The New Testament retconns/lies about the Old Testament.

This objection imports a modern, positivist assumption — that legitimate 'fulfillment' can only mean single-referent predictive forecast — that the ancient authors themselves did not share. Second Temple Jewish exegesis operated with recognized interpretive categories beyond direct verbal prediction, notably typology (a real historical pattern in an earlier figure/event prefiguring and finding intensified recapitulation in a later one) and sensus plenior (a fuller sense intended by the divine author, discernible once the pattern's completion is in view), attested independently in the Qumran pesharim and rabbinic midrash. Matthew's formula 'that it might be fulfilled' regularly signals this broader typological fulfillment, not merely predictive fulfillment: Hosea 11:1 calls Israel God's 'son' brought out of Egypt; Matthew presents Jesus as recapitulating Israel's own story (down to spending time in Egypt and being 'called out'), presenting Jesus as true/faithful Israel succeeding where the nation failed — a pattern-based theological claim about typological correspondence, not a claim that Hosea originally 'predicted' Jesus's biography. G.K. Beale's *Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament* and Richard Hays's *Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul* document this as a coherent, textually-signaled interpretive method running throughout the NT's engagement with the OT, not ad hoc invention. Honesty requires conceding that NT use of the OT remains a genuinely complex site of ongoing scholarly discussion, and that not every citation is equally straightforward — but 'complex hermeneutical method requiring study to understand' is a different charge than 'lying.'

The consistency of the type/antitype pattern across the whole canon — Adam/Christ, Exodus/new exodus, Davidic kingship/messianic kingship, temple/Christ's body — running coherently across texts written by different authors over centuries argues for a single overarching authorial intent behind the whole collection (the traditional doctrine of Scripture's unity under one ultimate Author), which is precisely the kind of intentional macro-design that random human redaction would be unlikely to produce.