ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

How to gain truth from a document 3: Ancient writings, what are they good for? Specifically the Bible and Original sin.

Updated on October 16, 2014

By science impossible to prove. By humans, more probable than not.

Glory and Beauty and Love and Grace and Joy and and and are not proveable by scientific methods. But in the cours of human affairs they are. Thank goodness scientists are not judges.
Glory and Beauty and Love and Grace and Joy and and and are not proveable by scientific methods. But in the cours of human affairs they are. Thank goodness scientists are not judges. | Source

Even what we do not like gives evidence of something else.

Sordid histories and tie ins with historical landmark events and even passionate discussion of a document and challenges to it’s authorship, lend credence to a writing, work of art or book. Say an artwork that was stolen by Hitler and hung in his office. That is just horrible and a travesty, but as to that paintings’ cataloging and authenticity it would be above the norm. Because of such events we would have a better history of that painting. A fire in Boston where a painting was water damages and smoke damaged, a colorful history lends credence to its’ provenance.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted therein, that type of evidence is excluded by reason. One huge exception to this rule excluding evidence is “not offered to prove the truth of a statement, but rather the authors’ state of mind” and another one is “not offered to prove the truth of a statement but simply to prove it was in fact written” and existed.

Science can only partially explain the creation of the Grand Canyon. But hike 20 miles into it and the vastnes removes all doubt.

And when I read man's best explanation and then I experience the matter first hand, I have pity on man.
And when I read man's best explanation and then I experience the matter first hand, I have pity on man. | Source

Can you see it?

Do you gather proof from the ancient writings

See results

The proof is in the pudding

So in the realm of proof, a wild long consistent and sometimes inconsistent story of a writing, lends credence to the matters contained thereby, not necessarily therein. The Bible proves the existence, in people’s mind of Christ and God. It proves the Bible was written long ago. It proves that it was an important enough of a writing that wars were fought over it’s meaning and that many were martyred for holding it sacred.

So let us take a particular concept trying to be proven by the bible. Let us take original sin. Here is a good discussion of the matter; http://vveasey.hubpages.com/hub/A-Very-Different-Look-At-The-Original-Sin#comment-10752630 What the author and commentators are trying to do is to use particular phrases in the Bible to prove the existence of that fact. That is a no, no as far as evidence of something is concerned. It is a clear case of hearsay. But WOW what a treasure trove of other evidence the Bible is to us all, believers and non-believers and even Truthers.

Of Course we must doubt what we can not empircally determine. But it stops there when the proof is in a more important place.

In this context it proves without doubt that there is a concept of original sin. Our reaction and interpretation may vary but the concept is real and has old historical roots. It proves that without a doubt people of the time were talking and writing about God. The writing compared to the literacy of the day is exemplary. The fact that it fully encompasses two languages of the time is amazing (and probably 3-4). The fact that alleged authors or those quoted have references to their existence elsewhere in proof is compelling. The clear indication of perspective slanting a view as in Mathew, Mark Luke and John is very trustworthy. (ever gone to a slideshow by husband and wife that just got back from vacation – whoa, perspective is everything, now that might not prove what they assert but for sure that they were both there.) The lack of spontaneous and recorded objection to the writings lends one to conclude that either antagonists were sleeping for a few centuries or there was nothing factual to object to – I must assume the latter.

So modern rules of evidence allow for a most compelling argument that our Bible is authentic. The test normally given in modern jurisprudence on matters not criminal is “more likely than not” or “more probable than not” Jurors(triers of fact and truth) are admonished fairly that it really is not a test of certainty but rather like a 51-49% test. Which proof carries the most weight, carries the day. They are also reminded that matters of human affairs are normally not subject to absolute right and wrongs or black and white. So if we put the bible in a scientific laboratory it falls short of being a law. But if we place it in a place where thousands of years of experience and finding the truth comes to bear upon a question most certainly the Holy Bible carries the day as more likely than not authentic.

The louder the voice of obstruction the more convinced I become.

Let not my weary mind lose conviction that the truth is to be found not only in logic but in the very conviction of man

Open up our eyes so we can see!

As to truth not proof, leave the beaker and the scope where it lay. I do not seek an empirical truth but rather one higher than that.

As to the truth of the matters asserted therein. That is unfair because a jury made up of 12 from the world would tell you (probably a 7-5 split) that the Holy Bible is telling the truth.

Now to the original point of Original Sin that vveasy brought up in his hub. Christian have argued over this point for two millennium. In fact all mankind has grappled with the issue. There was a great teacher that healed a man. He said to the man “your sins are forgiven” and the crippled man gathered his things and for the first time walked away. The lawyers of the day question the great teacher – “who the hell are you to forgive sins?”. The reply was to the effect, “what difference is it if I say ‘your sins are forgiven’ or if I say ‘you are healed gather your things and walk away’? Original sin is quite similar. What difference does it make if I say “a newborn’s sin are covered by Christ” or I say “my newborn son has no sin” It is so cool. Man and Man’s ego is out of the equation. His love is added thereto and we result in the same truth from different directions and who cares.

I would hope there are agnostics and atheists out there that rejoice in the fact that my son is born free of sin. There are a whole bunch of Evangelists out there that wholly/Holy agree. As for me an mine I like the being covered by Jesus. I think Love trumps sin.

And to wrap up on the evidence factor. Science has a great place in determining truth. A fingerprint or carbon dating do not lie. But science is not the arena to determine the hearts of men. No science can prove motive or faith yet both exist. No science can prove love or faithfulness and yet they both exist. And I am sorry but science can neither prove of disprove, Love, envy, hate, joy or coveting but I would die swearing they exist. So leave the world of scientific proof to the laboratory. When judging a conviction look inside not outside.

This is not an ancient writing

This article was written by Eric Dierker. I reserve all rights to this article and desire no duplication without attribution. On the other hand feel free to share the content just let folks know where it came from. Copying it and claiming it as your own would be stupid and subject you to my legal harassment of you. Besides if someone asked you what it meant you would not know so yes it is copyright protected as original work by me. Just leave a comment to ask to use it elsewhere and please share it.

To read more by this fascinating author visit www.thedierkerblog.com, Eric Dierker on Facebook and Pinterest and my sweet blog resipsaloquitor on google blogs.

OK I admit it, I need more publicity. If you steal this content please let me know so I can make a big deal out of it and get some press time.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • mio cid profile image

      mio cid 4 years ago from Uruguay

      there is a nondenominational church by a highway i sometimes drive by and they have a big board where every week they post something and i really look forward to reading what they post that particular week , it is such a good feeling to do so .

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Mio Cid, how would you like it if I told you because of my mathematical formulas, I can prove that feeling does not exist? You do not feel the same way I do, but you feel and it is real.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

      "I would hope there are agnostics and atheists out there that rejoice in the fact that my son is born free of sin." Interesting articles but I don't believe there is such a person out there in existence who is an atheist who would rejoice or care that you think you had a son born free of sin. That's like someone asking if you are happy that their aren't fairies trying to stab them in the eyes anymore....

      Atheists don't believe in the concept of sin. Sin is a concept unique to religion and doesn't exist in reality. Only in religion does this concept have any sort of meaning. What is sin? Sin, depending on who you ask, is an act that violates God's will.... so how is it someone can be born a sinner, until a person makes decisions based on their own accord they cannot be held accountable for their actions, it is why parents are usually held responsible when a child does something illegal, because he wasn't taught what the rules on these matters were. Once a person turns eighteen they are usually considered a legal adult. Of course you know this better than I do and of course you know about the exceptions to these rules. As we all do.

      The concept of original sin comes into play which again is a solely religious concept (mostly Christian).

      As you should know, in a court of law, if someone believes something by faith, that does not deem it truth. The document of the Bible is one that can only be believed to be truth solely on faith, it was written by various people, for reasons purely on faith and beliefs in the supernatural, these beliefs are mostly based on the ignorance of scientific discovered reality. It's like looking at a tornado and calling it the finger of God and really thinking it is the finger of God. Or thinking that your God is swallowing the sun during a solar eclipse and then yelling at him to spit it out and when the sun reappears you will believe that your God was listening to you.... of course that is without the knowledge of what is actually taking place.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      My friend you are right. Love is not measurable or quantifiable. Jesus is love and therefor not scientifically provable. But I believe. I love Christ. Can you disprove that?

      As for documents and the relevance: sit back and take a lesson from a master. Your arguments are sophoric and do not rate with real inquiry.You have got to get over this need to prove a nonexistance of an obviously existant person.

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

      You can love any fictional character you want and think he is break, but to make the claim that he is real you have to prove it. Pretend we are in a court if law and you are the defendant and i am the judge, because you are making the claim that a mythological character was a real person, i am just making the inquiry that i don't know if he is or not but i don't have enough evidence to suggest he was no different to Hercules or prometheus, neither of whom were real people. You must either prove Jesus was real or admit that you don't really know. I can at least show that the story has no connection to the time they were written down. The burden is now on you.

    • vveasey profile image

      vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

      Ericdierker

      Interesting!

      But I'm a little confused. I think I'm hearing beliefs about something someone believes to be true and a defense that because no one can prove what that person believes is not true, that means what they believe is true, is that what you're saying?

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      If a man believes something, it is true that he believes something. If the question arises as to whether what the man believes is true. That raises a very fundamental quandry: do you seek to know if it is true to him or true to you. If you think science is how we determine the issue, fine. It may be false to science. If you think that the spiritual is how we determine the issue, fine. It is true. The logic I present here is based on thousands of years of study and application of evidence. With these rules we can bridge the gap.

    • vveasey profile image

      vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

      Eic

      It's simple, is what the man said true or not.

      True to me or him or you is subjective. In that realm everything is true to the person that beleives it.

      The man said he graduated from college did he or didn't he? How can we verify it? Check his college transcript. Either he graduated or he didn't.

      Subjectively to him, even if he didn't actually graduate, he did graduate and you can't convince him otherwise unless he's willing to accept the facts.

      What's true is what actually is, not what you believe actually is,

      A believe is real but is it identical to what's verifiably true?

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      vveasey apply that logic to my motivation and or proof of my love. To you do neither one exist?

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

      Love is an association that someone finds appealing to them. Love is therefore a physical association and real enough. The object of this love maybe be real or fantasy but it subjective and opinion is not truth. You can love your fantasy, that is no concern of ours, but the second someone attempts to tell us their fantasy is true then that person should expect to be assaulted with queries and asked to prove his false assertions.

    • vveasey profile image

      vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

      Ericdierker

      You first.

      You didn't answer my question " a belief is real but is is it identical to what's verifiably true? (the college transcripts)

      I'll answer your question this way

      You say you love me. How would you prove or verify that love to me?

      It would have to conform to the words , behaviors, etc that I call love.

      If your concept of love disagreed with my concept...obviously you couldn't prove it to me or may not want to prove it to me because our concepts are both subjective.

      But I'm sure we would both accept my college transcripts as proof that I have a college degree even if we had to go to the college to verify it.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Cool. one set of evidence is debatable and the other not so much. But both are evidence. Evidence is not about consensus. Evidence just is. Whether we agree evidence proves something or not is a different matter. Hence we have "juries" of our peers.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Art you are awesome. I think we agree. Bad evidence and lack of credibility go to the weight of the evidence, but it is evidence none the less. Go ahead I try to prove my love for my children!!

    • artblack01 profile image

      artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

      Well, i understand you better than i hoped and i hope you get the help you deserve.... bye.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      I am pleased. And the help I deserve is in the Holy Spirit.

    • Curiad profile image

      Mark G Weller 4 years ago from Lake Charles, LA.

      Art, you are only sharing 1/2 the story. If you say that a person that makes the statement that God exists and therefore has to prove it, then you on the other hand saying he does not exist have to prove that also. And I do not believe you can.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Thank you for commenting Curiad. I find in my own mind it is impossible to prove the non existence or the origin of Love. You cut to the quick of the notion that Love does not exist.

    • Dana Tate profile image

      Dana Tate 15 months ago from LOS ANGELES

      I found this nugget of treasure that I had somehow missed. Glad I found it because it is a fantastic read.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 15 months ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      It is a fondness of mine. It is what you get with a retired preacher and a retired lawyer rolled into one. Thank you for reading and commenting.

    Click to Rate This Article