Right. But legal scholars and skeptics have looked into the veracity of the Scriptures based upon rules of evidence and have as a result believed and obeyed them.
Veracity of the scriptures based on rules of evidence? Evidence about what? The scriptures? They looked at the scriptures and determined that they were, indeed, every last pea-picken' one of them scriptures?
.They used to murder witches in Salem on the basis of "spectral evidence": the meticulously recorded dreams of children. Mists and vapor from your Medulla, or a million other Medulla's that are similarly disposed, are good evidence for psychiatrists to evaluate you with, but they are not a good thing to bring to the courtroom or the legislature.
Right. But legal scholars and skeptics have looked into the veracity of the Scriptures based upon rules of evidence and have as a result believed and obeyed them.
In what manner does the supposed legal and/or logical consistency of the scriptures address spectral evidence, or the reliability of scripturally derived moral precepts. Or, really, anything anyone here has talked about up until now? Why don't you surprise me by sticking to a point long enough to defend, or, really, even just make clear, anything you've said for maybe two or three posts in a row. A few more of these off-the-wall glossilalias, and I expect you'll have run out the reservoir of goodwill with me that every deponent starts out with before he opens his yap.