I kept trying to seperate the OT from the NT. They are not to be seperated as they are one book .... Read the bible as a whole realizing that there is no seperation in scripture besides that which man has made (OT vs NT).
Do you understand the history to the bible?
When you hold your Bible in your hand, you hold a book that has a complex history. Just when the Torah was written in its present form is not clear, though by about the 5th century BCE, the torah was seen by Jews as having religious authority. A Wikipedia entry notes:
The first five books – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy – comprise the Torah, the story of Israel from the Genesis creation narrative to the death of Moses. Few scholars today doubt that it reached its present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), and that its authors were the elite of exilic returnees who controlled the Temple at that time. [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
The last point is important. First, we need to understand that not very many Jews returned to ruined Jerusalem. Most liked their new lives in prosperous Babylon, and had become involved in international trade and were making lots of money. So why should they go back to rough it in Jerusalem? Second, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the land of Judah/Israel had not been deserted. The ordinary (non-elite) Jewish people were still there as peasant farmers, and the fanatically religious elite had to re-assert control, and they did this partly through religion.
Next, Around the second century BCE, (i.e the same century, that saw Jewish hostility to the Seleucid Empire and the rise of the Hasmoneans) the prophets were added to the holy writings. Think about it, I suggest you'll soon discern, why it was that the "prophets" section was important at that stage of Jewish history. The final books (praises) were not recognised buy all Jewish people and were not really added (finally) until later.
This Jewish Publication Society, book, "How to Read the Bible," may give you a richer perspective, than that of contemporary American Protestantism. ( http://books.google.com.au/books?id=39nQafdJ_ssC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Brettler+how+to+read+the+bible&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false ).
It was during the above period that the Greek translation we call the septuagint was prepared. According to tradition, this translation was made in Alexandria (but not neccessarily so). There are some interesting differences between what's called the hebrew "Masoretic" text, and the Septuagint. It was popular in Judah, because so many Jews by that time were completely hellenised, and spoke greek better than aramaic (or, Hebrew). Its on record that many Jews tried to stretch their foreskins to look uncircumcised, as they felt embarrassed to be seen as circumcised.
The Septuagint version remains the Old Testament in use in Orthodox churches until today.
So, over this long period, how can you be sure that any comments are connected?
THe new Testament has a similarly diverse history, and its not until the fourth century CE, that we start to find any agreement on a Christian canon.
Therefore when we read the Bible, as I did as JW, and we start interpreting verses in the light of other verses, we do so without any real evidence that the two sections, separated by long stretches of time over approximately 1000 years, were meant to be connected.
Such connections, exist in our imaginations, which is precisely what we did as witnesses.
and Jesus himself said something to the effect that he who has seen me has seen the father. Jesus quoted from the OT so no doubt he was in harmoney with it.
Leaving to one side your use of John 14:9, in your argument, it would be very surprising, if Jesus as a Jew, preaching to Jews, had said to take no notice of the OT. But in the end, we have no external evidence that Jesus made any of the statements, that the authors of the gospels attributed to him.
