Originally Posted by Pilgrim
I'm not sure what you are asking. shrug

But the NT is based upon the OT. In fact, it has been suggested that c. 85% of the NT consists of quotes and allusions from the OT. One doesn't read "Christianity back into the Old Testament" but rather the old adage has it right... "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in New explained." We get our hermeneutical methodology from the inspired NT writers, i.e., how they interpreted and understood the OT, particularly in the fulfillment of OT prophesy and its symbolism.

I believe the NT explains the OT to me a Christian, and as a New Covenant believer I believe the New Covenant takes precedence over the Old Testament so I take the OT as an example. What I had noticed was, I could find no translation other than Lutheran that capitalized "Him" in v5 making clear they believed this was speaking clearly of the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. I also found only Lutheran commentaries that were so strong to insist this was so clear in the OT Hebrew so it would have been understood by the Jews. Did the Jews recognize that v5 was speaking of the coming Messiah as Hebrews 2:6-9 apply it? In the Preface of his translation, Dr. Beck wrote: "The RSV undermines this [i]Heilsplan
(plan of salvation) by cutting down the prophecies of the coming Savior in the Old Testament as well as the important truths about Christ in the New Testament. In this way the RSV forfeits every privilege of being the Bible of the Christian Church. My translation on the soundest textual basis gives the Church every Old Testament promise of the Savior and every doctrine given in the text." I do enjoy Dr. Beck's translation very much even though it is not well known, but did he do in Psalm 8:5 as Luther did in Rom. 3:28 when adding "alone" to faith. Has he leaned too much into interpretation and a dynamic style of translation? There may be another translation that makes clear v5 in the Hebrew speaks of the Son of God, or Son of man but I did not find one.