Look, I am making sport of hypocrisy because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of your arguments. I know that the essence of Scripture is more important than the punctuation. Since I recognize Tobit to be Scripture AND accept the argument that Scripture cannot be errant. Therefore, either science and history are as wrong with respect to Tobit as they are to Judith, Chronicles, Kings and other books, or we have to disregard significant portions of Scripture.
I think your problem is trying to maintain a logical train of thought on these threads.
:)
I get the point you are trying to express but there is no "seemingly arbitrary" nature to our arguments. Plain and simple, the books added to the Old Testament that were NEVER considered canonical by either the Jews NOR the early Christians have quite understandable reasons for being excluded from that Holy consideration. I think to be consistent with what has ALWAYS been regarded as divinely-inspired Holy Scripture, certain "IN-significant portions" of wrongly accounted Scripture SHOULD be disregarded as such. No one's saying you cannot READ them and glean whatever edification you can from them, just accept that they are NOT in the same league as the other canonical books and, because of that, they are not reliable for instructions on doctrine. Now, wasn't that easy? ;o)