TOBIT -by NathanH83

[Andrew]

Sennacherib WAS Shalmaneser’s son. You can’t fit the 17-year reign of Sargon into a 10 year window between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. Sorry, but the math doesn’t work.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tobit 1:15 states that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser’s son. This is incorrect since he was the son of Sargon II

Compare Matthew 1:6-16 with Luke 3:23-31.
Take that along with what's in TOBIT -by NathanH83
Maybe the incorrectness is in your interpretation.

 

[atpollard]

Sennacherib WAS Shalmaneser’s son.

Sennacherib - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[atpollard]

Compare Matthew 1:6-16 with Luke 3:23-31.
Take that along with what's in TOBIT -by NathanH83
Maybe the incorrectness is in your interpretation.

Except that Sargon II was not even the son of Shalmaneser, so telescoping family lines across a change in dynasty is inappropriate. It would be like describing King Solomon as the son of King Saul and arguing about whether or not David should have been mentioned as the father of Solomon. Saul was NEVER the father of Solomon … so the compressed genealogy of other parts of scripture plays no part in the discussion.

Tobit simply states facts that are not true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tobit simply states facts that are not true.

If the statements are not true then they are not facts, right?

So what is this alleged not true "fact" in Tobit?

 

[NathanH83]

Sennacherib - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Study the Bible. Read 2 Kings 18. Look at the picture I sent. Wikipedia is wrong and contradicts scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

Except that Sargon II was not even the son of Shalmaneser, so telescoping family lines across a change in dynasty is inappropriate. It would be like describing King Solomon as the son of King Saul and arguing about whether or not David should have been mentioned as the father of Solomon. Saul was NEVER the father of Solomon … so the compressed genealogy of other parts of scripture plays no part in the discussion.

Tobit simply states facts that are not true.

The one stating facts that are not true is you, because you believe Wikipedia.

Wikipedia gets it wrong. You can’t fit the 17-year reign of Sargon into the 10-year window between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. The fact you’re even arguing that point shows you haven’t studied 2 Kings 18.

Read 2 Kings 18. Wikipedia got it wrong.

 

[atpollard]

The OP asked my opinion.
I gave my opinion.
Y’all are working hard to convince me that my opinion is wrong.

I suggest that if you are not really interested in opinions, then you should not solicit them.

Read Tobit or don’t read Tobit.
I really could not care less.

 

[NathanH83]

The OP asked my opinion.
I gave my opinion.
Y’all are working hard to convince me that my opinion is wrong.

I suggest that if you are not really interested in opinions, then you should not solicit them.

Read Tobit or don’t read Tobit.
I really could not care less.

You were just giving your opinion?

You said that Tobit states facts that are not true.

Are you mixing up facts and opinions?

 

[NathanH83]

Sure ...

Tobit was written in the 2nd Century BC describing events in Nineveh shortly after 722 B.C. That means that Tobit was not written by Tobit, but by someone living 500 years later. Would you trust a brand new book written by Martin Luther himself in the year 2000?

.

Is that a fact, or just your opinion? They look so similar.

You know, the “experts” say the same thing about Daniel. They say that the book of Daniel could not have been written by Daniel. They say it was written hundreds of years after Daniel, and could not have been written by him.

But I suspect that is just their opinion, not a fact.

They sure do a good job of making their opinion look a lot like a fact though.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Read Tobit or don’t read Tobit.
I really could not care less.

I read Tobit and enjoyed the experience. It's inspiring. It's encouraging. It equips the saints to do good works of every kind. God be praised.

 

[Josiah]

Read Tobit or don’t read Tobit.
I really could not care less.

It seems THAT is the issue for our two friends... they seem to have this unwavering, passionate view that something or someone is forbidding them from reading and using some stuff. And they are really MAD about that! It really seems very consuming. But it seems, no one and nothing is doing that.

Obviously, our two friends CAN buy, read and use the "them" because they have. There goes their point.




.

 

[atpollard]

Are you mixing up facts and opinions?

Let’s see …

Short video

Thoughts?

Sure ...

Tobit was written in the 2nd Century BC describing events in Nineveh shortly after 722 B.C. That means that Tobit was not written by Tobit, but by someone living 500 years later. Would you trust a brand new book written by Martin Luther himself in the year 2000?

Tobit 1:15 states that Sennacherib was Shalmaneser’s son. This is incorrect since he was the son of Sargon II

Tobit implies that he was alive during the reign of Jeroboam I (about 930 B.C.), and at his death he was reported to be 117 years old. The math is off by over a hundred years since he describes events in 722 BC.

Tobit claims that almsgiving alone “will save you from death”. Paul states in Galatians 2:15, that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” In John 3:16, Jesus says that “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” So either Tobit is correct and Jesus and Paul are wrong, or Paul and Jesus are correct and Tobit is wrong. One of them is not inspired by God.

... Those are my thoughts on Tobit.

Nope, no mix up on my part.
I was asked for my thoughts and I gave my thoughts …
… then came the assault to correct my thoughts.

(PS. Sargon II DID have a son, so my “fact” was a fact and the statement in Tobit is an error … and you can STILL read Tobit with my blessings if you want to … and my thoughts about Tobit and the video are STILL my thoughts.)

(PPS. The genealogy error is the least important of my thoughts on Tobit. Even the God-breathed scripture plays literary games with genealogies that are not my ‘cup of tea’.)

 

[atpollard]

I read Tobit and enjoyed the experience. It's inspiring. It's encouraging. It equips the saints to do good works of every kind. God be praised.

Same with “Pilgrim’s Progress” (and it has fewer theological errors).
The difference is that I am not filling forums with diatribes because Pilgrim’s Progress is not included in my Bible.

 

[NathanH83]

Let’s see …





Nope, no mix up on my part.
I was asked for my thoughts and I gave my thoughts …
… then came the assault to correct my thoughts.

(PS. Sargon II DID have a son, so my “fact” was a fact and the statement in Tobit is an error … and you can STILL read Tobit with my blessings if you want to … and my thoughts about Tobit and the video are STILL my thoughts.)

(PPS. The genealogy error is the least important of my thoughts on Tobit. Even the God-breathed scripture plays literary games with genealogies that are not my ‘cup of tea’.)

In your opinion, how do you squeeze the 17-year reign of Sargon into the 10-year window between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib?

It seems to me that this is basic math. No amount of opinions makes this mathematically possible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Same with “Pilgrim’s Progress” (and it has fewer theological errors).
The difference is that I am not filling forums with diatribes because Pilgrim’s Progress is not included in my Bible.

Pilgrim's Progress is a nice work of fiction. Some say Tobit is also a work of God-inspired fiction. But Protestants can do whatever they please with their bibles - printed or electronic.

Catholics will keep the faith that was delivered to them and retain a 73 book canon for sacred scripture.

 

[atpollard]

Catholics will keep the faith that was delivered to them and retain a 73 book canon for sacred scripture.

Some Catholics a few more and some a few less. (RCC, EOC, OOC)

 

[MoreCoffee]

(RCC, EOC, OOC)

EOC is Orthodox, OOC is a different kind of Orthodox.
CC is the Catholic Church whose patriarch (and the pope) is Rome based.

 

[atpollard]

EOC is Orthodox, OOC is a different kind of Orthodox.
CC is the Catholic Church whose patriarch (and the pope) is Rome based.

Are you claiming that the EOC and OOC are not part of the Catholic Church, with Apostolic Succession and traditions as old as those of Rome? You were one church for the first millennium!

My only point is that they are all Catholic, they all include Apocryphal books in their ‘Bibles’ and they each have a slightly different list of Apocryphal books.

All of us (RCC, EOC, OOC, and all Protestants/Baptists) agree on 66 books that appear in ALL OUR BIBLES!
(66/73 makes us “more alike than different”).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are you claiming that the EOC and OOC are not part of the Catholic Church

No. Yet neither of those groups of churches is formally part of the Catholic Church.