The Old Testament consists of a lot of books, probably written by different people over a long period. General opinion is that its writing was spread over 1000 years from the 12th Century BC to the 2nd Century BC.
The Old Testament was completed by the second century BCE, long before Paul lived. He did not write any books in the Old Testament.
The word "create" would indicate that the Old Testament was fabricated ... which i have no problem with but I'm sure many do ... but the Old testament took 100's of years to write to get to what you read in to days Bible ...
Approximately 400 Years
Matthew's Gospel contains more refereences to the Old Testament than any other New Testament book. Sometimes the author pointed to the Old Testament as prefiguring events in his Gospel, sometimes he would just write passages that reflected Old Testament passages and let the discerning reader find the parallel passage in the Old Testament. He wanted his Gospel to be seen as the successor to the Hebrew scriptures.
This question can be understood in terms of reading only the Old Testament but not the New Testament, or in terms of reading only the Old Testament but nothing else that could contradict or challenge the stories and traditions portrayed in the Old Testament. For a Jew, there is no particular disadvantage in reading the Old Testament but not the New Testament, as the New Testament is not relevant to his religion. For a Christian, the disadvantage is that the books most important to his faith are in the New Testament. Anyone reading only the Old Testament and not what is now known about the history of the times and biblical scholarship on the Old Testament, the disadvantage is that the reader must take everything literally and can not have an informed view as to how literally the Old Testament should be read.
The Old Testament was completed by the second century BCE, long before Paul lived. He did not write any books in the Old Testament.
The word "create" would indicate that the Old Testament was fabricated ... which i have no problem with but I'm sure many do ... but the Old testament took 100's of years to write to get to what you read in to days Bible ...
None. The Old Testament is a compilation of several books. It is not in itself a book.
Approximately 400 Years
Hebrew and Aramaic.
No, Saint Luke wrote only in the New Testament. "The Gospel according to Saint Luke" and the "Book of Acts".
The Old Testament.
They wrote several books of the Old Testament.
Matthew's Gospel contains more refereences to the Old Testament than any other New Testament book. Sometimes the author pointed to the Old Testament as prefiguring events in his Gospel, sometimes he would just write passages that reflected Old Testament passages and let the discerning reader find the parallel passage in the Old Testament. He wanted his Gospel to be seen as the successor to the Hebrew scriptures.
AnswerThe books of the Old Testament were all written before 100 BCE, so could not have been written by the apostle John.
This question can be understood in terms of reading only the Old Testament but not the New Testament, or in terms of reading only the Old Testament but nothing else that could contradict or challenge the stories and traditions portrayed in the Old Testament. For a Jew, there is no particular disadvantage in reading the Old Testament but not the New Testament, as the New Testament is not relevant to his religion. For a Christian, the disadvantage is that the books most important to his faith are in the New Testament. Anyone reading only the Old Testament and not what is now known about the history of the times and biblical scholarship on the Old Testament, the disadvantage is that the reader must take everything literally and can not have an informed view as to how literally the Old Testament should be read.
Abraham is first mentioned in the Old Testament.