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

[Andrew]

False. We have none that predate the 4th century A.D.


Also false. We have no Greek manuscripts of Tobit that predate the 4th century A.D.


Which means, given your comments above, you have no objective evidence.


That is not how a codex was made. They did not use scrolls.

The oldest Bible in the world is Codex Sinaiticus and it dates to the 4th century A.D.

Codex Sinaiticus | Earliest Known Biblical Manuscript | Britannica

Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest known manuscript of the Christian Bible, compiled in the 4th century ce. In 1844, 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex (a collection of single pages bound together along one side) were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai (hence the

www.britannica.com

If book B was copied from book A and book A is no longer around, doesn't book B have what book A originally had?

Tobit was still in all Christian bibles no matter which date you choose, ie 4th Century, it doesn't change the fact

 

[Origen]

Tobit was still in all Christian bibles no matter which date you choose, it doesn't change the fact

It is not what I say but what the objective evidence supports or does not support. There are no Greek manuscripts for Tobit before the 4th century A.D.

 

[Josiah]

All Christian Bibles did include Tobit, why does that frustrate you so much?

Andrew...


Consider these 5 points, my brother...


1. Nathan does NOT insist that there be a universal law in every country mandating that every tome with "BIBLE" appearing on the cover MUST include the Book of Tobit. He insists that such MUST include ALL the books listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (1563), he stated ( FINALLY - it took over a year before he'd identify WHAT books he was talking about) and that this was all and only the books contained in the original Anglican KJV Bible of 1611 - which of course is the books of Article 6 of the 39 Articles. That Article has never been ripped out, never been modified, not a word of it (or a book mentioned in it) has changed since 1563.


2. Again, yet again, still one more time, just because something appears (or doesn't appear) in a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover produced by some publishing house has no relevance to what is and is not the inerrant, fully/equally canonical, inscripturated words of God.... what it means is that the publishing house decided they could sell enough of those tomes to make a profit (the goal of most businesses). Today, customers often want maps, concordances, cross-references, etc. so guess why some publishing houses put those in Bibles? Today, customers aren't too interested in paying for Psalm 154 or 4 Maccabees to be in their products, so guess why some publishing houses don't put those in their products? But IF Nathan actually WANTED a tome that included all the books of Article 6 of the 1563 Anglican 39 Articles (and only those) he can EASILY buy that. It's been available since 1563. It still is. No one ripped anything out of any book he has (unless Nathan has)... he just chose to NOT buy a tome that had those books (and only those) in it. It's as simple as that.


3. It COULD be that his pastor forbids members of the church from reading the books listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England... and that the church once had Bibles with all those (and only those) books in them but Nathan's pastor ripped a bunch of books from them and then put them back in the pews. Could be. But then Nathan's problem is with his pastor, not anyone here or with Christianity. If he wants a Bible WITH all those books (and only those - no maps, no notes, no articles) it's EASILY available. Leather bound, hard cover or paperback. With Amazon prime, he could have it tomorrow, he doesn't even need to leave him home. He CAN. Anyone CAN. He persistently ignores this reality.


4. While Nathan rants (on and on and on and on) about "all Bibles" and "all Christians" the ECF's, 3 little obscure Western meeting around 400 AD, he is WRONG that all of them had the Books listed in Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles of 1563 - the books he says must be in all Bibles that publishing houses market. NO Bible before 1563 had that set. NO Chruch Father embraced that specific set. NO obscure little meeting of Catholicism or Orthodoxy ever spoke of that list. He's speaking of ONE individual denomination since 1563 - NO OTHER denomination agrees with it or EVER has.


5. Our friend seems to not know the difference between canonical and non-canonical, between books supplied in a tome because they are normative, because they are viewed as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God.... and stuff viewed as HELPFUL but NOT inerrant, NOT canonical, NOT inspired. About HALF of the stuff in the tome I typically use is NOT Scripture but helpful stuff. There is no law (at least in the USA) that forbids publishing houses from including such stuff....and more to the point, that forbids publishing houses from putting that stuff in their products.



Blessings


Josiah





.

 

[NathanH83]

False. We have none that predate the 4th century A.D.


Also false. We have no Greek manuscripts of Tobit that predate the 4th century A.D.


Which means, given your comments above, you have no objective evidence.


That is not how a codex was made. They did not use scrolls.

The oldest Bible in the world is Codex Sinaiticus and it dates to the 4th century A.D.

Codex Sinaiticus | Earliest Known Biblical Manuscript | Britannica

Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest known manuscript of the Christian Bible, compiled in the 4th century ce. In 1844, 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex (a collection of single pages bound together along one side) were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai (hence the

www.britannica.com

And your point is?

Every Christian Bible that we know about in the history of the Christian faith has included the book of Tobit. Even all the Protestant Bibles from the Reformation.

The late 1800’s is the first time Bibles started to be printed without Tobit.

You can’t show any Christian Bible in history past that didn’t have Tobit. You can’t show any Bibles from the first 4 centuries that didn’t have Tobit.

But every Greek and Latin Bible that dates back to around the 4th and 5th centuries, they all have Tobit.

 

[NathanH83]

It is not what I say but what the objective evidence supports or does not support. There are no Greek manuscripts for Tobit before the 4th century A.D.

That’s right: there’s no Greek manuscripts of Tobit prior to the 4th century. Just Hebrew and Aramaic ones that date back to before the time of Christ.

 

[NathanH83]

If book B was copied from book A and book A is no longer around, doesn't book B have what book A originally had?

Tobit was still in all Christian bibles no matter which date you choose, ie 4th Century, it doesn't change the fact

There’s no copies of Bibles that existed before the 4th century. Therefore Christians didn’t read the Bible before the 4th century, since we don’t have any evidence of it. Thus, they didn’t read the Bible.

Yes, all three of the oldest copies of the Septuagint contain Tobit. But since they don’t pre-date the 4th century, then this is proof that the book of Tobit was ADDED in the 4th century, and didn’t exist in the Bible prior to the 4th century…. Even though we have Hebrew and Aramaic copies of Tobit from before the time of Christ….but pay no attention to that.

 

[Origen]

That’s right: there’s no Greek manuscripts of Tobit prior to the 4th century.

I was addressing your original claim in post 39.
You stated:

Both Latin and Greek Bibles have been found from the first four centuries

NOW you have admitted your claim is wrong. And by the way there are no Latin manuscripts of Tobit that date that early. Also we have no Bibles (i.e. codices) before the 4th century A.D.

Just Hebrew and Aramaic ones that date back to before the time of Christ.

No, we have only a few fragments and that's all. There are 4 Aramaic fragments groups and 1 Hebrew fragment groups. We have nothing close to a whole manuscript.

 

[Origen]

And your point is?

My point is to show your claims are false and cannot be verified with objective evidence.

 

[Origen]

Therefore Christians didn’t read the Bible before the 4th century, since we don’t have any evidence of it. Thus, they didn’t read the Bible.

No one made that claim. That is nothing more than a strawman argument you must resort to in order draw attention away from your errors concerning the Greek text of Tobit.

 

[NathanH83]

I realize you are ALREADY abandoning your position on what is and is not to be legally required to be in every tome with BIBLE written on the cover. After a YEAR of asking you - MANY TIMES - always evaded, ignored, dodged... you finally said the ones in the Anglican KJB of 1611, which are the books listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England in 1563 AND NOWHERE ELSE and NEVER BEFORE. And as we all know, that's a lot more than just the book of Tobit. Is the Prayer of Manassah in EVERY tome found from 33 AD? Is it listed by every Early Church Father? By the Council of Hippo and Rome? In the Geneva Bible? Who went into every parish, gathered up the pew Bibles and ripped out that book that you said should be in every Bible? You said the books that were in the KJV of 1611 are the books you embrace.... not JUST Tobit. Funny how you can't agree with any, not even yourself. It took over a YEAR to pin you down as to WHAT books you are talking about and within minutes. you abandoned your own position.




.

This particular thread is about how Revelation mentions an eye salve that can cure certain types of blindness, something that is also found in Tobit.

So, I’ve mainly only been focusing in this thread how the book of Tobit is in every single Christian Bible since the founding of the church until the 1800’s when printing houses stopped including it.

That doesn’t mean that I’ve abandoned my view that Maccabees and Judith probably belong as well.

So you can stop ACCUSING me of abandoning some previous belief.

By the way, why do you have to sound so accusatory, anyway? Why are you so full of hateful and accusatory remarks? Why is there no love, no humility, and no grace in your speech? Why is it nothing but false accusations and insults? Why is there nothing but anger spewing out of your comments?

 

[NathanH83]

I was addressing your original claim in post 39.
You stated:

NOW you have admitted your claim is wrong. And by the way there are no Latin manuscripts of Tobit that date that early. Also we have no Bibles (i.e. codices) before the 4th century A.D.


No, we have only a few fragments and that's all. There are 4 Aramaic fragments groups and 1 Hebrew fragment groups. We have nothing close to a whole manuscript.

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. The Old Latin was translated from the Septuagint.

I honestly don’t know whether what I said is wrong. You say it’s wrong, but how do I know you’re right? For all I know, there might be at least something found in Greek or Latin prior to the 4th century. I’d rather look into it myself rather than just take your word for it.

Why are you so focused on proving me wrong anyway? Is your main goal in life just to throw rocks at people and bash them in the face and prove them wrong? Is that what brings you pleasure? That sounds pretty hateful, not loving.

Not like it matters anyway.
My original point was that there is no Christian Bible prior to the 1800’s that has omitted the book of Tobit. You cannot show ONE.

That’s significant to me, because the story of Tobit is amazing. I absolutely love this story. And to think that every Christian Bible (that we know about) included Tobit, that speaks volumes.

Also, the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls may just be fragments, but it proves that the Jews had Hebrew copies of Tobit before the time of Christ. The fragments are all that’s left, yea. But those fragments were obviously whole scrolls at one time.

Why have the Jews not preserved Tobit in Hebrew or Aramaic? Why have they abandoned it while the Christian church continued to embrace it a whole 1800 years into the future (many Christian churches still embracing it).

You make the point that we have no Greek or Latin Bible pre-dating the 4th century. Then you arrogantly gloat like you just scored a goal on me or something.

But your point is moot. Because you cannot show a Christian Bible prior to the 4th century that OMITTED the book of Tobit. That was the entire point I was making in the first place.

The ONLY time the book of Tobit was OMITTED from ANY Christian Bible at any point in time in history THAT WE KNOW OF, is in the late 1800’s.

 

[NathanH83]

…and the first four Christian centuries (there was no “Bible”).

This is the claim that was made.

The Christians had no Bible for the first 4 centuries?

What? Because no manuscripts can be found today that pre-date the 4th century, that automatically means that the Christians didn’t have the Bible for the first 4 centuries?

Give me a break.

 

[NathanH83]

Where is the Christian Bible prior to 1885 that does not include the book of Tobit?

 

[Andrew]

Where is the Christian Bible prior to 1885 that does not include the book of Tobit?

No such Bible existed before 1885 that didn't include Tobit

 

[NathanH83]

No such Bible existed before 1885 that didn't include Tobit

So Tobit was in every Christian Bible for the first 1800 years of Christianity.

But it’s “just apocrypha”?

 

[Andrew]

So Tobit was in every Christian Bible for the first 1800 years of Christianity.

But it’s “just apocrypha”?

Yeah and even though "apocrypha" books mention the crucifixion, the resurrection, the seven angels, charity towards all mankind, expelling demons, healing the blind.. you know, stuff that only appears to hit the mark and allude to the NT... they were totally uninspired even though they were in our Holy Bible for the majority of Christian history.

Best to reject the book of Tobit so that the 19th century Bible Society can press more bibles, maybe we will reach the Sentinel Island or even North Korea if we rip out more books!

 

[NathanH83]

Yeah and even though "apocrypha" books mention the crucifixion, the resurrection, the seven angels, charity towards all mankind, expelling demons, healing the blind.. you know, stuff that only appears to hit the mark and allude to the NT... they were totally uninspired even though they were in our Holy Bible for the majority of Christian history.

Best to reject the book of Tobit so that the 19th century Bible Society can press more bibles, maybe we will reach the Sentinel Island or even North Korea if we rip out more books!

Good idea!!
Mileto and Athanasius rejected the wonderful story of Esther. And those are the EARLIEST lists!

Let’s take them out and increase the profit margins for Bible printers!

 

[Origen]

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.

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

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

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

I honestly don’t know whether what I said is wrong.

So you admit you made claims for which you have zero evidence.

I’d rather look into it myself rather than just take your word for it.

I wholeheartedly agree. Please do.

Why are you so focused on proving me wrong anyway? Is your main goal in life just to throw rocks at people and bash them in the face and prove them wrong? Is that what brings you pleasure? That sounds pretty hateful, not loving.

First, it is not my focuse.

Second, I have not bashed you but merely pointed out the errors in your claims.

Third, in my opinion it is "pretty hateful" to provide misleading and demonstrably false information to the body of Christ. Christians are called to higher standard.

Also, the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls may just be fragments, but it proves that the Jews had Hebrew copies of Tobit before the time of Christ. The fragments are all that’s left, yea. But those fragments were obviously whole scrolls at one time.

I never claimed otherwise so your point is irrelevant.
Again I was addressing this claim:

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

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

You make the point that we have no Greek or Latin Bible pre-dating the 4th century. Then you arrogantly gloat like you just scored a goal on me or something.

There was and is no gloating. I have absolutely no interest in gloating. That is your erroneous perception of the situation.

But your point is moot. Because you cannot show a Christian Bible prior to the 4th century that OMITTED the book of Tobit. That was the entire point I was making in the first place.

Since I, unlike you, made no such claim I have obligation to provide one. The fact is you have no evidence.

 

[Origen]

Mileto and Athanasius rejected the wonderful story of Esther. And those are the EARLIEST lists!

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.

 

[NathanH83]

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

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


So you admit you made claims for which you have zero evidence.


I wholeheartedly agree. Please do.


First, it is not my focuse.

Second, I have not bashed you but merely pointed out the errors in your claims.

Third, in my opinion it is "pretty hateful" to provide misleading and demonstrably false information to the body of Christ. Christians are called to higher standard.


I never claimed otherwise so your point is irrelevant.
Again I was addressing this claim:

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


There was and is no gloating. I have absolutely no interest in gloating. That is your erroneous perception of the situation.


Since I, unlike you, made no such claim I have obligation to provide one. The fact is you have no evidence.

The point I was making was that every Christian Bible before the 1800’s contained the book of Tobit. And you cannot show a single example of a Christian Bible from the beginning of the church until 1885 that did not include Tobit.

Yes, the Old Latin was used by the early church, and it contained Tobit. Jerome wanted to take it out, and the church wouldn’t let him.

Doesn’t that say something?