Sorry I just preached on the Song this evening, so am a bit carried away still

I would go further and say that this is a very distinctly American obssesion, for the most part. Having been raised in Europe as a PK, there wasn’t this mindset in the church. After attending the SINGLE service on Sundays at a church in England, as an example, the congregation would gather at a nearby Pub and share a pint in fellowship. Different cultural? Without question. Breaking God’s law? Absolutely not.

1) That is exactly what I’m arguing.

2) Here’s where you got off track. Numbers 35:30 is absolutely giving exact instruction on what type of evidence is permissible. It says, “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses.” There it is plain. Not “the evidence of forensics”, but the “evidence of witnesses”. He then goes on to talk about how many are required, but that part of the verse is not the sole purpose, as you state.

3) You shouldn’t have to have a “Thou shalt not X” for every possible contingency where you have a “Thou shall Y”. If you’re saying that marriage is between one man and one woman, then you don’t have to create an exhaustive list of what it isn’t.

4) I’m not saying that Scripture “forbids” material evidence. I’m saying that the “proper” way to convict a murder “biblically” is on the basis of witnesses. But I have made it clear that the law of the U.S. is not the Law of the Bible. I think it should be. So I am not saying, “American criminal justice is sinful because they accept forensic evidence and the Bible specifically forbids it.” I am saying that American criminal justice falls short of the Bible’s Law in many places and this is just one of those places. It is completely out of line with what God has commanded. So the argument could be, “Should all nations have the Law of God as their code of criminal justice?” but not “Does the Bible allow forensic evidence?” Because it does not.

5) I have 1500 years of Jewish history as recorded in the very Word of God as backup. Would saying “Philo thought so” make this case stronger? I just keep saying, “Show me where they disagree.” Honestly, the burden of proof is on you here. I made my case Scripturally. If you’re going to question it, then YOU do the work.

6) I simply and wholeheartedly disagree with you that my case from revelation is insufficient. I’m very happy with what God has said. It is both wise and just. He says that putting a murderer to death must be on the basis of witnesses. Okay, I can do that. And the implication for me is that if I am ever on a jury and the prosecution does not have eyewitness testimony from at least two people, then I am not going to convict.

My case is this…

1) You are arguing that, according to God’s law as spelled out in Numbers 35, forensic and material evidince is irrelevant and inadmissable in a court of law.

2) Because forensic and material evidence are nowhere addressed in that passage (the passage’s focus is on something else entirely – namely the number of witnesses needed to be accepted), I am asserting that your case (that such evidences are inadmissable) could at most be an implication of Numbers 35, since your conclusion is not expressly commanded or even addressed. That said, it could very well be a valid implication.

3) Since we’re not talking about a direct expressed command of Scripture, extra hermenutical care is necessary to interpret the text properly. Your conclusion is that this matter is crystal-clear from the text even though it’s not expressly forbidden. That could well be the case, but it’s a more difficult matter than if the text said “thou shalt not admit material evidence,” or “thou shalt only admit eyewitness testimony as evidence.”

4) You are the first person I have ever heard in all my life and studies to make the case that Scripture clearly forbids the consideration of material evidence. That raises a red flag in my mind, and rightly so. The Scripture is not subject to human experience, but if I were to assert something as a clear implication of Scripture that no Godly Christians have seen in 3000 years, I ought to tread very carefully. I think you’d agree with that principle.

5) As such, I’ve asked for any historical evidence that either the Jews or Christians have interpreted the law in this way. If your case is, as you said, that the Jews have never admitted material evidence in murder cases, it shouldn’t be difficult to demonstrate this historically. You’ve appealled to the absense of examples in Scripture, but Scripture is hardly comprehensive enough as a source of legal records for that to be consisdered solid evidence. I’m asking for any writing that specifically deals with this subject. If it’s so clear and evident, then surely you’re not the first person in 3000 years to jot down a few paragraphs on the topic.

6) So in conclusion, I’m not asking Scripture to be subjected to human wisdom, I’m asking you to demonstrate that your understanding of this particular passage of Scripture is consistent with the way that at least some God-fearing people in redemptive history have understood it. If your case is as strong as you assert, I don’t think that’s asking too much. I’m not pitting experience against revelation, I’m saying your case from revelation is insufficient, and so I’m asking for evidence that this topic has been understood as clearly as you’re claiming.