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

[NathanH83]

Concern yourself with the Truth instead of seeking the occult

You’re not answering my question.

Tobit says they burned fish guts. People have told me the Bible says not to do that. But Leviticus actually instructs the Levites to burn the organs of a sheep. You call that an occult practice. So you’re saying burning animal organs is an occult practice?

I’m confused as to why you think Leviticus condones occult practices.

 

[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.

Has the book of Tobit never been found in Hebrew or Aramaic, the languages of the Old Testament?

 

[Andrew]

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.



.

Even if an angel of the Lord has a personal name and the whole story is both literal as well as symbolically pointing to literal events to take place? Specifically the events of Christ's atonement?
Ie serpent biting the heel of a faithful servant cleansing himself in the water, an angel of the Lord as man prompts the servant to take on this monstrous serpent and loosen him unto it's belly from the hostile waters, the bait of the sinful serpent overrides the serpent having in its place a harmless fish suffocating and dying and putting out the old beast, the heart of its center is consumed by fire, the toxins passing through its liver are given up all at once and refined through flames, together they fill the temple of the house of the faithful with it's glory and drive out demons as if it were the most fowl stench to them.
The gall holds proclamation of faith to heal and anoint the blind.
The flesh and blood is taken as food.
The "fish" is now a fisher of man, Christians.

Early Christianity used the fish symbol for Christ... coincidence??

Literal? yes, symbolic? yes, obscure? yes

Why else would a demon run away from fish guts unless it knew who it was pointing to... He who is coming soon, He who has the power to cast demons out of the faithful and believing of him, the NAME is why it ran.

Even IF it were that Josiah? Would you still compare it to the cat in the hat?

 

[Origen]

.

 

[Castle Church]

Has the book of Tobit never been found in Hebrew or Aramaic, the languages of the Old Testament?

Yes, in Qumran they found fragments in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Some Christians do include it, including Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[NathanH83]

.

Wow! Good point!

 

[NathanH83]

Yes, in Qumran they found fragments in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Some Christians do include it, including Orthodox and Catholics.

Ah! So it WAS found in Hebrew among the early Jews.
Didn’t someone say earlier that there’s no copies in Hebrew or Aramaic?

 

[Origen]

Wow! Good point!

I know!

 

[pinacled]

You’re not answering my question.

Tobit says they burned fish guts. People have told me the Bible says not to do that. But Leviticus actually instructs the Levites to burn the organs of a sheep. You call that an occult practice. So you’re saying burning animal organs is an occult practice?

I’m confused as to why you think Leviticus condones occult practices.

Specifically only the burning of warmblooded mammalian organs outside the camp is instructed in Torah.

There is no mention of fish or any other class of coldblooded creatures used in any sacrificial way, and for reason enough found with study.
Occultation is the use of similarities to mock The Most High.

The account I read was that the wedding chamber was defiled by such an action by tobias.
A Demon killing 7 husbands on the wedding night of the same woman is very suspect.
I can only suppose the author meant the consumation closure.
Which still leaves the woman having a list of actions before being wed again.
Then there is the lack of clarity concerning The Torah and how the community did nothing accordingly.

 

[pinacled]

Yes, in Qumran they found fragments in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Some Christians do include it, including Orthodox and Catholics.

According to the internet that is known to be errant.

 

[pinacled]

Specifically only the burning of warmblooded mammalian organs outside the camp is instructed in Torah.

There is no mention of fish or any other class of coldblooded creatures used in any sacrificial way, and for reason enough found with study.
Occultation is the use of similarities to mock The Most High.

The account I read was that the wedding chamber was defiled by such an action by tobias.
A Demon killing 7 husbands on the wedding night of the same woman is very suspect.
I can only suppose the author meant the consumation closure.
Which still leaves the woman having a list of actions before being wed again.
Then there is the lack of clarity concerning The Torah and how the community did nothing accordingly.

Then there is the focus on a specific tribe that is strange and has questionable motive.
Unless of course the accounts intentenion is to curse those that curse.
Devarim 27

Shall I continue?

 

[pinacled]

Even if an angel of the Lord has a personal name and the whole story is both literal as well as symbolically pointing to literal events to take place? Specifically the events of Christ's atonement?
Ie serpent biting the heel of a faithful servant cleansing himself in the water, an angel of the Lord as man prompts the servant to take on this monstrous serpent and loosen him unto it's belly from the hostile waters, the bait of the sinful serpent overrides the serpent having in its place a harmless fish suffocating and dying and putting out the old beast, the heart of its center is consumed by fire, the toxins passing through its liver are given up all at once and refined through flames, together they fill the temple of the house of the faithful with it's glory and drive out demons as if it were the most fowl stench to them.
The gall holds proclamation of faith to heal and anoint the blind.
The flesh and blood is taken as food.
The "fish" is now a fisher of man, Christians.

Early Christianity used the fish symbol for Christ... coincidence??

Literal? yes, symbolic? yes, obscure? yes

Why else would a demon run away from fish guts unless it knew who it was pointing to... He who is coming soon, He who has the power to cast demons out of the faithful and believing of him, the NAME is why it ran.

Even IF it were that Josiah? Would you still compare it to the cat in the hat?

The fish considered leviathan while edible is an unclean creature for sacrifice.

 

[NathanH83]

Is the book of Tobit bad because it says charity covers a multitude of sins? Because certainly that’s not found anywhere in the New Testament, is it?

 

[NathanH83]

Is Tobit bad because it says Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser? It should say he’s the son of Sargon, right? Shalmaneser had been dead for 17 years at the time Sennacherib became king. So Tobit is bad because of that, right?

 

[NathanH83]

Is Tobit bad because it wasn’t written by a prophet? Because every other Old Testament book was written by a prophet, right?

 

[NathanH83]

The fish considered leviathan while edible is an unclean creature for sacrifice.

The fish was clean. Tobias ate it. Tobit kept God’s laws while the rest of Israel was abandoning them. He would have trained his son the same.

 

[Josiah]

Even if an angel of the Lord has a personal name and the whole story is both literal as well as symbolically pointing to literal events to take place?

Yes.


I find the whole premise here to be (well, to be blunt) ... silly. It is absurd to argue that if (in some individual's personal and current opinion) a book is without error, then it MUST ergo be the normative, inerrant, divinely-inspired, canonical inscripturated words of God (and all Christians for 2000 years are to be mocked for not officially affirming and declaring that). It's just an absurd premise. Isn't that obvious?


I wouldn't be surprised that if some person went through the Library of Congress (with many millions of different books) you might find a lot more than 66 that in that person's current opinion, contains no errors - "nothing wrong with it." And someone might even find a few thousand books there that in their own opinion symbolically points to some reality. What I find absurd is the argument that THEREFORE, all those books MUST be the normative, inerrant, divinely-inspired, canonical inscripturated words of God (and all Christians for 2000 years are to be mocked for not officially affirming and declaring that).




.

 

[pinacled]

Is the book of Tobit bad because it says charity covers a multitude of sins? Because certainly that’s not found anywhere in the New Testament, is it?

Please cite where in tobit that charity covers....!

Proverbs 10:12
1 Peter 4:8

 

[NathanH83]

Please cite where in tobit that charity covers....!

Proverbs 10:12
1 Peter 4:8

Well, Tobit says that almsgiving purges sin.
Charity is almsgiving.

But the New Testament would never say that, right?

 

[pinacled]

Well, Tobit says that almsgiving purges sin.
Charity is almsgiving.

But the New Testament would never say that, right?

I couldn't find anything about "purges sin".




Tobit
[4:7 Give alms of thy substance; and when thou givest alms, let not thine eye be envious, neither turn thy face from any poor, and the face of God shall not be turned away from thee.

4:8 If thou hast abundance give alms accordingly: if thou have but a little, be not afraid to give according to that little:

4:9 For thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.

4:10 Because that alms do deliver from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness.

4:11 For alms is a good gift unto all that give it in the sight of the most High.]