Clarity questions

Good answering, Dad. It may be interesting when we get onto other, perhaps more contentious, chapters whether there are things we've always assumed the Bible says but find it doesn't.

It was a different question that caught my eye - can the New Testament be fully understood by people who do not have access to an Old Testament? My problem is that I can't settle on a definition of 'fully understood'. I could understand the point of Hebrews 11 without knowing the details of the events it describes, so in this case the OT isn't necessary to understand. However, in Matthew 2-7 I wouldn't see how Matthew is making parallels between the Exodus and the beginning of Jesus' ministry because I wouldn't know the details of the former. But I'd understand what Matthew was telling me about Jesus - the thing I actually wouldn't see is that Israel was a picture of things to come, so actually it's understanding of the OT I'd be missing. So am I fully understanding the NT? Depends on my definition...! Flipping the question, I don't think that the OT can be fully understood without the NT as we wouldn't see that many of the things it talks about are just shadows, and the "substance belongs to Christ" (Colossians 2:17).

One question of my own. What do you think of Nehemiah 8:8? There are lots of alternatives for the word translated "clearly" in ESV, but do you get the impression that the people wouldn't have understood if the Law was simply read out, and there was some sort of sermon so they could understand if for themselves?