Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Disclaimer: I hold to the grammatical-historical hermeneutics. I do not buy into extreme RH or extreme typology.

But I have noticed that the NT writers read Scripture differently than I do (or modern man does). They rarely go into the "cultural background" (or if they do it is in ways different from us), they don't parse verbs (except Paul's play on "know God, known by God"), and their quotations from the Old Testament often appear odd.

Peter's and Stephen's aren't analyses of the relevant Old Testament passages, like any good seminarian would do, but merely quotations and paraphrases with reapplications today.

Are we missing something?