or it could be the written testimony of eye witnesses that obviously is debatable so faith is required or at the least being convinced of the account of the witness isn't written testimony accepted in courts?
Only if both parties had an opportunity to examine the witness, like in a deposition. Written statements that cannot be subjected to cross-examination aren't usually admissible unless they fit narrow exceptions.
then it is written testimony that cannot be used in a deposition. so it would have to be used and believed in a different way, much like the testimony given in the Declaration of Independence concerning the King of Great Britain- "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: " etc. Probably alot of Englishmen both in the colonies and in Great Britain who did not have faith in this testimony.
You've switched from evidence in the legal sense to evidence in the historical sense? The only problem here is that historians usually have multiple written accounts that they rely on to determine the accuracy of a document alleging historical facts, like your example of the Declaration of Independence. The Bible really isn't externally verifiable. Attempts have been made, but can those attempts be reasonably compared to history overall as a discipline?
Rhester, It would be hard to prove that the Bible's written accounts were true, as they were not recorded right away, and in many cases were written decades after the fact. Whereas what you are trying to compare it to is well documented history....not gonna work. The Bible as history does not hold up. DD
I think you mean that the written accounts are copies made of the original documents written by the actual witnesses. The point was simple. A written testimony is only as valid as you are willing to agree with the author. I was stating that the bible is a historical document and so is the declaration of independence. What is asserted must be believed or rejected for reasons other than cross examination because none of us witnessed the events ourselves or have access to the authors. You and I don't really know how bad the King of Great Britain really was, we have placed our faith in the written testimony of the founding fathers of the colonies and generally speaking agreed with their account. There are contradictory writings concerning the rebellion in the colonies at that time. So there is written testimony on both sides of American Revolution issue.
I hate hearing people continuously re-state like a bunch of sheep that "religion is the reason for all wars" or whatever along those lines. While it might be the excuse for many wars - all religious wars are carried out by people who are in fact NOT following the religion they stand for. I am all for the ideals of loving your neighbor, not judging others, and doing "good" things - not persecuting others because they don't share my beliefs.
Not trying to prove up what the NT asserts..but we discovery with some frequency that facts asserted in the Bible which were presumed to be untrue because of lack of evidence otherwise were in fact true when we find some relic. I can think of 2 specific instances in the recent past of this. I posted at least one of them in this forum. Again...that doesn't go to the underlying issue of proving up whether the resurrection happened or not...whether Jesus was who he said he was...whether the miracle stories were real. etc. But the Bible has proven itself to be reliable as a historical document.
Actually, the historical accuracy of the Bible is a very debatable subject (both for and against). The bible holds up to more litmus tests for historical accuracy than any other ancient document. I find it interesting that the Bible, being a "religious" book, is treated differently than other historically "accepted" texts. I guess an assumption is made that it must be biased since it is religious. Thus it requires more external "proof." In other words, the Bible is inaccurate until evidence shows it is, versus other documents accepted as accurate until evidence surfaces to show they are not. Some of the areas that give the Bible a strong case for historical accuracy: -Archaelogy has proven that, over time, several references to people, places, and events (that were thought to be biblical myth), did in fact occur/exist. This was a big one for me. Nothing quite like archaelogical proof of events/places. -Extra-biblical writings and tablets found describing many of the people (including Jesus) and events of the Bible. I believe it was Josephus' writings (he was not a follower of Jesus) that talked about Jesus being a "sorcerer" that could perform magical feats (not quoting directly, but something like that). As for the period of time between occurrance and record....there's evidence that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written earlier than originally suspected. But even if they weren't, look at other historical accounts/writings by comparison. The aforementioned gospels are supposedly within 30 or so years of Jesus' death (this is debated, of course). Compared to say, the biographies of Alexander the Great, which were written approx. 400 years after his death, but considered accurate and reliable. I'm no biblical scholar by any stretch. I've gotten into mild debates about this in the past, and one can argue and argue till the cows come home for either side. I don't want to engage in that. There's plenty of evidence out there if you really look for yourself. One could say that there is evidence for both sides, and I would agree. Confusion can be a good thing when it serves to urge one to seek truth I suppose. But the most important evidence is personal experience. It wasn't until I was 30 that my personal experience happened. But it did happen, and then all of this "I need proof" stuff melted away. I had proof....just not in the way I had expected it to come. Faith. Everyone has faith in something. Faith that my alarm clock will go off in the morning, faith that I'll close that big sale, faith my car will start when I crank the key, faith in our friends and family......etc. etc. We live with it every day. It's easy to "believe in" stuff we can see, smell, touch. Is that really even faith at all? Great thread. Keep it going. Peace, love and corn nuts......
The point was again, a written testimony should not be brushed off as hear say, written testimony should be proven to be hear say; it must be discredited at the point of the testimony. You used the word- hearsay I was responding to that. The copies of manuscript from which the bible is compiled are scientifically verifiable historical documents. There are several copies with varying dates of many of the bible texts. As far as the copies being authentic written testimony depends on numerous factors. I wasn't trying to prove they are perfectly accurate and reliable, I was stating that they are testimonies by many different people about certain historical events and shouldn't be termed hearsay without backing up that kind of statement.
If there was hard proof it wouldn't be faith. This is something I was getting at in the other thread about religion is that as humans aware of our mortality there are certain things that we will always wonder about yet never really be able to find an empiracal answer too. The acceptance of a religious belief is largely one that is accepted not because it is proven with physical evidene but one that is accepted because there is something spiritually satisfying about it. The problem with saying that it has to be proven is that we are dealing with the realm of things that can never be proven in the scientific sense that we can think of. In regard to the matter of having faith in things that aren't tangible that extends to plenty of things outside of religion. Currency is a medium of value is only accepted as a matter of faith in our economy and government. If we all just decided tomorrow that we wouldn't accept US dollars the dollar would be worthless. Its only that we give a value to it and accept on faith that that value will be recognized. So if the acceptance of any religious belief on faith is much like currency that the believers accept value in it even if there really isn't anything tangible to it.
There actually is physical proof of Dark Matter. Just because we don't know what it is exactly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Genghis Khan didn't fight religious wars and while he believed in the natural based Mongolian deities didn't seek to convert other people. In fact the Mongols were quite tolerant of other religions and many Mongols ended up become Buddhist, Muslims and even Christians. Only an idiot would think Genghis Khan fought religious wars.
Good post! I actually trust the bible more than I do our currency. I have read that the value of paper with ink in it is about $0.02 per note. So I have alot of faith in the trading of currency except that as creditors stop buying up debt and people get nervous about the strength of the US economy foreign investment and currency trades start making me nervous, right now it seems the oil people are particularly nervous about trading in $$$ and for that we are watching an unprecedented deflation of the dollar with respect to the purchase of a barrel of oil. I am going to hold on to my bible faith since the currency faith isn't as strong as it once was.
"Somebody showed me a letter from the president of a large seminary who is raising money to help him train leaders who will defend Christianity. The letter went on and on about the desperate need for the defense of the true faith. What disturbed me was the defensive posture ofthe letter which reflects one of the things that happens in a brick world; you spend a lot of time talking about how right you are. Which of course leads to how wrong everybody else is. Which then leads to defending the wall. It struck me regarding the letter that you rarely defend a trampoline. You invite people to jump with you. I am far more interested in jumping than I am in arguing about whose trampoline is better. You rarely defend the things you love. You enjoy them and tell others about them and invite others to enjoy them with you. Have you ever seen someone pull a photo out of their wallet and argue about the supremacy of a particular loved one? Of course not. They show you the picture and give you the opportunity to see what they see. " Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis
What part of the Bible are you talking about? There are large stretches of the Bible that aren't seeking to offer up anything to be proven. You'd have to grasp what the purpose is of each author to find out which books specifically would even be open to that sort of analysis.
frustrating to me, because these are the people i know...these are the people i go to church with...that i share life with. and it's apparently very foreign to to many of you. so instead we end up with threads like that where it's all couched in terms like, "evil."
