Why I reject calling the Torah the "Old Testament"

[CMike]

The Old Testament is a christian term for the Torah, which IMO is deregatory.

It implies that it's "old" and therefore antiquated and obsolete.

And of course the "New Testament" takes it's place.

That is obviously not true for jews.

The Torah is the foundation for Judaism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok ...

 

[steeltoes]

I think they are now old enough to be called the "old New Testament" and the "even older Old Testament."

 

[danieldemol]

Do you believe that there are not any minor details in the Torah which are antiquated, such as the stuff on slavery?
At any rate, even if it is not considered superseded, it is still old (read ancient in terms of age).

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Not to minimod, but how is this a debate? I rarely use the phrase "Old Testament" myself, for the same reasons you mentioned.

And just a reminder: The Torah is the Pentateuch/5 books of Moses. The Christian "Old Testament" is the Tanakh–the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim–put together in a different order. Catholics also include the Apocrypha.

 

[Levite]

The Old Testament is a christian term for the Torah, which IMO is deregatory.

It implies that it's "old" and therefore antiquated and obsolete.

And of course the "New Testament" takes it's place.

That is obviously not true for jews.

The Torah is the foundation for Judaism.

So...in other words...you're a Jew.

Pretty sure we all feel this way, bro.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Old Testament is a christian term for the Torah, which IMO is deregatory.

It implies that it's "old" and therefore antiquated and obsolete.

And of course the "New Testament" takes it's place.

That is obviously not true for jews.

The Torah is the foundation for Judaism.

I don't use it in a derogatory way. To me one is ancient, and the other is newer pagan stuff added on. I use old and new to differentiate between the Hebrew and the Greek sections.

However, I will try to remember to use Tanakh from now on. :yes:

*

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have always referred to it as the Tanakh collectively as the Tawrat is the first 5 books. The "Old Testament" is a revised and inaccurate translation of the Tanakh composed by Christians(and Pagans) with no understanding of the sacred text.

I find the Old Testament and Tanakh as 2 different books. But I regard the Tanakh as original

 

[Ingledsva]

I have always referred to it as the Tanakh collectively as the Tawrat is the first 5 books. The "Old Testament" is a revised and inaccurate translation of the Tanakh composed by Christians(and Pagans) with no understanding of the sacred text.

I find the Old Testament and Tanakh as 2 different books. But I regard the Tanakh as original

This is very true. Some of the translations are down right stupid, and make no sense in context to the subject.


*

 

[ChristineES]

"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet"

 

[Ingledsva]

"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet"

Yes, but I'm guessing the lady that grew it won't be happy if you call it a stink-bomb. LOL!

*

 

[allright]

More accurate would be "the Old Covenant" and"the New Covenant"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... as the Tawrat is the first 5 books.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So...in other words...you're a Jew.

Pretty sure we all feel this way, bro.

Yep ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More accurate would be "the Old Covenant" and"the New Covenant"

More accurate would be Tanakh and Christian canon.

 

[BruceDLimber]

More accurate would be "the Old Covenant" and"the New Covenant"

Save that there have been yet more covenants since those, such that you'd wind up with the New Covenant, the Pretty New Covenant, the Middling Covenant, the Old Covenant, and the Very Old Covenant, to say the least (and ignoring the possibilitiy of still more)!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Moishe3rd]

There are profound fundamental differences between Tanach and the "old testament."
The old testament is part of the entire Christian bible and considered the introduction to the "new testament." As such, part of the translation and purpose is to verify the "prophetic" foretelling regarding Jesus and Christianity.
As the Jewish concept of moshiach has absolutely no correlation to the Christian notion of Jesus as "messiah" or as the "Christos," this makes for a tortured reading and understanding of Tanach as something completely divorced from Judaism.
The old testament is, indeed, the Christian bible.
Tanach has zero to do with Christianity.

 

[ignition]

It really makes no difference in my opinion. In terms of age, it is certainly older than the new testament haha

 

[sojourner]

I usually refer to it as either "the Hebrew Texts," or as "the First Testament."

 

[ChristineES]

I always called it the Old Testament but only because that is what others called it. If I had known it bothered people, I would have found a better name to call it. I have following Jesus for thirty years and this is the first I've EVER heard that it bothered anyone.