Catholic Bible accusation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lady_Kikyo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lady_Kikyo

Guest
I was debating with this protestant who brought something up that I don’t know how to answer as I’m not especially familiar with the Old Testament. This person isn’t basing it on research (that statement is based on the fact that many of his accusations have been garbage, but still). Does anyone know how to respond to this:

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
 
Lady_Kikyo said:
I was debating with this protestant who brought something up that I don’t know how to answer as I’m not especially familiar with the Old Testament. This person isn’t basing it on research (that statement is based on the fact that many of his accusations have been garbage, but still). Does anyone know how to respond to this:

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Click to expand...
Judith is not giving us a history lesson so this does not dectract from its inspiration. St. Mark gets the name of the Chief Priest wrong in his Gospel and actually lists his son as the Chief Priest

Jimmy Akin wrote “Everyone, and certainly every literate Jew of the period, knew which nation Nebuchadnezzar ruled. The reason he is presented as king of Assyria in the very first verse of the book is that the author wants to telegraph to his audience, right from the beginning, that they are not reading ordinary historical writing.”

Of Tobit Jimmy Akin write “If the audience knows that what it is reading is not ordinary historical narrative but one composed partly or wholly out of symbols, it is not deceived; this is the same principle under which the prophetic books of Scripture—which may be composed partly or wholly of symbols—are judged non-deceptive. In their cases, too, the audience knew it was not reading straight historical narrative that was to be taken literally.” He also notes the various mansucript variants that can lead to alleged ‘errors.’

He points out “One concludes therefore, that Tobit—like Judith and the other deuterocanonicals—is no different than the protocanonical books of Scripture in having difficulties that admit of solutions. The question is whether one is willing to find the solutions and accept them when they are presented.”

Btw… What about the two different accounts of the death of Sisera in the book of Judges? In chapter four (verse 21) Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him and yet chapter five (verses 25-27) tells us that Sisera was standing.
 
Lady_Kikyo said:
I was debating with this protestant who brought something up that I don’t know how to answer as I’m not especially familiar with the Old Testament. This person isn’t basing it on research (that statement is based on the fact that many of his accusations have been garbage, but still). Does anyone know how to respond to this:

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Click to expand...
To my mind Tobit was a Jewish yarn, and not much more historical than that. It’s about as historical as Jonah, or Job… It’s not there for historical purposes, but serves an instructional purpose.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
To my mind Tobit was a Jewish yarn, and not much more historical than that. It’s about as historical as Jonah, or Job… It’s not there for historical purposes, but serves an instructional purpose.
Click to expand...
Not sure I would go **that **far…sounds like something from a modern theologian who also denies the True Presence… but that argument wouldn’t placate this person. Nevertheless, a seminarian joined in the debate and called this baptist on the carpet, as did I on another issue he brought up. Funnily enough, he withdrew.
 
I do not mean to hijack your threat, but your description of your “debate” with a protestant brings to mind a conclusion I reached a long time ago.

Have you (or others reading this) noticed that protestants, for whatever reason, simply LOVE to debate the OT, and in particular, OBSCURE OT scriptures???

My wife was a Southern Baptist before she converted, and I went to a number of services with her (not in place of the Mass). Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I estimate that 85% of the services I attended were focused on one or two verses taken from an OT book that had little or no application to ANYTHING remotely related to this day and age.

A lot of people used to refer (and some still do) to some of the older protestant preachers as preaching “fire and brimstone”. Although it sounds a bit amusing at first, when I really considered that connotation and compared it to my own SB-service experience as well as some of these preachers on the TBN channel (mind you - I do NOT spend much time watching that channel; but I do stop every now and then just to see what is going on in their world), I concluded that my percentage estimate was probably very accurate.

They just seem so engaged in talking about how God is going to “smite you”, how God “hates” certain things, how God is going to “punish” you for certain sins, and on, and on, and on, ad nauseum.

I finally gave up and concluded (yes, it is a generality, but so be it - I acknowledge it does not fit ALL protestants) that I have rarely seen these people talk about God’s love and forgiveness, and that their belief in “once saved, always saved” pretty much explains the lack of encouraging people to worry about salvation.

In other words, I find that they talk more about other people (namely Catholics) than they do about themselves, who, it seems, are very much convinced they are on their way to heaven.
 
Lady_Kikyo said:
I was debating with this protestant who brought something up that I don’t know how to answer as I’m not especially familiar with the Old Testament. This person isn’t basing it on research (that statement is based on the fact that many of his accusations have been garbage, but still). Does anyone know how to respond to this:

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Click to expand...
Think: historical fiction.

The message of the book is true, regardless of how the author used historical facts to present the story.
 
The Jeroboam reference seems to be Tobit 1:5. The text does not necessarily say that Tobit was alive when Jeroboam first made his golden calves (around 931 B.C.) but only those golden calves still existed (some two hundred years later) when Tobit was alive.

150 years? My version says that Tobit, the elder, lived 102 years (60 +42, Tobit 14:1, 3) and Tobit, the younger, lived 99 years. (Tobit 14:16)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top