Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[SyCarl]

The early Christians however used the deuterocanonical books as referenced in my post, please notice that the Protestant historian J N D Kelly writes “The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.”

The Septuagint is not the same as the Apocrypha although it contains them and some other books. What does Jerome say about what version was used?

The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.

Apology against Rufinus
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxviii.html

 

[josie_L]

Could you indicate where this comes from?

It’s an article by Jason Evert on Catholic answers entitled: How to defend the Deuterocanonicals.

Also found this website that you might find interesting:

www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

 

[josie_L]

The Septuagint is not the same as the Apocrypha although it contains them and some other books. What does Jerome say about what version was used?

Apology against Rufinus
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxviii.html

Jerome was but one man, and taken individually he could have erred. However, had many church fathers and/or bishops (who made up the Magisterium) refused to accept the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired than you would have a case. Has I mentioned in a previous post, by the time the council of Rome was a fait accomplis the deuterocanonicals were accepted as inspired scripture.

“The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.”

 

[SyCarl]

Jerome was but one man, and taken individually he could have erred. However, had many church fathers and/or bishops (who made up the Magisterium) refused to accept the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired than you would have a case. Has I mentioned in a previous post, by the time the council of Rome was a fait accomplis the deuterocanonicals were accepted as inspired scripture.

“The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.”

However it does not seem that the Apocrypha were fully accepted after these councils, which were only regional and not ecumenical. About the Middle Ages the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[josie_L]

There is no evidence any of the Apocrypha were even discussed at Jamnia. If you have evidence present it because quite frankly I’m tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims.

Your “absolute” claims of what happened at Jamnia are all speculation. Which is why you never present proof, just make one empty claim after another.

**Josephus wrote twenty years before Jamnia He had actually temple scrolls in his possession. Josephus’ canon was the same canon as the Protestant Bible **Ginger

“During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.”

To accept Josephus (as truth), knowing not all Jews agreed upon what constituted the canon of Scripture (and exclaiming this is false), is a little bit reckless.

Maybe this will help:

"The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)."

 

[Jerry_Marino]

wow!

 

[josie_L]

However it does not seem that the Apocrypha were fully accepted after these councils, which were only regional and not ecumenical. About the Middle Ages the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

I’m not sure what this is supposed to convince me of. I have already mentioned more than one council that reaffirmed that the deuterocanonical books were divinely inspired. Here are the rest:

“This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).”

“The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.”

I don’t dispute the fact that certain individuals including St. Thomas of Aquinas might have been perplexed about whether the Deuterocanonical books were inspired, but again it does not represent the whole or those of the Magisterium.

 

[josie_L]

This is taken from another website word for word:

Sirach 28:2-5 Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does a man harbor anger against another, and yet seek for healing from the Lord? Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself, and yet pray for his own sins? If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, who will make expiation for his sins?

Does that sound familiar? It should.

Matt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Tobit 12:12-15 And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you. When you did not hesitate to rise and leave your dinner in order to go and lay out the dead, your good deed was not hidden from me, but I was with you. So now God sent me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah. I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One."

We see here no doubt a reason why Luther had to remove this book from the canon because it clearly shows the practice of prayers for the dead. You agree? Well, let’s look at the following.

Rev 8:2-5 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth; and there were peals of thunder, voices, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.

Now let’s look at what is perhaps the most developed prophecy in the Old Testament, the second chapter of Wisdom. Does this sound familiar my friend?

Wisdom 2:1 For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves,…(13-21) He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,

Wisdom 9:13 For what man can learn the counsel of God? Or who can discern what the Lord wills?

Is quoted almost word for word in

Romans 11:34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”

 

[SyCarl]

"This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage,

You would be referring to the 1st Canon of the Second Council of Nicaea.

The pattern for those who have received the sacerdotal dignity is found in the testimonies and instructions laid down in the canonical constitutions, which we receiving with a glad mind, sing unto the Lord God in the words of the God-inspired David, saying: “I have had as great delight in the way of thy testimonies as in all manner of riches.” “Thou hast commanded righteousness as thy testimonies for ever.” “Grant me understanding and I shall live.” Now if the word of prophesy bids us keep the testimonies of God forever and to live by them, it is evident that they must abide unshaken and without change. Therefore Moses, the prophet of God, speaketh after this manner: “To them nothing is to be added, and from them nothing is to be taken away.” And the divine Apostle glorying in them cries out, “which things the angels desire to look into,” and, “if an angel preach to you anything besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema.” Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. And now “let your conversation be without covetousness,” crieth out Paul the divine Apostle, who was caught up into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xiv.i.html

This confirm the canons of local councils which would include Hippo and Carthage, but also other councils as well. In particular the Council of Trullo. The 2nd Canon of Trullo contains the following:

But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. **Likewise too the Canons **** of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ii.html

This council, is affirmed by the 2nd Council of Nicaea as a local council, does mention the Council of Carthage. However it also affirms Athanasius whose canon of Scripture was different from that of Carthage.

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament…But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith and Tobit,

and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.
(Festal Letters, Number 39)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html?highlight=judith#highlight

The 2nd Council of Nicaea also implicitly approves at least one canon of the Old Testament that excludes the Apocrypha.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

how do i know that my interpretation of the bible is right?

i wouldn’t put too much on what i might interpret a verse or chapter or book to mean but more importantly what does God say is what i look at, verse by verse, paragraph by paragraph. i rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me in truth teaching me the ways of the Lord. everybody has an interpretation but is it reliable. so to everyone reading this post of mine ask God for wisdom and he will give it to you James 1:5. don’t rely on others to tell you what they think and take it as truth, read the Bible and the Spirit will reveal God’s truth to you if you are sincere to his truth.

God bless

 

[VARC]

I find the OP to be pretty silly. One could easily ask a Roman Catholic how do they know their interpretation of scripture is right. Roman Catholics believe the pope is infallible based on their own interpretation of Matt 16:18. But it totally escapes many of them that their fallible interpretation of that passage could be wrong.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

hey leave il papa alone

 

[josie_L]

This is for SYCARL, you said:

Jesus tells us what He is referring to. It is Daniel and not Maccabees.

And I say:

Even if he mentions only one, does that mean there are no other parallels to be made with that particular scripture.

You said:

Jesus does not refer to the 7 brothers, the Sadducees do. However they did not accept anything except the 5 books of Moses as Scripture and so this would not make Tobit scripture even if it was the Sadducees were referring to.

And I say:

It was mentioned because Jesus believed it was scripture. You’re argument actually works against you, because if the Sadducees did not accept anything but the Torah, why then mention this scripture (and Jesus calls it scripture) if only because they knew to whom they were arguing with, and that is with someone who believed/acknowledged (one of) the deuterocanonical books:

"You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in Heaven…

P.S. Remember the Sadducees do not refer to it as scripture but Jesus does, He even shows how adept he was in interpreting it.

 

[SyCarl]

And I say:

It was mentioned because Jesus believed it was scripture. You’re argument actually works against you, because if the Sadducees did not accept anything but the Torah, why then mention this scripture (and Jesus calls it scripture) if only because they knew to whom they were arguing with, and that is with someone who believed/acknowledged (one of) the deuterocanonical books:

"You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in Heaven…

P.S. Remember the Sadducees do not refer to it as scripture but Jesus does, He even shows how adept he was in interpreting it.

Jesus is not referring to the example given by the Sadducees as Scripture in replying to them. He is referring to the Scriptures that deal with the resurrection as those that the Sadducees do not understand. Tobit says nothing about resurrection and so isn’t what Jesus is referring to. It should also be noted that Tobit gives no indication that the seven men were brothers.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

scriptures: this first was a general term, meaning simply ‘writing’ or ‘writings’. then came the more precise designation ‘the scripture’ or ‘the scriptures’, as we find these terms employed in the NT to denote what were the sacred books of the jews at the time, and we now speak of scripture, scriptures, or Holy scripture when we mean the collected writings held sacred by the Christian Church.

as for the sadducees, they were just that, sad. they were an exclusive cast, drawn from men of wealth and position. while the pharisees found their strongholds in the synagogues and schools of the towns and villages…well anyway the sadducees were open to worldly influences of all kinds, including in later times greek culture and roman statecraft (sound familiar). if not this next point about them might ring a bell, their main interest was political, and their guiding principle was to keep in with any power that secured to them their monopoly of office. they looked more to the binding of the written law. rejecting tradition of the scribes and ignored the Messianic hope of the doctrine of the resurrection. they fell when jeruselem fell. how sad for the sadducees.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First of all, Protestants did not have an interpretation of scripture outside the Catholic church until the reformation began 1500 years after Jesus already built his Catholic church, established His teachings and revelations to his apostles who then handed them down to the Catholic church.

Even among the many protestant reformation founders could not agree biblical interpretations of scripture text, thereby inventing new denominations who have splintered themselves unrecognizable today to their first founders who invented their christian faith and belief’s.

One other point needs to be mentioned; The freedom the protestant reformers gave their communities to interpret scripture as they saw fit, kept causing conflict among interpretations just as we still have today.

Thank God for the Catholic church, she does not have the freedom to interpret sacred scripture by every wind of doctrine that comes in and came in different ages, for she was commissioned by Jesus to teach “all that I have commanded you”,to teach what Jesus revealed to the Cathoilc church. The unity of the Roman Catholic church cannot and will not be divided by interpretation of sacred scripture, these apostolic teachings come from Jesus and his apostles, and the Catholic church does not have the authority to change them, only defend, define them to every age and people. That is why Jesus built his church upon “Rock” (Kepha) “Peter”. because the Catholic Church the body of Jesus Christ cannot and will not change.

 

[Ginger2]

The word “prophesied” (it may not be the prophecy of which Matthew relies on but it sure is prophetic considering what is stated) in this case is being used as a way to designate the parallels between the two scriptures, in fact, in the NAB Wisdom 11:7 the scripture is written like this:

" . . . as a rebuke to the decree for the the slaying of the infants."

It is quite prophetic don’t you think,

No, if anything Wisdom is quoting Jeremiah. Quoting a prophet is not the same as prophesying, because Wisdom is stating an event after the fact.

Assuming Wisdom is indeed quoting Jeremiah, who do you think the author of Matthew is quoting Wisdom or Jeremiah?

Certainly a man does not quote another quoter, but he quotes the one who actually made the statement.

If I said, “It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river.”, would you assume I was quoting Fred Kaplan who wrote a book about Lincoln? Or would you say I was quoting Abraham Lincoln?

To say I was quoting Kaplan, would be inaccurate to say the least! To say Matthew is quoting Wisdom, especially when Matthew states he is quoting Jeremiah, is just plain wrong.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

josie L,

You should read up a little on the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

The Pharisees held to the whole of God’s word, just as Jesus did. Jesus complaint concerning them was their man-made traditions, which contradicted the law.

The Sadducees only held to part of the law and Jesus said, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Matt 5:18

Concerning the seven brothers:

Matthew 22:23-29
23 On that day Sadducees approached him, …
24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’
The Sadduccees told the story of seven brothers (Tobit tells of eight husbands-not necessarily brothers)
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27 Finally the woman died.
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
This was Jesus’ response:
29 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

The Gospel writers were not citing Tobit as inspired text.** They were simply related another story of how the unsaved tried to trick Jesus**.

Ginger

 

[Hisalone]

I refer to your post #213. I had asked you the following question:
Catholics are non-believers?

This was your** reply:
“Yes”

You have judged wrongly.

There are many Catholics who are born again and thus saved. Then again there are many who are not thus not saved.

 

[josie_L]

No, if anything Wisdom is quoting Jeremiah. Quoting a prophet is not the same as prophesying, because Wisdom is stating an event after the fact.

Assuming Wisdom is indeed quoting Jeremiah, who do you think the author of Matthew is quoting Wisdom or Jeremiah?

Certainly a man does not quote another quoter, but he quotes the one who actually made the statement.

If I said, “It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river.”, would you assume I was quoting Fred Kaplan who wrote a book about Lincoln? Or would you say I was quoting Abraham Lincoln?

To say I was quoting Kaplan, would be inaccurate to say the least! To say Matthew is quoting Wisdom, especially when Matthew states he is quoting Jeremiah, is just plain wrong.

Ginger

Ginger, I would understand your argument concerning wisdom, if there had been only one reference of Wisdom in the NT (taken from an earlier OT book) but there are many, how clever (or conniving) do you think the writers of the deuterocanonicals books were if they were able to decipher and write (by picking the correct references) what would be relevant or refered to in the NT. Here is just a list of examples you can verify, some may not be as concrete as others:

Wisdom 1:6 Titus 3:4
Wisdom 1:6 1 Peter 2:25
Wisdom 1:11 James 4:11
Wisdom 1:14 Revelation 4:11
Wisdom 2:5s 1 Corinthians 15:32
Wisdom 2:10 James 5:6
Wisdom 2:11 Romans 9:31
Wisdom 2:12 James 5:6 Wisdom 10:6 2 Peter 2:7
Wisdom 2:13 Matthew 27:43
Wisdom 2:16 John 5:18
Wisdom 2:17 Hebrews 13:7
Wisdom 2:17s Mark 15:29
Wisdom 2:18-20 Matthew 27:43
Wisdom 2:19 Philippians 4:5
Wisdom 2:19 James 5:6
Wisdom 2:22 Mark 4:11
Wisdom 2:23 1 Corinthians 11:7
Wisdom 2:24 John 8:44
Wisdom 2:24 Romans 5:12
Wisdom 3:4s James 1:2
Wisdom 3:7 Luke 19:44
Wisdom 3:8 1 Corinthians 6:2
Wisdom 3:9 John 15:9s
Wisdom 3:17 Acts 19:27
Wisdom 3:18 1 Thessalonians 4:13
Wisdom 4:2 1 Corinthians 9:25
Wisdom 4:10 Hebrews 11:5
Wisdom 4:19 Acts 1:18
Wisdom 5:4 John 10:20
Wisdom 5:5 Acts 20:32
Wisdom 5:5 Acts 26:18
Wisdom 5:6 2 Peter 2:2
Wisdom 5:16 2 Timothy 4:8
Wisdom 5:17 Ephesians 6:12
Wisdom 5:18 Ephesians 6:14
Wisdom 5:18 1 Thessalonians 5:8
Wisdom 5:19, 21 Ephesians 6:16
Wisdom 5:22 Luke 21:25
Wisdom 6:3s Romans 13:1
Wisdom 6:7 Acts 10:36
Wisdom 6:18 John 14:15
Wisdom 6.18 Romans 13.10
Wisdom 7:1 Acts 10:26
Wisdom 7:3 Acts 14:15
Wisdom 7:7 Ephesians 1:17
Wisdom 7:11 Matthew 6:33
Wisdom 7:18 Acts 17:26
Wisdom 7:22-30 Hebrews 4:12
Wisdom 7:23 Philippians 4:13
Wisdom 7:24s 1 Corinthians 1:24
Wisdom 7:25s Hebrews 1:3
Wisdom 7:27 James 2:23
Wisdom 8:3 etc. Acts 10:36
Wisdom 8:8 John 4:48
Wisdom 8:8 1 Thessalonians 5:1
Wisdom 9:1 John 1:3
Wisdom 9.1 Acts 17.24, 25
Wisdom 9:3 Ephesians 4:24
Wisdom 9:9 Acts 17:24
Wisdom 9:13 1 Corinthians 2:16
Wisdom 9:15 2 Corinthians 5:1, 4
Wisdom 9:16 John 3:12
Wisdom 10:16 2 Corinthians 12:12
Wisdom 10:17 Hebrews 11:6
Wisdom 11:10 1 Corinthians 4:14
Wisdom 11:15 Romans 1:23
Wisdom 11:23 Romans 2:4
Wisdom 12:10 Hebrews 12:17
Wisdom 12:12 Romans 9:19
Wisdom 12:13 1 Peter 5:7
Wisdom 12:19 Acts 11:18
Wisdom 12:24 Romans 1:23
Wisdom 13-15 Romans 1:19-32
Wisdom 13:1 Romans 1:21
Wisdom 13.1 1 Corinthians 15.34
Wisdom 13.1 Hebrews 11.10
Wisdom 13:6 Acts 17:27
Wisdom 13:10 Acts 17:29
Wisdom 14:1 Jude 13
Wisdom 14:20 Acts 17:23
Wisdom 15:1 Luke 6:35
Wisdom 15:3 John 17:3
Wisdom 15:7 Romans 9:21
Wisdom 15:8 Luke 12:20
Wisdom 15:11 John 20:22
Wisdom 15:17 Acts 17:23
Wisdom 16:6 1 Corinthians 11:24
Wisdom 16:9 Revelation 9:3
Wisdom 16:13 Matthew 16:18
Wisdom 16.13 Romans 10.7
Wisdom 16:22 Revelation 8:7
Wisdom 16:26 Matthew 4:4
Wisdom 17:1 Romans 11:33
Wisdom 17:2 Matthew 22:13
Wisdom 17:11 Romans 2:15
Wisdom 17:14 1 Thessalonians 5:3
Wisdom 17:15 Mark 6:49
Wisdom 17:17 Galatians 6:1
Wisdom 18:1 Acts 9:7
Wisdom 18.1 Acts 22.9
Wisdom 18:14 Revelation 8:1
Wisdom 18:14s 1 Thessalonians 5:2
Wisdom 18:15s John 3:12
Wisdom 18.15s Hebrews 4.12
Wisdom 18:16 [15] Revelation 2:12
Wisdom 18:25 Hebrews 11:28
Wisdom 19:7s 1 Corinthians 10:1
Wisdom 19:10 Acts 13:17

I have not read through all of these, but I intend to. This was taken from James Akins website: www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.