+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 100
Latest: Geoff
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 8578
Total Topics: 564
Most Online Today: 351
Most Online Ever: 771
(July 30, 2019, 01:13:39 am)
Users Online
Members: 2
Guests: 347
Total: 349

Author Topic: Tobit  (Read 189 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ and then Research Flat Earth
  • Location: homeless in God's flat earth
  • Referrals: 37
    • Theology Forums
Re: Tobit
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2019, 11:57:30 am »
Some asshole said:

Tobit is part of the authentic Old Testament canon. It is not "apocrypha".
Tobit is accepted as part of the authentic Old Testament canon by Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Traditional Anglicans and Catholics.... ....in other words almost all of Christianity.

Most scholars date the book's composition between 225 and 175 BC.

The Old Testament includes:
The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The First Book of Maccabees, also called 1 Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees, also called 2 Maccabees
The Wisdom of Solomon, also called The Book of Wisdom
The Book of Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus
The Book of Baruch, with the Letter of Jeremiah as its last chapter
(The Book of Daniel and the Book of Esther are longer in Catholic Bibles than in Protestant Bibles because they have more stories.)

By dakk:

Hi CC, fair point, feel free to discuss Tobit and debate your point also, that is, if anyone decides to chime in and disagrees with you. I'm glad to see someone show an interest in the topic and post here in this thread. Thanks for you input.
Some asshole:

Thank you for the respectful response, a rarity these days for me. LOL

You are a Messianic Jew? I guess you can appreciate the fact that Tobit and other books were in the Septuigent before Jesus was even born.

I contend that based on nuances in OT quotes in the Gospels, that the apostles used the Septuigent, and therefore it should be accepted by Christians. (Plus the fact that it was affirmed in early 4th century councils.)
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, the gospel of our salvation, and repenting, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ and then Research Flat Earth
  • Location: homeless in God's flat earth
  • Referrals: 37
    • Theology Forums
Re: Tobit
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2019, 11:58:14 am »
Some asshole said:

Tobit is part of the authentic Old Testament canon. It is not "apocrypha".
Tobit is accepted as part of the authentic Old Testament canon by Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Traditional Anglicans and Catholics.... ....in other words almost all of Christianity.

Most scholars date the book's composition between 225 and 175 BC.

The Old Testament includes:
The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The First Book of Maccabees, also called 1 Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees, also called 2 Maccabees
The Wisdom of Solomon, also called The Book of Wisdom
The Book of Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus
The Book of Baruch, with the Letter of Jeremiah as its last chapter
(The Book of Daniel and the Book of Esther are longer in Catholic Bibles than in Protestant Bibles because they have more stories.)

By dakk:

Hi CC, fair point, feel free to discuss Tobit and debate your point also, that is, if anyone decides to chime in and disagrees with you. I'm glad to see someone show an interest in the topic and post here in this thread. Thanks for you input.
Some asshole:

Thank you for the respectful response, a rarity these days for me. LOL

You are a Messianic Jew? I guess you can appreciate the fact that Tobit and other books were in the Septuigent before Jesus was even born.

I contend that based on nuances in OT quotes in the Gospels, that the apostles used the Septuigent, and therefore it should be accepted by Christians. (Plus the fact that it was affirmed in early 4th century councils.)
By dakk:

I try not to make claims of Jewishness and rather let that be up to the Master to decide. But the reason I posted this thread here in this section was, for one, to try to help get this little section of the forum going, and for two, because most here would likely consider Tobit to be apocrypha: but indeed, if it came down to a debate, I would fall out more in agreement with your position.

However I don't really even look at the writings that way anymore, as far as official canons go, my "canon" includes quite a bit more than the Protestant canon, but I don't view "outside" books as perfect, (for example 1Enoch and 4Ezra, which have later additions, and are more like compilations in their current forms), even though I do study them.

Moreover even books within the current O/T canon, or which are now considered canon by most everyone, have some great discrepancies between the Hebrew and Septuagint texts. The book of Esther is a good example: and I fall out on the side of the Septuagint, there has certainly been some tinkering going on in what we now have as the current form of the Masorete Hebrew Text, (the Masorete pointing system is actually an interpretation of the text, it is a commentary, the greatest commentary ever foisted upon the Hebrew text).

As for the Septuagint no doubt the Apostolic authors quoted either from it or from something that was very, very similar, for many quotes are verbatim. But also no doubt Paul read, understood, and was fluent in, at the very least, Hebrew, probably two or three dialects of Aramaic, (for example Galilean Aramaic was a different dialect), and Greek.

Thus someone like Paul would have been able to read both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint; and I believe this fact comes out in his writings, for there are even places where the N/T authors, (not just Paul), are quietly correcting small matters and details in the Septuagint in some instances. This should be no surprise to anyone, and imo should be expected, since when the LXX was rendered the Messiah had not yet come. However it is my opinion that those who rendered the LXX-Septuagint where much, much closer to the truth in their understanding than the Messiah rejecting Masoretes who edited the Hebrew text, much, much later.
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, the gospel of our salvation, and repenting, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Karma: +1014/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Tobit
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2019, 05:01:20 pm »
Some asshole said:

Tobit is part of the authentic Old Testament canon. It is not "apocrypha".
Tobit is accepted as part of the authentic Old Testament canon by Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Traditional Anglicans and Catholics.... ....in other words almost all of Christianity.

Most scholars date the book's composition between 225 and 175 BC.

The Old Testament includes:
The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The First Book of Maccabees, also called 1 Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees, also called 2 Maccabees
The Wisdom of Solomon, also called The Book of Wisdom
The Book of Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus
The Book of Baruch, with the Letter of Jeremiah as its last chapter
(The Book of Daniel and the Book of Esther are longer in Catholic Bibles than in Protestant Bibles because they have more stories.)

By dakk:

Hi CC, fair point, feel free to discuss Tobit and debate your point also, that is, if anyone decides to chime in and disagrees with you. I'm glad to see someone show an interest in the topic and post here in this thread. Thanks for you input.
Some asshole:

Thank you for the respectful response, a rarity these days for me. LOL

You are a Messianic Jew? I guess you can appreciate the fact that Tobit and other books were in the Septuigent before Jesus was even born.

I contend that based on nuances in OT quotes in the Gospels, that the apostles used the Septuigent, and therefore it should be accepted by Christians. (Plus the fact that it was affirmed in early 4th century councils.)
By dakk:

I try not to make claims of Jewishness and rather let that be up to the Master to decide. But the reason I posted this thread here in this section was, for one, to try to help get this little section of the forum going, and for two, because most here would likely consider Tobit to be apocrypha: but indeed, if it came down to a debate, I would fall out more in agreement with your position.

However I don't really even look at the writings that way anymore, as far as official canons go, my "canon" includes quite a bit more than the Protestant canon, but I don't view "outside" books as perfect, (for example 1Enoch and 4Ezra, which have later additions, and are more like compilations in their current forms), even though I do study them.

Moreover even books within the current O/T canon, or which are now considered canon by most everyone, have some great discrepancies between the Hebrew and Septuagint texts. The book of Esther is a good example: and I fall out on the side of the Septuagint, there has certainly been some tinkering going on in what we now have as the current form of the Masorete Hebrew Text, (the Masorete pointing system is actually an interpretation of the text, it is a commentary, the greatest commentary ever foisted upon the Hebrew text).

As for the Septuagint no doubt the Apostolic authors quoted either from it or from something that was very, very similar, for many quotes are verbatim. But also no doubt Paul read, understood, and was fluent in, at the very least, Hebrew, probably two or three dialects of Aramaic, (for example Galilean Aramaic was a different dialect), and Greek.

Thus someone like Paul would have been able to read both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint; and I believe this fact comes out in his writings, for there are even places where the N/T authors, (not just Paul), are quietly correcting small matters and details in the Septuagint in some instances. This should be no surprise to anyone, and imo should be expected, since when the LXX was rendered the Messiah had not yet come. However it is my opinion that those who rendered the LXX-Septuagint where much, much closer to the truth in their understanding than the Messiah rejecting Masoretes who edited the Hebrew text, much, much later.

PJ.. I look+ at it like this....Since God is the author of the whole book, If he had wanted it available to us as divinely written, then it would be there. Nothing could stop Him from doing this....Nothing or no one......

Look to the Lord....that is what Jesus DID!

Blade
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

+-Recent Topics

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard & Dostoevsky - The Present Age - Jay Dyer by patrick jane
Today at 03:10:34 am

The Possession Project: Gray Magick by patrick jane
Today at 03:09:22 am

APOCRYPHA by patrick jane
Today at 02:13:31 am

What is the difference between being born again and salvation? by Mschmidt54
Today at 12:35:28 am

Your Favorite Music, Images and Memes by MichaelC
December 11, 2019, 08:20:02 pm

Killer Whale Live Streams On YouTube by patrick jane
December 11, 2019, 05:54:19 pm

Christ's Ways by Olde Tymer
December 11, 2019, 08:34:47 am

I Cor. 12 which gifts are for woman who are not allowed to teach men? by Lori Bolinger
December 11, 2019, 07:42:42 am

The Genealogy of Jesus by Geoff
December 11, 2019, 06:08:17 am

A curious, what do you think? by Bladerunner
December 10, 2019, 06:54:48 pm

Cain According To James by Bladerunner
December 10, 2019, 06:41:26 pm

Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
December 10, 2019, 12:21:32 pm

Politics Today by patrick jane
December 10, 2019, 12:21:00 pm

Re: Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
December 10, 2019, 12:20:17 pm

Re: Politics Today by patrick jane
December 10, 2019, 12:20:01 pm

Hello All by patrick jane
December 09, 2019, 11:40:29 pm

Transpocalypse Upon Us by patrick jane
December 09, 2019, 09:41:42 pm

Salvation, Doctrine and Rightly Dividing - MAD by Bladerunner
December 09, 2019, 08:32:09 pm