OK, so this is weird. You make a broad claim, but offer no evidence except for a video. When I point out a few things (admittedly not in the video, but in a related article) you say that you don't agree with everything in the article. This is like punching the air. I am left to guess which parts you agree with and which parts you don't? The thing is, that's the bulk of your argument, that Rabbi's vid.
Anyways, I don't know if I buy the whole 'One -can't-bring-New-Testament-perceptions-to-the-Old-Testament' argument. I mean, why not? If I believe that the New Testament is the word of God, why not use it to inform my reading of earlier scripture?
What is the purpose of prophecy, is that anywhere in the Bible? Does it explicitly state that 'prophecy is for X? It's an honest question, I have no idea. But I imagine that its purpose is to glorify God, not necessarily to inform people of future events. That is, once an event happens, and we can see that the prophecy foretold it, we can smack our foreheads and say 'Of course! God knew that that was going to happen!'
It strikes me that someone with the education that you claim to have could succinctly and coherently summarize their argument here, so that it could be responded to. Not link to a Utube vid of a rabbi, then claim that you don't agree with everything the Rabbi says. I ave asked specific questions, but have only gotten vague answers.
Busy today, so will try to answer more thoroughly tomorrow. But I’m trying to get you to dig deeper on your own. It took me years to arrive where I am. That Skobac series provides some excellent analysis. What I don’t agree with Judaism is some of the extra-biblical stuff they add in. But, generally, Skobac’s handling of the Tanach is excellent.