Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bill Ross" <BillRoss AT norisksoftware.com>]

<Andrew>
>>Perhaps you need to develop some "thicker skin" and be a little more
tolerant of other's equally deeply held beliefs. You don't have to agree
with them but at least allow others the freedom to refer to the Hebrew
Bible in a way that reflects their own beliefs.

<Bill>
Just a thought: Would you appreciate it if the NT were referred to
continuously as "the Bogus Testament?"

But, more importantly, neither the "Old Testament" nor the "New
Testament" are "testaments" at all! That was a gross mistranslation that
was proliferated by the KJV. Terms that would be sanctioned by the "NT"
would be, perhaps, "the first covenant" and the "new covenant."

But even that misses the boat, since the "first covenant" is only the
Torah, the first 5 books of Moses.

No, Tanach is not only less offensive, but a more appropriate
designation for the Hebrew scriptures.

But, it gets worse, because even Tanach only refers to the books up to 2
Chronicles, no?

Personally, I use "OT" and "NT" since these are widely recognized as
referring to the libraries in question, and they are also consistent
with the designation "old things" and "new things" which classify these
scriptures by age, not by value:

Matthew 13:
52  Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed
unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder,
which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

See? According to Jesus, the treasure is not found in one part, but
both.

So, you should consider losing the "Old Testament" designation because,
while traditional, it is inconsistent with Jesus, and unnecessarily
offensive.

Bill Ross