I have heard or read comments such as "A book based upon hearsay can't be truth." or things very similar.
However, this kind of reasoning fails in defining "hearsay."
Hearsay is a rumor which is defined as:
1ru·mor
Pronunciation: \ˈrü-mər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rumour, from Anglo-French, from Latin rumor clamor, gossip; akin to Old English rēon to lament, Sanskrit rauti he roars
Date: 14th century
1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth

SOURCE: MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE.

Nevertheless, the bible is not based upon hearsay or rumors, but is based upon tradition which means:

Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation: \trə-ˈdi-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century
1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

SOURCE: MERRIAN-WEBSTER ONLINE

(I know how some people will grab number one argue back)

The point is that before a tradition is written down, it must be researched. And that is what the sacred authors did. The gospel of Luke shows us that in the first couple of verses. The author made a research about the facts that were told to him through oral tradition, and he put them in a logical order to show the intended audience (greeks)that whatever they were taught it was based upon real facts.
Even after the gospels were written they were not fully accepted by the Church until several hundred years after they were written because the Church itself made a research an study of the text to show its veracity.

Ergo, it's not so easy just to say they were based upon hearsay. There is a lot of science, reason, and study before they were fully accepted as word of God.
All this under the light of the Grace of God.

TLW

the written documents, traditions and word of mouth is what has carried on many beliefs throughout time....doesn't make them any less true

excuse me, ma'am
where in the whole thread did i state or at least implied that other beliefs are less true than mine?

uuuummmm sir...I never implied you did. I was saying that word of mouth doesn't mean it's less true than anything else.

I was actually agreeing with you. just because something is passed down doesn't mean it's heardsay or less true

cool beans

But people will take something from the internet or friends, or friends of friends and say it is truth. Starts out simple enough and grows into a whole new story....but it is true because "I believe them". Hmmmmm.

So, why not the bible? At least that story has had a life of it's own and withstood time. Like the energizer battery...it just keeps on going and going and going.........

Kat

love ya

Back at'cha handsome Miguel.
Kat

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

In court, "hearsay" is something other than a direct testimony, it cannot be taken into evidence.

Hearsay:
I know it is true because Jane Doe told me she saw it happen.

Direct testimony:
I know it is true because I saw it happen.

If I wrote a book stating that this certain thing happened, and I was not there to see it happen, then what I am writing is hearsay. It is not direct testimony.

Whether the Scripture was based on hearsay or tradition makes little difference in the decision that they were "the word of God."

While scripture could have been called somewhat historical, and while the Church did have the power to declare it anything they wanted, to say that it was the word of God is a bit of a stretch.

JB

well what for u is A, for me is B.
BTW thank you for using a capital C in "Church" ur service is greatly appreciate it.

why would a capital C in church mean anything?

It was not intended, but if it makes someone happy I don't care.

Myth is derived from the Greek word mythos, which means "word of mouth."

In the academic fields of mythology, mythography, or folkloristics, a myth is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false.

The point is that before a tradition is written down, it must be researched. And that is what the sacred authors did. The gospel of Luke shows us that in the first couple of verses. The author made a research about the facts that were told to him through oral tradition, and he put them in a logical order to show the intended audience (greeks)that whatever they were taught it was based upon real facts.
Even after the gospels were written they were not fully accepted by the Church until several hundred years after they were written because the Church itself made a research an study of the text to show its veracity.

There was no "research" done, unless you are meaning that Luke was only assuring that he got the stories right...If you will recall, the "bible" was made up of many, many stories, gospels, etc..what has come to be known as the Old Testament was merely a selection of those gospels which served the interests of the new and not quite established church

From where I stand, the bible is just another great mythology.

REGARDING RESEARCH

Back in that day I wonder what was considered research.
Since there were not many libraries, books, computers etc. all they may have had was stories and myth and maybe some stone tablets to look at. Transportation was slow. What takes us a day must have taken them years.

JB

I'm confused as to why tradition HAS to be researched. if my family celebrates....say christmas...different than others because that's how our family line has always done it...why should I research it to prove it was done???? if it's something that continues to be practiced then is there a need to research it?

JB...my only point to point out about what you said about the courts is this...both heresay and direct testimony can be lies or the truth. what i'm saying is that anyone can lie or tell the truth lol

Of course they can. But I was only pointing out what is allowed in court.

"He said" and "she said" or "he saw" or "she saw" is not direct testimony.

"I said" and "I saw" is.

This is because the person giving testimony has to be libel for the truth. If they lie they can be prosecuted. If their testimony only states that someone else said this or that... that is just a rumor. The other person is not under oath and cannot be prosecuted or held libel for the lie. Neither can the person testifying because they are only repeating what someone said so it is not to be taken as testimony.

If stories have been passed down verbally for generations and considered tradition or myth, they must be researched if a group is going to write them down and claim them to be true.

It makes perfect sense. But even these can be lies or they can be only and interpretation of an event that took place.

JB

I think

What I find amusing is that so many other religious rites or traditions teter so close to what the bible tells us in so many ways.

I have read so many other things that have the almost exact same things in different ways of speaking. Even the American Indians have religious traditions and beliefs that are so very close.

Kat

Hiya Kat...

Perhaps there is a little truth in all of them?

Different people need different means to obtain the same goal of learning.

lol JB hun...i actually wasn't disagreeing with you...just pointing out that people lie...even under oath when they can get in trouble. never got lying. too much energy to lie...but that's just me maybe

CS...I agree with that. I have allows thought that the name I use for my God could have other names to other religions and visa versa

if you look into it...the basis for most religions are to treat others good. i think that's why i like other views...because there are similarities you can compare as well as differences