear of that clerk as well. Why believe the Bible?

When we see the NT (especially Matthew) talking about a scripture being "fulfilled" we tend to think in terms of "prediction and fulfillment". One of the translation options for πληρόω (generally translated as "fulfilled") is "fill up". So instead of thinking in terms of prediction and fulfillment, it might be better to think in terms of how Jesus "filled up" a scripture. I would suggest what Matthew is doing is casting Jesus in the role of Israel. He is showing throughout Matthew how Jesus embodies what it means to be "true Israel" or how Jesus "filled up" the words spoken about Israel. In my opinion, understanding what Matthew is doing that way works, where as trying to find prediction/fulfillment is problematic.

@@danielriccio7025 This is very helpful. Thank you Daniel!

This is Dr. Beale (mentioned by Dr. Plummer) on Matthew's use of Hosea www.gracechurch.org/sermons/10917 check it out!

Has anybody considered Matthew wasn't quoting Hosea?

@@mapleleaf100 Thank you for posting your lecture, very informative. I’d be curious what you think of my short hand expression “Matthew is casting Jesus in the role of Israel” as a way of introducing the typology you describe in much more detail (tracing back through Hosea and the passages in Numbers) My intent is to express something similar to what you say late in the lecture “Matthew portrays Jesus recapitulating the history of Israel, because he sums up Israel in himself. Since Israel disobeyed Jesus has come to do what they were accountable for doing. He must retrace Israel’s steps up to the point they failed and then continue to obey and succeed in the mission…so he must start in Egypt” I maintain that the issue many run into in the Matthew/Hosea passage is what I’m referring to as the model of “prediction and fulfillment” that is expected because of the statement “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet”. I don’t think what is going on is less than prediction and fulfillment, it’s actually much more (as described at length in your lecture). The challenge with much of the writing devoted to the supposed Matthew/Hosea problem is trying to maintain a predictive framework where it’s not necessary. I would suggest prediction was not the intent of Hosea or Matthew (although it might be appropriate to say that Matthew sees it as a foreshadowing). I would point out what the text is (which I believe you do nicely) without trying to maintain the prediction framework. I’d be curious if you could give any brief points of agreement or what areas you would suggest I need to reconsider. Thanks!

Yes!!!

I'm starting to wonder why I find so many "preachers" here who don't know this, isn't it basic in the scholarly perspective? And most of the "preachers" I observe have the prefix "Dr." glued to their names.... just an honest observation.

You are absolutely right! I noticed the same thing.

​@@maehabes4097What makes you think its talking about Israel, I don't remember many times israel is called God's son. ( singular)

Can you give an example of a book in tanakh "old testament" where it took another writing in tanakh out of context?

All of the prophets who did any of the four things I listed removed it from a former historical context and applied it to another context. There are many of those from the Torah and applied them later in the books of the prophets. The book Old Testament Use of Old Testament by Gary Edward Schnittjer is filled with many. One example would be Amos 2:7 and Leviticus 18:7, 8.

@geraldpolmateer3255 It's one thing to paraphrase from the tanakh. It's different to take a passage or verse from tanakh and change it into something it never said. The new testament does that. It misquoted isaiah 7: 14 claiming a virgin birth. When in tanakh it says its a young woman.

@@chrishouseofdawid in the LXX that is a translation. Every translation requires interpretation. What else would you have called a young woman who never had sex with a man?

The Septuagint is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew, it mistranslates and even changes entire meanings.

@@eurech : If it was good for Jesus and the apostles, it certainly should be good enough for us. Else, there won't be any basis to glean any truths. Else, each one will come up with an objection any time a scripture conflicts with what they want to believe. That will get us nowhere.

@@eurech It also probably had different manuscripts it translater from than the ones we know. It is not a completely trustworthy translation, but it's still useful.

@@eurech The Dead Sea Scrolls are one thousand years older than the Masorectic text; they date back to 100 - 200 BCE, while the Masorectic text dates back to 1000 CE. However, the Greek Septuagint is much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the Masorectic text is to the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, the Greek Septuagint is more reliable.

@@tongakhan230 What kind of an argument is that?

I agree with you.

I've heard some foolish answer on a Christian website argue that his son was more popular and for some reason they mentioned his name and not his father's. Another one is that the text says ''in the days of Abiathar'' meaning that it's not necessarily talking about his reign as a high priest, but just his time on his earth. I don't know which argument is dumber, because the first one, why on earth would give a crap whose more popular or not? What does that have to do with quoting correct information? The second argument, when we say ''in the days of'' we mean in the REIGN/RULE of someone. We don't say in the days of someone referring to them when they were a kid for example, that's not what the expression means. Also the Greek says quite clearly ''During the days of Abiathar THE PRIEST'' so that argument is completely invalidated because he wasn't a priest in those days, but his father was.

@@eurech "why on earth would care whose more popular or not? " Its important to note that most Jews didnt have access to a Hebrew bible due to being illiterate. Most of what was known was taught orally, and Abiathar would've definitely be known more than Ahimelech amongst Jews. Jesus is the greatest of all teachers, and therefore knew how to convey his messages effectively to people. We can also see this with his use of Parables.

God is not the author of confusion

The more difficult text is typically the correct text. It makes sense that a scribe would remove Isaiah, but why would a scribe insert Isaiah?

@@chaplainpaul5326 Because Isaiah speaks about the Messiah and the end days, and the writer of Mark wanted to make that connection to Jesus. They had a bias and it shows.

I've done a careful study on this, and the numbers actually do match up. I can give an explanation if you like.

@@swtor20 kentonfinkbeiner@gmail.com

@@swtor20 thanks for the email

@@kentfink9509 Now you can delete your comment with your email before some idiot uses it for something not good.

@@104littleal6 can you send me the email?

Dig deep into Gods word. Find out for yourself,don't beleive me,don't beleive your preacher,be like the Bareans in the book of acts. And search the scriptures to find out if what you hear from preachers,and what i have typed out. Check out Mike Desario holding firmly RU-vid. God opened the scriptures up to me with this preacher.

He may not know it yet.

hitten03 no the Holy Spirit did not. Not any Bible I have ever read.

I don't hear any denial of the Spirit in "maybe this, maybe that, Feelings etc." I hear a thoughtful scholar, preacher, and pastor trying to express/discern what the Holy Spirit was communicating when he moved the Biblical authors to quote and perhaps even alter certain OT passages. This is fundamental to interpretation of text. It doesn't deny the Holy Spirit's sovereignty at all.

@@ridethelapras Precisely. The Bible says exactly what God wants it to say, but it is communicated through the personality, style, and idiomatic expressions of each Biblical writer.

@@ridethelapras The Holy Spirit chose every word. The mathematical structure of the Bible proves it. Ex. Genealogy of Jesus.

Agreed. Those are passages from the OT that are beautifully fulfilled in the NT. Goes beyond just "misquoting"... that "first century Jewish author" referred to was guided by the Holy Spirit, in case one forgets (even though it was verbally mentioned). He asked "Can you suggest a great resource?" Yes. Ask the early Christians. How they lived out their faith would have been how it would be reflected in the Scriptures later on.

Why not? Just curious...

@@joshuabogart2341 How else can I rephrase this? Licona believes in literary devices. McGrew does not.

I think both are still true, its well known i think and believed that the " The angel of the Lord" which appears in the OT is just really another name for God himself. You can look it up, this might explain the issue your having

Please demonstrate your courage

What do you think truthful is and what do you mean by courage explain please

@@DudeAndDoodleShow The septuagint was a translation of the original Hebrew old testament,into Greek,the common language of the day,in the 3rd century B.C., Brentons septuagint is the English translation of the Greek septuagint,1851. It matches word for word when quoted in the new testament. Don't beleive me tho,check it out,you can google it,and read it online. It's free to put the app on your phone too.

Jesus rose from the dead. That alone should make you rethink your approach to the Bible.

Naw.

Brentons English translation of the Greek septuagint matches the new testament quotes of the old.

Word for word. And it was made in the 3rd century B.C.