Talk:Old Testament

Any one care if i add some notes here? Needs to include comments on 1) Hebrew v. Christian versions (unless this is developed in TNK), 2) Needs to discuss Septuagint, 3) should list the Books included in either just the Christian OT, or in both Christian OT & Hebrew TNK, 4)snakry comment about how easily xians tend to "pick and choose" from the OT as its convenient to them. 5) comment about the OT god being mean, angry, violent, destructive, petty, foot stomping, ego maniacal, sociopathic, and having a "wee bit" of an inferiority complex when anyone doesn't yell out their praise of him. --WaitingforGodot 10:30, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Bible commentary at RW is protestant
(wow, this was the first talk page I commented on. Back in the days when i was too nice/shy/scared to just run roughshod over people and do whatever I wanted. heh). So, my question. I've added the line: "The majority of the Biblical commentary at Rational Wiki is based on the Protestant canon and translations." What I don't know is where that should go in the article. any ideas? En attendant Godot 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph seems problematic
The first thing I'm noticing is that it seems to draw a meaningless distinction between the Tanakh and the Old Testament, when the actual distinctions revolve around interpretation and perspective and not the text itself -- I mean, if you're going to create a Western canon Bible, your Hebrew source text is almost certainly going to be the Masoretic text no matter which strain of Abrahamic religion you're representing (Samaritans excepted). By that argument, I would suggest that we rename the article to "Tanakh" and keep "Old Testament" as a redirect, and include both Jewish and Christian perspectives in the article. I think this would be particularly helpful in light of the fact that most RW readers probably come from a Christian background and might not realize just how much Christian and Jewish interpretations differ. EVDebs (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that when you edit the works, rearrange them, and translate them with Jesus as messiah in mind, you don't actually have the same book. I've read English translations of the TNK, and they stand quite separate from the standard translations you see in christian bibles.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  23:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true to an extent, but the Masoretic Text is the standard form for Judaism and most of Western Christianity alike (the Septuagint, Samaritan Torah and Ethiopian canon aside). I mean, you do get into things like the almah issue, but for the most part, the Masoretic Text is definitive. Granted, you do get into complicated territory once you get alternate text types like the Septuagint, and you've got all those benighted KJV-onlyers who will insist against all logic and data that an Early Modern English text with obvious sourcing problems is the inspired authority, but I still don't think there's a meaningful distinction to be made. EVDebs (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is off to a bad start; tone is governed by frustration, anger, & fuzzy thinking rather than snarkiness. The opening paragraph is about Christian translations from the Tanakh, but fails to understand the translation process, speaking as though a translation committee would begin by elaborately altering the underlying text, then, like sincere schoolboys, strive to produce a faithful translation of the altered underlying text.Wigitsune (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now made some major changes to this article. Please re-write as necessary and make snarkier if possible. Is the Christian use of "Old" Testament for Tanakh an instance of snarkiness? Sorry, I have not included many scholarly references, but generally these remarks summarize what multiple scholars are saying (privately, I consider "scholarly consensus" to be a weasel word, at least in the way wikipedia uses it). Wigitsune (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

An eye for an eye
From what I understand the point is not 'tit for tat' but 'like for like not escalation.' As with King Canute and the tide the 'wrong interpretation' is given emphasis. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)