Why does the book of Revelation say that you can anoint your eyes with medicine to cure blindness?

[NathanH83]

Your comments are both misleading and inaccurate.

First, Melito's list is the earliest list, but Athanasius' list is not. Origen's list has the book of Esther and it is dated ca. A.D. 220-240, and Cyril of Jerusalem list is dated ca. 350 and it also includes Esther.

Second, your claim that Mileto "rejected" Esther cannot be support with any evidence. The fact is we don't know why Esther is missing from his list. For all anyone knows it could have been a simple oversight on Melito's part or perhaps it was Eusebius' oversight who preserved the list.

Perhaps? Those are conjectures.

The fact that Mileto and Athanasius both omitted Esther says to me that they were just going by the beliefs of unbelieving Jews. The blind leading the blind.

I’ve heard that the Jews had some disagreements among themselves whether or not Esther belongs in the Bible.

 

[Origen]

Perhaps? Those are conjectures.

First, Origen was dead somewhere in the neighborhood 40 years before Athanasius was born. So that is no help to you and your claim is clearly false based on that fact alone. Second, unless you have some evidence to overturn those scholars and historians who agree on this matter, I see no reason not to accept their expertise on this matter concerning the dates of Cyril's life and writings.

The fact that Mileto and Athanasius both omitted Esther says to me that they were just going by the beliefs of unbelieving Jews.

Again you have zero evidence for your claim. It pure speculation on your part.

 

[Origen]

Yes, the Old Latin was used by the early church, and it contained Tobit.

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

 

[NathanH83]

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

You’re trying to change the subject by focusing on a technicality. The point I was making is that the early church used the Old Latin. The Old Latin manuscripts that we have (granted 4th century) contain the book of Tobit.

You cannot show any Bible before the 4th century that omitted Tobit. Nor can you show any after the 4th century that omitted Tobit. The only Christian Bibles that omitted Tobit were from 1885 to today.

 

[Origen]

You’re trying to change the subject by focusing on a technicality.

Wrong on both points. I am not trying to change the subject. It was YOU first brought it up not me.

Way back in post 39 you stated:

Both Latin and Greek Bibles have been found from the first four centuries, and they all contained Tobit.

It was only after that I posted anything on this matter.

Then YOU in post 51 stated:

There are copies of Tobit found in the Old Latin, which is older than Jerome’s latin vulgate. The Old Latin is what the early church used (latin speaking churches) for the first 400 years of Christianity.

It was you who first made the claim, and you have made that claim more than once in this thread. It is quite justifiable that I ask for evidence for a claim you made and have made more than once.

Therefore I ask again:
Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

 

[NathanH83]

Wrong on both points. I am not trying to change the subject. It was YOU first brought it up not me.

Way back in post 39 you stated:

It was only after that I posted anything on this matter.

Then YOU in post 51 stated:

It was you who first made the claim, and you have made it more than once. It is quite justifiable that I ask for evidence for a claim you made and have made more than once.

Therefore I ask again:
Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

The question is, can you or anyone show any evidence that Christians had Bibles that omitted Tobit back then?

 

[Origen]

The question is, can you or anyone show any evidence that Christians had Bibles that omitted Tobit back then.

 

[NathanH83]

So let me get this straight.

Tobit doesn’t belong in the Bible, even though it was in every Christian Bible for the first 1800 years of Church history?

 

[Origen]

Tobit doesn’t belong in the Bible, even though it was in every Christian Bible for the first 1800 years of Church history?

I never said it didn't.

I wanted you to support your claim with evidence concerning the Old Latin manuscripts.

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts YOU claim that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

 

[NathanH83]

I never said it didn't.

I wanted you to support your claim with evidence concerning the Old Latin manuscripts.

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts YOU claim that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

So does Tobit belong in the Bible or doesn’t it?

 

[NathanH83]

I never said it didn't.

I wanted you to support your claim with evidence concerning the Old Latin manuscripts.

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts YOU claim that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

What do you mean?

The early churches used either the Greek Septuagint, or Latin translations of the Septuagint, called the Old Latin.

In 400 AD, Jerome made a new translation of the Bible in to Latin. It was called the New Latin, also called the Vulgate. But it was NOT a translation of the Septuagint. It was translated from Hebrew. It was the first time in 400 years that a Latin Christian Bible was translated from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek Septuagint.

Thus, the Old Latin was used by the early church for the first 400 years of Christianity.

Scholars today DO have copies of the Old Latin. And they DO contain Tobit. As to those specific manuscripts and their dates, I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean that what I said is untrue. The early churches WERE using the Old Latin during the first 4 centuries. So I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.

Do you think that the early churches were using something else? If so, what? Explain yourself. What do you mean?

 

[Andrew]

does this say what I think it says? kinda hard to tell with all of the strange spelling and scales over my eyes

 

[Origen]

What do you mean?

I have made it clear more than once.

You stated:

Both Latin and Greek Bibles have been found from the first four centuries, and they all contained Tobit.

You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries.

If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know.

UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the spot. Therefore you would not be able to provide the information because no such information exists.

So in order to know which of those choices is correct.

Therefore provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

 

[Origen]

So does Tobit belong in the Bible or doesn’t it?

Some think it does while others do not. It does not matter what I believe on the matter. What matters is the objective evidence, or in your case the complete lack of objective evidence.

 

[Josiah]

The question is, can you or anyone show any evidence that Christians had Bibles that omitted Tobit back then?

Friend, this is just silly.... it is NOT the responsibility of others to prove your claims to be false, it's your responsibility to prove them to be true. Your immature attempt to turn the tables is just laughable.

That said, folks have done quite a convincing job (over and over) of proving your claims to be fa;se (or at best, pure baseless speculation on your part)


.

 

[Andrew]

I have made it clear more than once.

You stated:

You said these Bible HAVE BEEN FIOUND and that they date from the first four century. Provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

Doesn't change the fact that Tobit was in all Christian Bibles prior to the great bible scalping of the 1800s via the bible societies
So whatever run with it but at least provide us with an alternative theory that disagrees with the fact that Tobit is found in every known Christian bible from the 4th century up to the 19th century, you can't. You will probably just say "I never made such a claim against that, I'm just calling him out on his claim"... if you have no opinion and don't even care then what are you even doing in this thread other than antogozing and instigating through pointless negative criticism toward the OP?

You apparently don't believe that Catholics created the book of Tobit in the 4th century so why don't you just drop the act so we can move on already

 

[Andrew]

Friend, this is just silly.... it is NOT the responsibility of others to prove your claims to be false, it's your responsibility to prove them to be true. Your immature attempt to turn the tables is just laughable.

That said, folks have done quite a convincing job (over and over) of proving your claims to be fa;se (or at best, pure baseless speculation on your part)


.

Its not silly it's "ipso facto", provide an alternative theory that suggest that Tobit wasn't included in the Christian bibles throughout the majority of Christian history.

You can't and you won't and you know it

 

[NathanH83]

I have made it clear more than once.

You stated:

You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries.

If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know.

UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the spot. Therefore you would not be able to provide the information because no such information exists.

So in order to know which of those choices is correct.

Therefore provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

The early church used the Old Latin for the first 4 centuries. Is that not true? If so, then what did they use?

 

[NathanH83]

Friend, this is just silly.... it is NOT the responsibility of others to prove your claims to be false, it's your responsibility to prove them to be true. Your immature attempt to turn the tables is just laughable.

That said, folks have done quite a convincing job (over and over) of proving your claims to be fa;se (or at best, pure baseless speculation on your part)


.

Ok then. Where is the Christian Bible, prior to the 1800’s that omitted the book of Tobit?

 

[NathanH83]

Some think it does while others do not. It does not matter what I believe on the matter. What matters is the objective evidence, or in your case the complete lack of objective evidence.

So you’re kind of like the soccer player who just wants to play offense, but never play defense. You want to score on other people, but when they score on you, you just say, “that wasn’t my goal.”
And when I ask you where your goal is, you refuse to reveal its location, lest somebody score on you.

So you really have no objective here. Your only goal is just to spread negative criticism, while keeping your beliefs unknown lest anyone criticize you.

If you’re not defending this goal, and you’re not defending the other goal either, then get off the field.