Why doesn’t the book of Tobit meet the criteria for being included in the Bible?

[NathanH83]

Is it because they haven’t found it in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Because it takes place during the 400 silent years between the Testaments?

Because it wasn’t written by a prophet?

Because it’s not referenced in the New Testament?

Because modern medicine disprove its claim that fish guts can dissolve cataracts?

Because it incorrectly says Sennacherib ruled immediately after Shalmanezzer, when it was actually Sargon who ruled 17 years before Sennacherib?

Because burning animal organs was never allowed in the Old Testament?

Because it says that charity covers sins?

I mean, what’s the main problem with it?

 

[Josiah]

Is it because they haven’t found it in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Because it takes place during the 400 silent years between the Testaments?

Because it’s not referenced in the New Testament?

Because modern medicine disprove its claim that fish guts can dissolve cataracts?

Because it incorrectly says Sennacherib ruled immediately after Shalmanezzer, when it was actually Sargon who ruled 17 years before Sennacherib?

Because burning animal organs was never allowed in the Old Testament?

Because it says that charity covers sins?

I mean, what’s the main problem with it?

PERHAPS nothing. Doesn't need to be anything wrong. Nothing wrong with Cat in the Hat or Green Eggs and Ham. But just because you or I can't find something wrong with a book does not mean ERGO it is mandated that all Christians for the past 2000 years MUST accept it as canonical Scripture.



.

 

[NathanH83]

PERHAPS nothing. Doesn't need to be anything wrong. Nothing wrong with Cat in the Hat or Green Eggs and Ham. But just because you or I can't find something wrong with a book does not mean ERGO it is mandated that all Christians for the past 2000 years MUST accept it as canonical Scripture.



.

You’re saying there’s nothing wrong with Tobit? Nothing at all?

 

[Josiah]

You’re saying there’s nothing wrong with Tobit? Nothing at all?

No, I'm saying that even IF there's nothing wrong, that's irrelevant to why all Christians for 2000 years MUST regard it as full canonical Scripture.

As I noted, it MAY be you personally can find nothing wrong with the book Cat in the Hat. But that would be irrelevant to it THEREFORE being a requirement for every Christian for 2000 years to consider it full, canonical Scripture - the normative inscripturated words of God.



.

 

[NathanH83]

No, I'm saying that even IF there's nothing wrong, that's irrelevant to why all Christians for 2000 years MUST regard it as full canonical Scripture.

As I noted, it MAY be you personally can find nothing wrong with the book Cat in the Hat. But that would be irrelevant to it THEREFORE being a requirement for every Christian for 2000 years to consider it full, canonical Scripture - the normative inscripturated words of God.



.

Ok, can we get back to my original question? We’re not talking about Dr. Seuss. Stop trying to change the subject.

 

[pinacled]

Is it because they haven’t found it in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Because it takes place during the 400 silent years between the Testaments?

Because it wasn’t written by a prophet?

Because it’s not referenced in the New Testament?

Because modern medicine disprove its claim that fish guts can dissolve cataracts?

Because it incorrectly says Sennacherib ruled immediately after Shalmanezzer, when it was actually Sargon who ruled 17 years before Sennacherib?

Because burning animal organs was never allowed in the Old Testament?

Because it says that charity covers sins?

I mean, what’s the main problem with it?

in answer to the bolded.
i suppose you werent being specific as to where they were allowed to be burned.

ח וְאֶת-כָּל-חֵלֶב פַּר הַחַטָּאת, יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ--אֶת-הַחֵלֶב, הַמְכַסֶּה עַל-הַקֶּרֶב, וְאֵת כָּל-הַחֵלֶב, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַקֶּרֶב.	8 And all the fat of the bullock of the sin-offering he shall take off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
ט וְאֵת, שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת, וְאֶת-הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַכְּסָלִים; וְאֶת-הַיֹּתֶרֶת, עַל-הַכָּבֵד, עַל-הַכְּלָיוֹת, יְסִירֶנָּה.	9 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys,
י כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם, מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים; וְהִקְטִירָם, הַכֹּהֵן, עַל, מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה.	10 as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar of burnt-offering.
יא וְאֶת-עוֹר הַפָּר וְאֶת-כָּל-בְּשָׂרוֹ, עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל-כְּרָעָיו; וְקִרְבּוֹ, וּפִרְשׁוֹ.	11 But the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung,
יב וְהוֹצִיא אֶת-כָּל-הַפָּר אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל-מָקוֹם טָהוֹר, אֶל-שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן, וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ עַל-עֵצִים, בָּאֵשׁ; עַל-שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן, יִשָּׂרֵף. {פ}	12 even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt.

I wonder what this lobe of the liver means?

טז וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-כָּל-הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַקֶּרֶב, וְאֵת יֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד, וְאֶת-שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת-חֶלְבְּהֶן; וַיַּקְטֵר מֹשֶׁה, הַמִּזְבֵּחָה.	16 And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses made it smoke upon the altar.
יז וְאֶת-הַפָּר וְאֶת-עֹרוֹ, וְאֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ וְאֶת-פִּרְשׁוֹ--שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ, מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה: כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה.	17 But the bullock, and its skin, and its flesh, and its dung, were burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

[Josiah]

Ok, can we get back to my original question? We’re not talking about Dr. Seuss. Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm dismissing your assumption: That IF there's nothing wrong with a book, ergo every Christian for 2000 years MUST regard it as normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God. It's a very flawed premise. Obviously.



.

 

[NathanH83]

in answer to the bolded.
i suppose you werent being specific as to where they were allowed to be burned.

ח וְאֶת-כָּל-חֵלֶב פַּר הַחַטָּאת, יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ--אֶת-הַחֵלֶב, הַמְכַסֶּה עַל-הַקֶּרֶב, וְאֵת כָּל-הַחֵלֶב, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַקֶּרֶב.	8 And all the fat of the bullock of the sin-offering he shall take off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
ט וְאֵת, שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת, וְאֶת-הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַכְּסָלִים; וְאֶת-הַיֹּתֶרֶת, עַל-הַכָּבֵד, עַל-הַכְּלָיוֹת, יְסִירֶנָּה.	9 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys,
י כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם, מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים; וְהִקְטִירָם, הַכֹּהֵן, עַל, מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה.	10 as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar of burnt-offering.
יא וְאֶת-עוֹר הַפָּר וְאֶת-כָּל-בְּשָׂרוֹ, עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל-כְּרָעָיו; וְקִרְבּוֹ, וּפִרְשׁוֹ.	11 But the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung,
יב וְהוֹצִיא אֶת-כָּל-הַפָּר אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל-מָקוֹם טָהוֹר, אֶל-שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן, וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ עַל-עֵצִים, בָּאֵשׁ; עַל-שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן, יִשָּׂרֵף. {פ}	12 even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt.

I wonder what this lobe of the liver means?

טז וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-כָּל-הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַקֶּרֶב, וְאֵת יֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד, וְאֶת-שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת-חֶלְבְּהֶן; וַיַּקְטֵר מֹשֶׁה, הַמִּזְבֵּחָה.	16 And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses made it smoke upon the altar.
יז וְאֶת-הַפָּר וְאֶת-עֹרוֹ, וְאֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ וְאֶת-פִּרְשׁוֹ--שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ, מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה: כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה.	17 But the bullock, and its skin, and its flesh, and its dung, were burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.

What?
Dude, seriously, you didn’t answer anything.

And Speak English.

 

[NathanH83]

I'm dismissing your assumption: That IF there's nothing wrong with a book, ergo every Christian for 2000 years MUST regard it as normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God. It's a very flawed premise. Obviously.



.

If you’re not going to answer my question, then please stop talking. Please stop trolling and changing the subject.

 

[Josiah]

If you’re not going to answer my question, then please stop talking. Please stop trolling and changing the subject.

Your premise is absurd.


Answer this: IF one personally and currently feels there's nothing wrong with a book, what (PRAY TELL) does that prove? Does it prove ergo every Christian for 2000 years must regard that book as the inerrant, divinely-inspired, normative words of God and canonical Scripture? If not, then the whole premise of this thread and of your question is invalid.... and a bit silly.


.

 

[NathanH83]

Your premise is absurd.


Answer this: IF one personally and currently feels there's nothing wrong with a book, what (PRAY TELL) does that prove? Does it prove ergo every Christian for 2000 years must regard that book as the inerrant, divinely-inspired, normative words of God and canonical Scripture? If not, then the whole premise of this thread and of your question is invalid.... and a bit silly.


.

I’m asking you nicely to please stop trolling. Either answer the question or go away. I want to know the answer to my question.

 

[pinacled]

What?
Dude, seriously, you didn’t answer anything.

And Speak English.

[ "Because burning animal organs was never allowed in the Old Testament? "]
The organs were burnt without the camp.
Why did you mention otherwise in the above bracketed?

Leviticus 4
11 And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

Leviticus 8
17 But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the Lord commanded Moses.

 

[pinacled]

Is it because they haven’t found it in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Because it takes place during the 400 silent years between the Testaments?

Because it wasn’t written by a prophet?

Because it’s not referenced in the New Testament?

Because modern medicine disprove its claim that fish guts can dissolve cataracts?

Because it incorrectly says Sennacherib ruled immediately after Shalmanezzer, when it was actually Sargon who ruled 17 years before Sennacherib?

Because burning animal organs was never allowed in the Old Testament?

Because it says that charity covers sins?

I mean, what’s the main problem with it?

In attempt to answer your last question.
I suppose because its similar in style to the wisdom scrolls/scriptures of proverbs, daniel, etc, but there are apparent distinctions that define it as a stand alone peice like enoch.

The hebrew TaNaKh and protestant bibles have no rendering of tobit.
Why.
I do not know.
But from reading them(tobit-enoch) I find a few questionable irregularities that are against or contrary to Torah specifics.

•Burying the slain
•gall/bile used to cure sight.
•and sarah loosing 7 husband's on her wedding night.
•The numerical composition is also very suspect.

 

[pinacled]

The first inconsistency can be found in ch1 vs2

[ which is called properly Nephthali in Galilee above Aser.]

According to the prophet yechezchel(ezekiel) asher is above naphtali geographically.

 

[pinacled]

Below in brackets is another discrepancy compared to Torah.
"Same night" is contrary to Torah.
Reading that later a person paying the husband price to the son after 14 yammin instead of the husband paying a bride price.
[ "Ignore the evil spirit?"]
What?
7 husbands with tobias being the 8th is quite familiar to revelation.
Perhaps tobit is an an occult work if a certain synagogue is involved.!

[ Then the angel said unto him, Dost thou not remember the precepts which thy father gave thee, that thou shouldest marry a wife of thine own kindred? wherefore hear me, O my brother; for she shall be given thee to wife; and make thou no reckoning of the evil spirit; for this same night shall she be given thee in marriage.

6:16 And when thou shalt come into the marriage chamber, thou shalt take the ashes of perfume, and shalt lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish, and shalt make a smoke with it:]

 

[pinacled]

Below in brackets is another discrepancy compared to Torah.
"Same night" is contrary to Torah.
Reading that later a person paying the husband price to the son after 14 yammin instead of the husband paying a bride price.
[ "Ignore the evil spirit?"]
What?
7 husbands with tobias being the 8th is quite familiar to revelation.
Perhaps tobit is an an occult work if a certain synagogue is involved.!

[ Then the angel said unto him, Dost thou not remember the precepts which thy father gave thee, that thou shouldest marry a wife of thine own kindred? wherefore hear me, O my brother; for she shall be given thee to wife; and make thou no reckoning of the evil spirit; for this same night shall she be given thee in marriage.

6:16 And when thou shalt come into the marriage chamber, thou shalt take the ashes of perfume, and shalt lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish, and shalt make a smoke with it:]

Perhaps ole sh'aul is warning that the book of tobit is a work according to ha'satan.
When he spoke of the angel clothed in light and gall.

"Blind lead the blind....:"

 

[NathanH83]

In attempt to answer your last question.
I suppose because its similar in style to the wisdom scrolls/scriptures of proverbs, daniel, etc, but there are apparent distinctions that define it as a stand alone peice like enoch.

The hebrew TaNaKh and protestant bibles have no rendering of tobit.
Why.
I do not know.
But from reading them(tobit-enoch) I find a few questionable irregularities that are against or contrary to Torah specifics.

•Burying the slain
•gall/bile used to cure sight.
•and sarah loosing 7 husband's on her wedding night.
•The numerical composition is also very suspect.

Are you saying that nobody has ever found a Hebrew copy of Tobit?

Are you saying it’s wrong to bury people when they die?

Are you saying gall cannot cure any form of blindness?

Are you saying a woman should not be remarried to her kinsman redeemer?

 

[NathanH83]

[ "Because burning animal organs was never allowed in the Old Testament? "]
The organs were burnt without the camp.
Why did you mention otherwise in the above bracketed?

Leviticus 4
11 And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

Leviticus 8
17 But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Tobit says they burned fish guts. I’ve heard that’s not allowed because that’s witchcraft.

Is it witchcraft? Does the Bible say it’s a sin to burn animal organs?

 

[pinacled]

Tobit says they burned fish guts. I’ve heard that’s not allowed because that’s witchcraft.

Is it witchcraft? Does the Bible say it’s a sin to burn animal organs?

Concern yourself with the Truth instead of seeking the occult

 

[pinacled]

Tobit says they burned fish guts. I’ve heard that’s not allowed because that’s witchcraft.

Is it witchcraft? Does the Bible say it’s a sin to burn animal organs?

already answered your question about the burnt offering.

Why do you persist with questions about the occult?